“Fields of Schemers II”
For at least the past four years, Chicago White Sox Managing General Partner Jerry Reinsdorf, acting in his alter ego as Major League Baseball’s Relocation Committee Chairman, has been playing hardball with the governing authorities of the District of Columbia to finalize the terms under which MLB would permit the relocation of the Montreal Expos to Washington. Chief among these terms, of course, is a brand new baseball-only stadium, with financing for as much of it as possible to be borne at the taxpayers’ expense. Preferably 100 percent of it, according to MLB.
In one notorious incident that occurred early in these negotiations, the Washington Post reported that a “delegation of D.C. officials, led by Mayor Anthony A. Williams,” had traveled to MLB’s New York offices to meet with Reinsdorf’s Relocation Committee, and open negotiations that would “either set the terms for baseball's return to the nation's capital—or choose to bypass Washington, D.C.”
Delegations from Portland, Oregon, as well as Northern Virginia, also made their pitches to Reinsdorf's Relocation Committee that same week.
As the Washington Post’s report described this January, 2003 meeting in New York City, D.C.’s “Deputy Mayor Eric Price held up a chart of MLB's last 11 stadium mega-deals, and suggested to the committee that the proper mix had settled at about two-thirds public funding to one-third private.”
“The reply,” the Post noted, “came with a smile” from Reinsdorf, “but it was not taken as a joke.”
“‘Two-thirds/one-third is fine’, Reinsdorf said, according to two people present. ‘But three thirds/no thirds is more of what we had in mind’.” (“Baseball Awaits Money Pitch; Public Finances to Build Stadium Could Be Key to Getting Expos,” March 19, 2003.)
In honor of the Major League Baseball's ideal formula for three-thirds public financing, no-thirds private, I’ve decided to take my own informal survey of public opinion on this perennial issue. Here goes nothing:
Question 1. Which statement about the source of financing for Major League Baseball stadiums comes closest to your own point of view?
A) 100 percent of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and zero percent by Major League Baseball.
B) Roughly two-thirds of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and one-third by Major League Baseball.
C) Roughly one-third of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and two-thirds by Major League Baseball.
D) 100 percent of the financing should be borne by Major League Baseball, and zero percent by taxpayers.
(Sorry that I can't open my Wake Up, Sports Fans weblog to comments. But attack sites and assorted Internet predators are lurking out there. And they'll attack it with profanity and whatnot. So you'll just have to make a mental note of how you'd answer Question 1.)
For at least the past four years, Chicago White Sox Managing General Partner Jerry Reinsdorf, acting in his alter ego as Major League Baseball’s Relocation Committee Chairman, has been playing hardball with the governing authorities of the District of Columbia to finalize the terms under which MLB would permit the relocation of the Montreal Expos to Washington. Chief among these terms, of course, is a brand new baseball-only stadium, with financing for as much of it as possible to be borne at the taxpayers’ expense. Preferably 100 percent of it, according to MLB.
In one notorious incident that occurred early in these negotiations, the Washington Post reported that a “delegation of D.C. officials, led by Mayor Anthony A. Williams,” had traveled to MLB’s New York offices to meet with Reinsdorf’s Relocation Committee, and open negotiations that would “either set the terms for baseball's return to the nation's capital—or choose to bypass Washington, D.C.”
Delegations from Portland, Oregon, as well as Northern Virginia, also made their pitches to Reinsdorf's Relocation Committee that same week.
As the Washington Post’s report described this January, 2003 meeting in New York City, D.C.’s “Deputy Mayor Eric Price held up a chart of MLB's last 11 stadium mega-deals, and suggested to the committee that the proper mix had settled at about two-thirds public funding to one-third private.”
“The reply,” the Post noted, “came with a smile” from Reinsdorf, “but it was not taken as a joke.”
“‘Two-thirds/one-third is fine’, Reinsdorf said, according to two people present. ‘But three thirds/no thirds is more of what we had in mind’.” (“Baseball Awaits Money Pitch; Public Finances to Build Stadium Could Be Key to Getting Expos,” March 19, 2003.)
In honor of the Major League Baseball's ideal formula for three-thirds public financing, no-thirds private, I’ve decided to take my own informal survey of public opinion on this perennial issue. Here goes nothing:
Question 1. Which statement about the source of financing for Major League Baseball stadiums comes closest to your own point of view?
A) 100 percent of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and zero percent by Major League Baseball.
B) Roughly two-thirds of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and one-third by Major League Baseball.
C) Roughly one-third of the financing should be borne by taxpayers, and two-thirds by Major League Baseball.
D) 100 percent of the financing should be borne by Major League Baseball, and zero percent by taxpayers.
(Sorry that I can't open my Wake Up, Sports Fans weblog to comments. But attack sites and assorted Internet predators are lurking out there. And they'll attack it with profanity and whatnot. So you'll just have to make a mental note of how you'd answer Question 1.)
posted by Robert Bonner at 3:07 PM
<< Home