Paranoia runs deep in Arlington.

The Texas Rangers have a fine ballpark, the best record in the American League and great fan support. They also have a lease at Globe Life Park for eight more years.

Yet Arlington leaders are asking voters to commit $500 million in taxpayer money for a new stadium with a retractable roof. They justify the public splurge by insisting that Dallas is ready to swoop in and steal the team. “Keep the Rangers” is the theme of the election campaign.

Big D may be the big dog in North Texas, but it has pressing needs and too little revenue. Fair Park, beat-up roads, police pensions, the homeless and the Trinity River project come to mind. With a long to-do list, politicos would never suggest half a billion dollars for an air-conditioned ballpark.

“How is Dallas gonna pay for that?” said Warren Norred, who opposes the Arlington deal. “They struggle paying their cops and collecting their stray animals.”

True enough, much as it hurts.

But Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams said it's private money, not public, that's the real threat. He cited private contributions to the Dallas Arts District, Klyde Warren Park and Calatrava bridges. He could have reeled off more, including the Perot Museum, the Meyerson and the Bush Presidential Center.

Private donors were crucial for these initiatives. For the AT&T Performing Arts Center, private money funded over 95 percent of the $360 million cost. And 134 individuals, families, foundations and companies gave at least $1 million.

It’s “the combination of the public-private sector” that’s so powerful, Williams said. “For two years, I was being told that Dallas was gonna be taking the Rangers, [that] it’s a done deal.

“It is amazing what cities can do if they want to,” he added. “I never want to underestimate the ability of Dallas or our other communities.”

Williams and Norred made their comments recently at separate meetings with the Dallas Morning News editorial board. They were asked about the threat from Dallas because it's been portrayed as the rationale for approving the new ballpark now.

There’s a significant difference between supporting a pro baseball stadium, which benefits rich sports owners, and contributing to improve the arts, parks and museums. Only one is philanthropy with tax benefits. And philosophically, they’re worlds apart.

Donors have helped pay for college football stadiums. T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma State University is one high-profile example, but many doubt that a pro ballpark could pull in charitable donations.

There may be another way to tap Dallas’ wealth, said Richard Greene, a former Arlington mayor and surrogate for the campaign. He cited the many potential power brokers connected with Downtown Dallas Inc. and the Dallas Regional Chamber.

"Among those leaders are the city's bankers, investment managers, utility company executives, real estate moguls, lawyers, accountants, news media chiefs, architects, landowners, tourism officials, oil barons, hotel owners and managers, retailers, transit officials, construction company owners and politicians," Greene wrote in a June op-ed in the Star-Telegram.

Worried yet?

“Take a look at who these people are,” Greene wrote, without naming names. “Imagine the magnitude of their immense personal and corporate wealth. Then consider what hosting a major-league baseball team will mean to them in terms of financial gain.

“When you do, the realization of how and why they would come up with that investment would be obvious.”

Greene was mayor during the Rangers first campaign for a publicly financed stadium in 1991. Arlington voters approved that deal almost 2 to 1.

In general, stadium proponents believe Dallas could come up with a few hundred million dollars from taxes on hotels and rental cars (the method used with American Airlines Center). Then private players would put in a like amount, they said.

In theory, a billion-dollar stadium could be built for half the public money.

Arlington leaders want to shut down any such possibilities because the Rangers are crucial to the city's identity and long-term plans. So they're offering to tear up the lease early and kick in $500 million over 30 years. That would be one of the highest public contributions yet for a Major League Baseball stadium.

Maybe Arlington residents will decide it's worth paying twice as much to keep the Rangers. The Colony agreed to contribute up to $800 million to land Nebraska Furniture Mart and develop the surrounding area.

Norred said a Rangers-to-Dallas scenario is possible but unlikely. The one data point, he said, came in 2004, when Dallas couldn't come up with the money for a new Cowboys stadium. Arlington stepped up and agreed to pay $325 million.

With the Rangers, Arlington should have driven a harder bargain, offering maybe $200 million, Norred said. The city has strengths, including a central location, vacant land for development and sales tax capacity. Plus, the current lease runs for a while.

"We have a self-esteem issue in that we think we don't hold the cards," Norred said. "We don't need to give them everything they want just because we can."

Maybe not, but the Rangers know how to use soft power. At the editorial board meeting, an executive was asked if there was really a chance of the team leaving.

"To leave North Texas — no," said Rob Matwick, who oversees business operations.

How about leaving Arlington?

"We have a lease through 2024," Matwick said.

It took a moment to sink in, and then we all got it: The Rangers can play hardball.

["Not Found"]