September 23, 2004
Crunching the numbers
The Washington Post breaks down the proposed D.C. stadium deal today, concluding that the team's rent payments, plus ticket and parking surcharges, would amount to about 44 percent of the $440 million cost being paid by the team owner. A large chunk of that, however, the team could recoup via the sale of naming rights, which would be given by the city to the team for free.
In all, then, the relocated Montreal Expos - is it too soon to assume they'd be called the Washington Senators? - would pay somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of construction costs, with the rest borne by taxpayers. There are, however, several questions that still remain to be answered about the plan:
- Who would pay the cost of acquiring the 20 acres of private land required for the stadium, estimated by the Post at $65 million but which could certainly go higher, or even require the use of eminent domain? [Late note: The Washington Times says that land acquisition costs are included in the $440 million; the Washington Post implies they aren't.]
- Who would be responsible for paying for cost overruns (or as the Seattle Mariners management liked to call them, "unanticipated capital expenditures")?
- Will D.C. business leaders go along with the plan to fund about half the stadium cost with a tax surcharge on large area businesses, and will they demand any concessions in return?
- Does Mayor Anthony Williams have the votes on the lame-duck city council to pass a stadium bill and make it stick? The Post estimates that seven of the 13 current councilmembers would back a stadium bill; however, with three anti-stadium councilmembers expected to take office in January, that could lead to a 9-4 vote to repeal any bill - enough to override a mayoral veto.
Then there are those other niggling uncertainties, like the potential for a Peter Angelos lawsuit and that RICO suit. The Expos' future could still get muddier before it gets clearer.
