The Mariners "hope to prove" that King County and the
Public Facilities District (PFD) are "obligated to take on
more public debt" in order to "pay most of the $100 million
in extra construction expenses" for Safeco Field by citing
"two specific phrases" in a brief filed in a two-year-old
state Supreme Court case, according to Alex Fryer of the
SEATTLE TIMES. The brief, written by attorneys for King
County and PFD, "outlined a defense against a citizen's
initiative that threatened to derail the construction of the
baseball stadium." That initiative, Initiative 16, was
submitted in '96 to the city and "prevented the county from
issuing bonds over $50 million without obtaining voter
approval." The phrases now being cited by the Mariners are
both found in the legal brief filed with the Supreme Court
in April '97 "that argued Initiative 16, if passed, would
not apply to the ballpark." The brief said, "Once the
county 'opts in' to the statutory mechanism for construction
of the stadium, the county is obligated to issue the stadium
bonds in an amount supported by the tax revenues authorized
by the Stadium Act" (SEATTLE TIMES, 6/24).
MAJOR DISTRACTION? In Seattle, Alan Snel reports the
Mariners are concerned Safeco Field's main concourse behind
center field, which "allows fans to make a complete loop
around the field" while watching the game, might result in
fans distracting hitters "as they try to pick up the flight"
of a pitched ball. The team has suggested installing a
four-foot-high, 12-foot-wide mesh fence that "would allow
fans to still see the action while giving batters a decent
backdrop to see the pitch" (SEATTLE TIMES, 6/25). Keith
Olbermann, on the Kingdome: "It was a dump when it opened.
It is a dump as it closes" ("FSN Primetime," FSN, 6/24).
