Posted on 08/07/2005 11:29:34 PM PDT by Cougar66
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge cleared the way for the District of Columbia to take control of the land it needs to build a baseball stadium. U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts rejected a request by property owners for a 30-day injunction that would have prevented the city from buying or seizing 33 properties on the proposed site along the Anacostia River.
Dear StayAt HomeMother,
Actually, the Wikipedia reference to the Washington metropolitan region doesn't include the Baltimore metropolitan region.
The reference under other names is to a previous consolidated metropolitan statistical area comprising both the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan regions, which would approach about 8 million residents (that's off the top of my head, don't hold me strictly to that number).
In round numbers, DC has around 550,000 folks. Montgomery Co, MD (immediately adjacent to DC) has around 900,000 folks. Prince Georges Co, MD (also immediately adjacent to DC) has around 800,000 folks. Northern Virginia has around 1.8 million folks. Without counting the exurbs of northern Maryland, any of West Virginia, or the exurbs of northwestern and central Virginia, the metropolitan core of Washington, DC has around 4 milliion residents.
sitetest
Yes, if they have perceived benefits from the location of the stadium and/or other related benefits (hotels, airport, employment opportunities, etc.).
I know I am in the minority on this, but I think construction of multi use facilities, owned by the city/county/state or what ever other government entity, supplies a benefit to the local residents which cannot be fully measured. Other similar government owned buildings are:
Museums, Opera houses/Music Centers, Zoo's, Airports, Harbor facilities.
All of the above serve to allow private businesses to function with assistance from the government. Some call it socialist, but that is a huge stretch of the word, IMHO.
As much as I love baseball, a stadium isn't a public use. It's property being seized for a private owner. More fallout from Kelo v. New London.
Two comments:
I believe that the spending of public money for the construction of Municipal stadiums is a reasonable use of tax dollars, when done for the ultimate benefit of the citizen's served by the controlling governing body.
If we, the taxpayer's, are going to pay for such a stadium then we should have ultimate control over design, location, full use, when not used for contracted tenants and we should derive a profit from the investment. Such profit should also include increased taxes paid by those associated with the stadium or benefiting from it (Hotel tax, employee tax, parking revenue, etc. etc.
However, such decisions should be fully discussed with the primary tenant (in this case the Nationals).
You are 45 years (at least) behind the times. As others have said, Dodger Staium was built on land secured through emminent domain. Kelo vs. London had nothing to do with that. There may even be earlier examples.
Why don't they raze city hall and build their stadium? I'm sure they're not getting a damn nickle for that joint!
(might also consider turning old Tiger Stadium into a prison....in Detroit they need all the space they can get)
I am trying to understand your position. Do you believe just city dollars pay for a "municipal" stadium, or the suburbs as well?
What if the suburbs are in different states (e.g., New Jersey communities near Philadelphia and New York City and MD and VA suburbs near DC) and thus are likely to have neither fiscal nor operational control over the stadium? Should they still have to support it with tax dollars (as opposed to / in addition to ticket sales)?
What if the stadium is not in the city but instead in is a suburb, as I think still occurs in the Bloomington stadium outside Minneapolis? Who do you think should pay for and control and operate the stadium then?
WTF? This is war!!!!!
You are asking some questions related to the specifics of some given situations, where I am responding to the general question:
"Should tax dollars be used to finance Municipal Stadiums (baseball or football)?"
My answer to that question is: Yes. It can be a reasonable use of tax dollars to construct such a facility.
As to the specifics of who pays for what and suburbs vs. city or county, well, as the saying goes: "The devil is in the details."
But, I would say if a benefit can be determined, for a certain city, by the construction of a near by stadium in differeing city, then yes, there should be shared costs, profits and decisions.
Case in point: The LA Memorial Coliseum Commission. This entity runs the Coliseum and Sports Arena, which over the years has been home to the: Rams, Dodgers, UCLA, USC, Lakers, Kings and Clippers. It is run jointly by a committee of people appointed by the state, county and city.
They have also proved to be about the worst run agency of it's type in history. They have succeeded in driving off each of their major tenants, except for USC. However, the fact that it is a poorly run entity does not take away from the fact that there can be a system for shared revenues and costs.
These are service industries. Nobody goes and opens an air-conditioning repair business where there are no homes and/or offices. Close the government and nearly all such business as you mentioned would close too. By contrast much of the garment industry in NYC disappeared and almost no one who repairs air-conditioners noticed.
ML/NJ
They should have told him to get bent. Selig was out of options at that point (MLB's attempt to gin up a bidding war between DC and NoVA fell apart when the Arlington County Board, in one of the few wise and prudent decisions in its history, listened to public demand and rejected the only viable Virginia sites); DC could have driven a much harder bargain.
Selig was claiming that Portland, Las Vegas, Mexico and Puerto Rico were all options. DC wanted the team bad.
Portland was barely viable, and a much smaller market. Las Vegas would have indelibly fixed the G-word on the sport. As for the other two, puh-leeze.
This was recognized as a legitimate e-d taking before Kelo. Mostly because the city owns the property and leases it. Often the stadium parking lots do double duty. Pittsburgh makes a good chunk of change leasing the parking spaces to commuters during the daytime.
I don't know, maybe it's me, but aren't we missing the point here?
1- A baseball stadium isn't something that is for the "betterment of society" (like a hospital, roadway, etc).
2- There are land owners who don't want to sell. Period. I don't care if you don't like their business, it's still theirs.
Excuse me, but since when is basey-ball frivolous? Oh, you mean the Nationals...and, like, a DC team. OK, I get it.
Seriously, we used to kid about floating a bond issue to pay players' salaries. Little did we know truth would be much more sinister. But you know, if they had to buy the land in a fair market, they could never match the Yankees' payroll...
all gallows humor. the judge should be dethroned and send back to the ghetto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.