"Wedded to the Roof"

In this previous post I spewed my "stating-the-obvious" revelation that the Marlins had the funding on at least one occasion to build a open-air or possibly even a solid-dome stadium in South Florida, but the team's non-negotiable demand for a 'retractable roof' put the kibosh on the deal (or deals), and puts the team's future here in jeopardy.

It's "stating-the-obvious" because it's been said before, not just in suggestion-form by Huizenga, but by others higher up the bling-bling chain than I, as for instance in this Miami Herald article from last September:

"'The last five stadiums built don't have roofs,' (Miami Mayor Manny) Diaz said. 'Eleven of the last 15 don't have roofs. If a husband and wife can't afford a Mercedes, then they buy a Lexus or a Chevy.'

"But (Miami-Dade County Manager George) Burgess said the Marlins remain wedded to the roof, which Major League Baseball has said is a necessity for play in rain-prone South Florida. But Burgess all but scolded the team's inflexibility on the issue, noting that it has consistently rejected a proposal to build a roof-ready park and add a roof at a later date."

The operative statement here is "Major League Baseball has said (Ol' Roofie) is a necessity for play in rain-prone South Florida." That points to the ultimate major player in this drama as Bud Selig, someone known to throw money around like a man without arms.

As today's Barry Jackson article in the Herald (quoted here in the Marlins Ballpark News) alledges, "Marlins management -- knowing baseball values the South Florida market -- asked MLB to contribute toward stadium financing, but baseball balked, citing lack of precedent. MLB will pay $20 million for the Washington Nationals' new stadium (though that will be passed on to the team's eventual owner)."

So even when MLB breaks their own precedent they desperately find a way to unbreak it again. Could've some spare change from MLB.com been found to toss towards D. C., a metro area not really recognized as having solved all of their own urban problems?

By the way, the D.C. City Council capped "the city's expenditures on the project at $611 million" (boy, that $20 million will sure help). And, even though they're also basically in a swamp, known to be reasonably hot, fetid and somewhat stormy in summertime, there doesn't seem to be a roof in their plans.

Of course in the middle of the summer misery here, a protective covering and air-conditioned breeze would be pleasurable.

But put it this way: If you had the choice between going to games in an open-air or maybe a solid-dome stadium during South Florida summers, or never going to MLB games in South Florida again, which would you prefer?

And what's the deal with the 'retractable' part, anyway? Solid-dome stadiums are supposed to be much cheaper than retractable ones, and they still keep the rain out. Even the city of Weston would have helped pay for one, just for shelter purposes.

You know what it is? Retractability is a Fashion Statement - just as much a fetish of these times (or even way back in the 90's!) as solid-dome stadiums like the Astrodome were in the 60's and 70's.

Loria and Samson have crowed and sung about how they are committed to finding a way to stay in South Florida. Okay, maybe they are. The question is, are they committed enough to this area that when their constantly-shifting deadline finally arrives, they would be willing to make, let's say, a slight modification to their inflexible demand for a sliding ceiling on their stadium, if not doing so would mean their departure from South Florida? Or is Selig really committed enough to this area to help pay for a roof (especially since he seemingly hasn't paid for anything since the Eisenhower administration)?