What Really Happened with the Texas Rangers and Eminent Domain

One sign that the 2016 presidential race is nuts: the Republican frontrunner says he loves eminent domain. Donald Trump defended his seizure of land for the "common good" in Saturday's debate against Jeb Bush, who argued that eminent domain should only be used for important infrastructure projects and public needs—and that Trump's use of it didn't qualify. (Trump tried to use eminent domain to evict an elderly woman in Atlantic City when she refused his offer of $250,000 so he could tear down her house to build a casino parking lot. Trump lost the case.)

But in interviews since the debate, Trump has called Bush a hypocrite: it turns out that none other than George W. Bush, the former president and Jeb's brother, used eminent domain to get Globe Life Park built when he was co-owner of the Texas Rangers. People are now pushing back against Trump by drawing a distinction between the use of eminent domain for the public good or for private gain. Allegedly, Trump tried to use it for private gain, but its use to build a baseball stadium was in the public good—which would be OK under Jeb's parameters.

The question is whether a baseball stadium is really in the public good. This, of course, goes back to the thorny issue of publicly funded stadiums. Globe Life Park (formerly known as Rangers Ballpark in Arlington) was a publicly funded stadium and, to this day, is owned by the City of Arlington, so technically, yes, its use of eminent domain was for a public project. But, obviously, the Texas Rangers baseball corporation has profited tremendously from its construction, and many people question whether stadiums really deliver the economic booster shot to their communities that teams claim. Listen to the story of the Rangers' ballpark and decide for yourself whether it was a public project or primarily for private gain.

In 1990, unhappy with the ugly and deteriorating Arlington Stadium, the Rangers threatened to leave Arlington—threats that eventually convinced the city government to cover 71% of the costs ($135 million out of $191 million) of building a new ballpark. The deal they struck called for the city to raise the sales tax by half a cent to go toward construction. On January 19, 1991, almost two-thirds of city voters approved a referendum to do just that, giving the project the stamp of public approval it needed. The results of that referendum allowed the former Rangers president to tell the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in defense of Bush and in offense of Trump, that "we never had eminent domain—the city of Arlington did."

Indeed, the Texas legislature presently approved the creation of the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), a public city agency with the power of eminent domain—but also an entity whose actions were directed by the Rangers. The ASFDA—or, to be more specific, the realtor it contracted, who happened to be a part owner of the Rangers—went about setting prices of the parcels the Rangers wanted to use for the stadium and attendant facilities like parking lots. If the homeowners didn't agree to the ASFDA's offer, the ASFDA seized the land using eminent domain. One property owner, the Mathes family, sued and won a $7.2 million payout, which, after a legal dispute between the ballclub and city, was eventually paid by the Rangers.

Today, while the city of Arlington did get to keep its baseball team, the Rangers receive almost all the revenue generated by the stadium. While the project was approved by voters and managed by the government, the Rangers were ultimately behind every move it made, and it is clear that eminent domain was used to achieve a corporation's private financial ends. It's an open question whether W.'s profits from eminent domain should be held against Jeb, but the Rangers certainly did benefit from its application.

The Pentagon Paid 10 MLB Teams $900,000 to Be Patriotic

Big week for politics and baseball. The morning after Election Day brought good news for the Rays, Giants, and Lance Berkman, Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona released their report on taxpayer-funded troop tributes at sporting events. We already knew that the Department of Defense was paying NFL teams to honor the troops as a covert recruitment tactic, and Congress banned the use of taxpayer money to pay for military tributes in the latest National Defense Authorization Act. But today's report is the first confirmation we have that the scandal extended to the other major American sport leagues, including MLB. Ten baseball teams were confirmed to have accepted at least $898,085 from the military since fiscal year 2012 for events like saluting the troops or singing God Bless America, and the report points out that there are probably more such instances yet to be discovered. The details:

• The Atlanta Braves received the most money of any MLB team, $450,000, in exchange for four on-field presentations, including one of those touching "surprise homecoming" ceremonies; sponsorship of multiple "Military Appreciation Days" at Turner Field; and Georgia National Guard members being featured on the Jumbotron.
• The Boston Red Sox received $100,000 in exchange for Fenway tickets for the Massachusetts Army National Guard.
• The Milwaukee Brewers were paid $80,000 for the Wisconsin National Guard's sponsorship of God Bless America at every Sunday home game; for soldiers and their families to be recognized at games between innings; for troops to have on-field access for an award presentation; and for access to a private suite.
• The New York Mets received $50,000, including $10,000 toward an on-field swearing-in ceremony.
• The Philadelphia Phillies received $48,085 from the US Navy in exchange for tickets and credit at the concession stands.
• The Texas Rangers received $75,000 in exchange for US Air Force color-guard ceremonies at games, game tickets, the ability for Texas National Guardsmen to sing the national anthem, and a special on-field "batting practice night" for Texas National Guard members.
• The Arizona Diamondbacks were paid $40,000 so that members of the Arizona National Guard could go to games, be sworn in at an on-field ceremony, do a color guard demonstration, throw the first pitch, and deliver the scorecard before the game.
• The Houston Astros were paid $25,000 in exchange for a Texas National Guard Appreciation Night, which included a swearing-in ceremony, as well as dugout seats and a private suite.
• The Pittsburgh Pirates received $18,000 so that a US Air Force soldier could sing the national anthem and Delayed Entry Program members could be sworn in on the field.
• The Cleveland Indians got $12,000 to host an on-field Air Force swearing-in ceremony.

Nationalism has always been inextricably linked to baseball, but patriotism at ballparks has really reached a fever pitch in the last decade or so. The over-the-top tributes that many teams put on often do feel like marketing campaigns, and now we know why. It's hard not to be cynical about this if you thought that teams were genuinely honoring America.

What Yesterday's Election Results Mean for Baseball

If you blinked you probably missed it, but yesterday was Election Day in 32 states. While federal elections like president, senator, and representative rarely affect matters as serious as baseball, local elections often do hinge upon such matters that touch our daily lives. Several local elections yesterday had a baseball angle that could affect fanbases of four different teams; herein, educate yourself about the decisions made by one-quarter of your fellow citizens:

• Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). This well-publicized ballot measure in the City of Houston (you probably got a New York Times alert about it) doesn't affect baseball per se, but it had a significant baseball angle. Astros legend Lance Berkman (in)famously recorded a radio ad opposing HERO in September; you may have noticed from the Twitter firestorm it ignited. If passed, the initiative would have banned discrimination "based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy," but opponents seized on the specific gender-identity language in the bill and turned it into a referendum on transgender acceptance. Anti-HERO ads, including Berkman's, used messaging like "no men in women's bathrooms" and "troubled men," leading to backlash against Berkman for prejudicial statements and against the whole campaign for fearmongering atop the incredibly specific bathroom issue. The vote was expected to be close (though Houston may be in Texas, it is still an urban area and leans Democratic); however, with 95% of precincts reporting as of last night, the city's voters roundly rejected the ordinance, 61% to 39%.
• St. Petersburg City Council. Three seats on the city council of St. Petersburg, Florida, were on the ballot last night, and the intractable stadium saga of the Tampa Bay Rays was a starring issue. The Rays want out of their lease at Tropicana Field, one of baseball's most unattractive ballparks but, more importantly, easily its poorest-located, as Tampa-area traffic patterns make it miserable to trek to cross-bay St. Petersburg to see a game. St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman wants to let the Rays explore new stadium sites in other communities in Tampa Bay, but the city council has repeatedly blocked his proposals in a series of close votes—most recently, deadlocking at 4–4 in May. Yesterday, three of those city council seats were on the ballot, two of which were held by the "Anti-Rays Party"—those who oppose letting the team move. However, the "Pro-Rays Party" flipped one of those seats, as Kriseman-proposal supporter Lisa Wheeler-Brown won the seat being vacated by term-limited proposal opponent Wengay Newton. This means that allies of Kriseman and the Rays now hold five seats on the eight-seat council. That, in turn, means the Rays may now be able to cut a deal to leave St. Petersburg for a more economically sustainable part of metro Tampa—and avoid becoming the next incarnation of the Montréal Expos.
• Mission Rock development. Among the ballot questions put to voters in San Francisco yesterday was Local Measure D, asking residents' permission to develop the area around a parking lot just south of the Giants' AT&T Park. The proposed mixed-use complex for the 28-acre site, Mission Rock, would erect 1,500 rental homes, including some affordable housing, as well as office space, shops, restaurants, and a park. The Giants endorsed the ballot measure and threw their full weight behind it in the hopes that the new neighborhood would evolve into the Giants' equivalent of Wrigleyville or the area around Fenway Park. The Giants' investment in Mission Rock would generate millions of dollars in revenue for the team that it says is necessary for it to compete with its larger-market rivals (a good way of translating San Francisco's anti-Dodgers sentiment into votes). In the face of the Giants' advocacy and no organized opposition, Local Measure D passed yesterday with over 73% of the vote, meaning Mission Rock could become a reality very soon.
• 50-50 raffles in Texas. Not nearly as sexy as the other three elections here, Texas's Proposition 4 amended the state's constitution to allow sports teams to hold more of those charity 50-50 raffles that you see at so many baseball games. (Yes, apparently a constitutional amendment was necessary to do this—previously it was unconstitutional to hold more than two such raffles per year and to give out cash prizes for them.) The proposition passed 69% to 31%, so you can expect more cash drawings at Rangers and Astros games going forward.