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.