Time for a guilt trip

I manage to somehow forget about this every year, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute reminded me once again that tomorrow is “World Car-Free Day.” (I should remember because I usually get a card or two, have some cake and/or go out to dinner on the same day WCFD is “celebrated.” Yep, 29 again.)

So how did the day which they share with me get selected? Well, like most liberal ideas it comes from Europe, where the date falls within its “European Mobility Week.” Their idea is for “encouraging European cities to promote (public transport, cycling, and walking) and to invest in the new necessary infrastructures.” CEI’s point is that the automobile is among the most liberating inventions ever created, allowing personal transport and freedom of mobility. Try taking a bus to the mall, grocery store, or your place of work on their schedule.

Surprisingly, the state of Maryland (which is led by a notoriously anti-growth, anti-freedom governor in Martin O’Malley) isn’t doing anything special for WCFD, but Montgomery County and the University of Maryland are. Washington, D.C. is also participating, with a mixture of private- and public-sector sponsors. (I’m definitely disappointed in the Washington Nationals’ participation, which makes little sense because they’re playing this week at Philadelphia. Did the players use public transit to get there?)

Certainly if someone wants to participate, well, more power to them. Walking or riding a bicycle presents health benefits, although those can be negated if you don’t follow basic traffic rules (walk outside travel lanes and against traffic but ride a bicycle with traffic. If there’s no dedicated bike lane, bicycles are entitled to the 3 feet of pavement closest to the extreme right-hand shoulder as I recall.) But the idea expressed in the Mobility Week credo is more the true aim of organizers – just read “invest in” as “subsidize” things like bike paths few use or mass transit that not many people ride because it’s not possible to take everyone from their thousands of different origins to thousands of different destinations. Even something which has point A to point B ridership, like Washington’s Metro system, still needs a heavy subsidy to survive.

Again, it all comes down to freedom. Having access to my car makes it possible for me to do my job because I cover a large geographic territory. But it also allows me to drive to a so-called “Smart Growthmeeting where I can say my piece and then come right home to write about it, without having to wait for a bus or traverse dark streets at night for an hour.

We already have restrictions on how fast we can travel and what we do within the car, but we still have that opportunity to get up and go where we need to when we want to. Others can be car-free for a day, a week, or even a lifetime, but don’t force me to do the same.

Dossier: Mitt Romney

Political resume: While his father George was a political figure in his own right, making a 1968 Presidential bid as governor of Michigan, Mitt didn’t try for office until 1994 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. After losing that race, Mitt stayed on the political sidelines until 2002 when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, winning with 50 percent of the vote. He opted not to run for re-election, however, in order to run for president in 2008. This is Romney’s second try for the Oval Office; he formally announced on June 2nd after beginning his exploratory committee in April. RealClearPolitics.com has him second overall in polling; he has regularly drawn around 15 to 20 percent of the vote and was the frontrunner before Rick Perry entered the race.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Apparently Mitt has had a change of heart on the campaign finance issue. While he’s come around to the right side, I don’t know how sincere he is on the subject so I’ll not give him any points.

On private property rights (five points): While Mitt “believes the Kelo property rights case was wrongly decided,” Massachusetts still ranks among the worst states for eminent domain abuse. So I’ll only give him three points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): A National Review piece which was critical of Newt Gingrich also questioned Romney‘s gun record. Because it’s somewhat mixed I can only give him four points.

On education (eight points): While Romney supports school choice and home schooling, he’s backed away from supporting the demise of the Department of Education after once supporting its elimination. Supposedly it dampens the influence of the teachers’ unions, but I find that laughable. I can only give Mitt two points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Mitt seems to tie this issue together as a general foreign policy platform. But he’s certainly wavering on Afghanistan, and that worries me. I think he only deserves three points.

On immigration (eleven points): While Romney doesn’t address the issue directly on his website, this “unofficial” website makes him look downright hawkish. It’s mainly based on his 2008 statements, but I don’t think he’s flipped much on this. It’s his strongest area so far, and he’ll get nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): Mitt shrewdly addresses energy independence in his “job creation” category. But terms like “government must be a partner,” “facilitate,” and “address market failures” don’t convince he wants a conservative, small-government solution. We see what kind of “partner” government has become, and it’s not government’s job to interfere with the market. And believing climate change is caused by mankind is a nonstarter. I’m deducting three points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): The problem with Mitt is that this sounds reasonably good but it belies his record as governor of Massachusetts. And I don’t want to reform entitlements, but set our nation on the path to eliminate them entirely. Since Romneycare was his idea, I’m tempted to dock him again; instead I’ll give him three points for saying nice things.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Well, I wanted details and I got them, 87 pages worth. And while I think Mitt needs to lower the corporate tax rate below 25 percent, the economic policy he lays out is worthy of exploration, particular the concepts of “Reagan Economic Zones” and cutting unions off at the knees by not allowing dues deducted from paychecks to be used for political purposes. Overall, I’d give him 12 points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): While Mitt is to commended for his ideas for job creation, he fails to address the individual tax burden in his jobs plan aside from a few paragraphs. Certainly the call for lower rates is fine, but that’s not the sort of reform he promises elsewhere. I can be better convinced he’ll restore government to its rightful place if he gets more bold on individual tax policy, as it stands I can only give him seven points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Romney claims to be pro-life and supports marriage between a man and woman. Unfortunately, he goes too far with the latter and wants a Constitutional amendment. My other intangible on Romney is that he has flip-flopped on positions far too often, generally for political expediency. Can he be trusted to do what he says? As such, I give him no points in this category.

Continue reading “Dossier: Mitt Romney”

New advertiser

If you’ll notice in the right-hand sidebar, there’s a new advertiser here at monoblogue.

But it’s much more than an ad. I was asked by the publisher of Salisbury4Rent to contribute content, and the first issue is my print magazine debut. Each quarter you’ll be able to read an editorial piece I’ll write on “anything from politics to sports to music to whatever else strikes me as the publishing deadline approaches.” I share billing in this issue with Salisbury City Council member Laura Mitchell (the subject of the magazine’s first interview) and national political observer Lew Rockwell.

While the magazine is advertiser-supported (thus, free for the taking at a number of local distribution points) its success depends on patronizing these advertisers and spreading the word. It’s not a coffee-table glossy full of fluff pieces about the advertisers like Metropolitan, but reading one can sink their teeth into. Once you get your hands on the issue, you’ll wish it came out more than once a quarter.

Running a magazine is a tough business, but Salisbury4Rent has some solid backers and well-written commentary. I encourage you to give it a try. As a special treat for those outside Salisbury, I’ll link to my article once the content portion of the magazine goes online in the next few days.

‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences

Really – how dumb does President Obama think we are? He’s playing that old tired class envy card again.

His latest scheme goes like this:

Middle-class families shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.

So President Obama has proposed the “Buffett Rule,” which would require the wealthiest Americans to pay a tax rate at least as high as the middle class. Republicans are already calling this “class warfare,” and they will fight this plan with everything they have.

Yeah, that will do wonders for investment and job creation. So I don’t call it ‘class warfare’, I call it ‘sheer stupidity.’

Continue reading “‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences”

Dossier: Ron Paul

Political resume: Ron Paul has a long history of seeking elective office. In 1974, Ron lost his first Congressional bid but won an April, 1976 special election in the same district. He only served a few months before losing the general election later that year. Undaunted, Ron ran again and won in 1978 and served in Congress through the 1984 election when he chose to run for the U.S. Senate, losing in the primary.

Four years later, in 1988, Ron ran for President for the first time on the Libertarian Party ticket and received 1/2 of 1% of the vote, which translated to over 400,000 votes nationally.

In 1996, Paul opted to run again for a Congressional seat, returning to the Republican fold. He won that year and has served there since, although he will abandon the seat for 2012. Finally, Paul made his second presidential bid in 2008, raising millions of dollars but getting only a small percentage of the overall vote. This time around RealClearPolitics.com has consistently shown him polling just under 10% of the vote, placing him a respectable fourth overall and third among announced candidates.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Ron has made all the right votes on campaign finance and has maintained his position throughout. Since he’s currently serving in Congress, I’m giving him three points.

On private property rights (five points): Ron is an odd case. His voting record would suggest he supports private property rights, but in looking up Gary Johnson I saw that Paul supported the Kelo decision. I can only give him two points based on voting record.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): I would have expected this from Paul – he votes the right way and gets high GOA marks (an A+) so he’ll get seven points.

On education (eight points): By and large Ron has a view that wishes the federal government out of the educational realm. But he supports tax credits for Christian schooling, and that’s choosing a winner so he gets only six points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): This area killed Ron’s chances with me in 2008, so let me say straight out that I don’t agree with Paul’s isolationism. Maybe that stance isn’t so bad, but his defense of Iran getting nukes is just batshit crazy. Yet Ron does have some redeeming qualities that fall under the category of veterans’ affairs, so I’ll be kind to him and dock him six points instead of all nine.

On immigration (eleven points): Paul’s stance on immigration is odd because Numbers USA gives him poor marks yet what he says on his page makes some sense, and it’s borne out by his voting record. So I’ll give him six points.

On energy independence (twelve points): Ron has an energy policy I can agree with aside from one glaring exception. In Paul’s case, it’s those tax credits for purchase and production of alternative energy technologies, which belie the case he states that, “(t)he free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.” And his voting record is spotty because Ron skipped a lot of key votes. But since the rest of the ideas are sound and he didn’t make a commercial with San Fran Nan like Newt Gingrich did, I’ll give him nine points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): You know, I thought Ron would go farther in health care, But abolishing Social Security – that’s a winner in my book. Let’s hope he hasn’t changed his mind – he gets 12 points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Ron is a free trader, almost to a fault. But in terms of job creation, Ron has the reputation of being anti-regulation, which is a plus. Also, Ron is the lone candidate who takes on the unions and advocates a national right-to-work law. Now that would create jobs in some benighted areas, although it would perhaps erode Tenth Amendment rights. On the whole, despite the fact he doesn’t really have a specific plan, I trust him on this issue and think he deserves thirteen points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): There is one sentence on Paul’s site which says it all: “Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.” Paul is also correct in advocating for a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment prior to adopting a flat or FairTax. The only quibble I have is that Ron advocates for certain writeoffs and deductions, which make a flat tax more difficult to achieve. He gets 14 of 15 points in this category.

Intangibles (up to three points): It appears to me that Paul is pro-life, which is a plus, and he has it just right on marriage. I also believe he would appoint proper judicially restrained judges moreso than most others. Aside from being naive about Islamofascism, I like Ron’s stance on foreign policy in general, including Israel. But I have to deduct a point based on his age – at 76, I have to believe his health may be a factor. He will net two points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Ron Paul”

Let the gerrymander begin

Why am I not surprised that the three members of the state’s redistricting panel who could be bothered to show up for a meeting on the lower Eastern Shore looked so disinterested? Maybe it’s because they knew there was already something in the can?

According to Len Lazarick and the Maryland Reporter, the Congressional map could look like that described in this article today. Certainly the Democrats who managed to pack GOP voters into two Congressional districts last time around have outdone themselves this time by making the First Congressional District roughly an R+20 district, give or take. That’s great news for Andy Harris, whose district actually remains relatively similar except for losing the small portion of Anne Arundel County he represents but gaining the northern parts of Baltimore and Harford counties now in the Sixth Congressional District. Maybe the Democrats figure that, by running Frank Kratovil again and lying some more about Andy’s record, they can still pull the upset like they did in 2008 in an R+15 district.

On the other hand, Roscoe Bartlett’s Sixth District would be nearly sliced off at the western line of Frederick County, instead taking the predicted southern turn through extreme southern Frederick County to encompass a large portion of what is now the Eighth Congressional District in Montgomery County. Other current Sixth District voters in Frederick County would flip over to the Eighth District; meanwhile, much of Carroll County would be added to an L-shaped Seventh Congressional District which ends up in the heart of Baltimore City. Yep, those voters have SO much in common. The eastern edge of the Sixth District switches over to the First.

And poor Anne Arundel County would again be divided between four Congressional Districts: the Second Congressional District which hopscotches around the Baltimore suburbs, the Third Congressional District which veers around in a convoluted sort of “Z” shape around much of the rest of Baltimore, the Fourth Congressional District shared with Prince George’s County, and the Fifth Congressional District which stretches southward to the Potomac River. Nope, no effort to gain political advantage and protect incumbents there.

Once again, should this map or something similar be adopted, Maryland will be the laughingstock of good government advocates and further enshrine themselves into a Gerrymandering Hall of Shame. Simply put, the three districts which involve Baltimore City are a complete joke when it seems to me their interests would be better served by having one Congressman to call their own rather than sharing with the rural expanses of Carroll County or various points in the suburbs.

And the sad thing is that this committee obviously didn’t listen to legitimate concerns expressed by members of both parties who said they should better respect geographic lines. Local Democrats will obviously be crushed to see their wishes of a “balanced” First District tossed out the window – of course they’d get over it if the changes meant the Democrats had a 7-1 Congressional edge in a state they should rightfully (by voter registration numbers) enjoy only a 5-3 margin.

Nope, it’s all about power, particularly in the jigsaw puzzle they create in the middle of the state. So how do we get standing in court to fight this?

Dossier: Michele Bachmann

Political resume: Michele was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000, serving three two-year terms before seeking and winning the Minnesota 6th District U.S. House seat she currently holds in 2006. She announced her Presidential bid during a candidates debate on June 13. RealClearPolitics.com has her pegged as fifth among nine Republican Presidential candidates; however, she has lost significant ground since the entry of Rick Perry into the race and polls about 7 percent.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Michele has a limited voting record and comments on the issue, but her positions are fine so I’ll kick her off with one point of three.

On property rights (five points): Bachmann cited Fifth Amendment rights in castigating the BP settlement. I think she knows government’s place in this regard, so I’m giving her four of five points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): On Second Amendment issues, Michele gets high marks from both of the two main gun lobbying groups (Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association) and applauded recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment. She gets the seven points.

On education (eight points): Michele’s  voting record on the issue is spotty, so while she wants to abolish the Department of Education, I found a little bit of fault with some of her votes. I’m giving her six of eight points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): I like what Michele has to say about national security. And while veterans groups gripe about this proposal, it makes sense to avoid double-dipping, at least for the time being. I’m giving eight of nine points.

On immigration (eleven points): She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Bachmann goes no further as to how. Enforcement of existing law would be a good start, though. The anti-immigration group Numbers USA ranks her highest among GOP candidates, and while I don’t completely agree with their overall stance on the issue it’s a good indicator she’ll do what’s right for Americans. I’ll give her nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): She does a nice job of stating the problem, but Bachmann would do well toexpand her palette of solutions. Indeed, government needs to get out of the way but maybe I’d like a little more. Her voting record is solid, though, so I’ll give her ten points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): Michele has as her “number one priority” to repeal Obamacare, and decries the “entitlement mentality” many Americans have. She advocated “reform” before she got into the Presidential race, and what she said is a pretty good start. Yet when Rick Perry called Social Security a ‘Ponzi scheme’ she was quick to call him out on it, so I don’t know if her heart would be into reforming that dying program. Six points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Like many of her counterparts, Michele is a free trader. But she differs in that she doesn’t have a specific pro-growth plan yet, aside from the boilerplate reduction of regulations and government. This hurts her because she’s already got a reputation as more of a generalist than a policy wonk. I can only give her seven points in this vital category.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): It’s ironic that Michele once worked for the IRS but has called for a fairer, simpler, and flatter tax system where everyone pays a little bit. To me, that actually makes sense – isn’t the idea to have everyone with a little “skin in the game”? And Michele is on target with the general critique of “crony capitalism,” I just wish she’d point out more examples of Obama doing this than Rick Perry. She has also expressed support for the FairTax but hasn’t taken the steps to back it. While she’s a TEA Party darling, I’m not sure she’s shown the bold leadership we need so I’ll give her only 12 of 15 points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Michele signed the Family Leader Pledge, which is a mixed bag: it shows she’s pro-life and for marriage between one man and one woman, but calls for its enshrinement in the Constitution, which I don’t agree with. However, she’s also a reliable supporter of Israel so I can give her a point for that. But the verbal gaffes! They are a problem, and it makes me wonder if she always thinks before she speaks. Yes, I know many candidates make them but she seems to be more susceptible and the press is quick to call her out on them. As such, she’ll net one point here.

Continue reading “Dossier: Michele Bachmann”

A call to restore the oath

Every day more and more Americans are convinced the government doesn’t have the nation’s best interests at heart. Despite the chance to elect new leaders every other year, it seems to us that nothing really ever changes and the nation sinks deeper and deeper into the morass created when the rule of man supersedes the rule of law.

But all is not lost. My friends at the Patriot Post are trying a new tactic to reverse the decline, and it’s called the Breach of Oath Project. As they state:

To enforce our Constitution’s limits on the central government, we believe a formal legal action is necessary. This action, if successful, would require that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, first and foremost, abide by their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution, under penalty of law, and thus, comport with its enumerated “few and defined powers” (Madison) of the federal government. The current scope of federal activities provides abundant evidence that many members of those three co-equal branches have long since abandoned their oaths, and, at present, there is no recourse for prosecution to enforce compliance.

So far, over 68,000 citizens (who may or may not run afoul of the Attackwatch.com website) have signed on in an effort to establish legal standing – failing that, the Breach of Oath goal is 500,000 signatures in order to codify this into law.

Continue reading “A call to restore the oath”

Another goal to attain

Why, if it isn’t an invitation to narc on your neighbor. That pretty much sums up the content of Attackwatch.com, the latest Barack Obama attack website on GOP candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry along with commentator Glenn Beck.

The site’s stated purpose is to “Get the facts. Fight the smears.” So I thought to myself, well, gee, that “fight the smears” line sure sounds familiar. Indeed it was. I talked about this same thing back in 2008, when I saw “smear” as the new buzzword. I guess Barack thinks we have short memories.

Back then, some of the topics of conversation were his birth certificate (of course), campaign finance, Bill Ayers, his religious faith, and ACORN. But this time he’s attacking others by name.

Yet I notice there’s one topic of conversation he can’t avoid discussion on: our dreadful economic circumstances. Can he say unemployment is lower now than when he took office? No. Can he say fewer people are on food stamps now than when he took office? No. How about gasoline prices – are they lower now? Nope. Three key indicators of economic health, three bad results, three facts. Try and smear me on those, Mr. President.

But I’m cheered to report the page has already sprung some great parodies. So there is hope for us, at least until Obama takes over the internet. Or is that just another smear?

And now for something competely different (sort of): Today I got another fun e-mail from Obama campaign asking me to donate $10 and get a car magnet. As Deputy Campaign Manager Julianna Smoot says:

When people see us out in the neighborhood showing support with our clothing, our dog leashes, our cars, or our water bottles, it starts conversations. You might get a chance to tell someone why you’re supporting the President, and maybe even convince someone to sign up to volunteer.

Now, honestly, an Obama dog leash? Wouldn’t that be considered animal cruelty?

As for a car magnet, why would I want to kill my car’s resale value like that?

Then again, I suppose one could see this as an intelligence test of sorts – if they have something with Obama 2012 on it, well…let’s hope they’re not reproducing, right? Go to an unemployment line with items like that and the only conversation that may start is derisive laughter. They may run off to volunteer – for Rick Perry.

I guess that’s the way things are these days in Obama’s America. Maybe this article can make the AttackWatch website; that would be a badge of achievement for me.

Harris sets me to thinking

They’re a little longer than a radio commercial, yet not long enough to allow attention to wander.

The latest “update” from Andy Harris concerns President Obama’s Stimulus II. Clocking in at 1:38, it essentially goes over once again many of the points I’ve previously discussed, but in an audio format. So I don’t need to beat a dead horse on the specifics.

I would like to take a few moments and talk about the comparison Andy makes to Reagan-era policies, though.

Indeed, most of the country was awash in prosperity once the Reagan economic formula kicked in. It was a little slower to come to my native area because at the time the auto industry was trying to deal with the influx of Japanese imports; cars which were better designed with higher quality than the rustbuckets Detroit was putting out at that time.  So our auto-industry dependent city was not the economic dynamo other portions of the country were.

Continue reading “Harris sets me to thinking”

A softened blow, but it will still hurt

Eastern Shore drivers will get a one-month reprieve from Bay Bridge toll hikes – but it’s still likely the prices will rise steeply.

As originally envisioned, Bay Bridge tolls would jump to $5 come October and skyrocket to $8 in 2013. Instead, the MTA is expected to vote next Thursday on a proposal to increase Bay Bridge tolls to $4 on November 1 and $6 in July 2013. So we’ll “only” have a 240% increase instead of a 320% increase.

Still, this will take a larger bite out of our pockets and as a percentage (with some exceptions for Baltimore-area commuters, who now pay less than $1 to cross at various Baltimore-area points) those using the Bay Bridge will see the largest increase in tolls across the system.

While we all figured a toll increase was a fait accompli, I think the grudging preference among those who testified at our hearing (aside from Norm “Five Dollar” Conway) was that increases be phased in slowly and not with such a steep incline as to increase over threefold in the span of two years. We got a little bit of modification, but it’s clear the MTA is going to rely on Eastern Shore drivers to be the cash cow for years to come – although Baltimore-area commuters have a point in saying they’ll be unfairly targeted too.

On the other hand, the newest toll highway in the MTA portfolio will still be exempt from increases as the Intercounty Connector doesn’t see a hike. That highway is a little bit different in that there is no cash toll and drivers are charged on a sliding scale of anywhere between 15 cents and $3.94 per mile depending on time of day and number of axles. Yet they won’t have to bear any additional burden, at least for the time being.

So while we can thank the MTA for apparently listening to our concerns, it’s interesting to note that a comment in response to the story by David Hill in yesterday’s Washington Times on the toll hike concluded the increase to $6 was the plan all along and the $8 figure was just in place to make us feel like we won something at the end. And it is indeed tempting to think that the O’Malley administration would have been thrilled if no one showed up to complain about $8 at the Bay Bridge – remember, the Eastern Shore hearing wasn’t originally planned but added due to popular demand.

Yet they will still get additional millions out of the deal – maybe not the $77 million projected annually by the original proposal, but perhaps a number in the range of $50-60 million on top of what they already make. They won’t be hurting for money, but Eastern Shore drivers might be.

Picks and pans from a Shorebird fan – 2011 edition

You know, it’s funny. Due to a number of factors, I didn’t get to nearly the number of Shorebirds games I had the previous few seasons but I think I have a better understanding of how things are because, one, I could step back a bit and see things from without, and, two, I had some long and interesting talks with Shorebirds management regarding suggestions I’d made in previous years.

And in all honesty, the problem may run deeper than a few cosmetic changes. Let’s look at some numbers for comparison’s sake – I actually found numbers for the entire 16-year history of the club but for simplicity I’ll just put up years 1, 6, 11, and 16.

  • Year 1 (1996): 315,011 – 4,846 per game
  • Year 6 (2001): 268,143 – 3,886 per game
  • Year 11 (2006): 217,980 – 3,406 per game
  • Year 16 (2011): 211,993 – 3,072 per game

In both actual attendance and average (not to mention on-field performance) this year was the worst in Shorebirds history. Having said that, though, the Shorebirds still ranked sixth in the league in average attendance and once again was tops among the three 7th Inning Stretch (the LLC which owns the Shorebirds and two other minor league clubs) teams in both average and actual attendance. This is the fifth season the Shorebirds have been owned by the group but the eighth straight year attendance has settled into a narrow range between this year’s low and the 2008 peak of 226,754. That edition happens to be the last team which was good on the field, as they compiled a 78-61 record that summer.

With that in mind, I think I can make an assumption that having a good team would improve attendance perhaps 10 percent. It’s probably not in the cards that we’ll see another attendance record like 1997’s 324,412 (the all-time record here) unless the overall economy improves and the area begins to grow again. True, we won the SAL title in 1997 but we did so again three seasons later and attendance wasn’t markedly better than the previous two campaigns.

Continue reading “Picks and pans from a Shorebird fan – 2011 edition”