TODAY: Further details of the ballpark plans have emerged, with MLB.com’s T.R. Sullivan (all links to Twitter) and Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Twitter link) were among those to report. The plans call for a $1B facility that would be ready for play by at least 2021, with a lease running through 2054. Team and city plan to split that fee equally, with an “extension” of a current tax used for the public funding. In terms of politics, city council approval will be sought on May 24th, with a public election on November 8th also needed to finalize the deal.
YESTERDAY: The Rangers and the City of Arlington are set to announce plans for a new ballpark, Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News reports. According to the report, a retractable roof facility is expected to replace what’s currently known as Globe Life Park in Arlington before the lease on that stadium is set to expire after the 2023 campaign.
As Grant explains, the timing of the agreement is tied to efforts from other localities to woo the ballclub, with Dallas representing a particularly appealing possibility. Instead, Arlington will keep the organization by facilitating a new building ahead of the lease expiration, which was a perk that only that city could offer.
While Globe Life is among the dozen oldest stadiums in the majors, it’s only been around since 1994. It opened then to great fanfare, as it — along with what’s now known as Progressive Field, in Cleveland — joined Oriole Park at Camden Yards as retro-styled stadiums with modern amenities. The successes of those parks spurred a round of new construction that has shown little sign of abating.
With the move, the Rangers will join at least the Braves and Diamondbacks as teams in some stage of the ballpark procurement process. Atlanta is set to replace the even-younger Turner Field next year, while Arizona hopes to move out of Chase Field (which came on line in 1998) in the coming seasons. Other organizations, most notably the Rays and A’s, are still navigating complicated paths toward their own replacement parks, with the possibility of alternative locations still looming.
Financing and formal legal approval remain barriers, Grant notes, with an election likely necessary to move the project forward. The city has already approved a sizeable entertainment and hotel project next to Globe Life, which is expected to come on line in the coming years. It’s not apparent whether that undertaking will be impacted. Neither does it appear to be known whether there is an established location for the proposed new ballpark.
Playable weather isn’t hard to come by in Texas, but Grant explains that the retractable roof will allow the club to manage the blistering summer sun. That will, in theory, allow the organization to boost is attendance. Of course, new facilities also tend to allow teams to cash in through other avenues, though that often comes at the expense of taxpayers (as well as paying patrons).
While it’s far too soon to know what kind of impact this move may have on the Rangers’ bottom line, suffice to say that such plans usually redound to the team’s benefit. The Texas organization already runs out one of the league’s more robust payrolls, and it seems reasonable to expect that these plans will aid the club as it competes for top-level talent with other big-market organizations.
Brixton
It’s a shame that teams like Texas and Atlanta are getting new stadiums when Oakland and Tampa are playing in dumps.
User 4245925809
As u know.. It’s not the fault of team ownership either team is in those dumps.. Oakland? San Francisco refuses to allow them anywhere close to them, so San Jose is out and they are stuck in a dying city.. Oakland..
Tampa? Even worse situation.. Rays could move just about anywhere across the Bay and easily improve attendance by 5-10k plus per night, but that wretched lease the city of St petesburg holds and refuses to allow Sternberg out of.. Unless of course they build on the wrong side of the Bay again.. Forces poor attendance..
Sternberg is smart enough to realize no stadium near St pete will help.. Hillsborough, even Orange County is where it’s got to be to have a chance and that dump? They have tried to paint/fix it up several times. Old saying.. U can’t polish a turd.. Poop smears. Perfectly describes the thunderdome/tropicana.. Whatever want to call it.
Roasted DNA
Something tells me you 2 have never been to the Trop? People call it a dump but it is cleaner and has more amenities than Fenway, Yankee stadium and Toronto. What’s missing is all the amenities that make an owner richer. Rays will get their stadium in Tampa since the states politician’s have created funding sources that will support owners getting more wealthy. Improve attendance 5-10K is probably spot on. What’s missing is the corporate support. Vinik has them for the Lightning but they are hesitant to back the Rays.
They build the stadium and I believe it will show. The every day fan in Tampa will vote No on any referendum to use tax money to pay for it – hence the funding pools established by the corrupt Republican led politicians to develop tax money sources for professional teams.
The city of Tampa and the deal they have with rayJay for the Bucs is the absolute worst deal ever. Rivals the Marlins ripoff of Miami.
User 4245925809
Hey-a … I live locally, have been to dozens of games at the stadium to see the Rays, even was a season ticket holder for the Lightning’s (hockey) 2nd season when they played there..
Am kind of familiar with the dump…
FWIW? Got tickets for next Saturday’s game also, going with my wife…
yanks02026
Have you ever been to the new Yankee stadium? It’s clean and has everything.
pox911
Lol. I went there first time during the recent Os @ Rays series (I am an Os fan from Bal, happened to be on vacation there when they played).
It was the worst stadium I’ve been to, majors or minors. It was dark/dingy, loud (despite it being nearly empty), and it was impossible to see the ball when it went above seat level. I can’t imagine the thinking that when into putting a white roof in there when they play with a white ball…
The game was great (Os won) but the only things that were enjoyable about the stadium were a) getting to check another stadium off my list and b) it was “$2 hot dog night” which was a great deal (although my fiancée and I both got very sick to our stomachs that night…)
koz16
I was at Tropicana Field last month and after previously reading so many negative comments about the ballpark I was surprised to find out that it’s not a dump. It’s actually kind of cozy. My son and I got there early and walked around and the sight lines were good everywhere. As the other poster mentioned, it’s located in a weird place in an industrial /residential area and doesn’t have all of the shops, activities, and restaurants that you find around the newer ballparks. I could care less. I go to watch a baseball game. FWIW, I also went to Steinbrenner Field that week to see the Tampa Yankees play and on a perfect night for baseball there were less than 200 fans there. Maybe Tampa/St. Pete is just not a great area for any baseball team.
baronbeard
The Tampa Yankees have the unique obstacle of being on a busy road, and not too far from Amalie Arena while the Bolts are in the playoffs. The Threshers have a pretty good draw for their games on the other hand.
User 4245925809
It’s easy to get in and out of for daytime GCL league games, tho can imagine the evening FSL games could be tough..
I still think the fairgrounds location is great.. East side of Tampa, could draw some central to Orange county fans and easier to get out of than the nightmare bridge ever could.
Always liked the old Baseball city (outskirts of Haines City) location as well. You know.. I-4 and US27? Right in between Tampa and Orlando, in Polk county.
Teams are moving out of bigger cities and that’s what that would be, only 25 miles from both Orlando and Tampa. 3 lanes of I-4 highway connecting.
roundeye11
Well….hope you are being sarcastic/amusing about the Baseball City notion. A place inconvenient to all places at the intersection of nowhere is uh, …..odd.
Realistically, the Pinellas County side (St Pete or mid Pinellas) is indeed the best place for baseball in the Tampa Bay area. It has the most concentrated population and access isn’t that difficult (the bridge is nothing more troubling than any other city of size). Tampa is the egregiously planned mess that would lend itself to inconvenient access and deterred fans.
The reality is the Tampa Bay area doesn’t much care for baseball. I’ve lived here since the seventies and it never has been a baseball town (not even much of a football town, relatively speaking). Strangely, it is an excellent hockey town (probably seasonal northern residents).
The Trop is average, mediocre, and nothing extraordinary, but NOT a dump. Ever been to RFK? Old Yankee Stadium? The Trop is guilty of blandness, little more.
baronbeard
The Rays have had the obstacle of being in a political tug of war that finally ended a few months ago. They have started looking at other spots, but it seems more and more like they are going to Tampa. I wouldn’t mind if they bulldozed the Bucs field and built there.
oaklandoaks
I beg to differ: Oakland is not a dying city. As a matter of fact, it’s thriving. Do some research before commenting uninformed.
randomness lez
Agreed,
People that don’t travel much just don’t know.
User 4245925809
Commenting a bit much this morning.. Will be last for bit but why made comment…
Reason was last visit to Oakland.. Albeit nearly 40y ago..
Bum’s sleeping in the streets, garbage strewn everywhere? This is what sticks in my head of memories of several CA cities went thru, or visited while was stationed in San Diego.
Don’t remember smog hanging over the skies in the early AM hours, like was in LA, San Diego, but the rest was the same for someone, from a small town that had never seen such things before.
tommyg
Oakland’s a dying city? Median home price $245k in 2012, now $600k. SF is still more of a draw of course (just ask the Warriors), but Oakland is thriving.
Matt Galvin
Orlando was rumored before Tampa Bay got the Rays and have either Citrus Bowl or Cracker Jack Stadium as options. The Rays have played some Home Games in Orlando.
Voice of Reason
I never understood why people feel the government should be helping to fund new ballparks.
Where are the priorities?
The Rangers just built this park. Now they need another. That’s nuts.
Weighed
I can’t believe how disposable stadiums are.
jkim319
Agree. Shameful other than the possible perspective that teardown and re-construction creates jobs’.
GRob78
Unbelievable. Voters should reject it and any politician who advocates for it…or promises to pay for it.
Ray Ray
If that happens then Arlington will lose the team to another city that doesn’t just think short term. Teams have the complete advantage in this situation, especially teams named after states and not cities, because all they need is one city in the whole state to agree to finance a stadium. Texas wouldn’t even have to change their logo or anything. And then Arlington loses their cash cow. People tend to forget that while stadiums cost taxpayers money in the short term, in the long term it creates jobs and more importantly tourist dollars. Stadiums pay for themselves several times over. Without the Rangers, the people of Arlington will lose a lot of money AND they will still have to pay taxes and not even have a team to distract them from life’s problems.
roadapple
You think they will move? MLB teams are not NBA or NHL or even NFL teams. Good luck trying to find a city that can get even a half full venue for 81 home dates at the prices they want to charge.
jackstigers 2
Dallas or San Antonio would take the team in a heartbeat, if they could.
Matt Galvin
So would Hawaii,Monterrey,Mexico,P. Rico,Montreal,New Orleans,Charlotte,and so on city that has a NFL Team but no MLB Team.
RockHard
New Orleans has a hard time getting corporate sponsors for the Pelicans and have problems getting people to come out. They also have a minor league team with some of the lowest attendance in all of minor league baseball. Horrible idea, Hawaii wouldn’t work either. Or Monterrey. Puerto Rico would be laughable… Nice proposal dude
amishthunderak
Apparently you’ve never been to a New Orleans Zephyrs game. They can’t get 500 fans alot of nights (my estimate from games I’ve been to) and that’s a AAA team.
Lanidrac
I highly doubt any of those places could support an MLB team. Montreal in particular already lost a team due mostly to low fan support. Maybe Las Vegas could, but MLB really wants to avoid going there. Arlington just didn’t want them to leave the city limits over to Dallas, Forth Werth, or perhaps San Antonio.
Sky14
“Stadiums pay for themselves several times over. ”
Often said, never proven. What evidence do you have?
davidcoonce74
Every economic study on stadiums actually shows the opposite. They do not “pay for themselves several times over.” It’s quite the opposite. Easily researchable. Stadiums are a loser for everyone except the owners.
Voice of Reason
Go ahead and call the Rangers bluff and tell them to pay for their own new stadium. Where will they move too? Montreal? Lmao
They won’t move and if they’re stupid enough to leave that large metropolitan area then the Rays will move into the stadium that the Rangers don’t think is good enough. The government should not be funding private baseball stadiums.
whatwouldyogido
Maybe the A’s or the Rays can move into the perfectly good ballpark the Rangers are moving out of.
rayrayner
Well, they’d probably be blocked because of the BS territorial rights that the Rangers would claim similar to the way that the Giants are screwing the A’s wanting to move to San Jose. Maybe if the Rangers were moving to San Antonio or Austin, then this would be a good idea. If a team has to move, I think MLB would like to see the A’s situation play out first as I think they are already year-to-year on their lease in Oakland.
rayrayner
They would not be allowed to because of the territorial rights that the Rangers can claim similar to the way that the Giants are blocking the A’s wanting to move to San Jose. Maybe if the Rangers were moving to San Antonio or Austin, then this would be a good idea. If a team has to move, I think MLB would like to see the A’s situation play out first as I think they are already year-to-year on their lease in Oakland.
bobbleheadguru
I like the Palace of Auburn Hills near Detroit. Built in 1989 and still a good place to see a game. Crazy that new stadiums need to be replaced with newer stadiums.
mike156
When a stadium built by the taxpayers in the mid 1990s is too inferior to continue to play in and needs to be replaced by another one, paid for by the taxpayers, I have to wonder just a little about the politicians who push these expenditures at the expense of other public services. But,if the voters go along with it, if they vote to increase sales taxes, I suppose that’s the choice they make.
mrkinsm
Agreed, it’s ridiculous. 1 B$ for a stadium that will last 35 years equates to nonsense. As much as I love living in a city with a major league club I’d rather have a AAA team and 50 M$ spent on a stadium.
That money could go so much further to aid in citizens’ suffering or education. Roads, museums, parks, theaters/orchestra’s, etc…
chieftoto
Terrible. Just terrible.
madmanTX
I think the current ballpark is an exceptional facility and I will hate to see it go. That being said, please don’t hire the contractor who built that dump in Houston. That hump in center field, the tacky train and that short porch to the Crawford boxes make Minute Maid the ugliest ballpark I’ve ever seen and the most ludicrous design. Though I did like their corporate suites.
dorfmac
While the CF bump is lame, I love how Minute Maid has the open concourse all the way around the lower bowl, allowing for constant viewing. I really enjoyed the game I saw there.
ateam043
Makes me appreciate Dodgers stadium even more. It’s over 60 years old and still looks great!
em650r
Dodger Stadium needs a better parking lot. They can make a big parking structure on the lower lot and build some Dodger Museum, eateries make it like a real Dodger Town
Senioreditor
Dodger Stadium was opened in 1962, it’s 54 years old but most of the original structure has been replaced over the years.
ernestofigueroa87
Stupid!
jrwhite21
For those of you shaming taxpayers and politicians…it’s better for the city to pay for a new stadium than to lose the tam altogether. Paying for a stadium puts them in a short term deficit but losing the team causes rising unemployment, less tourism from abroad and the cities suburbs, and ultimately less revenue for the city and its businesses.
agentx
Unfortunately, the economic impact of big stadium construction has been disputed by several formidable minds from economics and the policy world and from across the political spectrum, such as Jeffrey Dorfman and Andrew Zimbalist. Hard to say Arlington could even match the cost of its stadium bonds dollar-for-dollar with whatever new economic activity, employment, etc., that paying the new stadium ransom might generate.
Ray Ray
Every theory in economics has both its proponents and its detractors. Just because some people disagree with the principle, doesn’t make it wrong. Losing the team would hurt the city of Arlington a lot more than paying for a new stadium. Even if they just keep the stadium for 25-30 years, that is 25-30 years of employment and tourist dollars. If they lose the stadium, they will probably get fewer tourist dollars in 25 years than they would have gotten in 1 year with the team. Arlington is not exactly a major tourist destination, it would just be another podunk town in Texas without the Rangers.
agentx
More than just “some people disagree” with the notion that stadium projects are questionable municipal investments, and their chorus includes conservative, liberal, and libertarian voices.
Setting that aside and focusing on the arithmetic, $500MM in municipal bonds for a stadium lasting 25 years means the City of Arlington would be paying about $245,000 per Rangers home game plus the interest not typically included in public reports of a given municipality’s investment.
The City of Arlington website cites an economic impact study that pegs the 38-year value of having the Rangers at $2.53B for 2016-2054. Assuming the new stadium is ready in 2021 and the Rangers keep it the same 27 years they will have occupied Globe Life, then the pro-rated economic impact of financing half the new stadium for 2021-2048 will be just $1.8B, or approximately $3.60 of economic impact for each $1 plus interest the City invests.
I suspect enough voters will believe the public-private partnership’s numbers and conclude that following the City’s $325MM investment in AT&T Stadium in 2005 with another $500MM in municipal bonds will be worth the estimated $3.60 economic impact for each $1 (plus interest) invested.
I personally think there are better ways to impact median household incomes, home prices, and other standard-of-living indices that will benefit individual taxpayers than the City’s proposed $500MM investment in a new Rangers ballpark.
TDKnies 2
Even though economists do disagree on a lot of things, this is one of the few that they don’t. It’s not necessarily a bad investment if the people want it and are willing to pay for it, but in terms of sparking the local economy and all that it really adds very little compared to the costs of construction and upkeep. The reason largely being that people don’t spend new money on their local sports teams, they just reallocate money they would’ve used on something else (probably also in the area). The money gets spent in the local economy either way. Of course visiting fans bring in new money, but then you have to consider whether their money alone is enough to be worth it when looking at the costs of what you want to build.
That’s not to say a city shouldn’t ever help pay to keep their team, though. If the citizens want it bad enough and are willing to pay the cost for it then it can make sense for the city to pony up for the team’s new stadium or whatever. It’s just that if the city thinks it’s an actual investment that will spur the economy and pay new dividends then they may come out sorely disappointed years down the road.
mrkinsm
Plenty of economic studies would disagree with you, and as rising stadium structure costs rise it’s getting harder and harder to justify it. And even if that were true it can be offset by spending funds on other projects to create employment and draw in tourists.
Voice of Reason
Where will the Rangers go if they leave the Dallas area? Montreal? Lmao
The owners aren’t leaving. If they left for Montreal then they are idiots.
If the owners were stupid enough to leave then another team like the Rays would move right in and be very happy to have the current stadium.
Government should not fund private stadiums.
Voice of Reason
If you’re going to take the employment and tourism angle then you should want the government to fund private businesses that are open for business more than 81 times a year
dewssox79
really stupid. the park is awesome.
GeauxRangers
Agreed
neoncactus
I love the park and it’s a great place to watch a game. If they could keep a similar design but get that roof so that it’s more bearable in the summer months, that will be great.
Lefty_Orioles_Fan
What are the Ranger Owners part owners of the Arizona D’Backs
SMH a new stadium? Gimme a Break
Maybe they will sign A Rod to be the special opening day starting shortstop in 2023 and Adrian Beltre will be the starting 3rd baseman!
I would not give the Ranger owners 2 cents towards their new stadium effort.
Ray Ray
Since you are an Orioles fan, were you even going to give the Rangers 2 cents before this announcement? Just wait a year or two before your team makes the same announcement.
Lefty_Orioles_Fan
You know truth be told, I like Memorial Stadium in someways better than Camden. Also, I would not mind getting down to Arlington for a ball game.
However to spend money on a new stadium when there’s nothing wrong with the old is unacceptable. I don’t see Camden Yards closing for a long time.
rayrayner
I would agree that Camden Yards should not shut down for many years. If you look for any articles regarding the best MLB ballparks, it is consistently in the top 5 with Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and the fields in Pittsburgh and SanFrancisco.
B-Strong
I’m always suspicious of any baseball article on stadiums that ranks Wrigley anywhere near the top. I haven’t been back since the new renovations started, but that place was a colossal dump before them. It’s was one of the main reasons why I stopped going to cubs games, aside from the ever increasing prices at Wrigley.
randomness lez
Nobody is shutting down OPACY. Just isn’t going to happen. It’s nicer today that the day it opened.
thirdbasetree
This is amazing. There was a lot of talk on the local sports radio about Kansas City opening a new stadium in down town Kansas City for the Royals back in 2006. Kauffman stadium was only 33 years old at the time and, thankfully, is still around. I wonder why Arlington doesn’t renovate the stadium as opposed to building a new one. Seems like such a waste to tear down a stadium that is only 24 years old and I cannot imagine how a new stadium would provide value over a renovation.
As far as tourism/jobs for a sports team, I have heard both sides. It seems like the city would be lucky to break even with a major sports team given the costs to build/operate/maintain the facility. It will be interesting to see how St. Louis manages with the departure of the Rams(although they were not drawing fans to the stadium).
CursedRangers
The crazy thing is, they have made major improvements to the Ballpark every offseason for the last several years. It’s in great shape. Sure a roof would be nice, but $900m!!?
agentx
With so many engineering marvels being achieved each year all around the world, I have to believe that the creature-comfort roof being proposed could be added to the existing park for far less than $900MM.
BarrelMan
The only feasible reason for this in (Dallas) Texas is the summer weather. Otherwise it’s absurd.
I know it’s a complicated business but seeing these teams advocate for new parks while the Rays and A’s languish is a bummer.
vinscully16
Move the Rays to Montreal and have the AL East as Boston, NY, Baltimore, Toronto, and Montreal. Build a ballpark, Montreal, get it done. Google “Labatt Park Montreal” to see what nearly was for les Expos. Would be nice to see Toronto replace the lifeless Rogers Center, too – long shot.
agentx
Labatt Park would have been great. But if I had a time machine that I could only use to influence Expos history, I’d go back to the late 1960s and revive the negotiations that would have landed the Expos in a domed retrofit of the funky, modularly constructed Autostade.
Ray Ray
Horrible idea. Canada doesn’t need two AL franchises. Every area should be able to experience baseball in both ways. They shouldn’t make the same mistake that they made in Texas. Move the Marlins there, if anyone, and move Tampa somewhere else like Charlotte. I’d pay good money to see the reaction of Montreal to the return of Jeffrey Loria.
vinscully16
The benefits of a Toronto-Montreal division rivalry far outweigh the prospective benefits of the NL over the AL. Gary Thorne, last night during the Os broadcast, was mentioning the idea of baseball reshaping itself in terms of geography, travel, and games played – was an interesting point. Such a Tampa-to-Montreal move would fit in such a perspective.
Ray Ray
And you don’t think there is money in a Montreal-Washington rivalry? By your logic, the Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, and Dodgers/Angels should be in the same division because those would be great rivalries. Montreal/Toronto could still have a great rivalry as the yearly interleague rivals. It would make it more special as well instead of having 19 games a year.
agentx
Inclined to agree with Ray Ray on this one, though I suppose the effect of the Astros moving to the AL and its effect on the Astros-Rangers rivalry could offer some clues about which Montreal-Toronto scenario might be better.
Matt Galvin
Yes MLB needs to be geographic Califirnia needs it’s own Division. Texas/MO one to. Maryland/Pens one to. Southeast,Northcentral,Centraleast,Northeast,West.
staypuft
Lol, Toronto and Montreal aren’t even close to be “in the same area” though. They’re over 500 miles apart. That’s a longer distance than SF-LA. If the hockey rivalry those 2 cities have is any indication, these games could be a huge draw.
halos101
I’ve never been to this stadium. Can someone who has tell me if its nice or do they actually have reason to leave???
ef1t
its nothing special, unbearably hot in july and August and Arlington had go do something in order to keep the Rangers from moving to downtown dallas…..which wouldve been awesome.
ef1t
its nothing special, unbearably hot in july and August and Arlington had to do something in order to keep the Rangers from moving to downtown dallas…..which wouldve been awesome.
GeauxRangers
It is nice I think it’s a very nice park. It’s just hard to get great attendance in the summer when it’s 100 plus degrees outside
Barzilla
The Ballpark at Arlington is a fantastic facility. The problem is that it can get up to 105 degrees in the summer and it’s starting to affect attendance. It falls under one of those things they should have thought about before.
RockHard
Globe life park is a fantastic place to see a game!They have made numerous upgrades to the park in the last 5 years and it is a top notch stadium despite being one of the 10 oldest in baseball at a mere 23 years old.. This is all about getting a roof for the Texas heat. Hopefully it will help attract free agents that would have otherwise not signed here bc of the hot Texas summers..
RockHard
I don’t understand why they can’t just put a retractable roof on TBIA for a fraction of the cost
RyanR
Is it not feasible to put a retractable roof on the current ballpark?
neoncactus
I remember reading a couple of years ago how it wasn’t possible to put a roof on the park. I can’t remember if it was a matter of the time it would take or the overall cost not being feasible compared to the cost of a new park, but the park itself would be great if it had a roof for the hot Summer months.
GeauxRangers
In the announcement our owner said it would cost about the same amount to put a roof on the current park and causes other problems such as not having anywhere to play while the construction is being done
davidcoonce74
Umm, they can’t do constructon work between October and April? That sounds like some pretty wack excuse.
jd396
The debate about whether it’s economically beneficial to publicly fund a stadium is kind of irrelevant, because there’s clearly more than just economics involved. Economically speaking, the only reason people get paid to play sports is because people will pay to watch them. Nobody buys a ticket to a baseball game and shows up at the stadium trying to run a profit. They go into it to spend money on overpriced food while watching otherwise unremarkable human beings swing wooden sticks at leather balls for four hours… so to try to make it all about economics is pointless.
The fact is, citizens spend lots of their hard earned money on sports and they generally want the opportunity to spend even more. We all gripe about paying $4.50 for a 20oz bottle of water when you can buy 20 bottles of water for $3.00 at the gas station… and then we go to the ballpark and pay for it anyway. So yeah, it benefits the owner. It benefits the city. And it benefits the fans. They all get something they want, even if the math doesn’t make sense.
LordBanana
The economics matter when the taxpayers are basically giving a billionaire who is already making a bunch more money. They need to know they are getting their money’s worth. When you pay for a ticket you get entertainment, just like a movie, when you pay for a stadium you get nothing but the impact of it.
Using that logic taxpayers should pay for everything. For example, I went to a nice dinner last night, expected to overpay since I can get food for a dollar at the grocery, didn’t show up trying to make a profit. But no one thinks the taxpayers should have to pay for a new million dollar restaurant for them.
Gary333
Just stick the ballpark in Arlington inside the Jerry Dome (aka Death Star)! It’ll fit! Haha!
glassml
As a survivor of the 1995 MLB All Star game in Arlington, Tx with a game time temp of a miserable 101 deg and coming in from SoCal all I can say is bless you city of Arlington and thank you Texas Rangers! Good luck to a first class organization…..
wcwchris
The City of Arlington won’t be losing out on much considering how much AT&T Stadium brings in.right across the street from Globe Life.
Lanidrac
Sigh, another stadium bites the dust before its time. At least this time it’s somewhat understandable with the City of Arlington otherwise in danger of losing the team.
Here in St. Louis, we didn’t get rid of Busch II until it 40 years old, and a lot of us had mixed feelings about it at the time.