After dropping three straight in their home field? I know that's not the "go" you had in mind...

KC, by the way, is the latest MLB city to get the downtown ballpark bug up. OTOH, Royals' ownership wants to stay where they are. I remember how impressed I was with Kauffman Stadium during the 1980 W.S. (against the Phillies, who were "my" team at the time), but that was 25 years ago, and the place reportedly needs renovation, as does the bowl the Chiefs play in, next door. Either way, the public will end up paying for it, whether or not they give a rat's patoot about either pro team.

It's a politically complicated situation, of course. The stadium complex is not inside the city limits of KC proper, but in Jackson Co. (Jackson Co. residents get to purchase season tickets a day in advance of everyone else.) The fan base -- in fact, the economic base for every public activity in this metro area -- straddles the MO/KS state line, which is about 10 miles from where I sit. Public funding proposals for venues often become "bi-state taxes", as they're called around here (if it passes in one state but not the other, bye-bye project). One such, passed last November, is funding a new downtown indoor arena without a team to call it home and draw crowds. (There've been rumors of an NHL franchise, but none has materialized.)

The reason I bring this up: Yesterday's Star Sports section had an article using Houston as its example of how a downtown ballpark affects the city. I'm curious about a Houstonian's take on it.