Against A New Stadium

I understand that this post is likely ultimately in vain. If I have learned one thing in nearly five decades on this planet, it’s that the person with a billion or so dollars eventually gets what they want. But still…given what we know right now about the Royals’ plans for a new stadium, I must say I am opposed.

Obviously, given the nature of this site, I have concerns about throwing away the 50-plus years of history the Royals (and all of baseball, really) have at Kauffman Stadium. Those memories can’t be replaced, even though a new stadium will eventually have its own. But there are plenty of non-emotional reasons to oppose a new stadium.

First, as best as I can tell, the only problem with Kauffman Stadium right now is that it’s not surrounded by bars and restaurants and office space, all of which is conveniently owned by the Royals or a subsidiary. The team has obviously been inspired by the Atlanta Braves, owned by Liberty Media, which helpfully also owns The Battery Atlanta, the mixed-use development adjacent to Truist Park. The Braves aren’t the only team with this arrangement. The Chicago Cubs, owned by the Ricketts family, bought and developed land adjacent to Wrigley Field; that property now contains restaurants and a luxury hotel. 

And I don’t begrudge these owners doing these things; that’s smart business. But the Royals are not facing a situation like the Oakland A’s, where the stadium really is in trouble due to neglect (and for the record, what A’s owner John Fisher has done to his franchise in pursuit of a new stadium is an embarrassment for baseball). This is not a situation where the ballpark is hard to get to and a better location would likely increase attendance, like in Tampa. Remember, the most recent renovations to the stadium were completed before the 2009 season. And, as old friend Craig Brown pointed out recently, the Chiefs play in a stadium built at the same time as Kauffman, and with presumably the same materials; the Chiefs don’t seem too worried about their stadium’s infrastructure.

Then we get to the numbers. I will again defer to an explanation from Craig, but I think it’s something we all understand: building a new stadium does not create jobs, or at least not permanent ones. The construction workers won’t be there once the stadium is complete; the ushers, concession workers, and such already have those jobs at the current stadium. Sure, the project might bring more dollars to the specific area around the ballpark, but that entertainment money was probably going to be spent at other locales in Kansas City (and please note that Kansas City already built a shiny new venue that ended up being a money loser, even with a thriving entertainment district around it) whether the Royals are playing at Kauffman or “Royals Park,” as the renderings have it.

Which brings up another issue. I took those renderings with a grain of salt, because of course that’s not necessarily the final design for the new park. I get that. But I don’t get the complete lack of a crown-shaped scoreboard, the tiny fountain area that seems shoehorned in as a way to say “See, we care about things that make Kauffman unique!”, or the idea of Royals Park as a name when that’s obviously a placeholder for a corporate sponsor, with the added bonus that the team doesn’t have to remove Ewing Kauffman’s name from the stadium to rake in those extra bucks. I don’t expect the Royals to build an exact replica of their current stadium, but it would be nice if there were something in these renderings that made me feel like the team gives a rip about its history. Kauffman is unique in many ways; the drawings look like any stadium that could be plopped down in any city.

But no matter what it looks like, the key question for any new stadium is who is going to pay for it. To their credit, the Royals have pledged to provide half of the $2 billion the new park and development will cost. That’s a lot better than some teams do. Unfortunately, that still leaves a rather significant cost for the taxpayer. Not to get too political, but this seems like an opportunity for something increasingly rare in this day and age: bipartisan consensus. Those with a more conservative outlook ought to oppose extra taxes; those with a more liberal view ought to object to that money not going to schools or other public services.

Yes, there is a risk the Royals might want to move. But take a look at the landscape around baseball. The Athletics are already ditching Oakland for Las Vegas. The Brewers are trying to convince Milwaukee that they need a new stadium. The Arizona Diamondbacks are making noises about a new or renovated home. The Baltimore Orioles are clearing their throats about new digs. The Chicago White Sox haven’t threatened to move in a while but might bring it up soon. Not all of these teams can move to Nashville, right? There are only so many MLB-free cities who are plausible destinations that current teams can use as leverage. And to their credit (again), the Royals have not mentioned moving. So let’s not worry about that just yet.

All that said, if the Royals want to pay for their own stadium and not stick taxpayers with a huge portion of the cost…if they really aren’t insisting that it would be an economic boon for Kansas City when practically every economic study on the subject says otherwise…if they can make the new stadium reflect Kansas City and Royals history…well, I still wouldn’t like the idea of a new stadium. But I could accept it. Eventually. It will be interesting to see if the details change any between now and the end of the season, when the Royals say they will choose their desired site.