October 5, 2004


Groups unite to oppose stadium (S.A. Miller, 10/05/04, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A diverse coalition — including local politicians, black-power militants, homosexual activists and child-welfare advocates — has emerged to oppose plans for a Major League Baseball stadium in Southeast, as the D.C. Council today begins debating legislation for the "sweetheart" ballpark deal.

How can anyone not be Manichean?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2004 5:35 PM

Griffith Stadium (the Senators old park) was torn down to build Howard University Hospital. Why don't they call it even?

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 5, 2004 8:43 PM

With any luck they'll succeed and MLB will be forced to fold the Expos. Combine that with folding a few other clubs and we could finally get the talent level in the remaining clubs back to a level that would deserve support.

Posted by: Steve White at October 5, 2004 10:15 PM

If you've ever tried to drive through Washington, putting the stadium over in Virginia would solve about 75 percent of the problem with Peter Angelos' fears that a new team will cut into his Baltimore Orioles' attendance. Driving from Virginia to and from an Orioles game is something few people dare try now more than once or twice a season thanks to Washington's self-centered highway system (all roads lead downtown because that's where the bureaucrats think everyone wants to go, even though they don't. The only exception is the Beltway, which during rush hour appears to contain every driver east of the Mississippi).

Put a stadium near one of the Metro lines in Arlington or Fairfax County and it's still acessable from the District, but trying to get through D.C. during rush hour for a night game in Virginia would cut down on fans from the northeaster Maryland suburbs, 30 miles from Baltimore. The only remaining concern would be the TV rights/access for the O's in the D.C. market, which I believe is already part of any deal the new ownership group will have to make with Angelos and MLB.

Posted by: John at October 5, 2004 11:43 PM

Sports stadiums, even ones for the Olympic Games, shouldn't be paid for by taxpayers.

Although Parks & Rec diamonds, fields, and pitches probably ought to be treated in the same way, I don't have many problems with low-cost, not-for-profit community sports facilities.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 6, 2004 12:49 AM

Why scare quotes on 'sweetheart'?

Is somebody suggesting it isn't a sweetheart deal?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 6, 2004 12:59 AM

Of course it's a "sweetheart deal." These large public projects always are, whether they're roads, bridges or stadiums (stadia? that sounds like a Kerry affectation.) The big complaint these so-called opponents have is that their part isn't big enough, or they got left out of the initial payoff list.

Give 'em a cut and they'll shut up.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 6, 2004 11:04 AM

Baseball teams have a much better record than other pro teams of getting the chumps to build their ballparks for them.

It's really quite amazing when you consider how narrow the baseball fan base is.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 6, 2004 4:04 PM

Narrow, but elite.

Posted by: oj at October 6, 2004 4:11 PM

They still out to fold or relegate about 14 teams.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 8, 2004 1:12 AM