el diablo sends article from Yahoo! about the Kansas City stadium kerfuffle. It seems intrepid Kansas Cityopolitans wanted a new stadium in downtown KC, but ownership said no even though the people of KC were more than happy to pay for the darned thing. Or as the article says:

Now, we take a look at Kansas City's attempt for a downtown stadium.

1. Sports owner says he's perfectly content in his current stadium.

2. Citizens scream and kick and shout, "You will have a stadium downtown, like it or not," and "You will take this money when we raise it, buster."

3. Owner plainly says he's satisfied where he is and he absolutely will not move team.

4. City angrily gives in and does not build new stadium.

What can you say? I cannot think of a single situation where a city wanted to build a new stadium and the sports owner did not. Not one.

But hey, you have to admire Kansas City for originality.

Batgirl would like to hear from some of her readers Down Under (down under Iowa that is...) on this issue. The author's thesis is that Kauffman Stadium is simply too nice; that if they wanted a new ballpark, the good people of KC should have built a real shithole, like the Dome.

Batgirl has a solution though: why don't they raise the money and build us a new park? That way, everyone wins.