West Palm votes to pursue alternate plan for Astros, Nats spring site, and what’s up with that graphic?

The West Palm Beach city commission voted Tuesday to pursue the other offer for land that the Houston Astros and Washington Nationals want for a spring training site, since that proposal wouldn’t require piles of public subsidies, and … you know what, while this is all very interesting, I’m more concerned with what’s going on with the image illustrating the South Florida Sun-Sentinel article on this:

Seriously, what exactly happened here? Did graphics staffer Cindy Jones-Hulfachor supply two alternate images, one with a bluish stadium site and the other in straight greyscale, and then the web production staff mistakenly used both? If so, why are both images cut off at the outside edges? It’s been a day and a half since this went up — isn’t anyone paying attention at the Sun-Sentinel to what’s actually on their site?

Anyway, Nats and Astros still want stadium subsidies, West Palm Beach is still saying no, blah blah blah. That graphic sure is strange, though.


One comment on “West Palm votes to pursue alternate plan for Astros, Nats spring site, and what’s up with that graphic?

  1. I understand the graphic now – it’s how the ballpark will look for the Nats (on the left) and how the ballpark will look for the Astros (on the right).

    Anyway, the Nats / Astros lowered their projected spring training complex costs to $135 million. This is down from $140 milllion or $145 million or $144 million depending upon which story you read.

    The county however saw that the ballpark will cost less and *increased* the amount of money they are providing to the teams through the hotel tax. So, the teams will actually spend less in response to the country demanding that the teams kick in more, if I’m following this correctly.

    Only problem with the plan is that the Nationals and Astros have no place to build their spring training complex since the City of West Palm Beach took the land and entered into an exclusive contract with a developer who will build something that actually pays tax revenue.

    Interestingly, the county has proposed 7 locations (5 according the Astros lawyer) but the teams haven’t settled on any of them yet. From reading two articles on the meeting, it appears the county may not own all or some of the land at each location. So, the possibility that the costs could go up due to land costs is certainly there.

    http://m.astros.mlb.com/news/article/99156720/astros-one-step-closer-to-moving-spring-facility-south

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted.

HTML tags are not allowed.

758,039 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments