December 01, 2005
D.C. honcho: RFK site just alright with us
The D.C. city council, Mayor Anthony Williams, and top officials of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission met with Chicago White Sox owner and MLB relocation czar Jerry Reinsdorf this morning for a summit meeting on the Washington Nationals stadium controversy. And while there was little sign of immediate progress - Reinsdorf told reporters afterwards, "The meeting proceeded exactly the way I thought it would," - MLB's point man did surprise the assembled multitudes by insisting that while it wasn't their first choice, baseball would be fine with a new stadium near the current RFK Stadium.
"I was astonished when Reinsdorf said [MLB] had never objected to RFK," councilmember David Catania told the Washington Post. "We were told that MLB had categorically refused to go to RFK. . . . When I asked him about RFK, he said, 'Can you deliver it?' I said, 'Just as easily as we can deliver the Southeast site.'"
If the Nats stadium prospects were murky before, this latest revelation promises to reduce visibility levels to near-zero. Reinsdorf refused to commit to either of D.C. officials' main demands - a rent guarantee in case of a work stoppage or terrorist attack, and $20 million in cash to defray stadium costs - making it all the more likely that the sports commission will be unable to negotiate a lease that meets the approval of the council, or of D.C.'s bond sellers. If nothing is finalized by December 31, MLB has threatened to take D.C. to binding arbitration - but because it was Mayor Williams, not the council, that signed the document agreeing to arbitration, it's unclear if they'd have standing to challenge a council rejection of the lease.
Council chair Linda Cropp has reportedly scheduled a public hearing for later this month, to take place before the council votes on the lease. (Presupposing, of course, that MLB and Williams' office arrive at a lease for the council to vote on.) I'll keep you posted if any more details become available.
Tied into this was Reinsdorf's comments about overall attendance...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the WaPost article:
Several council members said Reinsdorf characterized the Nationals' first season in the District as unsuccessful when compared to the first season of such expansion teams as the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.
Both of those teams drew far more fans than the Nationals, who sold 2.7 million tickets this season. However, both of those teams' home cities knew they would get teams years in advance, while the District and Major League Baseball announced an agreement to relocate the Montreal Expos to the District just six months before the first season.
"I kind of recoiled," Catania said.
Informed that council members said he had characterized the Nationals' first season as unsuccessful, Reinsdorf said, "I'm not here to characterize anything."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Recoiled"... The way I had it relayed to me was that members were pissed.
The inference, however, is clear... MLB/Reinsdorf do not see the RFK location as viable. After all, their choice was the Navy Yard site.
Posted by: Maury Brown on December 1, 2005 05:37 PM
Tied into this was Reinsdorf's comments about overall attendance...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the WaPost article:
Several council members said Reinsdorf characterized the Nationals' first season in the District as unsuccessful when compared to the first season of such expansion teams as the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.
Both of those teams drew far more fans than the Nationals, who sold 2.7 million tickets this season. However, both of those teams' home cities knew they would get teams years in advance, while the District and Major League Baseball announced an agreement to relocate the Montreal Expos to the District just six months before the first season.
"I kind of recoiled," Catania said.
Informed that council members said he had characterized the Nationals' first season as unsuccessful, Reinsdorf said, "I'm not here to characterize anything."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Recoiled"... The way I had it relayed to me was that members were pissed.
The inference, however, is clear... MLB/Reinsdorf do not see the RFK location as viable. After all, their choice was the Navy Yard site.
Posted by: Maury Brown on December 1, 2005 05:37 PM
One reason why Colorado drew so many fans in their
first season (1993) was because Mile High Stadium
could seat over 75,000 people for baseball. It
seems that most or all seats available for the
Broncos were usable for baseball, too.
I think that Reinsdorf's comments were intended to indicate that RFK drew on average 33,000 per game, well under its capacity of over 50,000. But it's hard to imagine that that DC will draw much higher than what they got last year, even with a new stadium. He's almost arguing against himself, since the Nats averaged only 3,000 per game less that those other teams, all the while playing at at The Buick.
Posted by: Jonathan Judd on December 2, 2005 10:41 AM
Re-using the existing RFK Stadium site (refurbishing the existing stadium, or demolishing an drpelacing it) would be the way to go!
This would remove a major impediment to a South Capitol Street Green way (Mall) and Tunnel, while increasing the justification of extending the SE Freeway Barney Circle Underpass to East Capitol Street, hence removing the traffic bottleneck in residential neighborhoods to the southeast of the Anacostia River (a textbook example of envirnmental discrimination).
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com
Would any baseball specific rennovations to RFK have to meet approval of D.C. United (at least untill their SSS is built)?
Posted by: Bertell Ollman on December 2, 2005 01:27 PM
D.C. United has a pretty unfavorable lease, so I doubt it. As for Reinsdorf and Nats attendance, he's just trying to nip in the bud any move to keep the team at RFK, by arguing that the team can only be successful with a new stadium. Which is pretty ironic, given that Reinsdorf's White Sox only drew 2.3 million last year - in a new stadium, in the nation's third-biggest market, in a year in which they were in first place the whole season and won the World Series.
Posted by: Neil on December 2, 2005 02:28 PM
RFK Stadium seats over 45,000 fans for baseball.
Full soccer and football capacities would be well
over 50,000. In its last NFL seasons, RFK Stadium
held 56,454 seats.
If for whatever reason the Baseball team decides to stay at RFK for a while longer, and decide a complete overhaul of RFK to make it baseball specific is necesary, would DC United then be thrown out by the curb? You mentioned they had an unfavorable lease at RFK, which doesn't shock me, but they at least did get the baseball team to allow the installation of a moveable pitchers mound to help ever the surface for DCU games.
Posted by: Bertell Ollman on December 3, 2005 04:11 PM
