Live-blogging THE VOTE

Barry: If you want to point fingers at who’s killing this deal, it’s the mayor. We want it in the lease itself, a cap on the hard costs and we inferred soft costs. We wanted the development rights on the north and south portions, but he said they would go to AWC. We wanted a development plan from MLB that would compensate the District for that plan. We also said to the mayor, and he agreed, to select a local ownership. All these things the mayor agreed to sitting in that room. Yet, when you read that lease, none of this is in the lease. If you add the hours up, we must have spent 50, 60, 70, 100 hours on baseball. We need to figure out what the priorities are in this city. I’m sick of this. I hate to say that because I’ve supported the mayor every way I could. I tell you how arrogant they are - prior to the mediation period, our chairman didn’t even invite us to the meetings. I want to vote this lease down today. On the other hand, I want to give it a chance. We need to stop this game playing with the mayor - stop this with the council. We’re too intelligent for that, too experienced for that. I’m just disgusted. Spending all this time coming to some so-called agreement, yet not one agreement is in the lease. And the mayor knows that he made those promises and I say why doesn’t he look to those promises? We’ve been sincere about trying to keep baseball here in Washington. In the January meeting, 8 of us were prepared to vote this down and maybe. My attitude at this point is if Virginia wants baseball, let them get it! Take ‘em over there. I want baseball but not at any cost and I don’t want baseball with an administration that plays game with us. If someone makes a motion to table, I will support that.

Mendehlson (sp?): I am with the majority with my colleagues that we can’t approve this without limit. In 9/2004 it was 430 million dollars. In Dec 2004, we tried to cap at 535 million. Last December we were told it would 631 million dollars. It is clear the cost will be higher and substantially higher. The land costs - through the court process, we’re likely to pay more than $97 million. Costs for environmental remediation - unclear, maybe more than the $8 mil budgeted. We received some documents from the mayor on maximum price. While I believe it goes some way, it is not completely a maximum price. If there’s a long lead time for an hour and it’s the wrong product, that will result in a change order and higher price. What has been explained to us is 2 of the reasons why the guar max price won’t be guaranteed is because of the slim time frame for the stadium completion and drawings aren’t finished, so more likely price will grow. Is it $631 mil? I don’t think so. I support what direction I thought we were going with a 2 step process - supporting an emergency bill. I created my shot at this. The 2 step process is to adopt a bill establishing a cap and then to delay the resolution that is before us. That’s what I believe we should do. I believe if we proceed, the lease will fail. I think we should postpone this.

Fenty: I think people are divided because people at home are sitting wondering if we think we are ready to decide or not. We are trying to decide whether we have a 600 or 700 million dollar stadium or something that exceeds that. This is no longer a discussion about whether MLB should build their own stadium, no longer about a public-private partnership. This is what we will spend. I can tell you the residents don’t want any price. In 12/04 the DC council voted 7-6 on a 535mil stadium. 3 were on their way out the door. The three who replaced pledged that the deal was unfair and should not be voted on. Today we are talking about a 300 mil cap on the cost of the stadium only - not the soft costs. If you don’t account for anything else in this deal, the project has already gone up $80 mil since this council was split and 3 new members. There’s no way we are going to vote on a deal that is any less than $680 mil. It is time to vote on this deal. We need to tell the residents of DC do we think it is a good idea to spend money on a stadium or don’t we? I think when we have all left this council and we think about everything we have done for the District, I don’t think any of us is goin to look back on a vote to provide a brand new baseball stadium that multimillionaire baseball owners could pay for themselves. I urge you to vote and vote no.

Orange: He’s only talking about costs. Yes, I would spend $600 mil today to earn $600 mil over the life of this turn and generate new money. We’ve already seen analysis showing the net value is $890 mil. If you strictly look at benefits outweighing costs, you cut the deal. No, you wouldn’t spend it if you don’t spend it wisely. THe benefit is new unencumbered tax revenue multiplied by 30 - that’s 3.3 billion dollars. All the benefits - laptops for school kids, new jobs, at new living wage, $20 mil toward general fund - this is a $4 bill operation and you only spent $600 mil to get it. We’re only talking about a ballpark fee, we’re not talking about money coming out of our general fund. This is the CPA in me talking. With a transaction like this, we could be up to $5 bil in no time in reserve. Past experience - MCI center, new convention center. It is an economic boon for the city. It has gotten us a foundation to build on. At the end of the day you’re talking about a one time cost. I would pay it to get a stream of revenue for the next 30 years - you know what I could do for my people if I got those dollars? Do you have any other proposal that will generate this kind of revenue? Affordable housing? Fund school modernization bill. I’m gonna say this because the press will never say it - You gonna take the advice of someone who can’t even handle a 20,000 estate that has been sanctioned by the bar?

Chairwoman: YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER!

Evans: It’s been said here we’re going to spend $600 on a stadium. It’s true, but it’s not just the stadium itself. The key is how it’s going to be paid for. We voted earlier on funding the school system. Contrast that with the stadium where no money is coming out of the general fund. If the stadium doesn’t exist, there will be no dollars available. No stadium - no rent, no concessions. To say people are sitting at home wondering if we’re going to spend $600 mil on a stadium completely distorts the facts. Why? Because if people really understood this deal, they’d do it. This is a unique deal - a baseball team located without an owner in a jurisdiction that didn’t previously have a team. Documents provide as much protection as commercially available. Thier saying this is the best you can do. What we have before us is the best deal you can possibly do with the best cost caps. There is no certainty folks - when the MCI Center and convention center - no certainty and not as pinned down as this deal. The benefits have been enormous.

Continued…

Posted in Stadium, Washington Nationals