Revising the Revisionists

[VIBaseball]

Author Henry Fetter sent the following announcement to the SABR-L listserv today:

A revised version of my unpublished paper that received a 2007
McFarland-SABR Research Award was recently published under the title
"Revising the Revisionists: Walter O'Malley, Robert Moses and the End
of the Brooklyn Dodgers" in the journal New York History (Vol. 89, no.
1, Winter 2008).

I will see if I can find this online, but I don't think it is, unfortunately (www.nysha.org just shows how to subscribe). I am keen to see if his point is what I think it is -- that the pendulum should swing back away from "blame it on Bob."

[VIBaseball]

Henry Fetter has kindly confirmed my hunch:

"I think that you will find that [my article] adopts a very different perspective than D'Antonio (and his predecessors Neil Sullivan and Michael Shapiro).

PS: I included a more complete account of the maneuvering behind the Dodgers' move in Part III of my book "Taking on the Yankees" published a few years ago."

More info to come...

[VIBaseball]

I have obtained this article thanks to Henry Fetter. It's 21 pages, and to offer an in-depth synopsis would be a sizable undertaking. However, I will provide a few key points (abridged in spots):

"'Revisionism' may be fashionable, but it is wrong...in order to evaluate fairly Moses's responsibility...[his] opposition, and indeed Moses's actual role in the city power structure, must be placed in context. When that is done, the revisionist case collapses."

"In conclusion, if Robert Moses balked at underwriting O'Malley's agenda, he was not alone. The failure to implement the downtown Brooklyn stadium plan was a collective decision. The entire spectrum of New York officialdom...and a solid consensus of newspaper and public opinion, opposed the massive subsidy of public funds (about $300 million in today's dollars) that was required to implement O'Malley's plan...To pin the blame on Moses...misreads the political context within which Moses operated, as well as the shifting parameters of power in the mid-century metropolis."

"The point...is to recognize that making Moses the fall guy shifts the spotlight away from the man who triggered the chain of events that inexorably led to the city's loss of the Dodgers."

[Last sentence] "Sometimes the folk wisdom is right."

[EdTarbusz]

My interpretation of both Sullivan and Shapiro (especially Sullivan) is that Moses had a role in the city's refusal to help the Dodgers, but that NYC politics had more to do with the Dodgers leaving then any one man did. At one point, I think when Rockefeller was becoming involved, Sullivan opined that if the stadium had been a Brooklyn matter, it probably would have been built. He criticized the Board of Estimate for being short-sighted, because a new Dodger stadium would have added money to the city coffers. Shapiro stated that the reason that Moses was needed was becuase his department controlled a huge amount of money.

I've never read any seriously researched article or book that claims that Moses was the main reason for the departure of the Dodgers or thethe Giants. Dodger Blue talked about the byzantine laws for development in NYC, and this is what I beleive led to the departure of the Dodgers and Giants.

[VIBaseball]

At one point, I think when Rockefeller was becoming involved, Sullivan opined that if the stadium had been a Brooklyn matter, it probably would have been built. He criticized the Board of Estimate for being short-sighted, because a new Dodger stadium would have added money to the city coffers.

Another of the interesting things Fetter mentions is that Abe Stark -- and there was no greater Dodgers booster -- was against the downtown stadium because he viewed it as a negative for the local businesses that would have been uprooted.

D'Antonio also said in his recent talk that if Brooklyn had remained independent, things would have been different...but that's at odds with Fetter's view, from what I can see.

Sullivan's viewpoint appears based on shallow analysis, if any at all. That's the same old argument thats always been trotted out for publicly funded stadiums.

[EdTarbusz]

Sullivan's viewpoint appears based on shallow analysis, if any at all. That's the same old argument thats always been trotted out for publicly funded stadiums.

I'm not sure about that. Sullivan was opposed to publicly funded stadiums and his harshest criticism was directed at New York officials who developed Shea Stadium

[VIBaseball]

If Sullivan was (or is) opposed to publicly funded stadiums, then it seems he would have agreed with Fetter's point about what the downtown Brooklyn stadium would have required.

I should have been clearer -- the point I really wondered about is why Sullivan thought the stadium would have added to city coffers.

[MATHA531]

Well there are some things we should be able to agree on....

1. Most importantly and most significantly in the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was Walter O'Malley's need for greed. Now you can argue that is perfectly acceptable in a capitalistic society. But he wanted a government hand out to appease this need. The only argument is to the size of the handout. It was not the norm in 1956 to build and own your baseball stadium The franchise shifts of the early 50's were into municipally owned stadiums. What Walter wanted was more in an era when his revenue stream was the largest in baseball and was not in the slightest danger of decreasing.

2. Atlantic/Flatbush was simply not the right location no matter how much Peter claims how wonderful mass transit in was (and remains today). Study after study of the environmental affects if Ratner's plan goes (or is that past tense now) through, for an arena seating 1/3 of the projected capacity of the Dodgers' Stadium, clearly shows that. There was not much provision for parking as there was then and is now no highway going in to the complex. And much of the Dodger fan base, the more affluent part of it, were beginning the love affair with the automobile that era ushered in They wanted the freedom their wheels afforded them.

3. New York City officials probably acted very responsibly in now bowing to O'Malley's threats. There are questions being raised today by the actions of NYC officials in helping to finance the New Yankee Stadium and Taxpayer Bailout Field. Don't say I agree or disagree with these arguments, but an argument can be made that the stadium in a period of austerity are an affront to taxpayers.

4. Bob Moses had the right idea, the right location and everything else. The argument that Shea, because of municipal ownership, turned out to be a disaster is silly. When it opened, Shea was state of the art and of course a lease could have been negotiated to give the O'Malley's much more say in what was ultimately built. And as I have said on numerous occasions, the O'Malley family never would have let Shea fall into the state it did in the late 1970's that Ms. Payson's family was to do.

5. The villains remain Frick and Giles who did nothing to protect the interests of the loyal Brooklyn fans. Several solutions have been suggested. The Commissioner had the power to act in the best interests of baseball. I simply don't see how anybody who has a degree of understandings, no offense meant to anybody who disagrees, can argue the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was in the best interests of baseball.

6 From a taxpayer viewpoint, the LA city officials, interested in stealing the franchise, acted in an irresponsible almost immoral way. To hand a private individual the land within a short drive of downtown LA was not in the best interests of the taxpayers of LA.

7. Once that immoral offer was made, there was very little NYC officials could do either legally or morally.

Hence we still have the same villains no matter how much the revisionists try.

Walter O'Malley
Ford C. Frick
Warren Giles
Norris Poulson and the rest of the thieves in LA.

But not Robert Moses (and for the umpteenth time, I agree with those who think Moses was a most disgusting person.)

[LewisGunner]

6 From a taxpayer viewpoint, the LA city officials, interested in stealing the franchise, acted in an irresponsible almost immoral way. To hand a private individual the land within a short drive of downtown LA was not in the best interests of the taxpayers of LA.

Except of course that when the land was given to Walter O'Malley it was almost vacant, and would remain vacant as all other forms of construction was not feasible given the abilities of the times. This means that there was no revenue, taxes or otherwise, being generated. The construction of Dodger Stadium brought into the City coffers revenues from construction permits and all things associated with it. The City continues to see revenue in the form of several different types of taxes. This does not even address the money placed into the local economy in the form of wages paid to the construction workers who built it, and continue to be paid to those who work there, and the taxes the City derived from this. No, the taxpayers of LA got a bargain and it was in their best interest.

[EdTarbusz]

If Sullivan was (or is) opposed to publicly funded stadiums, then it seems he would have agreed with Fetter's point about what the downtown Brooklyn stadium would have required.

I should have been clearer -- the point I really wondered about is why Sullivan thought the stadium would have added to city coffers.

He thpught it would have added to the city coffers because it would have generated some new business in an apparently blighted area.

[Macker]

The Commissioner had the power to act in the best interests of baseball. I simply don't see how anybody who has a degree of understandings, no offense meant to anybody who disagrees, can argue the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was in the best interests of baseball.


Unless the commissioner wanted to force expansion or the move of other franchises instead of the Dodgers, the move was good for baseball. It was in the best interests of baseball for MLB to expand to the west coast. It was unfair, unfortunate, etc., for the Brooklyn fans, but in the big picture, the commissioner would be making a mistake to try to have blocked the move unless he had another team going to LA.

[VIBaseball]

It's worth noting again that the Athletics could have gone to L.A. in 1954 under Bill Veeck's ownership. This isn't just Veeck's account in his book; it was in the newspapers of the day. However, there were major obstacles:

1. Ford Frick. On May 8, the Chicago Tribune carried a story headlined "Curb Gossip of Franchise Shifts: Frick". As author Larry Moffi put it, "Frick's most memorable nondecision was permitting the sale of the Philadelphia A's to Arnold Johnson....he would keep his mouth shut throughout the1950s, as the Kansas City franchise served the Yankees American League monopoly."

2. Another team would most likely have been needed for San Francisco.

3. Veeck himself was, of course, quite unpopular among his fellow owners.

I can't see any evidence that O'Malley played any role in shooting down Veeck's purchase of the A's. This one seems to have been more Del Webb's doing. However, Frick showed himself to be O'Malley's pawn in the AL's expansion to L.A., and various sources have described The Big O as the de facto commissioner.

It's possible, though, that letting the Johnson-Webb deal go through suited O'Malley's L.A. agenda (if you believe it was already established).

[MATHA531]

Unless the commissioner wanted to force expansion or the move of other franchises instead of the Dodgers, the move was good for baseball. It was in the best interests of baseball for MLB to expand to the west coast. It was unfair, unfortunate, etc., for the Brooklyn fans, but in the big picture, the commissioner would be making a mistake to try to have blocked the move unless he had another team going to LA.

The issue of baseball on the west coast and the theft of the Brooklyn franchise are 2 distinct issues...the former could easily have been implemented without the later.

Now as I have pointed out in the past, while the retention of the franchise in the NYC area was the best and fairest solution, at least IMHO, there were other solutions available to the Commissioner. One was the Cleveland Brown solution that the NFL had the decency to implement when Modell pulled his O'Malley..the name Brooklyn Dodgers should have been left in the NYC area and Mr. O'Malley, if so insistant on exercising his need for greed, been told, as Mayor Poulson said in answer to the Rockefeller offer ("Here we are trying to make Angels of the Bums but we can't play with the Rockefellers of the world)")...use a name appropriate to the LA area (Carpetbaggers might be suitable but certainly Angels was available). Note that was hardly new as when the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore, they didn't become the Baltimore Browns (hey, I've never thought of this before, but that really would have been a prediction of the future eh) they took a name more appropriate to Baltimore baseball which was abandoned when Ban Johnson, a guy much smarter than Warren Giles, decided he had to have a franchise for the AL in New York and, although I'm not clear on who initiated the theft of the Baltimore franchise in 1903, wound up having the Orioles become the Highlanders later to be known as the Yankees.

So the question is not whether the opening of major league baseball to the West Coast was good for baseball, I would be a fool to argue against that and my parents did not raise a fool for a son. Rather the issue still remains was the theft of the Brooklyn franchise good for baseball, and the answer to that remains a resoundng NO.

[VIBaseball]

He thought it would have added to the city coffers because it would have generated some new business in an apparently blighted area.

That's accepting the questionable premise that stadiums are an effective form of economic development/urban renewal -- especially when public funds are involved. The cost-benefit equation for Brooklyn was shaky.

It is true, though, that efforts to develop that part of Brooklyn have dragged on for decades (the Fort Greene meat market didn't go until the early '70s).

[EdTarbusz]

That's accepting the questionable premise that stadiums are an effective form of economic development/urban renewal -- especially when public funds are involved. The cost-benefit equation for Brooklyn was shaky.

It is true, though, that efforts to develop that part of Brooklyn have dragged on for decades (the Fort Greene meat market didn't go until the early '70s).

I agree that that is a questionable premise, but Sullivan's point was that some tax money would enter the NYC coffers, and it would have probably been more than the area was generating at the time, before any stadium and possible parking garage was built. The public funding would have been very small because O'Malley would have purchased the land from the city.

[EdTarbusz]

I can't see any evidence that O'Malley played any role in shooting down Veeck's purchase of the A's. This one seems to have been more Del Webb's doing. However, Frick showed himself to be O'Malley's pawn in the AL's expansion to L.A., and various sources have described The Big O as the de facto commissioner.

).

According to Forever Blue, when rumors of the Brooklyn move reached Del Webb, he tried to convince the Athletics to move as quickly as they could to LA. The book also stated that O'Malley was aware of these rumors of Webb's efforts.

O'Malley is thought to be Gene Autry's patron in the LA market, possibly to keep people like Bill Veeck out of the territory.

Around 1954, Phil Wrigley commissioned a study about bringing Major League baseball to the west coast and Bill Veeck was the point man of the project.

[VIBaseball]

The public funding would have been very small because O'Malley would have purchased the land from the city.

Henry Fetter sheds more light on this subject, Ed:

"The bottom line was that the Dodgers could only build what O'Malley billed as a privately owned stadium constructed at his expense if the city (or other public agency) incurred costs of over $10 million, in addition to land-acquisition expense, for relocation of the market and traffic and rail improvements. When an overall estimate of the total costs of the downtown stadium project, taking into account the vast array of related improvements that O'Malley's chosen location would entail, was eventually made, the city's share was calculated to be more than $40 million -- about $300 million in today's prices."

He provides thorough citations (including New York Times articles).

[EdTarbusz]

Henry Fetter sheds more light on this subject, Ed:

"The bottom line was that the Dodgers could only build what O'Malley billed as a privately owned stadium constructed at his expense if the city (or other public agency) incurred costs of over $10 million, in addition to land-acquisition expense, for relocation of the market and traffic and rail improvements. When an overall estimate of the total costs of the downtown stadium project, taking into account the vast array of related improvements that O'Malley's chosen location would entail, was eventually made, the city's share was calculated to be more than $40 million -- about $300 million in today's prices."

He provides thorough citations (including New York Times articles).

I'd be interested in what he has written about it.

[dodger dynamo]

Ok, here's a response to "the land being vacant and that which wasn't was being camped on entirely by so called "squatters"

note the portion about o'malley scouting the location in May, also note the portion where the "immigrants" bought parcels of land. Very cheaply, yet bought them nonetheless "from the legitimate owner"

And only the housing project inticed some of them to leave.
http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/07/01/08_dodgers_4_070108.html

I was there in 59, so I saw it. BB the DD

[dodger dynamo]

Here's another article everyone might find interesting. Note that the residents were forced to leave originally under the re-development plan, yet that was scrapped and they used it to further the ends of O'malley and the city politicians. The article from the PBS Documentary clarifies that these residents were labeled "squatters" after they refused to leave despite many legally "owning" the land. They finally paid the last hold out 10,000 some odd dollars to leave. So if he didn't own it why'd they get paid anything?
Exactly. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/cr.html.

[LewisGunner]

Ok, here's a response to "the land being vacant and that which wasn't was being camped on entirely by so called "squatters"

note the portion about o'malley scouting the location in May, also note the portion where the "immigrants" bought parcels of land. Very cheaply, yet bought them nonetheless "from the legitimate owner"

And only the housing project inticed some of them to leave.
http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/07/01/08_dodgers_4_070108.html

I was there in 59, so I saw it. BB the DD

Here's another article everyone might find interesting. Note that the residents were forced to leave originally under the re-development plan, yet that was scrapped and they used it to further the ends of O'malley and the city politicians. The article from the PBS Documentary clarifies that these residents were labeled "squatters" after they refused to leave despite many legally "owning" the land. They finally paid the last hold out 10,000 some odd dollars to leave. So if he didn't own it why'd they get paid anything?
Exactly. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/cr.html.

I had thought to add some kind of smart ass remark but realized that that sort of thing is neither polite nor moves a conversation in a positive direction. I don't know the laws concerning eminent domain in New York but hear in California when a piece of land is condemned by eminent domain it's ownership reverts to the government, in the case of Chavez Ravine that would be the City of Los Angeles. I.E. after it's condemnation in 1950 the legal owner was the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is just about like every owner of a piece of property in this country, even you I would assume, in that they don't want anybody but who they say can use the land to use the land. The City had said that the previous inhabitants of Chavez Ravine could no longer remain on the property therefore they became squatters when they chose not to leave. And since the original thrust of my first post was to show that the tax payers of Los Angeles were better off for the use of Chavez Ravine as a site for Dodger Stadium I don't believe that I have been shown wrong therefore I will not back down from that belief.

[dodger dynamo]

I had thought to add some kind of smart ass remark but realized that that sort of thing is neither polite nor moves a conversation in a positive direction. I don't know the laws concerning eminent domain in New York but hear in California when a piece of land is condemned by eminent domain it's ownership reverts to the government, in the case of Chavez Ravine that would be the City of Los Angeles. I.E. after it's condemnation in 1950 the legal owner was the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is just about like every owner of a piece of property in this country, even you I would assume, in that they don't want anybody but who they say can use the land to use the land. The City had said that the previous inhabitants of Chavez Ravine could no longer remain on the property therefore they became squatters when they chose not to leave. And since the original thrust of my first post was to show that the tax payers of Los Angeles were better off for the use of Chavez Ravine as a site for Dodger Stadium I don't believe that I have been shown wrong therefore I will not back down from that belief. and your mentioning you wanted to make a smart remark is a way of making one with out making one, huh?
For what it implies and you also know what the connotation is
when using the term "squatters" that's so bandied about. It's that these were people who just moved on to the cities land and set up a community. That they were an unwanted, illegal, undesirable, shiftless element that "never" owned anything. People who don't know the story assume that
when they hear the word, you know it.
The language in the papers of the day all but said so. With no real political power they were doomed.
In addition the land was reclaimed for the city under eminent domain which unless I'm mistaken, or La is or was really that crooked "still" requires the "owners" Be paid a fair market value for the land, or property,
as when a high way is going through, ie. the despicable Robert moses and the city who destroyed whole communities with roads and highways, still had to pay a reasonable price to the "people" whose lives and communities they destroyed.
Also in this case the original eminent domain ruling was imposed because "new" housing was supposed to be built
right? ( not a privately owned ball
park). Yea, I know the referendum passed, but that sure wasn't why they were told to go originally. (if so there would have been a whole lot more people still there at the time of the referendum vote)
Then after some of the people were told or forced to go. The city comes back with oh, no!, (that land's gonna be valuable boys)
We can't do that that's a "communist" activity, they label it and the people
in a negative light just so they could get what they wanted, it's just another way to steal. In this case it was a way to steal "legally" as immoral as it may be and move out or get rid of "people" you don't want around. It's legal, in
the eyes of the powers that be, just like moving the dodgers, but it sure ain't right. Battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[VIBaseball]

Folks, the Chavez Ravine stuff is interesting, but drifting off topic. I'd like to stay with the would-be Brooklyn stadium and the idea of how the pendulum can swing back away from "blame it on Bob." Thanks.

[Let's Go Mets!]

I'd like to stay with the would-be Brooklyn stadium

The "would-be" Brooklyn stadium.......................

[aqib]

Folks, the Chavez Ravine stuff is interesting, but drifting off topic. I'd like to stay with the would-be Brooklyn stadium and the idea of how the pendulum can swing back away from "blame it on Bob." Thanks.

Everything I have read about O'Malley's proposal was that the stadium would cost $6 million to build once the land was acquired. I still don't know how he thought that would happen even at 1950s prices. Just look at the costs of Chavez Ravine and Shea both of which were build without roofs.

[Let's Go Mets!]

the would-be Brooklyn stadium

Walter O'Malley's would-be Brooklyn stadium.............

[Let's Go Mets!]

:rainy: Walter obviously doesn't like the rain..........

[Let's Go Mets!]

There is no rain in this part of Brooklyn, and Walter just saved the cost of a dome!

[Let's Go Mets!]

Mr. O'Malley admires his handiwork, and his gratuitous contribution to the loyal people of Brooklyn.......... :applaud: