More section 101 coverage
In the Seattle Times/PI Sunday edition sports section, there are two letters on Section 101:
John Ringler (Henderson Nevada!) blisters the Mariners up and down over it: “Someone in your organization has made the decision to destroy the center-field landing, a unique feature of Safeco Field, to insert about 240 more seats.” He talks about the current owners in contrast to the past ones, and even suggests that if the Mariners are going to sell everything in the stadium, we might as well charge them a license to use “Seattle” in their name… man, it’s a nice little piece of work.
Janine Grantski laments the loss of Mike Cameron and the center-field landing, and wonders “just how temporary these bleachers are going to be”. Janine: check out our seating audit for more on how often it’s there (most of the time and every game after the All-Star break).
The question about the bricks has been raised repeatedly, most pointedly by PI columnist John Levesque as a metaphor for the arrogance and greedy nature of local ownership. But as important as that is, and as clear-cut a wrong as it is, it’s only one part of this. If the Mariners move the bricks, for instance, and still have the stands in the center-field landing, they’ll still have taken one of the few unique, cool features of the ballpark we paid for and turned it into some crappy seats. That’s still wrong even if they’re not built on top of people’s bricks, breaking their deal with the most enthusiastic of their supporters.
If you haven’t already, join the dogpile on the Mariners. Express your discontent, and you may particularly want to point out that the Seattle Times has yet to print a word on this that isn’t a reader mail in the combined Times/PI Sunday edition. Though I understand the issue might get a sentence or two soon… but we’ll see.