MPR: Baseball's Political Football

Baseball's Political Football
By Michael Khoo
Part Two of a Series

Mayor Norm Coleman's campaign to build a new Minnesota Twins ballpark in downtown St. Paul has entered the final month before a citywide referendum on the issue. If voters approve a sales-tax hike to help fund the project, the debate will advance to the state Legislature, where just two years ago, efforts to build a new ballpark ran afoul of public sentiment.

For More Information
See a timeline of important events in the debate over a new stadium.

See MPR Online's Stadium Wars section.

WHEN MAYOR NORM COLEMAN first took his ballpark plan to the public, he may not have won many converts, but he certainly managed to open old wounds. Last June, during the first in a series of community ballpark meetings, protesters crowded the speaker's podium and blocked the projection screen. Coleman wasn't amused. But, as he said at the time, he wasn't discouraged either.

Coleman: I consider it a reflection of a great deal of emotional intensity on this issue. There's no question about that. I'm not surprised by the folks with the signs.

The debate over public funding for a Twins ballpark has been nothing less than explosive. In 1997, the state Legislature considered financing a new stadium in Minneapolis. And so many outraged constituents swamped the Capitol switchboard, the system collapsed under the strain - an incident which has become part of the Capitol folklore. State Representative Ann Rest, a DFLer from New Hope, carried one of the key ballpark bills. But after the issue nearly cost her re-election, she says she's now on a strict, stadium-free political diet.

Rest: I don't believe that there's been any change since 1997. And I will not support any proposal for any kind of stadium for any professional team in the 2000 Legislature.

Opponents of public subsidies for sports facilities say Coleman's current campaign is particularly unpalatable, following as it does so closely on the heels of the last showdown. But if the mayor is worried about political fallout, he doesn't show it.

Coleman: I'm not looking to preserve my political future. That's not what this is about. But in the end, I've got to do what is the right thing for my city. I have to seize opportunity. I'm giving this my best shot. If people, as a result of that say they don't like me and they don't want me, then they've made that choice.

Coleman, a politician with demonstrated gubernatorial ambition, is intent on avoiding the mistakes made during the last stadium fight. In '97, the Twins took the lead role in the push for a new ballpark, with pro-stadium forces spending more than $2 million on the effort. The public responded with the potent refrain, "No Bailouts for Billionaires," a reference to wealthy team owner Carl Pohlad. In the current debate, however, the Twins have been virtually non-existent. Team president Jerry Bell.

Bell: The mayor initiated this ballpark for St. Paul. And he knows St. Paul better than we do, so maybe it's just common sense to let him handle what he wants for his city and why, as opposed to our saying what would be good for St. Paul.

Coleman knows that public perception of the Twins and Pohlad remains bruised from the previous debacle. So, in an overture to voters, Coleman has insisted Pohlad sell the team to new investors. While details of a sale were to have been finalized by last Friday, discussions continue and Coleman says he remains optimistic a deal is close. With the Twins out of the driver's seat, the mayor has found a new mechanism for steering his proposal: Coleman's office and the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce have tried to plant the seeds of a grassroots campaign, complete with quirky lawn signs, pithy catchphrases, and dozens of backyard barbecues.

At a recent block party on St. Paul's West Side, the mayor appeared along with Twins legends Juan Berengeur and Tony Oliva. There, amid the submarine sandwiches, beer, and neighborly sentiments, Oliva explained the importance of a new ballpark.

Oliva: It's a lot of people who coming to the state that otherwise probably not coming, especially people from South Dakota, North Dakota; 200, 300 miles from here, Iowa. Wisconsin. They're coming to see the ballgame.

The block parties are organized by the pro-stadium "Yes! St. Paul" committee. As of September 3, campaign records show Yes! St. Paul had already spent more than $90,000 in support of the ballpark and the group will likely spend significantly more by the November referendum. Swaying the electorate may take every penny. A poll conducted in late June by MPR, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and KARE-11 TV found St. Paul residents opposed to the ballpark plan nearly 2-1. If Coleman does prevail, he must still navigate a skeptical Legislature and convert an openly critical governor. The odds may be long, but Edward Schiappa says the risks are minimal.

Schiappa: Well, let's don't forget who the key constituency in favor of a new ballpark is.

Schiappa is a professor of speech communication at the University of Minnesota who has studied the local-stadium debate. He says Coleman's efforts don't challenge any powerful, organized interests and they play well with many of the mayor's political patrons.

Schiappa: Primarily elements of the business community. And obviously, Coleman doesn't hurt his reputation in that particular community by engaging in this campaign.

In contrast to the united front of the pro-ballpark coalition, the opposition is diffuse, disconnected and without much political or financial clout. Tom Montgomery organized "FANS for St. Paul," a group opposing the stadium initiative. He says he's frustrated by Coleman's control of the debate.

Montgomery: There are a lot of city resources and other resources, a lot of money, being put into selling this proposed tax increase for the new baseball stadium for the Twins. It seemed like more of a marketing effort than an educational effort.

But as the '97 debate proves, even diffuse public opinion can be lethal if sufficiently aggravated. However, Coleman's coup de grace may be the upcoming referendum. If the initiative is successful, he will not only have disarmed public sentiment, he will have harnessed it for his own purpose. And if the proposal fails on the ballot, Coleman has pledged he will respect the voters' decision and abandon his stadium drive.

Coleman: So no, this is it. We will put it on the ballot; we're giving our people a chance to be heard; I will listen to their voice, and that will be it. There's enough other things to occupy our time. It's not that all we talk about is baseball.

Schiappa, the communications professor, says the referendum may be the key to preventing the political backlash of 1997.

Schiappa:If he succeeds in this campaign, he gets a ballpark, and it's another feather in his cap in terms of an accomplishment on the behalf of the St. Paul metropolitan area. On the other hand, if he loses, it's really no big deal.

Schiappa says Coleman has engineered a scenario in which he simply cannot lose. He says regardless of the outcome, the referendum allows Coleman to emerge as a champion of grassroots democracy, politically unscathed.

	Sign up to receive e-mail newsletters

	Audio help

	Text: Sm : Md : Lg