[NYT]Baseball Rejects Terms for Washington Stadium
aseball Rejects Terms for Washington Stadium
By JAMES DAO
Published: December 16, 2004
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Major League Baseball on Wednesday rejected as
"wholly unacceptable" a stadium financing plan approved the day
before by the Washington City Council, throwing into grave doubt the
city's plans to bring the former Montreal Expos here next season.
Baseball's statement came in response to legislation the Council
approved late Tuesday night requiring that half of the riverfront
stadium's projected $280 million construction costs be paid for
privately, delivering a stinging rejection of a deal struck by Mayor
Anthony Williams and baseball officials to finance the ballpark
almost entirely with tax dollars.
On Wednesday, a grim Mr. Williams expressed pessimism that his plan
could be salvaged. "I do think baseball is in jeopardy," he said.
"The dream of 33 years is now close to dying."
Critics of Mr. Williams's plan said he was exaggerating the threat
that Major League Baseball would take the team, renamed the
Nationals, to another city. They said baseball had few alternatives,
since the Nationals are scheduled to play next season in Robert F.
Kennedy Memorial Stadium in Washington while their new home is built.
Once the team is in Washington, the city's negotiating position will
be strengthened, they argued.
But in a statement, Bob DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball,
called the legislation "wholly unacceptable" and gave the city until
Dec. 31, the previously agreed upon deadline, to approve the original
financing deal.
After that date, baseball said, it will begin considering other sites.
"The legislation approved by the District of Columbia City Council
last night does not reflect the agreement we signed," the statement
said.
Mr. DuPuy said baseball had stopped promotional activities for the
Nationals and would refund deposits for season tickets.
Under the deal Mr. Williams reached with baseball owners to bring the
Expos to Washington next spring, less than 20 percent of the stadium
would have been financed by private funds, specifically through rent
payments from the team.
Amid the uncertainty, the one clear thing on Wednesday was the stark
and surprisingly forceful message the Council sent about growing
public resentment toward the high cost of sports stadiums.
That message comes at a time when more cities are demanding that
professional sports teams pay a larger portion of new ballpark costs.
New York City is grappling with that issue as it develops plans for a
$1.4 billion football stadium on the West Side of Manhattan for the
Jets. Although the team would pay most of the cost of the stadium,
the city and the state would pay about $600 million.
The City Council decision also comes just a month after voters ousted
three Council members who had supported Mr. Williams's plan in favor
of insurgents, including former Mayor Marion S. Barry Jr., who
pledged to oppose public stadium financing.
In more than 12 hours of debate Tuesday night, critics of the mayor's
plan repeatedly asserted that the city should not use tax dollars to
build a stadium when it cannot afford to repair crumbling schools,
libraries and recreation centers.
With land acquisition and service improvements, Mr. Williams had
projected that the total stadium package would cost $440 million.
But the city's chief financial officer has put the cost closer to
$535 million, and other estimates have gone higher.
"I can just picture the baseball owners high-fiving each other until
they collapsed from exhaustion" after reaching their deal with Mr.
Williams, said Councilwoman Carol Schwartz.
Some Council members were also clearly irritated by what they
considered Major League Baseball's imperious negotiation stance
toward the city.
The Council chairwoman, Linda W. Cropp, author of the amendment
requiring private financing, said she had warned baseball that the
plan might fail if it did not reduce the public cost of the stadium,
limit the city's liability for construction delays and share in the
burden of cost overruns.
Major League Baseball responded in a letter Tuesday morning that
offered some concessions, including limiting the city's liability for
construction delays to $19 million. But Ms. Cropp said those
concessions did not go far enough. As she listened to the debate
Tuesday afternoon, Ms. Cropp said, she began composing her amendment,
which evolved through the evening and was not presented to the
Council until 10 p.m.
The vote approving that amendment was a major setback for Mr.
Williams, who had staked his second-term legacy on the return of
baseball and who had been sharply criticized as not lobbying
strenuously enough for Council support.
Aides to Mr. Williams said they were blindsided by Ms. Cropp's
amendment Tuesday night. Mr. Williams himself said he was so angry
about her measure that he was unable to comment to reporters Tuesday
night.
In a news conference Wednesday, Ms. Cropp insisted that her amendment
was "not a deal breaker," and that it would simply prod the city to
search more aggressively for private investors. But she also said she
was "willing to let baseball walk" if the public costs of the stadium
were not substantially reduced.
Councilman Jack Evans, who helped lead the push for Mr. Williams's
plan, said that the amended stadium financing plan would be
unacceptable to baseball because it created immense uncertainty about
whether a stadium would ever be built.
But Mr. Evans said he believed some compromise could be reached with
Ms. Cropp, possibly as early as a Council meeting next Tuesday, when
the stadium vote could be reconsidered.
"We're not going to lose baseball," Mr. Evans said. "I've been here
for 14 years, and all kinds of crazy things happen here."
--
If you're not have fun in baseball,
you miss the point of everything.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.141.134.47
Nationals 近期熱門文章
10
13
PTT體育區 即時熱門文章
