Posted on 12/15/2004 7:04:10 AM PST by ZGuy
WASHINGTON - Baseball fans in the nation's capital might not have long to cheer their new team. The District of Columbia Council voted 7-6 Tuesday night to approve legislation that would finance construction of a ballpark. But it contained a provision that could cause the baseball commissioner's office to reopen the search for a long-term home for the Expos franchise, which has been tentatively renamed the Nationals.
The legislation was amended to require private financing for at least half the stadium construction costs, a provision not contained in the September agreement between baseball and Washington Mayor Anthony A. Williams.
"We will review the amendments and the legislation as passed and have a response (Wednesday)," said Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer.
One response came almost immediately: The team postponed a news conference scheduled for Wednesday to unveil its new uniforms. No explanation was given.
"I am not trying to kill the deal," said council chair Linda W. Cropp, who introduced the private financing measure. "I'm putting some teeth in it because I'm really disappointed with what I got from Major League Baseball."
The amendment passed on a 10-3 vote after Cropp threatened to withhold support from the overall package if the provision wasn't approved. Cropp said she didn't think the change violated the city's agreement with baseball, but would pressure Williams to find a private financier.
Williams refused to answer questions after the vote.
"We'll have to see how baseball reacts," said Councilman Jack Evans, a baseball proponent. But he said he expects the council will have to change the legislation to keep the deal alive.
"We'll have until the end of the year to change this," Evans said.
City Administrator Robert Bobb said city negotiators were talking with baseball officials, but he didn't expect the owners to accept the change.
If the law stands, baseball's most likely response would be to have the team play the 2005 season at Washington's RFK Stadium while baseball's search committee resumes negotiations with cities that want the team.
One option could be Las Vegas, which was among the cities competing for the Expos and is still lobbying for a team. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman campaigned at last week's winter meetings, arriving accompanied by showgirls wearing feathered headdresses.
Baseball opponents in Washington said the change makes the deal more equitable.
"All we're asking for is private financing for half the stadium," said Councilman Adrian Fenty, who voted against the final legislation. "That shouldn't be a problem."
The Montreal Expos (news) became the first major league team outside the United States when they started play in 1969, but attendance at Olympic Stadium slumped over the past decade and the franchise was bought by the other 29 teams before the 2002 season. In 2003 and 2004, some of the team's home games were moved to Puerto Rico to raise revenue.
From the start, baseball owners insisted a publicly financed stadium for the team be a component of any move.
When the council gave its initial approval to the law on Nov. 30, it called for the city to issue $531 million in bonds to finance the plan. Baseball owners approved the Expos' move Dec. 2. on the condition that financing be put in place consistent with the deal, and that arrangements to prepare RFK Stadium for use in 2005 satisfied baseball commissioner Bud Selig.
Washington's new team would start play April 4 at Philadelphia and play its home opener April 14 against Arizona at RFK Stadium.
Monterrey, Mexico; Norfolk, Va.; Northern Virginia; Portland, Ore.; and San Juan, Puerto Rico, also tried to land the Expos.
If baseball stays, they'll take $150 million+ out of the pockets of DC residents. Heck, let all those fat-cat federal politicians put up some of their PAC money to make up the difference. They're the ones (along with all the middle class Northern Virginia and Maryland residents who won't have their taxes raised for the stadium) who will be going to the games for entertainment purposes. All the I.P.s will be the ones selling the beer and hotdogs.
Another thought, how about taking some of those lottery proceeds? It's obvious that they aren't using it for DC public schools....
They tried that last year, and were rejected (in a rare moment of rationality and fiscal prudence by the Arlington County Board).
This is a classic red herring thrown out in this argument. "We should be spending this money on schools, not stadiums!" Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. There IS NO POOL OF MONEY out there waiting to be spent. The money doesn't exist yet. The money to pay for the stadium would be generated during, and after the stadiums construction from increased tax revenue, liscencing fees, etc...
This model works in other cities, it can work in DC. But this nonsense about how DC should spend its money differently is just that.... nonsense. Good, so MLB is going to leave, and the Anacostia waterfront can remain a crime-ridden hell hole just as it is now. Filled with strip joints and check cashing stores.
Congrats DC, you're about to get exactly what you wanted! A populace dependant on the city council for its wellbeing.
I see. So we should look at how Cincinnati botched their deal, and use it as an example of how building a stadium with public money is a bad idea? No thanks. I'd rather look at all of the cities that have thriving sports teams with vibrant stadium venues as examples, not the few botches. Baltimore comes to mind. There is no reason why DC's baseball venue couldn't be just as successful as Baltimore's. DC would even have more convienent public transportation options.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.