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.
I thought DC already had a baseball stadium.
DC always has to shoot itself in the foot with these silly provisions.
Las Vegas is a perfect location for a National League team, which could replace Colorado (and miserable Coors Field) in the NL West. It has been suggested that the Florida Marlins are interested in moving there. San Francsico, Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona and Las Vegas would make up a great, low-travel division.
MLB doesn't want them playing at RFK for very long, so they stipulated that they build a new stadium in order to get the team. They even outlined how it would be paid for and the mayor agreed: city taxes. Linda Cropp didn't raise any serious objections until it came up for vote earlier last month and now the final vote last night. It's a mess.
Obviously, Linda is not getting a sufficient cut from the deal since that's how things are done with the DC city council. Nothing is done in DC unless there is money to go around for the council member and their friends. The cost per student for their public school system is the highest in the US and yet they get such a sub-standard education it's pathetic.
Northern Virginia is the only other legitimate site for the team since the other sites don't have the kind of television coverage that DC/Northern Virginia has.
Damn. Leave it to the DC Council to kill a sure thing.
Mind you, the uniforms for the Nationals are set to be unveiled today.
I wasn't aware that DC had the tax base for this kind of thing.
Say Bye Bye to the Nationals.
DC really does not want a team.
Good. I'm tired of cities and states taking it in the shorts to build the "manufacturing plants" for professional sports. The ticket price and TV/radio contracts should cover the stadium along with the team's salaries. The taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook any more than they should pay for movie theaters for Hollywood's profit. Once a few cities refuse to pay, then maybe the rest will start driving better deals with teams.
That is exactly right. Liberals on the DC council have killed more development than anyone I know.
Who wants to play baseball in the desert all summer? Norfolk VA is standing by, we already have a financing deal approved and the Expos can play in Harbor Park in 2005.
Silly provision? Asking for 50% private financing? It is good use of DC's tax revenue to 100% finance a baseball stadium? I guess that is because the city is so well run, and crime rate is so low they have tons of money laying around with nothign to spend it on?
Puzzling . . . isn't this the same bunch of socialist nut cases that want to raise people's taxes for everything else under the sun. Since when did they start being so fiscally responsible?
You've nailed it.
Cities do this all the time, and not just with pro sports teams. They legislate tax breaks to bring in big business, and they subsidize manufacturing and construction for them too.
It is done with the understanding that having a business (in this case a baseball team) is going to generate far more revenue for the city in the long run than it's going to pay out to build that $200 million stadium. Hotel revenue, restaurants, employment, public transportation will all see sharp increases. And the renovation of the Anacostia Waterfront in this case is going to lead to a bunch of high-end housing units being built in the area, luxury suites will be sold, and so on down the line.
It's easy to say that the tax-payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for this, but it's way more complex than that. DC can't afford to NOT build that stadium. If baseball leaves they'll take countless millions of dollars out of the pockets of DC residents.
Exactly. Suddenly the DC City Council have become deficit hawks? That's laughable. This is nothing more than a personal powerplay by Linda Cropp because Major League Baseball didn't kiss the ring.
If this deal gets derailed DC will have missed its best opportunity ever to become a real city. Right now DC is a joke. A crime ridden joke that ran itself SO poorly that Congress had to take over. It looks like they're sliding back down that slope.
Maybe. I think this is merely a gambit to see if MLB will renegotiate the agreement. The city has until Dec. 31 to pass an ordinance consistent with the agreement. They can still do that. I don't think that this one, with the 50% private financing, was passed on December 14th for no reason.
I think they think they are putting pressure on baseball, and if baseball shows that they are willing to walk, then you'll see a new ordinance in the next 16 days.
Tactically, it is a smart move for the city, with no down side. They aren't necessarily killing the deal, and they are handing the MLB a bit of a PR mess. They probably think baseball won't pull out at this late date because they will have PR problems and a backlash. Thus, they think they have some leverage, and may be able to get something back from the MLB. I think, however, that baseball will stand firm on this one. If, in the end, MLB does stand firm, they just go back and pass another ordinance.
I don't think the DC City Council is nearly creative enough to come up with a scheme like that. Besides, all of the proceedings yesterday were open to the public, and there were plenty of reporters. None of them said anything about Cropp devising such a plan. She herself admitted that she just came up with the ammendment at the last minute after hearing the debate all day.
Yes. DC ran off the redskins due to breach of contract (witholding tax revenues).
They have been desperate for years to get a team in there.
Now, if they wanted this provision in, they should said so BEFORE they agreed with the league.
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.