Arizona Diamondbacks Chase Field Stadium Spat Want Vs. Need
In 1998, the Arizona Diamondbacks moved into then-Bank One Ballpark (since renamed Chase Field), and just 18 years later, they are threatening to leave.
“We want to make sure we have a facility that is state of the art,” said Derrick Hall, Arizona Diamondbacks CEO. The facility he’s upset about is Chase Field, the Diamondbacks home for the last 18 years. The issue isn’t so much the current state of the stadium, but what it will look like moving forward.
According to an AZCentral.com report from March, the major sticking point is “roughly $187 million in current and future maintenance obligations through 2027 at Chase Field.” The team points a finger at the county, while the county claims it’s the team (and not the taxpayers) that deserve the hefty invoice.
As it stands, the 48,519-seat baseball stadium in downtown Phoenix is in excellent shape. With a retractable roof, a beautiful 136-by-46-foot HD scoreboard and enough unique features to have character (the pool, a great kid’s area), it’s no wonder that the stadium’s reviews are excellent.
The issue is — as is often the case — the original deal put in place no longer looks as beneficial to the team as it once did. The team wants upgrades and believes the county should pay for them. The county agreed to pay for necessary upgrades and sees the proposal as cosmetic, which puts the onus on the team.
AZCentral.com reported in August that the sides continued to try to work together, but very little progress has been made. The team is still pushing for a massive $64 million over five years in order to improve the scoreboard, suites and make other cosmetic upgrades. The county accepts responsibility for structural repairs (steel and concrete), but is still passing on the other requested funding.
So, who’s in the right here? One might want to point towards contracts that would clearly show the side that needs to pony up the funds needed to improve, but there’s a problem in the translation of said contract.
The county remains firm, leaning on their desire to protect taxpayers, essentially making a stand that the upgrades requested are simply not needed and would be a misuse of taxpayer funds:
“The county is going to continue to protect the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s $238 million investment in Chase Field,” county spokesman Fields Moseley said. “We continue to remain open to discussions with the Diamondbacks … about where the money needs to come from and how much money the stadium district can contribute with respect to the original facility agreement with the team.”
The Diamondbacks see it differently and believe that in order to remain competitive, they need to make these upgrades:
“It is unfortunate that this continues to be played out publicly by a government entity that refuses to live up to its obligations clearly laid out in their long-term agreement,” he (Leo R. Bus, Diamondbacks attorney) said. “This is an organization that has given so much back to the community and its fans and that has had such a tremendous impact on the economy. The county’s abdication of its responsibility for necessary funding for the longevity of a public building is unprecedented and unfair to the organization and its fans.”
The spat isn’t about the fan experience today. It’s a beautiful stadium that provides an entertaining and enjoyable day of baseball. Traffic isn’t bad, parking is plentiful, public transportation has improved by leaps and bounds and the secondary ticket market provides affordable seating.
So who’s right and who’s wrong? Who do you think should foot the bill?
More from Local POV
This article originally appeared on 
