NFL: L.A.’s the Place, Now

Though not as rare as a sighting of Halley’s comet, it’s unusual in Los Angeles for a big idea to coalesce quickly with the means to get it done. The National Football League owners should bear that in mind in awarding the league’s 32nd team franchise. They need to understand that in a sprawling region with dozens of constituencies it’s not every day that you can summon a broad-based group, the political will and the financial wherewithal to unite behind a single project. That’s what Los Angeles has, and what the NFL ought to have, in the New Coliseum Partners’ bid to bring professional football back to the L.A. area.

Why does Los Angeles need professional football, and will it cost the taxpayers? The last question is easiest to answer: Taxpayers have already paid for the 75-year-old Coliseum, and about $100 million was spent, mostly by the federal government, to make it safe again after the 1994 earthquake. The Coliseum and new nearby freeway additions are, in effect, huge taxpayer investments not being fully capitalized upon. And why does Los Angeles need professional football? On this Super Bowl Sunday it’s easy to see what this mega-event can do for a regional economy. While professional football must compete with many other attractions in Southern California, there are plenty of people here who miss pro football (although they certainly don’t miss former L.A. team owners Georgia Frontiere of the Rams and Al Davis of the Raiders).

The NFL is expected to decide within a month or so whether the new franchise will be awarded to Houston or Los Angeles. The competing bid in the Los Angeles area is from Carson, where entertainment mogul Michael Ovitz and other prominent business, sports and show business figures want to build a stadium. With Houston furiously lobbying for the franchise and competition in Los Angeles heating up, some suggest that the NFL might bide its time, eventually choose Los Angeles as a venue and then delay making a stadium site selection. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said Friday that the league is considering funding a new football stadium in Los Angeles and then auctioning the stadium and the franchise to the highest bidder. That would be a mistake.

Here the old rule of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush applies. There are already plenty of uncertainties, including the fact that Raider owner Davis still has a lawsuit claiming he paid for and owns the L.A. market and wants to return. If the NFL thinks it can bypass a sure deal of about $750 million and then can rake in more, say $1 billion, through an auction, it had better think again. The NFL might not be fully aware of the political obstacles here to a project of this magnitude. Moreover, while we understand the owners’ desire for the biggest gain possible, we also understand that the bigger sum would ultimately come at the expense of Southern California ticket holders and sponsors. We would hope that the importance of this market would cause the league to look for long-term, not short-term, gain. The timing is right now, and the New Coliseum Partners are ready.

* A huge market: Lavish television contracts have left the NFL in an enviable financial condition, but its overall viewership is on the decline. Moreover, the NFL’s most recent team moves have resulted in lucrative stadium deals, but they have gone to second-, third- and even fifth-tier TV markets. The Los Angeles market is just what the league needs, and recent statements from the NFL appear to recognize that. To put it in proper perspective, there are 1 million more television viewers here than in the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio markets combined.

And let’s put to rest the notion that at best there is only lukewarm interest here in professional football. As many as 513,510 fans this season watched a single NFL game on the Fox television station in Los Angeles. More perspective: Those half-million-plus people in the L.A. market who watched a game on Fox surpass the populations of 28 of the nation’s 50 largest cities. And that figure for NFL viewers is even more impressive when you consider there has been a decline of more than 30% in NFL television viewership here since 1994, the last L.A. season for the Rams and the Raiders. Interest in the NFL remains strong here in spite of the deep disillusionment among fans generated by the way Frontiere and Davis packed it up.

* Public/private investment in a key developing area: There is no doubt that Michael Ovitz’s stellar salesmanship for a team and stadium in Carson boosted the region’s viability as a serious contender for a pro football franchise. It’s also clear that the Ovitz bid forced the principal players in the New Coliseum Partners to strengthen and refine their plans. For playing this catalytic role, Ovitz deserves full credit. But we have worries about building a massive stadium over a landfill and the complications and delays that could bring.

We can’t imagine a better fit than the Coliseum, particularly when you consider it as one of the anchors of the Figueroa Street corridor. That corridor, extending from the Civic Center to Exposition Park, can count the following on its “done� or “in progress� list: the under-construction Staples Center sports arena (future home of the Laker and Clipper basketball teams and the King hockey franchise) and its related entertainment complex; the Disney Concert Hall; the Roman Catholic cathedral, now being built; the Museum of Contemporary Art; the Convention Center; a long-awaited Exposition Park revival; the California Science Center; USC building expansion; the Afro-American Museum, and more.

* The bum rap on Coliseum-area crime: Don’t forget that the less civilized among Raider fans were responsible for a lot of the local mayhem. The decline in crime in the Coliseum area mirrors that of Los Angeles in general; there was only a handful of police calls, mostly minor, during the last USC football season.

* An appealing stadium proposal: The so-called New Coliseum project is not an overbilled renovation. Only the existing peristyle, outside walls and perhaps the stadium tunnels would remain, preserving a strong visual link to the Coliseum’s storied past.

The new and expandable 66,000-seat stadium would offer fans a much better view of the action, without the Coliseum’s former emphasis on end zone seats. The new elements would include two decks, canopies, 156 suites and 15,000 so-called premier seats.

There would be significant financial, tax-revenue and employment benefits from such a stadium, particularly since Los Angeles would figure to host many Super Bowls there over the years. Total economic benefits would top $1 billion, according to a study by the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA.

* Strong backing/stronger local ownership: The array of public officials now lined up behind the New Coliseum project, from City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas to Mayor Richard Riordan and state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, is strong.

The New Coliseum’s ownership team has gained the heft and strong local commitment it needed with the recent addition of billionaire Eli Broad, co-founder of the Kaufman and Broad home-building company and probably L.A.’s No. 1 civic/business mover. Broad’s track record is impressive. He was central to making Disney Hall happen and was a key figure in opening the Museum of Contemporary Art. He’s also a force in the bid to bring the Democratic National Convention to Los Angeles.

Broad’s a good match with Ed Roski Jr., a New Coliseum partner and co-owner of the Kings, who was key in making the Staples Center sports arena project a reality and has labored more than a year to do the same for the New Coliseum.

* The Deal: There is more to be learned about the financing plan for the New Coliseum project. As to be expected in a deal of this size, some details are yet to be finalized. The cost for the stadium and the franchise is put at $750 million.

Of particular interest to taxpayers is the fact that the public investment has essentially already been made in the Coliseum and the nearby freeway offramps. About $20 million for the project would still have to come from redevelopment funds. Those are monies derived from something called tax increment funds, which, under state law, can be used only for redevelopment projects in established economically depressed areas. Such redevelopment is funded by a portion of local property tax revenues. Given the public’s appropriate skepticism regarding the use of public funds, the New Coliseum Partners may have to be flexible here.

On the all-important issue of parking, 10,000 parking spaces on the USC campus (which Raider fans were not allowed to use) would be available. A total of 15,000 more would be available at surrounding lots. This sounds adequate.

It’s all of these factors, combined, that make Los Angeles the obvious choice for the league’s last new team in the foreseeable future and the New Coliseum the best possible host. It’s a rare civic moment and it ought to be seized.