by Jim Simon
Seattle Times staff reporter
It's a choice nearly all of them aren't pleased to be making. It's an election many of them wish wasn't happening.
But the dozen citizens who spent an evening around a table debating the upcoming vote on a new stadium for the Seattle Mariners are also taking the election seriously. Not as a referendum on The National Pastime, as some die-hard fans might make it, but as a clear-eyed, dollars-and-sense assessment of what makes Seattle tick.
"I feel that we have been put between a rock and a hard place," said Rose Stratton of SeaTac, a lifelong area resident. "I'm voting yes for the simple fact that if the Mariners leave, we lose a lot of tax base. If they stay, then we still have to pay for them.
"One way or the other, we're going to have to pay for it."
The panel, convened last week as part of The Front Porch Forum project sponsored by The Seattle Times and local National Public Radio affiliates, was a diverse group of King County residents that included a drug counselor, a homemaker, a retired food broker, a business executive and a schoolteacher. Three were Democrats, three Republicans and the rest gave no party affiliation.
The panel was randomly selected from the rolls of people who voted in two of the past four elections in King County, with an effort made for geographic and demographic balance.
They were divided on the stadium proposal, which would raise the county sales tax by one-tenth of a percentage point to pay for a $240 million retractable-roof stadium and nearly $160 million in improvements to the Kingdome. Seven were opposed; five were in favor.
Nonetheless, there was plenty of common ground.
Most agreed that the Kingdome is a lousy place to watch baseball. They also shared a sense of resignation that saving baseball in Seattle comes down to what the Mariner owners have been saying all along: Build a new stadium or watch the team pack its bags and move elsewhere.
On the surface, that sounds like good news for the pro-stadium campaign.
But the panel also exposed the big challenges ahead for the campaign in the final two weeks. Its own polls and independent surveys have shown the measure trailing.
Finding a one-size-fits-all pitch to woo voters on the fence or who now oppose the stadium is a big challenge, if this group is any indication.
One of the most outspoken opponents of the new stadium, teacher Maggie Everett of Seattle, described herself as a Randy Johnson fan. Stratton of SeaTac, probably the most passionate supporter, hadn't seen a Mariners game in at least two years and doubted she would ever attend a game in the new stadium.
Even before the campaign's planned barrage of television advertising planned to start this week, most of the panel were well-informed about the details of the stadium issue - down to the $7.50 estimate of how much the sales-tax increase is supposed to cost each King County citizen annually.
Most surprisingly, all but one of the panelists said they had already made up their minds on how they were going to vote.
"I've only got so much money and I have to be careful what I vote for. This is the lowest of the low on my priority list," said Frank Rosin, a retiree in Kirkland. "I would vote for transit. I would vote for housing, I would vote for a number of things before this."
Panel members acknowledged what a small impact the tax increase would have on their pocketbook. But the question of priorities and the principle of subsidizing a private business came up repeatedly.
"I don't feel like this is a public project, I guess," said Everett. "That's my bottom line . . . I feel likes it's underwriting a private business."
Despite last year's bitter baseball strike and attacks on such stadium deals by critics as "civic extortion," there was little animosity toward the owners. All agreed that the owners were being truthful about the amount of money they are losing.
To panelists on both sides of the question, the Mariner demands reflected everyday facts about how baseball and many other other businesses work. Even opponent Rosin, the Kirkland retiree, said, "I don't consider that extortion."
Several supporters also invoked a kind of political-reality test.
Not voting for the stadium, they argued, didn't mean that the $240 million would wind up going to housing, schools or any of the social services that opponents considered more needy.
"If they gave me a choice of saying do you want to vote for this money for Parkinson's disease or to build a stadium, then it wouldn't be much of a choice. I'd say let's cure Parkinson," said Robert Diemert, a retired food broker from Lake Forest Park.
"But that's not the case. They aren't saying we are going to spend the money on something else if we don't do it on a stadium."
This group also had several unanswered questions: Who will pay for cost overruns? Is a retractable roof really needed? Is there a guarantee that the Mariners won't move even if the stadium is built? Can the stadium really be used for other events?
Loren Brown, a former corporate financial officer, said some of his fellow panelists wanted too many guarantees, like knowing whether the Mariners would put a winning team on the field.
"You can't vote against this and . . . say, `See, we voted against you. Now keep them here and win,' " said Brown, a self-described "sucker" who always votes for school-bond issues and other capital projects. "It's not going to happen."
The discussion seemed to confirm what the political strategists for "Home Town Fans," the pro-stadium campaign, noted in their early polling: For most people, the vote has little to do with baseball itself.
There was only passing talk about the grand traditions of the game or the save-baseball-for-the-kids argument frequently pitched by backers of the plan.
Stratton recalled all the nay-sayers at the time of the 1962 World's Fair, an event she thinks put the city on the map. Baseball, she argued, is vital for the economy, particularly businesses in Pioneer Square.
Some argued that what a pro sports team brings - or takes, if it leaves - can't be quantified in a economic development study.
Seeing a baseball team move a second time, added Diemert, the retired food broker, would be a blow to the city's economy and its image.
Clint Goodison, a claims manager from Totem Lake, noted that when he was living in Pittsburgh, the Pirates' World Series appearances brought the community together.
"It really gets back down to that basic simple question: Is Seattle better off or is Seattle worse off if you vote yes or no," Goodison said. "Is it worth it to say no?"
Bonnie Elson, a social worker from Issaquah who was the only undecided panelist at the start of the meeting, sat silent through most of the two-hour discussion.
She spoke up at the end, though, noting those intangibles are exactly what will sway her to vote for the measure.
She recounted what has happened to Issaquah. She thinks the march of development degraded the town's famous salmon streams and paved over much of the small-town flavor.
"We lost a lot of what made Issaquah special. Now Issaquah is like Bellevue," she said. "Like them or hate them, I think the Mariners help make Seattle, Seattle. . . .
"It's part of who we are and I'd hate to see them go."