[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A350-2004Dec14?language=printer|Washington Post]:

Late Tuesday night, in the 11th hour of a marathon D.C. Council meeting, chairman Linda W. Cropp blew to smithereens the deal that MLB thought it had in place with Washington to build a ballpark on the Anacostia waterfront. With that single blow, which leaves baseball no alternatives, the return of major league baseball to the nation's capital is now dead.

The bits of charred ash and shattered fragments that you see falling from the sky are the remnants of the destruction that Cropp wrought. With one amendment to a stadium-funding bill, she demolished the most basic pillar on which the District's agreement with baseball was built. By a 10-3 vote, the council demanded that at least half of the cost of any new stadium be built with private financing, which does not exist, rather than public funding, as stipulated in D.C.'s deal with baseball.

A stadium in search of hypothetical funding, funding that may never be found, is not a stadium at all. It is just a convenient political lie. The entire purpose of baseball's long search for a new home for the Expos was so the sport could sell the team. Who is going to buy a team to play in a stadium that isn't funded and may never be? Nobody. Nobody on earth.

Now, thanks to Cropp, baseball's entire motive for moving the ex-Expos to Washington -- to sell the team -- has been erased. Any solid deal in any town is now better than what Washington is offering -- which is nothing.

It does indeed look like the deal will fall through, but there's still still time to salvage it (until December 31). We'll see.

Baseball wants a team in the DC area (it's a big market). It makes the most sense to have it inside the city (as the transportation infrastructure is best there), but one wonders whether MLB is willing to go along with a deal with the city without concrete stadium financing in place.

There's enough blame to go around if it falls through (Mayor Williams didn't have enough people on board to support his financing plan, Cropp wanted changes too late in the process). The new City Council in January will have several new members who don't support Williams' so if it doesn't happen now, it is very unlikely to happen later.

Oh well...

Cheers,
Scott.

Should cities get in bidding wars for sports teams, raise taxes for dubious public benefit, enrich existing fat-cat owners who threaten to pack up and leave unless their demands for a new stadium are met? No, as a general principle, I don't think so.

The situation is a little different in this case.

The team is in limbo. MLB wants to sell it, there is no real "owner" yet. How can you sell a team that has no guaranteed place to play?[1] It's not like an expansion team that doesn't yet have players, etc. They have a payroll, players, etc. already. It's selling a team to a new city but without a buyer being part of the process. It's rather unique.

If MLB sells team to Mr. X who has money for the team (say [link|http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/expansion.htm|$150 M]) and money to build a stadium (say [link|http://www.breadnotcircuses.org/brooking.html|$200 M]), then everyone wins. Except Mr. X won't see any profit in his lifetime unless it somehow becomes a championship dynasty quickly. Not a likely outcome.

It's not impossible to find someone willing to pay the whole $350 M. The Redskins (and their stadium - FedEx Field) sold for [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1999/sale/keystoriesmarch99.htm|$800 M]. The Redskins, however, had a very very strong brand, several championships, sold-out stadiums for years, etc. The Red Sox and Fenway Park sold for [link|http://usatoday.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2002-07-01-fenway.htm|$660 M]. The Red Sox, also, had a very very strong brand, several championships, sold-out stadiums for years, etc. The Nationals will have none of that. So it's not too likely that such a buyer will step forward.

(Note that the previous Redskins owner, Jack Kent Cooke, tried to build a stadium in D.C. with his own funds. He gave up after [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/1997/stadium/timeline/front.htm|7 years] of dickering with the City. It says something about how disfunctional the City government was then, and might indicate similar problems now.)

In short, the only way baseball is coming to D.C. is if there's some guarantee of financing for a new stadium. That means bonds backed by some sort of tax revenue (mainly on large companies and concessions in this case). I don't think Williams' plan is bad - he's not raiding the general fund or wanting a general tax increase. Even the [link|http://www.baseballinva.org/content/en/latest_financing_plan.htm|Northern Virginia] plan had $360 M in state-backed bonds financing the stadium - but it had opposition....

Does D.C. need to spend more money on infrastructure and schools? Sure. But it doesn't have to be one-or-the-other.

A lot of what's going on now between Cropp and Williams is a battle over who will be the next Mayor. Cropp is trying to knock Williams down a notch or two to improve her chances. Williams' time is running out on this plan because the next City Council will be stacked against this plan.

Will it be horrible if the Nationals don't end up in D.C.? No. But it'll be a shame, IMO. D.C. United, the Wizards, and the Capitals (if they ever play again) are good for the City, and a baseball team would be too. Even if it's only to get reporting about the frickin' Redskins off the TV a little more often! :-)

My $0.02.

Oh, and as expected, [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2202-2004Dec15.html|MLB is calling Cropp's finance plan "wholly unacceptable"].

[edit:] Added footnote.

Cheers,
Scott.