No baseball in DC

The Montreal Expos were to become the Washington Nationals.
Robert A. DuPuy, baseball's president, appeared to rule out renegotiating with the city. In a statement released last night, DuPuy said the council's decision to require private funds to pay for half the cost of building a stadium "does not reflect the agreement we signed and relied upon."

[ . . . ]
Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), the architect of the legislative amendment that required private funding, said she was "looking to reduce the cost and risk for the District."
I do not mean to insult Ms. Cropp, but she is an falsely indignant crab.

She brings to mind the Democrats in Congress and their favorite columnist who scream fear over saving (privatizing) social security because it might "cost too much."

It brings to mind a lyric from an old song, one which I liked much better in its Midge Ure remake:

Let us close out eyes;
outside their lives go on much faster.
Oh, we won't give in,
we'll keep living in the past.

Living in the past, indeed.



I hate to say it, but the person has a point. Many cities have been burnt by the costs of stadiums and their development. Cleveland and it's Gateway stadium complex is just an example

By Blogger jaws, at December 16, 2004 at 1:45 PM  

If it were a choice between the Stadium and no Indians, on which side do the city father's sit? (In the days of Mayor Kucinich, I assume he would have set the Cuyahoga ablaze.)

Ms. Cropp did not question what the city would get in return for the investment, the terms; rather, she told baseball bascially to build it themselves. That's what you do if you don't want the team.

By Blogger Mark Kilmer, at December 16, 2004 at 8:46 PM  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?