Press Clippings

October 2, 2004 - Email from Jim Bouton and Chip Elitzer to the Mayor of Pittsfield

Dear Jimmy,

We do not want to stand in the way of Pittsfield's having professional baseball in 2005. We will not string the City along until it's too late to do anything, like our predecessor did last year. Therefore, if we lose the City Council vote on October 12, we will ask Miles Wolff to consider any other Wahconah-based offers that may come his way. But we do want the next week for educating the public so that they can have time to make their opinions known to their elected representatives (including you).

The following is an email exchange that we had with Dan Valenti that you might find instructive. (He has given his permission for us to use it.

Sincerely,
Chip and Jim

Email from talk show host Dan Valenti, Friday afternoon, Oct. 1

JIM & CHIP In terms of pure radio, we delivered a riveting hour of high drama this morning. I say this based on the feedback I've been getting. The prospect of losing baseball (again) when it was s-o-o-o close, especially losing it because of politics, is (and will continue to be) an emotional issue for many people in this town. In terms of what the broadcast accomplished from a practical standpoint, that remains to be seen, but I do know the message got "out there." The ultimate irony here is not that you now have a team and no stadium (though that's a doozy) but that both you and Jimmy want to do business with each other. Who ever heard of a divorce when the couple deep down still loves each other?

The city feels that the best way out of this for everybody is for WPI to accept the "Fleisig option" because it removes the requirement for a $1-million-plus investment. This addresses your concerns about investors being spooked by public bidding because you won't need to raise a million and a half. Under this option, you can get the team, get in the park for 2005 with a minimum investment (75 grand), and you then can "do your thing" (illustrated by with the success of Vintage Baseball), which is to fill the stands, sell tickets, make money, and prove that Pittsfield is a good baseball town. I realize this would mean doing it in a largely unmodified Wahconah Park, but if you have a great first year, wouldn't that generate its own money plus convince other money to come your way? Couldn't you thereby then secure the needed dollars to give the grand old gal the facelift she so deserves? It would certainly buy time, and with added time comes new possibilities.

Why wouldn't the so-called Fleisig Option work for you? In any case, good luck with your meeting on Monday night.

DAN

Email from Jim Bouton and Chip Elitzer to talk show host Dan Valenti, Saturday morning, Oct. 2

Dan, First of all, Jim and I want to thank you for giving us the platform to begin to take our case to the public, and also for your fine column in the Gazette. Once again I am struck by how hard it would be to have a functioning democracy without a free press (and radio).

The "Fleisig Option" is a complete non-starter for several reasons, which I will list in no particular order of importance:

1. The investment required for the "Fleisig Option" isn't just $75,000. To implement our revised $400,000 capital improvements plan, we need every penny of the $1.2 million that we have lined up. $250,000 of that has already been spent, so we're really talking about $950,000 of new investor money. Subtract the $400,000, and you have $550,000, which is barely enough for a downpayment on a team franchise and working capital. So the "Fleisig Option" would save us $325,000 of capital expenditures, allowing us to get by with a total commitment of $875,000 rather than $1.2 million.

2. We can't afford to be spared the extra $325,000 of capital expenditures. It is an integral part of our business plan. It permits us to build the food court with its 24 concession stands, remove the cinder block clubhouse "goiters" that stick into the food court, and double the size of the women's restroom. Without these minimal changes, fans will see the "same old, same old" and we will lose a chance at even breaking even, since we expect to take in more revenue at the concession stands than at the gate. Fleisig himself lost a lot of money at Wahconah Park under the "Fleisig Option." We don't want to repeat that. Sure, we think we can do better than he did, but we have no confidence in succeeding without substantial improvements to the facility itself.

3. We can't operate with the uncertainty of "The Law" constantly being invoked by future politicians and others. As a taste of what we'd have to put up with, we were treated to a display by Tim Craw in the meeting we had with him, the Mayor, and two other union reps on September 21. Tim told us that we'd broken the law by doing all our architectural, engineering and permitting without putting it out to bid in accordance with the public bid laws. In spite of the fact that we have received excellent results from Clark & Green (who are also the architects for the proposed Richard Stanley cinema project on North Street), Jim Scalise at SK Design, and Hill Engineers, we would have to bid it properly and then have the winners (probably the same firms) prepare a highly detailed bid package. Then we would have to advertise the package, and have all the bidders walk through the site and ask questions at the same time. (Tim pointed out that Jim Bouton's recent individual meetings with union contractors to solicit their creative ideas in advance of bidding was also illegal.) Once bids came back, if we needed to make revisions before choosing the contractors, we would have to re-bid it. Once we chose the contractors and began work, we would be subject to substantial "change order" charges, since change orders invariably arise on any job but are particularly prevalent on public jobs given the inflexibility of the process that creates the original specs.

Do you think it's an accident that a lot of public works projects go spectacularly over budget, often by multiples of their original projection? (Think "Big Dig" or -- closer to home -- the school renovation projects.) It is not, usually, because of simple incompetence or corruption. It is a function of the unwieldy nature of the public bid laws, which were designed (in the words of our own A.G.'s opinion) to reduce "opportunities for corruption, favoritism, and political influence in the award and administration of public contracts." Ironically, these laws often cost the taxpayers big-time. But, hey, they don't have any choice but to pay, do they?

Our investors do have a choice. If Wahconah Park, Inc. is to be treated as a public entity for purposes of any construction that we do now or in the future (and we still hope to build out our full original plan if attendance warrants it), then they will withdraw their pledges and I can't blame them. In fact, I would encourage them to do so, because if Jim and I (and to a lesser extent, Eric) hadn't already put our $250,000 into this project, we wouldn't be doing so now.

We were convinced to come back to Pittsfield last January by a generous, open-armed letter signed by the Mayor, the President of the City Council, and the Chairman of the Parks Commission, that said, "We strongly feel that Wahconah Park has not only a proud past as a venue for minor league baseball, but also a very promising future. Based on our understanding of your 2001 proposal, we would like to work with you to build that future." Jim Bouton accepted that invitation a week later, concluding with the words, "My partners and I have always believed that there is no limit to what can be accomplished in Pittsfield when people work together."

We have delivered our end of the deal in spades. We have already invested $250,000 of our own money in the project. We have recreated the Hillies and brought national and international acclaim to Pittsfield. We have enough dollars committed from a public offering to go forward with our business plan. And now we have Miles Wolff telling us that we're his first choice for the "eighth team."

We were promised a clear political path, because we made clear to the Mayor back in January that we had no intention of coming back just to fight more political battles. We would come back only if all of our energies could be focused on executing our business plan. The Mayor promised us his unqualified support.

Therefore, it is profoundly disheartening to read in the Berkshire Eagle today his statement that, "My first approach will be to support their efforts and help them find creative solutions. But if they cannot bring themselves to accept the requirements of public bidding, I will be open to others who can make it work."

We have one last chance (albeit a slim one because of the Mayor's stated opposition in an attempt to curry union favor in advance of municipal contract negotiations). We have asked that the revised agreement (which was drafted jointly by the City Solicitor and myself but which is now disavowed by City Hall) be endorsed by the Parks Commission and the City Council and recommended to the Mayor for his signature with overwhelming public support. If the Mayor signs it, we can go forward. If he does not, we cannot, because we agree with him and the A.G. that the unmodified agreement (and for that matter, the Fleisig agreement) would be subject to the public bid laws. For anyone who has taken the trouble to read the A.G.'s opinion, it should be clear that the A.G. is inviting the City to change the agreement so that it will clearly fall outside of the scope and purpose of the public bid laws.

Thank you for your help if getting out the message, Dan. If we must leave, we want the public to understand why, not to be mystified once again by how the wishes of the many can be dashed by the few.

Best regards,
Chip