News of the Arroyo
Title: | Rose Bowl deal need stay course |
Subtitle: | |
Date: | 2004-07-22 |
Summary: | July 23, 2004 - The Star News offers qualified support for persistent efforts to plop an NFL team in the Rose Bowl. |
Author: | Opinion |
Publication: | Pasadena Star News |
Content: | Thursday, July 22, 2004 - THE QUESTION of the pluses and minuses of pro football in the Arroyo Seco aside, we\'ve always liked the energy with which city officials, civic boosters and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. have pursued their dream of hosting the NFL. We\'ve equally enjoyed the vigor with which they have promised to make this bid different than disastrous deals that have given the shaft to cities from Cleveland to Irwindale after public funds were wasted in poker games with the professional card sharps who make up the football league\'s owners. These billionaires will take home the kitty in such a game every time. Taxpayers, and the city officials who work for them, are nuts to even sit down at the table. Given the good odds that Pasadena (and Los Angeles, and Carson) is, at least to some extent, being used by the NFL to cause other possible stadium sites to make concessions, this is especially true. And, unlike rust-belted Cleveland or the smaller social climbers such as a Nashville or Charlotte, Southern California \"L.A.,\' if you prefer has absolutely nothing to prove on the world stage. Our cultural and economic identities have nothing to do with whether or not there\'s a football team somewhere in the megalopolis. During the many years since the Rams decamped to Anaheim and then to St. Louis, and the Raiders came, scammed, and went back home, we\'ve seen zero loss of self-esteem among Southlanders. If it comes to that, a better bet demographically in the long run would be to encourage a world-class soccer team to set up shop here amidst the millions of Latin American and European expatriates. Manchester, hell can you say Pasadena United? The news that the NFL has agreed to pay for both changes to architects\' proposals for remodeling the Rose Bowl and for the $600,000 Environmental Impact Report continues the practical, soak-not-the-taxpayers approach so far taken by the RBOC and City Hall. Any suggestions that just because surprise this is all taking longer than had been predicted should cause citizens to foot the bill for sports broker John Moag\'s attempts to help lure the NFL here would not continue that approach. Moag agreed to make an investment his time and some money in this deal against the very considerable upside of a $5 million bounty if the NFL does choose the Rose Bowl rather than the Los Angeles Colosseum or the unbuilt Carson site. That\'s still the deal. We\'d like to see it continue. As to whether the city should pay smaller amounts to hire a preservation expert to help with the EIR, or for a public-outreach effort, well, these are certainly less consequential proposals. At the same time they would also be the proverbial camel\'s nose under the tent, and we don\'t like them. Having secured another long-term contract with the UCLA Bruins, the Rose Bowl is in a more secure financial position than in years past. But when you\'re running one of the biggest stadiums in the nation, you have to think very long term. The Bowl will not last forever. One way or another, even hallowed gridiron ground needs to find a way to pay for maintenance and at least some modernization. If the NFL, the RBOC and the community come to agree that pro football is the savior, so be it. But that decision is still in the middle distance and we should stay our course. |
Url: |