It only took, what? 2 solid years? Could tomorrow be the end of the discussion on whether a new stadium for the Washington Nationals gets funded?

Yesterday, MLB approved the lease agreement that had been sent to them by the DC Council regarding a new facility for the Washington Nationals. As with the DC Council prior, the signed agreement from MLB has some amendments within it. There may be one last point of contention that will either make or break the deal when there is a vote in the DC council tomorrow. As Thomas Heath and Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post report (MLB Officials Sign Lease for D.C. Stadium):

The document contains a number of conditions, however, including the provision that it does not become legally binding if the city enacts further legislation that is contrary to the stadium funding plan that the council passed. Another condition calls for excess ballpark tax revenue earmarked for debt service for the bonds to be available for cost overruns. Cropp and some other council members have voiced strong opposition to that clause, but baseball officials called on the city to compromise in the interest of getting the stadium built.

Is the use of the excess tax revenue a deal breaker? As Amy Doolittle and Tim Lemke of the Washington Times report (MLB, city reach deal on ballpark):

Tomorrow, the council will vote on whether to make the emergency legislation approved last month permanent. The council is expected to approve the legislation 9-4, with the same council members voting “no” as before.

MLB’s take? As Bob DuPuy said in a statement:

“We have worked very hard to accommodate the requests from the Mayor and the Council that changed the terms of the agreement that brought the Expos to Washington. Because we believe in the future of Baseball in the nation’s capital, we have signed a lease that honors the 2004 agreement, while conforming to the emergency legislation that the Council passed last month.

Regardless of tomorrow’s outcome, there will be debate over this deal. History will decide if it was the mother of all boondoggles, or a wise investment of public dollars. The $611 million dollar proposed project along the Anacostia River has proven to be a hugely contested issue, with politics outside of just the stadium development a part of the landscape. Many members of the DC Council are running for a variety of offices.

One thing is certain, there are lessons to be learned out of this whole affair.

Let’s be honest, DC was the only place that MLB could go once the Arlington site in Virginia fell through. After 34 years, and the size of the market, it was a near homerun that DC was going to wind up with the Expos.

Where things got sideways may have been when MLB offered up the franchise to DC before the stadium funding was passed. This method, termed Conditional Award, certainly created much of the issues surrounding this deal.

That all said, can any municipality get the political muscle to pass legislation for a stadium in a relocation without the team being dangled in front of the government entities that are needed to get funding passed? If the answer isn’t unequivocally, “No” then it’s an almost near impossibility. Too much political capital at stake. Too much of a gamble given how leveraging is always in play when it comes to stadium development and MLB.

Tune in tomorrow, and once again… pass the popcorn.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 6th, 2006 at 8:34 am and is filed under Baseball Insight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.