Author Topic: No Baseball in DC?  (Read 32729 times)

chaz

  • Member
  • Posts: 5111
  • este lugar es una mierda
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #105 on: December 16, 2004, 11:44:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by j_lee:
  So my question is, because DC is a larger area than just the district limits, why not subsidize a stadium/team with taxes from Montgomery, PG, Fairfax, etc.?
You can't be serious.

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2004, 12:34:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by chaz:
  You can't be serious.
It will never happen, but I dont think it is that crazy of an idea.  When St. Louis built a stadium to lure a football team, part of it was paid by the state.  That means that people in Kansas City were paying for a stadium in St. Louis.  And people in rural MO were pissed off about it as well.  That was a controversial issue just as much as whether the government should be paying for it or not.
 
 Details on the football stadium--
 
 
Quote
The new domed stadium near downtown St.   Louis will be paid for by taxpayers until the year 2022. The city and county each pay $6 million per year and the state of Missouri pays $12 million.
 
But the new baseball stadium being built right now in St. Louis has a mix of financing as outlined below
 
 
Quote
The financing includes:
 
 # Private bonds worth $200.5 million, to be retired over 22 years. Cardinals President Mark Lamping said by phone in New York that the bonds were funded Tuesday, though the commitments were made several weeks ago. The Cardinals must make payments of $15.9 million each year on the bonds.
 
 # A "down payment" worth $90.1 million, funded by a combination of bank loans and cash investment from team owners.
 
 # A $45 million loan from St. Louis County, supported by a dedicated hotel/motel tax, which the Cardinals must repay with interest.
 
 -- Interest worth $9.2 million, earned on the borrowed money before it's spent on stadium construction.
 
 -- State tax credits worth $30.4 million, and $12.3 million from the Missouri Department of Transportation, which will pay for site work, infrastructure and an interstate ramp project. An existing ramp will be demolished to make way for the new ballpark.
 
 The Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums, a local advocacy group that vigorously fought a failed deal with the city, county and Gov. Bob Holden to publicly fund a new stadium, said Tuesday it will continue its efforts to place an issue on the ballot in St. Louis County that would forbid spending tax money on a stadium subsidy.
 

sonickteam2

  • Guest
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2004, 10:18:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by j_lee:
  So my question is, because DC is a larger area than just the district limits, why not subsidize a stadium/team with taxes from Montgomery, PG, Fairfax, etc.?
great idea. cause you know, those are the people that will have the money to see the team anyway.
 
   I am sorta sick of suburbanites who come and take advantage of all the cities have to offer, but pay no taxes to do so (other than ticket sales and other sales tax, which prolly doesnt amount to squat....since they bring thier own peanuts to the game!!!

keithstg

  • Member
  • Posts: 402
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2004, 10:24:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
  it's a well known fact that suburbanites who come into cities for sports events arrive leave immediately afterwards, and spend little to no time spending money in the city.    So, another specious argument debunked.  Next.
Well known fact, eh? I guess I can rely on all that empirical evidence you offer as proof, right?

Random Citizen

  • Guest
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2004, 10:28:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  I am sorta sick of suburbanites who come and take advantage of all the cities have to offer, but pay no taxes to do so (other than ticket sales and other sales tax, which prolly doesnt amount to squat....since they bring thier own peanuts to the game!!!
Take your complaints to the DC City Council, the Mayor, Eleanor Holmes Norton and the U.S. Congress. DC would see a lot more money in its coffers if there weren't so many tax shelters provided for the larger companies housed within the district. Fannie Mae has a sweet deal with the government and pays next to nothing considering their size.
 
 The commuter tax will never happen as long as Congress has the ultimate say on DC legislation. So, the taxes created with the baseball stadium and the business it would bring is probably the next best option when it comes to generating a new source of income for the city.

J'Mal

  • Guest
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #110 on: December 17, 2004, 01:58:00 pm »
oh please....
 
 DC rakes in astronomical tax revenues:
 
 http://app.cfo.dc.gov/CFORUI/news/release.asp?id=103
 
 District CFO Revises Revenue Estimate Upward By $100 Million
 
 (Washington, DC) Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi announced today that the District of Columbia's revised revenue estimate for fiscal year 2005 increased an additional $100 million since April due to an improved economy, increased income and real estate tax collections, and increased tourism.
 
 ??By the end of May, the District??s revenue generation results were astonishing compared to what was originally predicted,? said Gandhi. ??From January to May, compared to a year earlier, individual income tax collections grew 15.6 percent; corporate franchise tax collections grew 24.9 percent; sales taxes grew 9.6 percent, and deed taxes grew 61.8 percent.?
 
 The new fiscal year 2005 baseline estimate is $4.1 billion.

 
 $4.1 billion for a city with 600,000 residents????
 
 Not to mention all the FREEBIES that DC gets because of the federal government.  Dupont Circle is a National Park.  Even the Zoo is a federal expense.
 
 Get over it, people.  DC taxes enough and rakes in more than enough money.  It is mismanagement and socialism that ails this town.  Exhibit A: Cropp's destruction of baseball.

Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #111 on: December 17, 2004, 02:15:00 pm »
and there you have it, the world according to the 930 forum's own answer to Rash Winbaugh!   :D
_\|/_

HoyaSaxa03

  • Member
  • Posts: 7053
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #112 on: December 21, 2004, 02:24:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:
  my guess ... cropp will realise her mistake and cave in at tuesday's meeting ...
 
 that said, pro-baseball DC residents should call her office and let her know how you feel, there was a post article today or yesterday that said all the pro-baseball calls she's gotten have been suburban and all the anti-baseball have been DC
just as i predicted ... although i agree with wilbon that i won't believe it until i see the team playing on opening day, and even then it doesn't look like we're safe ...
 
 Accord Reached on D.C. Stadium
 Williams and Cropp Negotiate Financing
 
 By David Nakamura and Thomas Heath
 Washington Post Staff Writers
 Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A01
 
 D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams and Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp said last night that they had reached agreement on a stadium financing package that would satisfy Major League Baseball by guaranteeing construction of a permanent home for the Washington Nationals along the Anacostia waterfront.
 
 Under the new proposal, which the 13-member council is to vote on today, the city will purchase insurance for potential cost overruns on the stadium and split the payments with Major League Baseball. Also, District officials will continue pursuing private financing for the project for several months. But Cropp said she will drop a requirement that 50 percent of the construction costs be paid for with private money.
 
 Cropp plans to offer the proposal today as an amendment to the legislation adopted last week requiring that at least 50 percent of stadium construction costs be privately financed. Yesterday, Cropp officially added the baseball issue to the council's agenda for its final regular meeting of the year, scheduled for 10 a.m. today.
 
 Williams and Cropp announced the agreement at a news conference at 11:10 last night, following a long day of negotiations between the mayor's office, the council chairman and baseball executives.
 
 Cropp said the proposed changes could reduce the District's potential costs for the stadium by up to $193.5 million when compared with the deal Williams struck with baseball officials in September. She said she expects a council majority to approve the new agreement.
 
 "The final legislation that will be presented tomorrow will offer the significantly lower costs and reduced risks to the District of Columbia that many of us said we were searching for," Cropp said last night.
 
 Reached by phone in New York, Baseball President Robert A. DuPuy said last night: "We are very hopeful that by the end of the day tomorrow, legislation will be in place consistent with the baseball stadium agreement that will enable us to return Major League Baseball to Washington."
 
 Williams and Cropp looked tired at their news conference in the John A. Wilson Building, and only Cropp gave the smallest hint of a smile. Williams moved his leg nervously as Cropp spoke.
 
 "I always anticipated that as we brought a team here and moved through the process, we'd improve the deal," Williams said. "And I credit Chairman Cropp for accelerating the process. We're now able to bring baseball to the city and boost the morale and unite the city, but do it in a way that reduces the costs and decreased the risk."
 
 Cropp (D), who has sought for weeks to ensure that the public costs for the stadium are limited, shocked the mayor last week by persuading the council to adopt the amendment requiring private financing. Baseball officials rejected that language, saying they were open to private financing but needed a guarantee that the stadium would be built with public money if private financing was not found. Baseball officials have given the city until Dec. 31 to approve an acceptable financing package.
 
 Meanwhile, opponents of the stadium deal continued to stand against the revised proposal last night. Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), who was among six council members who voted against the stadium last week, said that the new proposal from Cropp and Williams would still cost too much in public funds.
 
 Even if private financing is found for some of the costs, the city still expects to implement a gross receipts tax on large businesses and a utilities tax on businesses and federal offices.
 
 "This is materially the exact same thing the mayor sent over," Fenty said. "It's a publicly financed stadium with less risk, but still a publicly financed stadium."
 
 The Nationals, formerly the Montreal Expos, are scheduled to open their 2005 season at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium in Washington. But after the council approved its legislation last week, baseball officials said that the team might not play in the nation's capital at all if the impasse over a new stadium remained unresolved by the Dec. 31 deadline.
 
 The new stadium, to be built near the Navy Yard and South Capitol Street in Southeast Washington, has been estimated by various city officials to cost from $440 million to $584 million, including infrastructure and land acquisition. The ballpark itself would cost $279 million, meaning the legislation adopted last week would require $140 million in private financing.
 
 Cropp said she agreed to remove the provision mandating private funds because she is confident that significant amounts of private money will be found. Already, she said, the city has a plan that Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's chief financial officer, has said can raise $100 million.
 
 Cropp declined to be specific about that plan, but sources have said it entails charging motorists for curbside parking around the stadium. The Gates Group, a Cleveland-based private equity company, made that proposal weeks ago. Cropp emphasized that no company has been selected for any private financing plan.
 
 The new proposal from Cropp and Williams would reduce the compensatory damages the city would have to pay if the new stadium did not open by March 2008. Most recently, Major League Baseball had said that the liability would be no more than $19 million per year. But under the new plan, baseball officials would agree to a provision saying that the city would not have to pay any compensatory damages if stadium construction were delayed. In return, the city would waive one year's rent payment of $5 million from the Nationals for playing at RFK.
 
 Yesterday's negotiations began when Cropp met in the morning with City Administrator Robert C. Bobb and Mark Tuohey, chairman of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission. Then she huddled with Williams (D) for about 12 minutes in the early afternoon.
 
 Cropp left the Wilson building about 7:45 p.m. as the mayor and his staff were still working on terms of the proposed agreement. She returned to the building about 10 p.m.
 
 Throughout the day and evening, the mayor's staff was seeking approval of the changes from baseball executives, who were communicating by telephone.
 
 Last week, after the council adopted the amended legislation requiring private funding, DuPuy announced that the Nationals would shut down all business and promotional activities until further notice. DuPuy also offered refunds to fans who had put deposits on season tickets.
 
 Nationals President Tony Tavares said last night that of the more than 16,000 people who put down $300 for season tickets, 563 had asked for a refund.
 
 Last night, more than 200 baseball fans and local luminaries gathered at the AFL-CIO headquarters in downtown Washington for about 90 minutes for a rally, anxiously awaiting good news that never came.
 
 The crowd began dispersing shortly after 7:30 p.m., but not before it heard Charlie Brotman, the former Washington Senators announcer, and others wax nostalgic about baseball in Washington. Cropp acknowledged that the acrimony surrounding the debate over baseball has caused divisions among some city residents and leaders.
 
 "For whatever reason, this really was an issue that captured people's hearts," she said. "Tonight, as I sit here next to the mayor, it's time to bring this city back and work together with the citizens."
 
 Staff writers Allan Lengel and Eric M. Weiss contributed to this report.
 
 © 2004 The Washington Post Company
(o|o)

Random Citizen

  • Guest
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #113 on: December 21, 2004, 03:56:00 pm »

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #114 on: December 22, 2004, 02:59:00 am »
This whole stalling thing was nothing but an attempt for Cropp to get her name known a bit more, and her large face on TV.  This new deal only says that private financing can be used, but if none is found, than the original deal is fine.  And they only have until 12/31 to secure any private financing (according to channel 9 news).

Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #115 on: December 22, 2004, 10:23:00 am »
it would've been worth it to see Baseball not come to DC just because of all the incredible whining sports fans put up, not to mention the frequently sexist attacks on Cropp, but in the end it's probably a good thing the deal went through, and it's also good that a few additional concessions were wrung from an arrogant, fat-cat monopoly.   Cropp deserves to replace Tony Williams as mayor for being the only elected representative in the District willing to stand up against special interests for what the majority of the public in DC actually wanted.
_\|/_

Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #116 on: December 22, 2004, 10:31:00 am »
You sound like one of those pussy whipped morons who has to refer to other men as "sexist" regardless of whether it's true, because it's the only way you can get a woman to sleep with you.
 
    If she is the only one who stood up to the "fat cats" then why is she the one changing her vote while six other council members are STILL voting against baseball? They are the ones standing up to the "fatcats", not Linda Slopp.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by HerrDoktorDoom:
  it would've been worth it to see Baseball not come to DC just because of all the incredible whining sports fans put up, not to mention the frequently sexist attacks on Cropp, but in the end it's probably a good thing the deal went through, and it's also good that a few additional concessions were wrung from an arrogant, fat-cat monopoly.   Cropp deserves to replace Tony Williams as mayor for being the only elected representative in the District willing to stand up against special interests for what the majority of the public in DC actually wanted.

Herr Professor Doktor Doom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3745
    • my blog
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #117 on: December 22, 2004, 10:49:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  You sound like one of those pussy whipped morons who has to refer to other men as "sexist" regardless of whether it's true, because it's the only way you can get a woman to sleep with you.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 never assume that other people think like you!
_\|/_

brennser

  • Member
  • Posts: 3758
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #118 on: December 22, 2004, 10:50:00 am »
Quote
Cropp deserves to replace Tony Williams as mayor for being the only elected representative in the District willing to stand up against special interests for what the majority of the public in DC actually wanted.
ummm, the only elected representative?? she was all over the place on this deal, for, then against, then for
 
 hopefully Adrian Fenty will run for mayor...

Frank Gallagher

  • Member
  • Posts: 4792
Re: No Baseball in DC?
« Reply #119 on: December 22, 2004, 10:52:00 am »
Why would the Expos even want to relocate to DC.....every team in DC is cursed by the "WE SUCK THE BIG ONE" devil.