Firstly, I disagree with the notion that Trueblood's article was introducing a political topic. As I read through it, I kept looking for decided bents or otherwise opinionated theses, but in my humble opinion, they did a great job of steering clear of such obvious (and terrifying) hurdles to still address a very real, baseball topic. Kudos.
In essence, all buildings and infrastructure within the state belong to the state. We are all but stewards to whatever property exists within legal boundaries. The only question is whether or not the state wishes to have Attanasio, and more correctly, MLB, as stewards of the AmFamClam?
Attanasio and MLB really do have ultimate power here, as, at the end of the lease, they are able to go steward a stadium elsewhere.
Sell the stadium to the Brewers? Why on earth would the Brewers want to own a property with nothing but diminishing returns, when they can just move elsewhere at the end of the lease? To a municipality that will fund the construction of a $1B facility?
I am not advocating, morally, for the state to finance stadium repairs and upgrades, nor do I appreciate Manfred, Attanasio, and MLB to issue vague relocation threats to what has been nothing short of a fantastic, loyal fanbase. But to suggest that the state/municipality has some kind of bargaining stance here is, in my opinion, naive.
MLB in MKE can move and play baseball elsewhere. The AmFamClam isn't going anywhere.