Editor's Note: Tomorrow the D.C. City Council will choose whether or not to approve the lease on a new stadium for the Washington Nationals, a historic and decisive vote that will either give the go-ahead to its construction or send city officials and MLB back to the negotiating table. Being that this issue has generated so much debate since last year, we are honored to have two guest writers offering opposing opinions on the stadium lease. First off is Vincent Morris, chief spokesman to D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, speaking in favor of the stadium.

Approve the Lease Already!
By Vincent Morris

The biggest problem we have with this project is people who don't understand the 2 key parts of this: what the stadium costs and how the city is paying for it. I am hoping that DCist readers are sharp enough to see through the murk and understand what this deal is all about.

First the cost. $667 million is really not a fair description of the cost of the ballpark. It describes the stadium complex, which includes a lot of items that probably never should have been counted as part of the project. The actual stadium itself will probably cost about $315.4 million. Read that number again because you hardly ever see it written by the Washington Post or elsewhere. $315 million pays for the seats, lights, restrooms - all the hard costs of the structure. So what accounts for the difference? Here are some of the items that, when added to $315, gets you to $667.

>> $24 million to renovate RFK Stadium last year; this includes new turf, sprinklers, rolling stands, etc. I've never understood why this was counted as part of the cost of the new stadium, but there you go.

>> $3 million for public art (DC law requires any public building include artwork - I am not kidding here.)

>> $3.5 million to build a grand public park/plaza that will stretch far beyond the stadium footprint.

>> $4 million to build some sidewalks around the stadium; obviously the benefit here extends far beyond the ballpark.

>> $30 million in financing costs, even though financing is rarely counted against the cost of an item, like a house or a car.

>> $1.5 million for the city to pay its own permitting fees.

>> $12.9 million that Pepco is charging us to pay for utility upgrades in the area around South Capitol Street.

Then there's a whole separate tally of things that are related, but do not go for the stadium structure itself.

For instance, of the $667 million, fully $100 million of that goes to buy the land. We can't really do much about the hot real estate market - other cities typically pay a fraction of that for land. On the plus side, we are making average property owners very rich.

Despite the fact that the property owners are becoming millionaires (most parcels in the 19 acre site were valued at over $1 million) the city has agreed to pay another $4 million to help them relocate their businesses.

In addition, the parking garage that we're building costs $21 million. It will only be used 81 times a year for baseball. Beyond that, it will be used by commuters and we will keep two-thirds of the revenue. Of course, it also benefits the entire area.

Also in that category is the Navy Yard Metro stop. For 365 days a year, that stop will be used by federal workers at the Navy Yard, the new Department of Transportation headquarters and others. Yet we are setting aside $21 million to improve the Metro and another $12 million to pave roads. Again, these costs will benefit a whole range of development in the area - not just the ballpark. Yet critics count all of those costs against the stadium complex.

Second is how the ballpark is being paid for. There are 4 sources of revenue, and none of them directly impact the average citizen in Washington DC, Maryland or Virginia:

>> Ballpark Fee, paid by 2,000 of DC's largest businesses. Will raise $14 million a year.

>> Utility tax, will be paid for primarily by the federal government and large businesses (like the Washington Post). Will raise $12 million a year.

>> Ballpark taxes, assessed only on people who buy tickets, concessions, etc. 80 percent of those live outside DC. This raises $10 million a year.

>> Lease payments, assessed on the Nationals. This raises $5.5 million a year.

One other major point. The Washington Post, very sloppy when it comes to reporting on the stadium project, ran a story this weekend on cost overruns. They omitted several critical points, including:

>> The paper never mentioned Baltimore's Camden Yards, which was about 95 percent paid for with public funds - yet is obviously considered a success in that city.

>> Failed to note that three of the stadiums with significant cost overruns, in Seattle, Arizona and Milwaukee, were built with retractable roofs. That makes them more costly and subject to overruns. Very different from our stadium and not useful for comparison sake.

>> Besides a $20 million payment, the Nationals are also paying $5.5 million for 30 years as lease payments. The total amount the team will pay is $165 million, though the net present value for accounting purposes is $85 million. The combined share is $105 million, which is one third of the stadiums' $315 million cost. Not bad.

>> They also failed to mention that our construction company has a track record of delivering projects on time and on budget.