Let’s look at some serious input laced with a pinch of irony. On the Southside development, taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for a highly controversial new baseball stadium to the tune of the initial $80 million; now, due to cost increases, another 40 million taxpayer dollars will be required for a stadium -“optimistically” designed to hold 6,000 people. On the face of it, we must be planning on subsidizing attendance or creating a stratospheric high-octane marketing plan to boost attendance. Research suggests that during pre-pandemic in 2019, the average attendance was 3,948.
Under the current proposal, ball game attendees must pay to park – a big problem. The individual taxpayer entertainment costs keep stacking up - drip, drip. So, can someone involved in the planning other than the developer explain the average citizen's benefit realistically in layperson terms? Each time there is a stadium plan update announcement, embedded, elevated taxpayer costs accompany the announcement.
It's millions of dollars in outlay. It’s blurred, where does the advantage rest – taxpayer or developer? The construction proposal suggests that the complete project will be paid for with, after development, project cost supporting tax revenues (tax increment financing) income light years later. Considering the time span, most current taxpayers who will now foot the bill will never experience it paid for as they will have already departed for their eternal faith space.
Beyond that, the stadium is supposed to catalyze condo development on the river. This proposal leads to the question: How many ordinary citizens can afford a condo on the river? Surveys imply that most citizens are not against the Southside development. Still, they want their tax dollars to go towards something other than funding a ballpark that everyone will not use and only seasonally used by those interested. There appears to be no visible advantage to the average taxpayer. Citizen feedback suggests that construction must be more widely supported to make this ballpark workable. However, outside the ballpark, the Southside development is generally viewed positively.
Sardonically, let’s consider putting the stadium in Sale Creek at the panoramic McDonald farm – property taxpayers have already purchased. Then, take the family for a nice 30 minute country ride to the ballpark. It's not that distant, considering while dodging potholes, it could take some Chattanooga residents traveling via city streets up to 45 minutes to get to the proposed Southside ballpark. And, on the trip to Sale Creek, there will be limited potholes, no bike lanes to confuse traffic, and far less traffic congestion to contend with. A big bonus will be free parking. Allow the local Sale Creek Volunteer Fire Department the opportunity to handle concessions to support needed operational funds. As a plus, Rhea, Bledsoe, Sequatchie and Meigs County residents will help fill an otherwise partially empty 6,000-seat stadium. Moreover, at last check, there are no known street gangs in Sale Creek, which should make for a more comfortable and safer family entertainment environment.
For entertainment, run the numbers and compare the ballpark cost if constructed in the city of Chattanooga vs. North Hamilton County. This proposal might seem far out, but not nearly as far out as the current unsupported Southside ballpark proposal.
Regardless, the city and county governments say, "Don’t bother me with the facts; we have already made up our minds." Bring on the peanuts, popcorn, and crackerjacks - take me out to the ballgame.
Johnny Jones