Bye Bye Nats

by RVachon on Feb 7, 2006 11:09 PM EST Comment 28 comments

Well, the D.C. Council has continued to show that Washington is easily the most dysfunctional city in the U.S. by rejecting the Nats stadium lease plan (version 2.0 or whatever the heck it was...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701727.html

As a DC area resident, this sucks. And so does the D.C. Council.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Fat Lady Hasn't Sung Yet

The debate is continuing with regards to a lease with a cap (the Cropp last minute proposal)

by NFA Brian on Feb 7, 2006 11:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

But after having watched all this nonsense for the better part of a year now, I've become pretty jaded to the whole thing. It seems that the council members jump from supporting the stadium deal to opposing it. At this point, I just don't see any way that the council approves a stadium lease that MLB will go along with. If I were MLB, I'd probably start talking more seriously with Vegas. DC has shown that it's completely unreliable and too entrenched in politics to be a viable location for baseball.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Feb 7, 2006 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MLB....

Of course, it's not as if D.C. is dealing with an honest group of people in the form of MLB owners. I know I don't trust them.

by chris in illinois on Feb 7, 2006 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nats

I love baseball, but getting out this awful stadium deal would be the best thing for D.C.

by bolton on Feb 8, 2006 12:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dysfunctional

Too bad, now the DC wont be gifting Selig and his billionaire cronies a couple hundred million dollars, darn.

by sanchez101 on Feb 8, 2006 3:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The deal

Granted, I haven't seen the new deal approved by the D.C. Council (I think it's hilarious that they can't even reject a deal correctly...), but having the Nats in DC is definitely a good thing. I will fully agree that Anthony Williams basically bowed down to the MLB gods when he first got the Nats to Washington, but a baseball team in DC, particularly in SE, will help revitalize a region that desperately needs it.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Feb 8, 2006 7:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

amend that

It looks like they have just passed a stadium lease, so I guess the council caved -- unfortunately.

by bolton on Feb 8, 2006 1:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Vegas & Portland were ML teams...

would this be the way the NL realignment would look?

Hello everyone,

The situation in Washington seems to resemble Montreal more and more with each failure of the stadium plan.

Montreal could never get support for a new stadium and it seems that Washington is unwilling to commit either.

Granted, times are not easy today with the way the economy is, but if Washington wants a ML team to be there long-term, they need to start progressing with the stadium issue.

Of course, it would probably help if MLB sold the Nationals to an ownership group, rather than stalling on that as well.

I think both Vegas and Portland could both be viable candidates to take the Nationals if this stadium deal doesn't get worked out within the next year or two. The other city might be able to attract the Marlins if their stadium situation isn't resolved within the next year or so as well.

I suppose Monterrey, San Antonio, and Northern Virginia are also possibilities, though I would think that Vegas and Portland are the two front-runners - Vegas because of all the publicity with the Marlins, while Portland seems to make a lot of sense in terms of geography and city size, plus they seemed to be a serious contender for the Expos until the stadium issue came up and Washington was mentioned as a serious contender as well.

I don't know if Portland is inside the Mariners' territorial zone or not, though Portland seemed adamant about being a serious contender for the Expos, so I presume that Portland is outside Seattle's territorial zone?

You would probably have to realign the NL to accommodate Portland and Vegas, but you could probably do something like the following

NL West:
Arizona
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Portland
San Francisco
San Diego

NL Central:
Chicago Cubs
Colorado
Houston
Milwaukee
St. Louis

NL East:
Atlanta
Cincinnati
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

How does that sound?

If only one moves (say Washington to Portland or Florida to Vegas,) then I would move the Rockies out of the West to accommodate the new addition and shift Pittsburgh over to the East first, before moving Cincinnati over to the East if the second relocated team appears in the NL West.

As implied above, if both Portland and Vegas are added, then I believe the NL West would have to have 6 teams, with Colorado moving to the Central (the others would have to stay in the West due to geographical considerations,); the Central would then have 7 teams, but I'd then move Pittsburgh and Cincinnati over to the East (they make the most geographical sense since they are the furthest Eastern teams in the Central and both play in the Eastern Time Zone,) and then you would have five teams in both the NL Central and NL East.

What do you think? :-)

Just something that went through my head, thinking about the possibilities of ML teams in Portland and/or Vegas, though I admit that's still at least a few years off, if it ever happens.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great day!

by indiansfan on Feb 8, 2006 1:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Forget about two relocations, then! :-)

Hello everyone,

Thanks bolton for the update. :-)

Like I said, the NL relocation was just a thought in my head and I just wanted to see what it looked like on cyber-paper. LOL :-) Sounded interesting and was fun to think about, but I doubted it would ever come to fruition, especially any time soon.

Take care and have a great day!

by indiansfan on Feb 8, 2006 1:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Vegas

I can't see the Vegas relocation happening. If there's one thing that MLB has stood against to an irrational degree, it's gambling.

And the "irrational degree" comment refers to Willie Mays, not Pete Rose.

by lombardizzy on Feb 8, 2006 2:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Viva Las Vegas

There was a time that Vegas disallowed gambling action on any team housed within the state of Nevada. Whether or not this is still applicable is something I can't address, but if so it should alleviate any MLB concerns...real or those postured for image.

by Toad on Feb 8, 2006 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but

It's not that MLB would be worried about people betting on this particular new franchise, it's that putting a franchise in the gambling capital of the world would be akin to condoning the mixture of gambling in baseball in general. Putting a lifetime ban on Pete Rose because he bet on baseball and then putting a franchise in Las Vegas would be sending a mixed message, to say the least.

by lombardizzy on Feb 8, 2006 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, right

Because having a pro team play in a casino, owned by a casino, has denigrated the WNBA beyond repair.

(I know, different situation, but the WNBA's the highest level of pro women's basketball in the US.)

I'd think the whole Rick Tocchet situation would hurt any chances Vegas might have, unless people can distinguish between under-the-table gambling rings and legalized books that are out in the open and regulated.

by drjayphd on Feb 9, 2006 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hello nats

i just heard that following the stadium rejection the DC council continued working and at some point throughout the night/early morning a few votes were overturned changing the outcome, so the stadium lease was approved for a baseball stadium thats not even a mile south of the capital building...so despite the overwhelming amount of politics, it seems that baseball and washington aren't such a bad mix after all...

by robcast23 on Feb 8, 2006 10:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

True...

that the DC Council agreed to a stadium lease after having rejected it earlier. However, it still needs to be approved by MLB. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end, and the Nats will soon have a permanent home. And new owner...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Feb 8, 2006 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

New stadium=money well spent

I find it crazy when a city does not want a new stadium(well a one sport specific stadium). I see it as one of the best ways to spend city dollars. Personally, I have never seen dollar one out of any dollar I have given to city taxes, so if they raise hotel taxes and it costs me $10 dollars a year in taxes to go to a plush and comfortable park then it is the best taxes I could imagine.

When the new park was built in Houston a world class hotel and Steak-house went up in less than a year. Within the last four years the area around the park is one of the safest and nicest looking/fun areas in downtown. Trust me, it was not that before. Not to mention the 2-300 new jobs ranging from minimum wage to careers. In the last two years the three new parks(Toyota center,Reliant stadium,Minuite Maid) have brought a super bowl, all-star games in baseball and basketball, and a world series.

Those three events have made a Bourbon street type row of entertainment down main st. that are blocked off every weekend for pedestrians only. It also triggered a Metro mass transit light rail that goes through downtown to outlying areas.

Building all of the stadiums for each sport is the best thing any city can do.

Tim Purpura, This Bud is for you.

by Shamus on Feb 8, 2006 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah!

Forget about street and park maintenance, school funding, police overtime and any of those hundreds of other pesky other invisible annoyances that your city dollars go toward.

I will grant you that ballparks are as visible as it gets in terms of how your dollars are spent. But virtually all economists will tell you that dollars spent on sports facilities really do not generate any additional jobs, as opposed to spending the money in other ways.

I love sports as much as anyone, but it pains me when cash-strapped cities bow before the greed and extortion that is the modern sports team owner.

by Flynn Blake on Feb 8, 2006 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

was going to dish a similar response in this...

...thread, but you did it so nicely. Gentrification, indeed: corporate welfare, as tax dollars well-spent? I think a lot of economists would disagree. I like the US's Disneylands as much as anyone, but think corporations ought be the ones figuring out their worth.

by Azteca on Feb 8, 2006 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spending for a better life

All the things I mentioned make my life better. Most of the things you listed, you have no control over. None of us do. Unless you are dolling out the budget what is your beef.

I have an idea, buddy, why don't you go ahead and give all of your money to other people. Let every other person get what you have. I was not trying to be high and mighty; I like new stadiums, it makes me happy. If you want to go ahead and support your local soup kitchen then do it. Don't tell me I should.

Tim Purpura, This Bud is for you.

by Shamus on Feb 8, 2006 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hate to say this

But your "spending for a better life" only covers leisure and entertainment, which is really the last of a municipality's worries...

Things like roads, education and public safety come first. To say otherwise is to be extremely irresponsible.

The big problem is that if the owners and leagues want to make money, they should be the ones spending it - they'll be the ones seeing all the revenue anyway.

As public projects go, stadiums in the 100s of millions range can't possibly pay for themselves; not in parking, or local development, or any of the other factors that a stadium and sports team are support to aid.

by sasquatch83 on Feb 8, 2006 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

typo

not support to aid - it should read "supposed to aid"

why the heck should a stadium cost 600 million anyway?

by sasquatch83 on Feb 8, 2006 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, this is DC

Where the gov't buys screwdrivers for $300 a pop...

I think (though I won't say with certainty, as this whole lease agreement thing has been a mess from the start), that the taxes being used to finance the new stadium are coming from businesses that have agreed to a separate "baseball" tax that would raise something like $500 mil for the stadium (and my numbers could very well be off... the devil's in the details, right?). I would assume that these businesses are the ones that would benefit most from a revitalized Anacostia waterfront, or they likely wouldn't go along with the idea. But the main point to the baseball tax is that the funds won't be taking away from other municipal needs, such as education or sanitation. If the stadium deal were to fall through, that money could not be reallocated to other projects, because it too would cease to exist. So the argument that DC would be better served using its money elsewhere is somewhat moot.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Feb 8, 2006 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where does the money go

The engineers, architects, construction workers, and all of the other people live in and around the city stadiums are built in. It is redistributed money. If they don't then that city needs to think about if it can afford it. Minuite Maid was built well under deadline 30 mill under budget, it ended up around 250-285 mill.

Plus, why care about who makes the money? I always hear that and don't get that idea. If you make an investment you would expect a return, and the larger amount the investment the more of a return or loss should be expected. If you had a MLB team and had that much money on the line then you would try to get considerations for lack of a better term. Especially when another city will.

Changing the world falls way down on my list of priorities because to me it is a wasted effort. Drink a beer, sit down, and watch the game.(David Stien)

Tim Purpura, This Bud is for you.

by Shamus on Feb 8, 2006 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

only last sentence

Is from David. Hate to miss that.

Tim Purpura, This Bud is for you.

by Shamus on Feb 8, 2006 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

"The engineers, architects, construction workers, and all of the other people live in and around the city stadiums are built in."

If only it were so. Here's who built Miller Park:
Architect: HKS, Inc. (Dallas), NBBJ (L.A.), Eppstein Uhen Architects (Milwaukee).
Construction: Huber, Hunt & Nichols Inc. (Indianapolis), Clark Construction (Chicago), Hunzinger Construction (Milwaukee); Roof: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America.

Yeah, some local connections, but a lot of it came from companies across the country and even the ocean. In the greater sense, yes, it is just redistributed, but a lot of it is redistributed way the hell out of town. When the city officials are dealing with a variety of issues including a $1 billion reconstruction of the major interstate interchange in the state (one which was patently confusing and dangerous), those extra $100 millions look like they'd really come in handy. On top of that, our public schools by and large stink, we have the worst mass transportation system in the world, and murder rates are rising with our waistlines. This on top of the everyday issues such as maintaining utilities and services as others mentioned. Hell, they're so cash-strapped that they only plow half of my road in the winter.

But hey, at least we have a giant high-def scoreboard for Briggs and Stratton promos!

Honestly, I do like Miller Park a lot. It's what a stadium should be: a great place to watch the game. There are no bad views, there are tons of concession stands and bathrooms, and no swimming pools or video arcades or anything for the "fans" who don't watch the game. But I don't think it's worth what we set out to pay for it. And that's not counting the overruns, lawsuits, and crane collapses that weren't forseen.

And I don't mean to go too far off topic here, but if you ever see a collection, try giving $5 to your local meal kitchen. You won't miss it in the slightest, and having worked in several I can attest that both the kitchens and the $5 really, really help. Eat there if you want. It's cheaper than McDonald's...

by delomir on Feb 9, 2006 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exception to the rule

Minuite Maid was built well under deadline 30 mill under budget, it ended up around 250-285 mill.

I'd think most stadium experiences would be completely different. Remember Safeco Field?

by drjayphd on Feb 9, 2006 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry shamus

but your detractors are right...just wrote a 15 page term thesis on stadium finance and basically i can tell you this:

the urban renewal that everybody assumes comes along with a new stadium is vastly overrated, even in highly publicized cases like camden yards and jacobs field (however, i didnt look at houston)
"privately-financed" stadiums are almost never that...in other words, 99% of the time theyre not financed completely without any public money...baseball prospectus did a good piece about this same issue recently, using the mets new stadium as an example...and even when they are, owners often demand publicly funded urban renewal and renovated infrastructure in the surrounding area which is basically like saying "i'll pay for everything...as long as you pay for that stuff"...
no publicly funded stadium (in the modern era of stadiums) has EVER stayed out of the red for a city...the city ends up losing out in the hundreds of millions of dollar range on the initial construction...and then the opportunity cost of the money spent is also mind-boggling...the only people who benefit, financially, are the owners

you can say that baseball fans benefit but think about the other benefits if the $600-700 million were spent on new schools, fire departments, etc...

by robcast23 on Feb 8, 2006 8:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs