Diamondbacks Seek Jury Trial In Suit Against Maricopa County
Download mp3 (1.46 MB)
A lawsuit by the Arizona Diamondbacks traces Maricopa County’s lack of money to invest in maintaining Chase Field to an alleged failure to draw non-baseball events.
The Diamondbacks have asked for a jury trial for the right to at least flirt with leaving the less than 20-year-old stadium, and the club’s 40-page complaint lists a handful of problems with the facility.
Among those issues are the condition of steel reinforcements, rods and anchors that hold the stadium together. The lawsuit alleges Maricopa County is years behind on repairs and replacements.
Some of the damage may be traced back to a decision by the Diamondbacks to use fire hoses to clean the stadium, said Jim Bruner, former chairman of the county Board of Supervisors.
“That, as I understand, is what’s really started to cause the problem with the deterioration of some of the structural aspects,” said Bruner, who negotiated the stadium agreement in the 1990s. “The use of water which has seeped down to areas that’s not supposed to have water in it.”
The Diamondbacks say the stadium is safe for the upcoming season, and money to maintain infrastructure was supposed to come from non-baseball events. Around 2012, it became clear the strategy wouldn’t work, so the club proposed to take over preservation of Chase Field.
But, there were a couple of catches. First, the county had to let the club book events like concerts and supercross. Second, it had slash the Diamondbacks fees from $4.3 million a year to $200,000, which would increase by $50,000 every five years.
County officials rejected the proposal, and lawyers for the Diamondbacks say that $4.3 million is at least three times more than any other pro-sports franchise in Arizona.
“My comment is, so what?” Bruner said. “That was what was agreed to on a fair agreement between (former Diamondbacks executive Jerry) Colangelo and myself.”
The Diamondbacks’ lawsuit says the county is responsible for keeping the stadium a safe and state-of-the-art facility. But the lack of funding makes it impractical and impossible.
Safety and cutting edge are different issues, Bruner said, and defining what they mean might take years of legal wrangling and court proceedings.
