Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis


This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

March 08, 2006

D.C. stadium deal done - no, really this time

As expected, the D.C. city council finalized a Washington Nationals stadium lease yesterday, by the same 9-4 vote it approved it by last month. This now clears the way for the sale of the MLB-owned team to private owners, and for the construction of a $600-million-plus stadium near the Anacostia River.

The reaction in the media has mostly been one of relief - the Washington Post story this morning is headlined "At Long Last, a D.C. Stadium Deal" - but while lord knows I'll be glad never to have to sit through watching another D.C. council hearing, there's not much good news here for D.C. or for those concerned about the public cost of private stadium deals. The final deal caps the public cost at $611 million - $271 million more than the plan as it was first reported in September 2004; the team, meanwhile, will be on the hook for only $20 million in parking garage costs. And the Nationals will reap all revenues from the stadium, including parking, concessions, and naming-rights fees on the publicly owned stadium, while the city will collect only a few million dollars a year in rent that won't be nearly enough to pay off the public costs. Coming after the St. Louis Cardinals' agreement to pay two-thirds of the cost of their new stadium, and amid talks for the New York Yankees and Mets to roughly go halfsies on their proposed new homes, the D.C. deal is a throwback to the bad old days of '90s "you build the stadium, we get all the benefits" deals," and seriously ups the ante for stadium negotiations involving teams like the A's, Royals, and Marlins.

To their credit, even the councilmembers who voted for the deal sounded sheepish about what they'd just done. Council chair Linda Cropp declared: "I don't think anyone is happy with this whole piece. But everyone has played a role in making it a little bit better"; during the council debate, Carol Schwartz had griped, "I feel stuck. And I don't like being stuck," and said she wished she could throw the stadium lease "into the ocean." And Kwame Brown, one of three rookie councilmembers elected in 2004 on anti-stadium platforms - all of whom went on to vote for the final stadium deal - declaimed: "This is nothing we should put our chest in the air [about] and say we created the best deal for the residents of the District of Columbia. But we probably couldn't have done any better. It was this or zero." Of course, sometimes zero is still better than the alternative.


No that the DC baseball stadium drama is over, what's the word on a DC soccer stadium ??

Posted by Bertell Ollman on March 8, 2006 04:39 PM

I suspect that once the elected officials in NY look at the deal just made in the District, that they'll end up signing up to the Yanks and Mets ballpark deals even FASTER than they have so far. Maybe even the people up in Minnesota, although that's stretching it a bit in their case. That way, they can then claim, with some credibility, that they made a better deal than their counterparts in D.C.. "Hey, we surely did not give in to the outrageous demands of the team(s), unlike what the folks in D.C. just did" is what they'd likely say.

In a way it's like the ports deal. Politicians would claim that they're being more vigilant than the President but, in the end, it's the same politico-bureaucratic shenanigans as always and we're no safer than we were months before.

Posted by Transic on March 8, 2006 04:41 PM

I understand the ownership group of D.C United will build the stadium?

Posted by Frank on March 9, 2006 10:59 AM

DC United are still up for sale again, are they
not? Hail to RFK Stadium!!!

Posted by CK on March 10, 2006 04:07 PM

I thought Kevin Payne and his group had purchased the DC United already ?

Posted by Bertell Ollman on March 10, 2006 11:45 PM

Latest News Items