Virtual Insanity in DC today

For those that are interested in what is transpiring with the lease vote today in DC for the Washington Nationals, I suggest coming over to my new website/blog, The Baseball Journals and check in.

This is what they call a "tease" in the business... it's going to be crazy today. It's early and already things have gone sideways.

This is getting great. Head on over to The Baseball Journals check out the insanity and post comments if you like.

By the way... I must be hitting on solid stuff. The Washington Post has linked to The Baseball Journals.

See "Who's Blogging?" from the right-sidebar, lower right

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:
check out the insanity

Boy howdy. I'd put the over/under on "when the spade hits the dirt" at around March of 2009 at this point.

I think they'll wind up saying, "Let's build at RFK; it's cheaper" - and then MLB is gonna hit the fan!

Here's the latest from the AP wire:

WASHINGTON (AP)– After months of uncertainty, members of the D-C Council have delayed a vote on a proposed stadium lease for Major League Baseball.

After discussions about tabling the lease proposal in favor of emergency legislation aimed at setting a cap on construction costs, council members opted to delay the vote on the lease proposal.

They then adjourned to an administrative session convened in a closed conference room.

The council is expected to reconvene shortly.

Where's the link? Could use that.

Sorry, my bad... I pulled it from a trusted source on another website who was getting it straight from the (rolling) wire. Here's the updated version:

Link to wjz.com (AP) article

Feb 7, 2006 7:12 pm US/Eastern

Fate Of Stadium Lease Remains Unclear

(AP) WASHINGTON The fate of a proposed Washington Nationals baseball stadium lease remained uncertain late Tuesday after a key supporter predicted it was unlikely to be approved.

Councilman Vincent Orange, D-Ward 5, told The Associated Press that Mayor Anthony A. Williams' proposal lacked the seven votes needed for approval.

The council moved into a private session to discuss emergency legislation that would cap the city's construction costs for the stadium at $300 million. That measure would need nine votes to pass. It was unclear whether the lease itself would come up for a vote.

"If we don't get this thing done today, we're going into arbitration," said Williams, who warned construction costs would only increase during the arbitration process.

If the council approved the cost cap, it would allow council members to take part in future lease negotiations with Major League Baseball, Orange said.

Orange said he was supporting the emergency measure, but Williams was urging other baseball supporters on the council to reject it. Orange said it was up to Council Chair Linda W. Cropp to find the votes necessary for passage.

"Otherwise, this issue is dead," Orange said.

The lease must be approved before the city can issue bonds to finance construction. Baseball officials have been waiting for approval before selling the Nationals, who are owned by the other 29 major league teams.

The council approved $530 million for stadium construction and land acquisition in 2004, as part of the deal that brought the Montreal Expos to Washington. But the council failed to meet a Dec. 31, 2005 deadline to approve a lease on the new ballpark negotiated last year. That prompted MLB to seek mediation, and a new deal was reached last month.

After the city and baseball reached the revised agreement, which includes a $20 million contribution from baseball for stadium construction, Williams negotiated a side deal with construction companies setting a "guaranteed maximum price" for the city at $320 million.

However, a consultant hired by the council told members that that the side agreement contained loopholes and did not constitute a firm cap on stadium costs. That prompted Cropp and opponents of the lease to draft the bill limiting the city's construction costs.

Williams said he was shocked that the council's consultant, lawyer Louis Cohen of Piper Rudnick, had previously worked for the Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority, which had competed with the district for the Expos.

"I assume the Council was unaware of this conflict of interest," Williams said. "A decision this important should not be left to a firm that sought to build a ballpark in a cow pasture in Virginia."

While Virginia lost out on the Expos, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said the commonwealth would be ready to accommodate the Nats if it came to that.

"The governor has expressed a willingness to enter into a dialogue, should an opportunity to bring Major League Baseball to Virginia arise in the future," Kaine spokesman Delacey Skinner told WTOP Radio. However, Kaine has not talked to MLB.

Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, was not concerned with the emergency legislation.

"This doesn't change anything," he said through spokesman Rich Levin.

Estimates for the total project, including land acquisition and construction, have grown from $535 million to $667 million in the past year.

"The cost can be and will be higher, and perhaps substantially higher," said Councilman Phil Mendelson, D-At Large.

I'm sure glad MLB stuck to its requirment that a solid financing plan be in place before the Expos would be relocated. Otherwise this would really be a mess. Wait a minute . . . . oops.

How in the world is Marion Berry on the DC City Council?

How's Monsieur Barry on the DC City Council? Well, he clearly loves the crack of the bat as much as anyone!

Update - the lease just got voted down a few minutes ago by a 5-8 vote. Jack Evans is saying that baseball will be gone from DC after 2006.

Personally I think we're a long way from having that happen since MLB can go to arbitration and stick it to DC, but man o man, this is getting interesting.

Yeah, we're a looong way from that happening--like the A's in Oakland, the Nats may go stadium/city shopping, but there's no urgency since they, like the Athletics, make $ even in their present, inadequate ballparks (if you can call Mt. Davis a "ballpark"

quote:

Originally posted by James Stock:
Yeah, we're a looong way from that happening--like the A's in Oakland, the Nats may go stadium/city shopping, but there's no urgency since they, like the Athletics, make $ even in their present, inadequate ballparks (if you can call Mt. Davis a "ballpark"

Not quite a proper analogy.

I'm hearing from an inside contact that baseball proponents on the council will attempt to resurrect the deal.

Details, again...

The Baseball Journals

I'm no fan of Marion Berry, but he was elected to his seat on the DC Council. He paid his dues by going to jail. Isn't democracy wonderful!

===Lines about Bushs' party days deleted here===


BB

So Virginia has an outside chance still.

BB

quote:

Originally posted by Big Boomer:
So Virginia has an outside chance still.

BB

Nope... Get a load of this...

They pulled an SB5. Yep. Got a reconsider vote and got the emergency legislation on capping the cost by on a 9-4 vote, and the lease passed. Quite a swing, but then we saw that when SB5 failed on a Friday and passed on the next Sat.

Like I said, details are here:

The Baseball Journals

On the one hand, I hope that this is really it because even I, who also live well out of D.C., am tired to following the story. But then, part of me misses the entertainment that the wonderful members of the D.C. Council have given us throughout the last two and a half years, give or take. Come on. P.T. Barnum would've hired those people, put them inside a cage and call them the "Wretched Deliberators". And the sight of "Mojo" as "savior" is the zeitgeist of "Priceless!"

Well, I will draw whatever lessons possible for if my own City Council has to deliberate on a stadium deal, which likely would happen if the city agency below them gives their stamp of approval on the proposal for a land swap involving the Yankees. That vote may happen around March or April. I don't think it'd be anywhere near as loony as the D.C. Council hearings, although it'd definitely come with entertaining politics of its own.

I just read somewhere in one of the papers, that Mayor Williams doesn't think MLB will agree to the lease terms, because the lease caps the amount of money that can be spent on the stadium. (I think the cap is at $611 million) Thus, if there are cost overruns the owner will have to pay for them.

This has always been the sticking point to the lease, because if the owner is liable for cost overruns, then it makes the team that much less valuable. And MLB doesn't make as much profit.

Any thoughts Maury? Will MLB accept the lease?

I heard this as well early yesterday. Williams had, at one point, mentioned that he had hoped that the emergency legislation that was seperate and the vote that initially failed, would indeed do as much. He wanted to see the lease pass without the cap provision.

What he got was the amendment stuck in the lease vote, and they got the whole ball of wax over the hump.

That's the key, however... How will MLB react to the cap provision. I suspect that very measured words will be coming out of the Commissioner's Office today.

To shamelessly plug again, I have a recap posting on The Baseball Journals, and commentary running. The blog has really taken off in the past couple of days, and today, as it was yesterday, the Washington Post is linking to it.

Thanks Maury. I guess we'll see what the MLB does.

You have a good blog, but I can't figure out how to comment. Comments are often the best part of a blog.

quote:

Originally posted by catalyst:
Thanks Maury. I guess we'll see what the MLB does.

You have a good blog, but I can't figure out how to comment. Comments are often the best part of a blog.

I had the site configured improperly. You, or anyone else, can now register. Simply select the "register" link under comments within a thread.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.