August 19, 1990
"'Free Riders,' Community-builders Differ on Stadium"
San Jose Mercury News
By Timothy Taylor
<< Back to 1990
CALIFORNIA votes on everything. Seventeen propositions were on
the ballot in June; at least 18 are coming this November.
But here in Santa Clara County, we've had to sweat blood for a chance to vote
on building a baseball stadium. Now, in the brief hiatus between the battle to
put a stadium on the ballot and the battle over the stadium itself, it's a good
time to consider why some cities were willing to put the stadium on the ballot,
while others were not. After all, every city presumably has other possible uses
for the money, along with roughly the same proportion of baseball fans.
The nearby table provides some hints. The first two columns list the population
and average household income for each city in Santa Clara County. The last two
columns show whether the city was a part of the Joint Powers Authority, the group
which negotiated with the San Francisco Giants over a stadium, and whether the
citizens of the city will have a chance to vote on the stadium.
Two connections stand out. First, larger cities were more likely to put the
stadium on the ballot. Five of the seven largest cities in the county agreed to
put the stadium on the ballot. Of the eight smaller cities in the county, Gilroy
and Morgan Hill should be exempted from consideration, because they are not naturally
neighbors for a Santa Clara stadium. But of the other six small cities, only Los
Altos will put the stadium to a popular vote.
Why might this pattern exist? I suspect that Los Gatos and Saratoga and Campbell,
not to mention tiny Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills, knew that their participation
wasn't critical to making the stadium happen. As a result, they had no real reason
to help bear the costs, rather than devoting their energy and money to local uses.
Economists have dubbed this pattern "free riding," which simply means
that you wait for others to pay the costs, and then enjoy the results. Citizens
and politicians from other cities may have less neutral names for it.
The second pattern is that cities with lower incomes were more likely to put
the stadium on the ballot. All the cities where the average income is below-average
for the county will vote on a stadium, with the exception of Campbell. All the
cities where the average income is above average for the county will not have
the city on the ballot, with the single exception of (again) Los Altos.
During the stadium campaign, a certain resentment may develop from this situation:
If Palo Alto and Cupertino and Los Gatos and Saratoga aren't paying, why should
The cynical answer is that this is how the rich stay rich, but in reality,
I don't think the opposition is a matter of money. After all, adding $16 per year
to the utility tax, the projected amount the stadium will cost, is only about
one- fortieth of 1 percent of the average Palo Alto income.
Instead, many of those opposing a stadium are standing on principle. They believe
that it is frivolous, if not heartless and cruel, for government to support baseball
when real-life social problems cry out for help. They believe that much of the
hoopla over the Giants' possible move is simply a way to collect public money
for big businessmen and real estate developers.
I think these arguments are far overstated, but if someone is set upon being
holier-than-thou and more-cynical-than-thou at the same time, you can't really
discuss matters with them. I suspect that the upper income classes are more susceptible
to this style, and its attendant use of guilt and skepticism, than lower income
So let me expose myself as a callous and naive baseball fan, and tell you about
my grandmother. She lived most of her life in Cincinnati, and still roots for
the Reds. (Sorry about that, Giants fans.) She can always tell you if they won
last night's game, although she's not always very sure who they played. She has
definite opinions about whether she likes most of the players, although I doubt
she could tell you much about their batting averages or their baseball skills.
She's an illustration of the fact that major league baseball is for many more
people than those who actually attend each game. It's an ongoing community soap
opera. In baseball towns, interest in the games is one of the few things that
cuts across lines of race and class and age, that gives strangers something in
common. If you doubt it, ask someone from a baseball town like Cincinnati or St.
Louis or Boston or Chicago.
After all, what else is likely to provide a shared community interest here
in Silicon Valley? The occasional earthquake? Sixty hour work weeks? Fear of Japanese
high tech competition?
Last year, Money magazine rated 300 cities according to their quality of life.
The good news is that San Jose made the top 30, at number 29. The bad news is
that it's rated one step above Las Vegas, and one step below Bergen/Passaic, N.J.
When an area is ranked between Nevada and New Jersey, it should be willing to
give major league baseball a chance.
|WHO'S IN AND WHO'S NOT
|This listing of cities in Santa Clara County compares the population
and average incomes in cities that chose to vote on a stadium tax and those that
didn't.The population is measured within a city's sphere of influence.
on ballot in
|Los Altos Hills
Source: Data on 1989 population and income from Association of Bay Area Governments.
Household income is adjusted to 1990 dollars.
<< Back to 1990