Friday, December 17, 2004
Mudville on the Anacostia
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A36
"CAN'T ANYBODY here play this game?" Casey Stengel asked that question about the woeful 1962 New York Mets, whom he had the misfortune of managing, but it applies equally well to the executive and legislative branches of the 2004 District of Columbia government, as it boots around Washington's hopes of getting a big league baseball team.
On Tuesday night D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced, almost literally at the 11th hour, a new amendment to the financing legislation for a Washington baseball stadium on the Anacostia River. It is a change that threatens to undo the city's deal with Major League Baseball. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not, given the recent political history of this question -- the council voted 10 to 3 to approve the amendment, after far less discussion or debate than it deserved. The full legislation then passed on a vote of 7 to 6.
Instead of the plan accepted by baseball, which includes public backing and relies on a combination of business taxes and rental fees and other income from the stadium, the Cropp amendment requires private financing of half the cost of the new ballpark. If the council doesn't reconsider the legislation by Dec. 31, Major League Baseball will begin looking for a home elsewhere, it announced yesterday. The council and its chairman did themselves no credit with their handling of this last-minute deal-breaker. As one anti-stadium member observed, what went on Tuesday night was a travesty of the legislative process. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), meanwhile, failed at a basic political task: ensuring that you have the votes when you make a deal for the city.
At this point, a majority of council members may see more political benefit in opposing the baseball deal than in supporting it. There is widespread opposition in the District to public backing for a stadium, especially since one of its primary effects would be to greatly enhance the price that baseball's owners will get for the orphaned Montreal franchise now in their custody. But the debate has come down to something of a battle between caricatures: greedy owners vs. poor Washingtonians, public expenditures vs. private profit.
We hope that the council will reconsider, and when it does, give serious attention to the somewhat more complicated reality by dealing honestly with these questions: Is money raised by a tax on the city's largest firms public or private, especially considering that without the stadium in the picture, it wouldn't be raised at all? Is the money that many thousands of people from Maryland and Virginia would spend in the city on more than 80 days and nights a year public or private? One thing is certain: It won't be coming into Washington if there is no ballpark. Is the money the team would pay for rent public or private? How about the taxes on refreshments, souvenirs and so on?
To get a baseball team, Washington will have to make an investment, and few investments are without risk. To some extent it's simply a matter of how much faith the city's legislators have in the future -- not only of the District but of the entire region.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A36
"CAN'T ANYBODY here play this game?" Casey Stengel asked that question about the woeful 1962 New York Mets, whom he had the misfortune of managing, but it applies equally well to the executive and legislative branches of the 2004 District of Columbia government, as it boots around Washington's hopes of getting a big league baseball team.
On Tuesday night D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced, almost literally at the 11th hour, a new amendment to the financing legislation for a Washington baseball stadium on the Anacostia River. It is a change that threatens to undo the city's deal with Major League Baseball. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not, given the recent political history of this question -- the council voted 10 to 3 to approve the amendment, after far less discussion or debate than it deserved. The full legislation then passed on a vote of 7 to 6.
Instead of the plan accepted by baseball, which includes public backing and relies on a combination of business taxes and rental fees and other income from the stadium, the Cropp amendment requires private financing of half the cost of the new ballpark. If the council doesn't reconsider the legislation by Dec. 31, Major League Baseball will begin looking for a home elsewhere, it announced yesterday. The council and its chairman did themselves no credit with their handling of this last-minute deal-breaker. As one anti-stadium member observed, what went on Tuesday night was a travesty of the legislative process. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), meanwhile, failed at a basic political task: ensuring that you have the votes when you make a deal for the city.
At this point, a majority of council members may see more political benefit in opposing the baseball deal than in supporting it. There is widespread opposition in the District to public backing for a stadium, especially since one of its primary effects would be to greatly enhance the price that baseball's owners will get for the orphaned Montreal franchise now in their custody. But the debate has come down to something of a battle between caricatures: greedy owners vs. poor Washingtonians, public expenditures vs. private profit.
We hope that the council will reconsider, and when it does, give serious attention to the somewhat more complicated reality by dealing honestly with these questions: Is money raised by a tax on the city's largest firms public or private, especially considering that without the stadium in the picture, it wouldn't be raised at all? Is the money that many thousands of people from Maryland and Virginia would spend in the city on more than 80 days and nights a year public or private? One thing is certain: It won't be coming into Washington if there is no ballpark. Is the money the team would pay for rent public or private? How about the taxes on refreshments, souvenirs and so on?
To get a baseball team, Washington will have to make an investment, and few investments are without risk. To some extent it's simply a matter of how much faith the city's legislators have in the future -- not only of the District but of the entire region.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
