November 29, 2005

Troubles swarming round Nats

I wasn't able to watch all of yesterday's D.C. council hearing on the planned Washington Nationals stadium, but what I did catch was great drama: councilmembers charging the mayor's office with "hoodwinking" them into a more expensive deal, threatening legal action if the original $535 million cost cap is breached, and calling for D.C. to go back to the drawing board and renegotiate a better deal with MLB. This last was perhaps most significant, as it came from Vincent Orange, former stadium advocate and current mayoral candidate; if former friends like Orange and finance chair Jack Evans are really about to turn on MLB, when you take into account the three new anti-stadium councilmembers added since last fall, it seems increasingly possible that the council could vote to reject the Nationals' lease, and throw the future of both the team and the stadium into uncertainty.

Electoral ire aside, a few new tidbits of information leaked out about the plan. First off, D.C. sports commission chair Mark Tuohey made headlines by announcing that MLB had agreed to chip in $20 million toward stadium construction costs, only to have MLB president Bob DuPuy insist that MLB had agreed to do no such thing. (Some reports have the $20 million as coming in exchange for unspecified development rights, in any case, which is less a "contribution" than a "purchase.") Other project costs, meanwhile, have now been assigned to the We're Not Sure Yet column, with D.C. officials expressing hope that the federal government would pick up the cost of upgrading a nearby Metro station, while private developers would cover the cost of repaving local roads - with no indication, mind you, from either the feds or developers that they'd be okay with this.

Meanwhile, the baseball pundits are once again wagging their fingers at the council for standing in the way of all that is good and beautiful in the world. First in line, Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, who writes:

Before we fall for the council's latest holiday special, let's get a few basics straight: The deal with baseball is a signed agreement, approved by the council a year ago. The city is obligated to build a stadium along the Anacostia River. If the council now reneges on its word by rejecting the lease, baseball will go to court to enforce the deal.

Well, not exactly. The council is obligated to build a stadium along the Anacostia if it costs less than $535 million; more than that, and the legislation passed last December says the deal's off. As for whether MLB can force the council to approve the lease by threat of a lawsuit (or going to binding arbitration), that's a thornier legal question than I'm qualified to answer. It's all brinkmanship right now, on both sides, and the question is less who holds the cards than in who blinks first.

This site written and maintained by Neil deMause. Copyright © Neil deMause, all rights reserved.

Powered by Movable Type 3.2.