Downtown baseball

On our editorial page, we've been extremely supportive of downtown development, and we've advocated some things most of our readers probably haven't favored, such as the library renovation. But we've had two editorials in a row expressing skepticism about a downtown baseball stadium. The latest one wonders why, given all the "catalyst projects" that could have been chosen, a baseball stadium is the one everybody is zeroing in on. If you read the report of the mayor's committee, that question takes on even more importance. It's clear that the starting position was not, "We need to spur downtown development; how can we do it?" It was, "Do we need downtown baseball?" Where you end up depends on where you begin; big shock.

The powers that be seem bound and determined to push baseball, despite the fact that there is a strong dose of skepticism, bordering on cynicism, out in the real world, so none of them seem to be asking the obvious questions. Somebody has to keep pestering them to make the case, and I guess that will be us for the time being.

I'm not against a downtown stadium, but I still haven't heard the case made yet. At the risk of being labeled an obstructionist, I'd say that, even granting the city 80 percent of its argument, the case falls apart on the last 20 percent. So, for the sake of argument:

1. Downtown is crucial for the vitality of this area. Granted. A city without a thriving center seems to be lacking something, no matter what else is going on.

2. Downtown improvement requires a catalyst project. Granted. Something that's deteriorated over decades won't come back without a jump start.

3. The city has to take the lead on encouraging a catalyst project. Granted. For development to succeed, private investors have to believe there is some money to be made. But we'll never get to that point unless the public sector provides some incentives and some guidance.

4. Somebody, at some point, has to actually choose a catalyst project. Granted. Otherwise, we'll just talk about it endlessly, which is the same as letting downtown drift.

But even if we accept all of that, how does that logically lead to the last 20 percent:

5. Downtown can be revived only with a baseball stadium?

Why move something that's already working in another part of town, instead of coming up with something that will create new economic activity? Stadiums have helped bring back some downtowns, but they have not exactly worked as advertised in others. We even have a good example, as the editorial yesterday pointed out, of a disappointment in Indiana, in South Bend, which has a bigger population to draw from than Fort Wayne.

Some people skip right over these concerns:

“There are other ways to do this,” my wife said Saturday morning, and, yeah, maybe she's right, maybe you actually use the rivers by developing the waterfront, by opening a few shops and restaurants and bars. Maybe you move the zoo downtown, or (God forbid, in the City of Churches) open a riverfront casino.

Maybe you do that. Or maybe you do all that and build a ballpark, too, as long as we're blue-skying this.

I mean, what the heck. Vision has to start somewhere, right?

Not to mention sometime.

Vision does not start just with "blue skies." You have to have at least one foot on the ground, or else you'll just be swept away with another grand scheme. How many things have we already been told will turn downtown around?

FOOTNOTE: Sometimes our downtown advocates might seem like romantic dreamers, but at least they're partly grounded in reality, unlike this mayor:

TAMPA - With thousands of condominiums planned in and around downtown, the area promises a neighborhood where people can live, work and play without relying on cars.

But entertainment and employment centers are still too far from homes for a comfortable walk in heels or suits, especially in the heat of summer.

Mayor Pam Iorio hopes to change that.

She's pushing for a downtown bus system, called downtown circulators, to move people from home to work or to dinner and a movie.