Nationals' Stadium Issues - A Merged Thread

[CC97]

Why so bitter against Washington? Do you fault me for wanting a baseball team in my city?

I'm not bitter against Washington, I just think there are markets out there with absolutely no teams that deserve a team more than a market that already has a team, and several more near it.

You live in the U.S. Northeast, there are about 10 teams within a few hours drive of you... now look at some markets out west.

See, this is why Hamilton doesn't have an NHL team.

[pcgd]

Well, I know Washington deserves a team, but they've screwed the pooch 2 times so far with teams, and now a third time, further blackening the eye of the MLB. Canadians feel screwed out of a team by the Majors. Hense their dislike of the move. Yes, nobody showed up, but before certain things happened to the team, they drew very well in Montreal.

Anyway, I got off my point, if I even started it. I agree with Chris. A market that doesn't have a team should be considered before a market with a team IMO. You mentioned Baltimore Ravens. No, they shouldn't be in Baltimore. They should be in Cleveland still with today's browns being in LA.

You said Washington was trying for 30 years. What happened to the previous 60 when they had teams? Obviously there was some reason those teams moved.

I'll repeat, I want Washington to have a team. Its not my first choice, but it did make the most sense. MLB had an agreement in place with the City of Washington. But, the city has now backed out of that agreement, and the MLB has every right to void that agreement if the Dec. 31st deadline passes without the agreed agreement.

[random]

As i've stated before the first team left because of an admittedly racist owner named clark griffith who said there were too many black people in washington DC and moved to a nice "white working class" town in minnesota. The second team left largely cause they were terrible and Texas gave them a much better deal. But the fact reamains that the city has changed so much over the last 30 years in terms of population and jobs that that comparison is not even valid.

But anyway, i dont want to re-hash the whole "does washington deserve a team" debate. I'm sick of it and its pointless. My indignation is saved for the power hungry egomaniacs on the DC council who are are backing out of the deal they made with their City, their Mayor and Major League Baseball committing a rediculous act of bait-and-switch. It's not all of DC that backed out of the deal, just 3 or 4 power hungry idiots that are backing out of a deal that would help the city tremndously. I;m not mad at MLB for doing what they have to do, i'm mad at our idiot politicians for breaking a deal.

The city that "deserves" the team in the business sense, is the one with the best deal. DC made that deal, and then Linda Crapp backed out. Thats just the height of stupidity.

Wilbon Again

[CC97]

The city that "deserves" the team is the one with the best deal. DC made that deal, and then Linda Crapp backed out. Thats just the height of stupidity.

If she did all this pro-baseball business before MLB proposed this agreement, then I would disagree with you.

But if she knew that was the deal the whole time then she's playing a dangerous game of chicken with MLB all the while tugging on some emotional strings in her city. Which of course is just stupid.

We had a situation like this when the NBA was expanding to Toronto, there was a politician (a female one actually) who was refusing to remove NBA gambling from our provincial lottery system -- which was in the NBA proposal, I think she was running for Premier (Gov.) of Ontario at the time of this whole situation and lost.

So, I can relate with you and your ups-and-downs.

[random]

Yeah thats exactly what she did. She stood with the mayor and said the deal was great and wonderful and got all the face time, then said no afterwards to use as leverage i suppose. But MLB is probably in no mood to deal with her little games. IT's like Wilbon said "It's like finally going out with a girl thats been following you around for 5 years then getting stood up".

Remember folks, this is the City that re-elected Marion Berry TWICE after he was caught on camera smoking crack.

If they move, i think they should go to North Carolina or Norfolk, the south deserves more than one team in my opinion. But my money is on Vegas (no pun intended).

(As a side note to what was said earlier, I think Hamilton should get an NHL team, as with Hartford. If they have the fan base they should get it. Makes more sense than Pheonix or Nashville IMO.)

[OMMF]

Can someone explain to me why any city "deserves" a sports franchise? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why waste all this taxpayer money? I'm sick of politicians bending over backwards to fund an activity that we can all do but these athletes can do better. Here in Seattle we voted against a new baseball stadium and a new football stadium. What do we have now? $1B worth of stadia just to the south of our downtown. Why? Because the team(s) threatened to leave if they didn't get it. Oh no! A town without a sports team? Armageddon surely can't be far behind.

[oz615]

(As a side note to what was said earlier, I think Hamilton should get an NHL team, as with Hartford. If they have the fan base they should get it. Makes more sense than Pheonix or Nashville IMO.)

i apologize for going outside of the origional topic,but i'am so sick of everyone say that Nashville shouldn't belong in the NHL,we do have the fan support belive or not despite what the numbers say,we took the Red Wings to game 6 in the 1st round last season,and most of all and this is imporaint im IMO unlike all the other southern franchises in the league @ least it snow here in the winter and that alone sould justify Nashville being in NHL !!!!!.

I just to represent for my hometown,and now back to the origional topic already in progress

[RyanB06]

Can someone explain to me why any city "deserves" a sports franchise? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why waste all this taxpayer money? I'm sick of politicians bending over backwards to fund an activity that we can all do but these athletes can do better. Here in Seattle we voted against a new baseball stadium and a new football stadium. What do we have now? $1B worth of stadia just to the south of our downtown. Why? Because the team(s) threatened to leave if they didn't get it. Oh no! A town without a sports team? Armageddon surely can't be far behind.

Unfortunately, in this day and age a city's identity is tied to its sports teams.

Hartford, for example, hasn't been the same since the Whalers left. When they were here, the city was alive, and things were happening - it felt like a major-league town. Now, even though we still have a hockey team, Hartford on a weeknight might as well be a ghost town.

Armageddon, indeed!

[OMMF]

Can someone explain to me why any city "deserves" a sports franchise? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why waste all this taxpayer money? I'm sick of politicians bending over backwards to fund an activity that we can all do but these athletes can do better. Here in Seattle we voted against a new baseball stadium and a new football stadium. What do we have now? $1B worth of stadia just to the south of our downtown. Why? Because the team(s) threatened to leave if they didn't get it. Oh no! A town without a sports team? Armageddon surely can't be far behind.

Unfortunately, in this day and age a city's identity is tied to its sports teams.

Hartford, for example, hasn't been the same since the Whalers left. When they were here, the city was alive, and things were happening - it felt like a major-league town. Now, even though we still have a hockey team, Hartford on a weeknight might as well be a ghost town.

Armageddon, indeed!

But many cities with teams have that problem and conversely, cities without teams can have wonderful and vibrant lifestyles and communities. Las Vegas, Austin, Portland (Blazers are hardly a world-class franchise and taking them out would only make the city better, imo). Why let the team identify the city instead of the other way around?

BTW, yes I am a huge sports fan. I go, mostly to junior or college sports, but also to Safeco Field for baseball games. Hypocritical? Perhaps. But that still doesn't change the fact that backwards thinking has brought us to where leagues and franchises can hold cities and communities hostage even though the rammifications of standing up to them are small.

[Swiss]

A sincere question, please.

If all the Washington deal fails, why don't the ex Expos return to Montréal instead going to another US city?

Thanks.

[OMMF]

A sincere question, please.

If all the Washington deal fails, why don't the ex Expos return to Montréal instead going to another US city?

Thanks.

Because even the smallest major city would draw more than the 9300+ that the Expos averaged over 80 home games last year.

Incomplete 2004 MLB attendance

[CC97]

A sincere question, please.

If all the Washington deal fails, why don't the ex Expos return to Montréal instead going to another US city?

Thanks.

Because even the smallest major city would draw more than the 9300+ that the Expos averaged over 80 home games last year.

Incomplete 2004 MLB attendance

Not only that but that would be a massive embarassment to the league

[goalieboy82]

this is what i say about the dc council

:cursing:

[OMMF]

A sincere question, please.

If all the Washington deal fails, why don't the ex Expos return to Montréal instead going to another US city?

Thanks.

Because even the smallest major city would draw more than the 9300+ that the Expos averaged over 80 home games last year.

Incomplete 2004 MLB attendance

Not only that but that would be a massive embarassment to the league

More than it already is.

[random]

A Sports Franchise/ Stadium does a lot for a city. Case and point in my opinion is Baltimore. When the Orioles built their new stadium in 1992, followed by the ravens a couple years later it was the impetus for lots of commerical businesses to move in that would otherwise have ignored that then rough and tumble part of the city. Many rich suburbanites spent tons of money in Baltimore that otherwise would not have gone to the city. The inner harbor part of the city suddenly became hip again and people invested millions of dollars in now much more valueble real estate. The city of baltimore still has a long way to go, but the city today is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in the 80s or 70s. I know the same can be said for the old downtown and chinatown neighborhoods of washington DC before the MCI center opened. Other cities such as Cleveland and Denver has experienced similar phenomenon.

Sure, a sports venue costs a lot of money, but it brings in a lot of money that otherwise would not be invested in the city. It can, and usually does spark all kinds of urban renewal and drives property value through the roof. Also, major sports venues and teams can be incentives for corporations to move in, and a draw for potential residents. Cities and Municipalities pay huge amounts of money for sports because sports help the economy. And in the real world, dollars are all that matters.

(As a side note, the taxpayers of DC are not paying for the new stadium should it pass. The money is coming from the top 15% of corporations doing business in the city, not individuals)

[OMMF]

A Sports Franchise/ Stadium does a lot for a city. Case and point in my opinion is Baltimore. When the Orioles built their new stadium in 1992, followed by the ravens a couple years later it was the impetus for lots of commerical businesses to move in that would otherwise have ignored that then rough and tumble part of the city. Many rich suburbanites spent tons of money in Baltimore that otherwise would not have gone to the city. The inner harbor part of the city suddenly became hip again and people invested millions of dollars in now much more valueble real estate. The city of baltimore still has a long way to go, but the city today is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in the 80s or 70s. I know the same can be said for the old downtown and chinatown neighborhoods of washington DC before the MCI center opened. Other cities such as Cleveland and Denver has experienced similar phenomenon.

Sure, a sports venue costs a lot of money, but it brings in a lot of money that otherwise would not be invested in the city. It can, and usually does spark all kinds of urban renewal and drives property value through the roof. Also, major sports venues and teams can be incentives for corporations to move in, and a draw for potential residents. Cities and Municipalities pay huge amounts of money for sports because sports help the economy. And in the real world, dollars are all that matters.

(As a side note, the taxpayers of DC are not paying for the new stadium should it pass. The money is coming from the top 15% of corporations doing business in the city, not individuals)

Up to 20 schools will close in the next few years in Seattle, our libraries can't stay open the whole year, no rapid transit in the city, reductions in police and fire forces, a crumbling highway that could fall into the water with even a small quake. These are all good reasons to have spent the $1B on two stadia? (Those are just in Seattle. It was a state government decision to decide to build them against the wishes of the voters.)

Ok then how about this? We had one that worked well for them apart from the occasional tile falling or roof leaking. It held conventions, trade shows, graduations and, this is the kicker, Final Fours. Isn't that money important to the local industries? So you take 2-300M of that 1B and spend it on renovations and put the rest back into the state. That way you can have both teams, since we can't survive without them apparently, and you have the space for other income augmenting events.

A baseball team does not need it's own stadium. It doesn't need anything. It wants. Somewhere along the line it became hard to say no.

[gosioux76]

A baseball team does not need it's own stadium. It doesn't need anything. It wants. Somewhere along the line it became hard to say no.

OneManManyFacets makes some great points here. And Seattle is a great example.

I really disagree that sports venues and economic development go hand in hand. It's become universally acknowledged, actually, that stadiums aren't magnets for the kind of development anticipated when they're built.

Consider Pittsburgh. The city built two taxpayer funded stadiums on its North Shore for the Pirates and Steelers. All that's developed around them in the time since has been a few restaurants in which business sinks during off seasons.

Meanwhile, the city's in a state of financial ruin and its budget is essentially being run by a governor-appointed oversight committee.

[DEAD!]

I'm not against a government using taxpayer money to help build a stadium, but NOT THE ENTIRE cost. This is really what Linda Cropp is getting at. While I think she did pull back on her stance about baseball coming back to Washington, her current stance is the right one.

Yes, a stadium can bring positive economic impact. But it has to be used the right way (i.e. hold enough events to justify the costs) and with the right surroundings. If you are going to rebuild a rundown area, there has to be more than just a stadium or two. You need other buildings as well around like office towers, restaurants theatres, an opera house, clubs, museums, waterfront activities etc. places that operate more than 81 days in a year. Also, with publicly funded stadiums, there are extreme cost overruns.

Even if it is the top corporations that are paying for it, that would take money away from the individual employees within the company and they would also like some incentives for the new ballpark as well.

[Phil]

I think the key is to build stadiums to boost existing economic development, not spark it entirely.

The early results are that the MTS Centre in Winnipeg has done that, although by itself it will not be able to sustain that development. However, with a number of downtown revitalization efforts in place, along with Manitoba Hydro's commitment to add a new skyscraper to our skyline, things are looking up for my hometown.

[yh]

However, with a number of downtown revitalization efforts in place, along with Manitoba Hydro's commitment to add a new skyscraper to our skyline, things are looking up for my hometown.

Well, it wouldn't be much of a skyscraper if you didn't have to look up.

I would agree that the construction of a stadium in a previously blighted or undeveloped region can only work if it serves as the centerpiece of other development which has the ability to sustain itself year-round. This usually entails "mixed use" development - retail (and not just specialty retail, either), office space, and residential. A stadium that is simply surrounded by a bar and restaurant district will not float a region on its own. There has to be a primary constituency that is there day in and day out with sufficient resources to generate money after the 8-5 crowd clears out for the day.