J-Red seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill O'Reilly in only publishing on this blog the most uninformed, venomous, angst-filled diatribes against the Nationals, written in The Washington Post by somebody who has admittedly never set foot inside the stadium. J-Red's post is available here for those of you who are too lazy to scroll down our blog to read it: http://www.east-coast-bias.com/2008/07/piling-on-more-nats-abuse.html
Man, J-Red, I would love to try a case against you if your primary reliance is on such strongly authentic evidence based upon... oh... ZERO personal knowledge (See Md. Rule 5-602). For the counterpoint, I will offer the following article, from today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071402260_2.html?hpid=artslot&sid=ST2008071402462&pos=
I would reprint it here, but it's long, and I'd prefer not to have the Washington Post suits after ECB for reprinting an article in full. But the article is entitled "Nationals Stadium Gets High Marks from Fans" and actually interviews... hold your breath now J-Red... ACTUAL FANS who ATTEND THE GAMES to portray the fact that despite the team being utterly horrendous (don't even ask me to defend Bowden or the team's strength and conditioning and training staffs right now), and despite some low marks for the high price of food, overall, fans love Nats Park. Myself included.
According to J-Red, this is Nationals Park on an average evening home game.
If you haven't gone yet, I highly recommend taking the recommendation of the article. Go the day of the game and buy $5 grandstand seats. Then just hit the Red Loft for a beer and some food. Basically you've just upgraded your seats by about eight price levels, you're surrounded by some of Washington's finest intern "scenery," and be sure to take a break and walk around the stadium and hit the other game-watching vantage points along the first base line and up high with sweeping views of the city beyond.
J-Red, I know you're up in Baltimore County, so maybe you're not really familiar with the biases of the Washington Post columnists. But FYI, relying on Norman Chad for an opinion on Nats Park is roughly like relying on Courtland Milloy for an opinion on affirmative action.
37 comments:
Did you read the Chad article? No one is arguing that Nationals Park is an unpleasant place to watch baseball. Many are arguing that in light of:
a) Low fan support (lowest ratings in baseball, 14th of 16 teams in NL in attendance)
b) 100% public financing
c) The Lerners' refusal to pay rent and attempt to extract $10M in penalties, and
d) The District's more pressing problems
e) Lukewarm desire to have baseball in the city, possessed almost entirely by the District's White residents...
Perhaps building a stadium in the District wasn't such a good idea.
The stadium is reportedly nice. It's boring on television, but that doesn't really mean much. Metro has done a phenomenal job (making them now 1 for 284,492) and the City opened a stadium on time. That's all good news. It's just offset by a ton of bad news.
And why does every review of Nationals Park have to include a walking tour? Is it an indoor-outdoor mall, or a baseball stadium? I know the Nats are awful and NL baseball is boring and inferior, but do people really go to games (paying FAR more than $5 if they aren't smart enough to buy and move) just to eat food they could have (cheaper) on the outside, drink beer they could have (cheaper) on the outside, and stroll around trying to find a view of the D.C. skyline (which the "fanbase" should already be quite familiar with)?
I read the Chad article while swallowing about as large a tablet of salt as I possibly could reading an article by somebody who pens articles under the nickname of "The Couch Slouch."
My point is that Chad has such blinders on that even if he went to a game at Nats Park, he'd be so full of self-loathing, he'd be unable to find anything good to say. His bias is incredible.
The bottom line is that the stadium brings hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue to Metro, brings hundreds of thousands of dollars to D.C. in tax revenue on tickets and food (just watch how many $7.50 beers are flying across the bar at the Red Patio on an average game night and do the math stadium-wide), and will shortly bring thousands of dollars in property tax revenue (you haven't been down to the stadium yet to see all the surrounding construction).
Simply put, yes, the stadium was publicly funded. Yes, the Lerners are going after the city for penalties because they have no other recourse (contract between D.C. and Clark Construction... not between Clark and Nationals) and because if you walk around the vastly incomplete area where the team's offices are supposed to be, you'd understand. It's shitty for P.R., but it's not unjustified.
Any city has more pressing problems than building a ballpark downtown. But in many of those cities (Denver, San Diego to name just two), building a ballpark totally revitalized large chunks of that city and brought a huge source of tax revenue.
And D.C. could do worse than drawing thousands of suburbanites to a once blighted area of the Southeast/Southwest border where previously they'd only be if they got lost on DC-295.
You can see that construction in this picture.
The actual impact of a stadium and team on a city's economy has long been debated. Here is a list of abstracts from the major articles.
Regarding the public financing, while there is a cost to DC taxpayers, the biggest issue with the public financing was that if the stadium wasn't a success, they would potentially be on the hook.
However, the tax revenues from the ballpark district have been OUTSTANDING, and the city is AHEAD OF SCHEDULE in paying off the bonds. And this is only 3 1/2 months into the stadium opening. The city is actually faced with the HORRIBLE DILEMNA of what to do with the EXTRA tax revenues they have collected that they weren't expecting. Sucks to be them, huh!
As for the low fan support, I'm not sure how anyone can be overly disappointed with the 25% increase in attendance this year versus last year, especially in light of the current economy!
And not to get picky J-Red, but the Nats are currently 12th in the NL in attendance and 16th in all of MLB. While that may be a disappointment for some, considering there isn't much to see on the field, it isn't that bad. They are outdrawing quite a few teams that are in the thick of their races - including Arizona, Chicago (Sox), Oakland, Minnesota, Tampa Bay and Florida.
Oh, and they are outdrawing that Baltimore team too.
That is an interesting stat though - for some reason, there are only 4 AL teams in the top 17 of attendance this year. I guess AL Baseball is just inferior these days?
The entire tax revenues question depends on one question that cannot be answered for a couple quarters: Where is the money that is being spent coming from? Is it money being spent in the District that would otherwise have been spent in Maryland and Virginia? Is it money that just would have been spent elsewhere in the District? Isn't RFK in a different "tax district" than Nationals Park, meaning the huge increase in tax revenue in one district is probably offset by the huge decrease in another?
This whole venture only works if at least one of two things is happening: 1) Money is being spent in the District that otherwise would have been spent outside the District OR 2) District residents have been sitting on money that they are now spending on Nats/Stadium related things. We don't have the means of determining whether either of those two things are happening yet.
This is where my argument about the relevance of the Nationals in the hierarchy of things to do in D.C. comes into play. If people are simply selecting the Nats over, say, the Kennedy Center, the District is not making any additional money. If people are selecting the Nats over, say, staying at home and staring at their money, then the District is extracting additional money out of these people. Only time will tell which is happening.
Based upon the crowds of Nats fans on my red line trains home to Rockville... and based upon the crowds of Nats fans who transfer at L'Enfant Plaza to the yellow and blue lines towards Northern Virginia, I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY suggest that there are thousands of dollars pouring into the District that would not otherwise be spent there. Again, J-Red, come to a game sometime with me. You'll see.
J-Red-
Your understanding of the funding of the stadium is way off.
The money used to construct the stadium was based on bonds issued by the city, with a special tax district created to secure the interests of the bondholders. Simply put (and this is a point that so many people just don't understand) - No stadium, No money. This is NOT money coming from other city projects / funds.
As for the tax district, the RFK area was not a special tax district as I recall, and so no, there is not a loss there offsetting the increase by the stadium. If you have ever been to RFK, you know there is the stadium, the armory, and then a bunch of row houses. Now, there may have been a special tax placed on the Nationals tickets there, but if so, that was to fund the RFK operations and to partially fund the new park. In the new district, you have significant development going up all around - all of that is part of the special tax district too.
To a certain extent, you are right in that the majority of the money being spent in and around the stadium is and will be Virginia and Maryland money. That is kindof the point. Alot of VA and MD residents work in DC but pay absolutely no taxes in DC - the idea is that they spend their entertainment dollars in DC versus at home. And it is happening. Therefore, the issue of replacing lost revenues lies with the Virginia and Maryland counties.
But Jeremy, if you hadn't spent money on the Nats tickets you definitely would have Caps tickets right now. I am certain that SOME money is coming into the District that would normally be spent in Maryland and Virginia (to hell with their tax revenues), I just question HOW MUCH money.
This is appropos of a larger scale economic discussion, but there is a finite amount of money available to become tax revenue. All we're really talking about here is putting more of it in the District's hands (gulp) and less of it in the hands of Maryland and Virginia. It isn't like the stadium is printing money somewhere.
Anonymous,
Since no one as done an adequate job explaining this special tax district concept (including, of course, The Post and The Times), would you like to do a guest post explaining the financing structure for the stadium and putting the Norm Chad arguments to bed? You'd have to find sources (links are fine) to support your statements.
E-Mail eastcoastbiasblog@gmail.com if you're interested.
And 14% of the annual receipts used to pay the bond revenue (The Ballpark Revenue Fund as it is designated by statute) were to come from the annual rents of $5.5M. Are the tax receipts from lower than anticipated attendance (one tax source, est. $12.5M/yr) and the taxes on businesses grossing over $3M (the other tax source, est. $22.5M/yr) totally offsetting the rent the Lerners are refusing to pay?
And we could get into a whole different discussion about who feels the most pain over the special tax on businesses grossing over $3M. Here's a hint: it ain't the people in charge.
J-Red-
Not sure it deserves a special post - reality is the facts have been presented numerous times in numerous places - people just choose to ignore them. Not sure why that would be any different now.
As for your latest points-
(1) The rent money from the Nationals will still be collected - the latest dispute only sets when the payment is due - but once they meet the milestone that the rent is due, all amounts back to 3/30/08 will be due. Therefore, the $5.5 million this year (I think it is actually less in Year 1 anyway) will be collected - it's just a matter of when.
(2) The special tax on businesses with gross receipts over $3 million. Agree that this gets passed on, but you need to really think about what businesses there are in the District with gross receipts over $3 million. I'll give you a hint - it starts with an L and rhymes with Mawyers. Therefore, the average DC resident is not really picking up the tab. Off the top of my head, the main (legitimate, tax-filing) businesses in DC with gross receipts over $3 mil would be the utilities (with all the taxes they charge anyway, does anyone even notice the additional charge), maybe car delearships, some of the recent big box stores that have opened, and with the recent increases, maybe some of the gas stations. In the end, this is being passed on to DC Taxpayers, but if you were to break it down, it wouldn't work out to much additional for each resident. (The big law firms etc. are paying a big chunk of the total pot there).
(3) before you get to it, the $100,000 a day penalty that the Lerners are supposedly going after is what they call a negotiating tactic. By including the penalty, they get the attention of the city much easier. In the end though, despite it being included in the agreement, and arbitrator would not hold the city to that - I think both sides fully realize that.
(4) Getting to an earlier report, I remember reading i think in the projections that they expect some 75%+ of the stadium business to come from outside of the district. Haven't seen any study to prove/disprove that, but I bet it is in excess of 75% - just try to catch an orange or blue line train south, or a red line train either direction out of the city after a game...good luck!
1) Lawyers and lobbyists and other businesses grossing over $3M get accustomed to whatever they made the year before. Raise the taxes and they're going to trim at the lower levels: secretaries, mailroom, copy clerk, etc. That's how the tax is directly passed onto the poorest residents.
2) The Lerners are contractually entitled to $100,000 per day (times 100 days and counting). An arbitrator would say "The Lerners are contractually entitled to $100,000 per day (times 100 days and counting.) Arbitrators are non-judicial judges. They don't just split differences when one side is clearly right and the other side clearly wrong. Plus, arbitrators cost money.
3) I agree that the rent payments are simply suspended (and almost certainly being used as a "deposit" on the penalty the Lerners are seeking, in case the District argues it legally cannot pay out the damages under the stadium costs cap). Of course you are familiar with the time value of money. Money now is worth more than money later.
4) 75% of the money for the Nats is coming from outside the District. I'll assume that's correct, and that's a good way to extract taxes from the people who are actually using the stadium. I'm not particularly happy about it, especially with the challenges Montgomery County is currently facing, but the time for those arguments has passed (with Montgomery County residents, oddly, wanting the new team/stadium).
J-Red, the 2 stadium deals for Baltimore were arguably worse deals for the state.
Since the state put up the money through lottery backed funds, that was truly a case of the state simply redirecting spending from one part of the state to Baltimore. Furthermore, the stadiums were built in a part of the city that would likely have revitalized anway.
In DC's case, it is a legitimate attempt for catalyze development in an area where it may not have happened otherwise.
(1) I disagree - Lawyers and lobbyists are pretty good at passing on their increased costs to their clients.
(2) The penalty clause in the contract has been argued many places before, but the opinion I've heard from many lawyers is that that penalty clause would not be enforceable. The penalty accrues if the building isn't substantially complete, a vague term not defined anywhere. I think a more likely outcome would be an arbitrator saying it was substantially complete, thus no 100k a day, but there were still damages incurred by the team, and therefore levying a smaller penalty on the city. Depending on the contract with Clark, the city may or may not then have recourse with Clark (I don't think they would). I'm not a lawyer though, so I could be wrong on that whole thing.
(3) Time value of money usually works. But, I can assure you, every single one of my investment accounts were worth more on March 30 than they are today! and that's with additional fundings into them too!
And, I'm not going to be ashamed about being irritated about tax revenue being redistributed from Maryland to the District. I've heard the argument that Maryland and Virginia commuters don't contribute to the D.C. tax base, and as a Marylander I have little sympathy for that argument. We gave the land to create D.C. for free. We deserve to reap some benefit from that "investment".
If you want to punish some freeloaders, hit Virginia. They got all the benefits of having D.C. nearby with virtually none of the headaches and inside the Beltway urban decay.
1) If the District invested the rent in the same securities we use for our investments, we have bigger problems than rent and penalties anyway.
2) The "substantially complete" language first appeared in Thomas Boswell's column yesterday. Some attorney is losing his job for that one. I agree "substantially" provides some wiggle room that might let them get the damages down a little.
3) Unrelated: Two Nats fans were killed Friday when they were standing on the upper level of the RFK-Nats Park shuttle bus and their heads struck a freeway overpass. Too many brews at the Red Loft perhaps? I hope they weren't among the 9,000 regular TV viewers.
J-Red, its pretty obvious from your tone and substance of posts at this point this is more about hatred of DC.
Thats your right.
Lets leave it at that.
Norman Chad is a bitter man, who has not lived in or near DC for many years (see the article). He's been married almost as many times as Larry King, and I can't remember him writing anything positive about anything, even lo those many years ago when he wrote a more regular column in the Post. Just on the basis of considering the source, one would have to discount his ramblings
I don't hide my hatred of D.C. The only blog I visit daily other than my favorite sports blogs is whyIhatedc.blogspot.com.
Gotcha, just making sure we're all clear where you're coming from.
This is ridiculous. If you're such a confirmed DC hater, why are you even wasting your time thinking about the awesome new ballpark we've got down in the District, and crying crocodile tears for the poor DC government that apparently got suckered into paying for it? And then of course you reverse course and are huffy about the entertainment (and therefore tax) dollars the ballpark seduces away from Maryland. Well, which is it?
The fact of the matter is that the ballpark has turbo-charged a badly-needed urban renaissance in a previously blighted area of the District. It's really criminal how long the city allowed prime riverfront property to languish as a seedy, light-industrial wasteland, and it's awesome that the ballpark has jump-started the transformation of that area into what will be one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the city. And yes it captures millions of suburban Virginia and Maryland tax dollars into the District that otherwise would likely be spent at restaurants and bars in suburban Maryland and Virginia. But speaking as a life-long resident of Northern Virginia, that's GOOD for Virginia too, because no metropolitan area can be healthy if its urban core is rotten. That's why I love that the ballpark is in the city.
Of course, the ballpark will probably also soak up some extra tourist dollars from visitors from across America who will take the chance to catch a ballgame while they're visiting the nation's capital. Some may even get the idea to visit DC BECAUSE their hometown nine are going to Washington for a game and they get to thinking "hey, junior hasn't even been to Washington." There's also a lot of synergy with the massive new National Harbor hotel and convention center complex being finished in Maryland next to the Wilson Bridge, which will offer boat service to the Nats Ballpark.
All in all, DC is finally getting its house in order, cleaning up a lot of old eyesores, and ceasing to be the laughing stock government we all remember and cringed about growing up. It's good times in DC, man, and you should come check it out.
And did we mention...the ballpark kicks ass!
By the way, I still really like Camden Yards too. I was home for a few weeks in June from an overseas posting, and caught a game at Camden Yards with an old O's fan friend of mine -- in addition to the games I caught at Nats Park -- and I have to say the Camden Yards magic does stand the test of time. It fits Baltimore very elegantly, with class and style. Similarly, Nats Park fits perfectly with the DC cityscape. The best ballparks, in addition to being a good place to watch a game, also just make you feel like they "belong" in and to the city. Baltimore and DC are equally lucky to have ballparks that do that. Just wait until the cherry blossom trees finish growing into their spot beyond left field in Nats Park. Perfect!
This is just like what happens on "Behind the Music" right before the band breaks up.
I've lived in Baltimore and DC and like each city. I've also been to both OPACY and Nats Park recently and like both stadiums. OPACY has more retro atmosphere, but the open concourse at Nats Park is awesome and IMO makes it a better place to watch a game (by a hair).
D.C. and Baltimore? Hopkins and Maryland? Make up your mind, sir!
Did anyone else notice how J-Red went on his Bill O'Reilly-like behavior?
Well played, Jeremy.
Maybe jhuterp went to one school for undergrad and another for grad.
I don't know what j-red's problem is with DC, but I have seen it in a few other Baltimore sports fans.
They love to point out the flaw in others while ignoring the fact that they usually have the same flaws. In j-red's first post, all issues a through e ALL apply to Baltimore such as the ridiculously sweet stadium deals for Baltimore placed in a place that would have revitalized without the stadiums, the fact that Baltimore had and still has more pressing problems than sports, their crappy fan support for baseball.
Everything a) through e) applies to Baltimore? You mean except for a) (tons of sellouts the first 10 seasons), c) (both stadiums completed on time without complaints from ownership) and e) (we managed to keep our baseball team from 1954-present).
There is no way the area between I-395 and Russell Street would have been re-developed without the stadiums. It was just warehouses and train tracks. It still is not developed, except for the fringe of Camden Yards that touches the downtown/Inner Harbor.
Baltimore has done a good job picking spots on the fringes of their previous focal point. They started with Harborplace, spread that to the stadiums, spread south to Federal Hill, then connected the Inner Harbor and Fells Point.
Your best point is that Maryland publicly financed both stadiums (through lottery revenues, which definitely hit poorer residents the hardest). The best distinction I can draw is that Baltimore was desperate to KEEP the Orioles, who still enjoyed excellent support. They weren't gambling that the third time would be the charm, or that a transplant city would somehow develop interest in the transplanted Expos.
Getting an NFL team back was a matter of civic pride, not something a vocal minority of wealthy white residents beat everyone else over the head with. That stadium was also publicly financed, but the infrastructure (roads, light rail, land acquisition) was already in place. Plus, Camden Yards had already proven an enormous success and a tourism draw. Again, that stadium has sold out every game since it opened its doors.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of my positions on D.C. issues, but you didn't pick very good ones.
This is why I think they apply to Baltimore as well.
a) Low fan support - look at the last few years at Camden Yards.
b) Baltimore's 2 stadiums were some of the worst examples of corporate welfare.
c) Angelos has had his disputes with MD stadium authority over rent if I recall.
Then he pitched a hissy fit because the Raven's had a better stadium deal.
So they've had their share of disputes.
d) Baltimore had and still has more pressing problems. That cannot be in dispute.
e) Did the black majority of Baltimore really want Camden Yards? If they do or did, they have a funny way of showing it by being invisible at Camden Yards.
"Now, on to the rest of your post.
There is no way the area between I-395 and Russell Street would have been re-developed without the stadiums. It was just warehouses and train tracks. It still is not developed, except for the fringe of Camden Yards that touches the downtown/Inner Harbor."
If you consider that area still undeveloped, I don't when it will be considering the stadium was done 16 years ago. If the stadium was going to do something for the neighborhood, it already would have happened.
"Baltimore has done a good job picking spots on the fringes of their previous focal point. They started with Harborplace, spread that to the stadiums, spread south to Federal Hill, then connected the Inner Harbor and Fells Point."
The very problem with redevelopment in Baltimore is that there is a focal point and spreading outward from there.
By putting Nationals Park where they did, they essentially put the stadium in Dundalk in an effort to revitalize that area. I don't see why that would be such a bad thing.
Its an effort to do for Near SE what Verizon Center did for Chinatown.
I would say that DC has done a much better job of spreading development around throughout the city instead of concentrating on a small area and going outward.
The sports venues were/will be used to inject life in parts of the city that really needed it.
It does mean growing pains in the first few years, but has potential to pay off in the long run.
If the public is going to build stadiums for owners, I just see that as a more acceptable reason.
Anonymous said:
"If you consider that area still undeveloped, I don't when it will be considering the stadium was done 16 years ago. If the stadium was going to do something for the neighborhood, it already would have happened."
DING DING DING! Stadiums are hit or miss when it comes to neighborhood development. In a good economy with a good housing market, it can go pretty well if a neighborhood suddenly goes from dangerous to safe. In a crappy economy and a crappy housing market, when the neighborhood still borders very high crime areas, 81 home dates a year is not always going to revive a neighborhood. There are great outcomes (San Diego), average outcomes (Baltimore) and poor outcomes (Detroit). Only time and a number of non-baseball factors will tell.
I'm still not grasping what fan support in 2008 has to do with fan support in the early 1990's.
We may actually be in some agreement.
I'll only say that DC is at least trying to revive decrepit neighborhoods.
Whether it will happen or not is another story, but by trying, there seems to be more vision whereas with Baltimore, so much of the redevelopment efforts are in a relatively small area that much of the rest of the city gets left out.
In fact, a lot of suburbanites and tourists really know nothing of Baltimore outside of the Inner Harbor and Fells Point due to so many of their attractions being in a small area.
I brought up the attendance the last few years just to illustrate that Baltimore also suffers from "low fan support" in light of what item "a" states. I know about the 10 years of losing, but the Senators were mostly losers for the vast majority of their 71 years in existence.
I think it's also important to note that baseball is entertainment priority 1 or 2 for most Baltimore-area residents. I'm not sure where it falls for Washingtonians, but definitely not at the very top.
Baltimore's tourist district is pretty compact. Nothing is more than a $5 cab ride from anything else (excluding Pimlico). Of course, priorities always have to be adjusted. Baltimore has focused on providing work opportunities downtown so city residents can easily find work. That's probably the easiest way to help the worst neighborhoods long-term. In D.C., jobs abound. It makes me nervous that crack and heroin just have too much of a hold on the eastern cities (Richmond, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia) for the mere availability of profitable work to have enough impact.
"I think it's also important to note that baseball is entertainment priority 1 or 2 for most Baltimore-area residents."
Well let's see, of the 4 major sports, Bawlmer has 2, so yeah, I guess baseball would be priority 1 or 2. Judging by the attendance I'd say it's #2 out of 2. I mean it's not like you have an NBA (well you DID once upon a time) or NHL team. Hell, you didn't even get an MLS team in one of the most soccer heavy states in the country. Gotta go to DC for that one too.
I guess the DC folk just have more choices of what to do, most other MAJOR cities also have that problem.
Umm, I'm not sure I get the point. Washington is a bigger metro area than Baltimore. Is there supposed to be some kind of population inferiority complex that I don't know about?
There are other sources of entertainment besides professional sports teams. Across ALL entertainment options, baseball is a lot higher on the list in Baltimore than it is in Washington.
So am I supposed to be shocked that a team that's been in a city for 54 years, 3 titles, and has the advantage of there not being jack else to do, has lots of fans? No, really? And the team that just showed up in 2005 after not being here for 33 years doesn't have as many 'die-hards'? Wow, that's genius work there Johnny, is that how you got OJ off?
The fact of the matter is winning cures all ills, and losing breeds half-full, (no matter how nice) ballparks, just ask Peter. The sooner the Lerner's realize this the better off they'll be.
Where did you come from? I only got dragged into this Baltimore v. Washington thing because anonymous pointed out that Baltimore's stadiums are publicly financed.
The situations aren't similar. No one is dumb enough to say they are. The vast majority of Baltimoreans wanted Camden Yards. A minority of Washingtonians wanted a team and therefore a stadium. The only link between the two cities is that Peter Angelos has his cancerous claws into the Nats coffers for the life of that franchise, whether that's a decade or forever. That and that there are more Orioles fans than Nats fans in the District.
If winning cures all ills you had better have a talk with the Rays and Marlins (Attendance figures here). Somehow I think they'd tell you the cure looks a lot like the disease.
Post a Comment