November 28, 2006
The Marion Barry Memorial Stadium? Why Not?
Just when we'd started to forget the entire rigamarole about getting the new stadium for the Nationals, we get today's Post article on the lucrative sale of its naming rights. It's not so much that we should be surprised that the stadium may be named after a corporation — it's that the District won't see a penny of the money that the chosen corporation splashes all over the publicly financed $611 million project. Reads the article:
The District government is building the Nationals a new stadium in Southeast Washington, and the facility is scheduled to open in April 2008. Under the agreement that Major League Baseball reached with the District, the ballclub is entitled to all of the revenue from the naming rights to the stadium.Apparently a fully funded stadium isn't incentive enough these days. Hmph.The provision was opposed by some local politicians, who said the city should receive any naming rights revenue. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), the stadium's main backer, said the naming rights were an important incentive for persuading baseball to locate a franchise in Washington and attract a buyer.
Beyond the indignation one might feel over this slight, it's worth talking about what we'd like to see the stadium called. While corporate names dominate almost all major sports arenas and stadiums these days — to the tune of $3.6 billion, up from a mere $25 million in 1988 — should the District advocate for a name that recognizes and celebrates the city's history? When rumors briefly flew in early 2005 that RFK Stadium might also take on a corporate name, local activists frantically raised money to buy the rights to call it "Taxation Without Representation Field at RFK Stadium." Their plan didn't come to pass, but they had the right idea — why not buck the trend and use the stadium to honor a person, place, or theme that unites District residents instead of pitching a product or service?
Well, it's worth imagining, at least. Short of Ted Lerner being bit by the charitable bug, we'll likely be walking into "(Insert Corporate Name Here) Stadium" come 2008.
|
The Chili Bowl
DC Vote Stadium!
Rod's House of Semen!
I like "Washington BSMU Stadium." It sounds cool and authentic, but anyone who knows about Marion Barry will instantly recognize the acronym.
Not to be the party pooper, but damnit! Why do professional sports have to be so screwed up? I realize that long gone are the good 'ole days of baseball. Lots of things were different then--players didn't make 7 figures, all you could get at a concession stand were hotdogs, you were lucky if you got to go home with a pennant and a fly ball, and you weren't assaulted by corporate logos. I'm surprised Fenway Park hasn't been swallowed up by corporate commercialism. (And I don't care what you say, it'll always be Candlestick Park.)
This city has been pretty well screwed over this whole encounter. I already know who my money is going to, I don't need it advertised in 30 feet of neon. But hell, we should just name it after the owners, that's what they want isn't it?
I'm not bitter at all.
And for what it's worth, National Field would be just peachy.
Dos Gringos Stadium!
Memorial Stadium? I'm not dead yet!
Fed Field! Sure it will cause confusion, but at least you won't forget the name!
Tiffany's Stadium - This Diamond is Forever (and it better be considering the cost)
The first 100 attendees get free charm bracelets!
BSMU? I can't be the only one who doesn't get that...
Christine:
B = rimes with witch
S = set
M = me
U = up
Christine:
Q: What did Barry say on the FBI video tape when he was busted for crack cocaine posession?
A: "B***h Set Me Up."
Paulo, that is classic.
If only YouTube and the like were around during Marion's motel days. Them would be some classic movie clips.
J --
Don't forget that Wrigley Field is named for the chewing gum and has been well before the whole naming craze. But they owned the stadium (and Chicago companies have a love of publicity stunts like this -- WLS radio/tv? World Largest Store -- as it was owned by Sears)
Candlestick is named for Candlestick Point on which the old stadium sits, but since not even the 49ers want to play there anymore. The name change to Monster Park is inconsequential.
The Giants left about eight years ago for their own stadium, and they couldn't have taken the name with them.
Of course, SF being SF, all this stuff always has to be approved by voters. And/or signed off by the Board of Supervisors, so these name changes to not happen without a lot of gnashing of teeth. They have bigger fish to fry now, though, like how to keep the 49ers from moving to San Jose. While Oakland has to contend with A's becoming the East Bay Athletics of Fremont.
Now that's sad.
My point exactly. Those names mean something because they came long before. They are IMHO part of a cultural legacy, which is why I have no problem with Wrigley Field, Sears Tower or any of the others. But FedEx Field, PacBell Park, and all the rest of them do nothing for history except to say that money ruled the world.
And yes, the A's leaving Oakland in search of a better, updated, million dollar complex is just sad, alost as much as them becoming the East Bay Athletics. God, that's just sick...
Fenty Field
bush stadium?
A few random stadium name ideas:
Veterans' Affairs Stadium
Fannie-Mae Field at Kiss My Bumper Stadium
Your Government Guarantee Is Your Credit Stadium
The N Street (SE) Project
D.F.K. Stadium (with full service seating)
The F-Angelos Collosseum
Riverfrontin' Stadium
Ten-dollar Coors Field
The Ghettolands
My City Spent $700M and All I Got Was This Lousy... Stadium
Money has always ruled baseball. Look it up. You may have been more innocent back then, but sharp practice goes back at least to the dawn of the antitrust exemption. Shall we recall Babe Ruth's justification for making more money than the president: "I had a better year than he did." It's a business. It always has been, and it always will be. You are right that corporate ownership and sponsorship have caused a heterogenization, but that's endemic to the society, not just baseball.
As for the A's leaving, to the extent it's sad, it's strictly Oakland's fault. First, they didn't want to build a stadium for the team. Second, the A's were 26th out of 30 in attendance last year, and they were REALLY good. Why should they have to wallow with the likes of the Royals? If people in Oakland don't want to pay at the gate or pay for a stadium, why in the hell would the A's care to stay? They have consistently put out on of the best products per dollar in baseball and have been met with low interest.
And note that the exact same thing would have happened with the Nats if DC weren't forking up money for a stadium. There would almost certainly be no team here.
DCist Martin,
You have gone completely over the top with your continual rants about this stadium. Your opinion would be more credible if you would take the time to actually understand what you are talking about first. And, time again, you have proved that you don't.
Otavio,
It's around now that I expect you tell me why I am so over the top with this rant. The fact is that we got screwed on everything down to the naming rights.
Otavio - Why is this a "rant?" Martin makes no bones that he's anti-stadium and he's laying out another rationale for his oppostion. I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me.
THis is disgraceful. Only in DC! I can't believe people still revere this crackhead excuse of a former mayor.
I ran the campaign to get "Taxation Without Representation Field at RFK" a few years ago. I don't think we can raise the kinda loot for the new stadium - but are the rights for RFK still up for grabs?
Well, DCist Martin and others,
Let me let you all in on a shocking revelation. DC RESIDENTS ARE NOT PAYING FOR THIS STADIUM. NO TAX ON INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING USED TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT.
Time and time again, you have stated your opinion on this stadium which is fine and swell. But, in addition to that, you have not been totally or even semi-factual or intelligent when justifying your rationale.
This stadium project is being financed in large part by the DC business community and the continuation of a utilities tax. Large businesses (law firms, etc) most of which cannot pass this tax onto the average DC resident. The DC Council asked the business community how they could structure the stadium tax in a way that would make it more palatable to them. The DC business community has agreed and largely support the construction of this baseball stadium. There opinion mattters much more because they are the ones financing it, not DC tax-paying residents. I have heard time and time again how DC residents are paying for this stadium. How? I challenge anyone on this board to present me with how DC residents are paying for this stadium. I think that the people who don't know all the facts about the particulars and don't want to base their opinion on facts should keep their mouths shut!
Yes, it would have been nice that DC would have received some revenue from future potential naming rights. That did not happen. DC residents, however, should not be screaming that they have been personally screwed. I am glad that DC is now home to a baseball team. Sacrifices had to be made to accomplish that, but that is how it goes when we had so much going against us like the Baltimore Orioles owner and all the other things.
I would venture to point out that DC businesses have more to say on this issue. They are paying for it. The DC Council brought all the major business organizations like the DC Chamber of Commerce before them and got their support. DC businesses support this project, and they are the major contributors to the financing.
Get Dee's Nuts to sponsor it; call it "Dee's Nats Ballpark".
In keeping with Otavio's comment, "Golden Triangle Park"
Why not get something that sounds good and is very DC-esque like the Armed Forces recruiting programs so you have something like "Armed Forces (Or US Army, Navy, Air Force ,etc) Field at National Stadium." The recruiting campaigns have huge loads of money to throw at things, so why not do something like this. Didn't they try to this at RFK too? This way it serves a good purpose, and is visible year round. This way it isn't just going for tricked out humvee's that sit in a parking lot 5 days a week waiting for those 2 days they may actually be used to try to recruit people in a school gymnasium or something.
"Fannie-Mae Field at Kiss My Bumper Stadium"!!!! Awesome!!
Sweet --
It's not entirely Oakland's fault. Admittedly, they didn't want to pay for a stadium (but neither did SF and they didn't and that worked out just fine) but Fremont isn't paying for the Stadium either -- Cisco is, at least partly. And there were plenty of land options in Oakland that were offered by the city council. The A's didn't want to use eminent domain, though -- the owner is a typical California libertarian and didn't feel that was right. And he needed all that land because he also wants to build an entire village. As (like in DC), he's a real estate developer by trade.
And part of the reason that people didn't go to the Coliseum is that it was a horrible place to watch baseball -- you can blame that (in part) on Al Davis and the Raiders. And since, the stadium is owned by the city and the county, you can also partly blame the county (who doesn't care where they end up, since Fremont is still in the same county).
The stadium is in a bad part of town surrounded by freeways and parking lots. Not at all what would attract the people with money from the 680 corridor to come over and see a game. Fremont will at least be close enough to the jobs and money and the growth in the East Bay/South Bay to attract the people from that would by luxury boxes and season tickets. If you live in Danville, you aren't going to go from your job in San Jose all the way to Oakland -- for a bad stadium in the ghetto -- just to watch baseball. It wasn't even particularly easy to get to for Oaklanders and Berkeleyites. And dollar nights, while well attended, can only do so much to make up for that (and were a money losing proposition anyway.)
Christopher
As long as Octavio insists on trying to remove taxpayers from public subsidies, it must refuted.
This is a new tax that could be used to support a myriad of needs in the city. Raising taxes now for a stadium makes it harder to raise taxes now and in the future for those needs. This also makes it more difficult to lower taxes now and in the future for DC residents. The business tax affects every taxpayer in the District, and there is no way to get around it. A tax is a tax, and by paying a tax now to benefit a baseball team, the District is forgoing potential future tax revenue that could be spent on needs. This adds pressure to the general fund (taxpayers), especially since it is unlikely that lawmakers would tax businesses for city needs after having done so for the stadium.
And though the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups "agreed" to a tax on businesses for the stadium, they didn’t have to agree to the tax before being taxed, nor would they have to agree if that tax had been used for city needs.
Unfortunately, the city refused to offer the same courtesy to District residents for permission to subordinate their life necessities to Major League Baseball. DC residents have every right to be upset about this. Residents did not agree that public funds derived from those specific taxes should be used to build a stadium. In addition to three separate polls (Washington Post, SEIU, Ipsos) leading up to the December, 2004 vote on the stadium deal -- which all agreed that District residents opposed public funding by a 2-to-1 margin -- the Ipsos poll asked residents specifically about the business tax:
[Do you support or oppose the following element of the proposal?] "The city will impose a so-called 'ballpark tax' on all businesses in the city with annual revenues of $3 million dollars or more, to pay part of what it will cost to pay off the bonds used to borrow money for building the stadium." Support: 43%; Oppose: 55%.
The Nats ownership should show some appreciation for their corporate welfare windfall and name the ballpark "DC Taxpayer Stadium."
Christopher--
All good points. I think the ultimate problem is that there isn't enough money in Oakland to keep the team there. I don't know as much about the area as you, but it seems to me that from a city standpoint, it might not be all bad that Oakland isn't going to make an investment in the team. I also think, however, that from the A's perspective, it makes sense to leave.
Shawn--
Just to address one point: The city most certainly asked residents what they thought. Through elections. It's a representative democracy. The city doesn't have to ask me whether I want to pay for a stadium, or a library, or whatever, and Congress doesn't have to ask me whether to spend billions to lose wars and lives. To the extent the business community was asked, that was a shrewd political move, not a requirement. And I've hardly seen any groundswell of opposition to the stadium. It wasn't even an election issue.
The "Armed Forces Stadium" idea is a good one. Better than than "Booz Allen Field."
Sweet:
It's wrong to say it wasn't an election issue. It just wasn't an obvious one. This is for three good reasons. The first is that there are other, much larger, issues. Crime and schools being the banner ones. The second was that the two of the three biggest proponents (Williams and Evans) were not up for re-election. Cropp, the third proponent, did fall. The third is that the voters rightly considered the stadium a done deal long before they had the chance to vote on it.
I'd rather have public money (whether directly or indirectly raised from taxpayers) go to a stadium than be flushed down into the public schools toilet. Except for Walls, Oyster, and Ellington, the whole system is nothing but a breeding ground for semi-feral delinquents who are going to end up incarcerated and trying to suck their own penises. Enough good money has already been thrown after bad, and those little sociopaths are still just going around in packs vandalizing property and assaulting people. There are more advanced language and math skills in a quarter mile of Lagos shantytowns than in the entirety of the DCPS system.
The new ballpark will be known as Sinclair Skinner Stadium.
Mark,
I have a baseless hunch that the connection between election results and the stadium is attenuated, at best. I imagine that Fenty would have won no matter how Cropp and he voted on the issue. And I think that if Williams had run for reelection he would have run away with it, stadium or no.
And, going back to your first point, I think that the reason it ultimately didn't matter is that no one really thinks that the problems of this city require more money. I have never heard an argument that that was $500 mil that we just didn't have to spend. Truth is, we can improve schools and build stadiums. There is more than enough cash for social programs in this city. The problem at the governance level is lack of effective management, and at the community level there are very deep-seeded social problems that you cannot buy away. $500 mil is not going to keep high school dropouts from shooting each other outside a club on Friday night. We could create an NYC-style police state, but we don't have that because it's not in DC's culture, not because we can't afford it. (DC being healthily adverse to The Man in most quarters of the city).
But you may be right that ultimately people knew that they weren't voting for or against the stadium, since Fenty has no choice but to honor obligations already entered into.
Actually as I recall, it was pretty clear that more anti-stadium people were voted into power in 2004, and that's why Williams rushed the stadium deal through before the new council was sworn in.
As for the armed forces name: didn't they already float that idea (for RFK) but it was swatted down by Congress because they didn't like the idea of the armed forces having to pay to have a stadium named after them. That opinion reflects the old fashioned view that stadiums are named to honor someone, rather than as a form of advertising, but there you go.
The stadium battle done, and really don't want to reopen it. I'll just make the political observation that, by backing the stadium deal, Williams, Evans, and Cropp allowed themselves, rightly or wrongly, to be portrayed as continuing to be more inclined to reinvest tax-dollars in economic development than in DC's neighborhood and social problems, or its crumbling infrastructure. I just hope it all works out. I figure that's what we all have in common, anyhow.
As others here have pointed out, this $611 million project is hardly breaking the DC bank. DC can do publicly-funded projects such as these AND improve city services. Instead of throwing money at inefficiently managed city services, it might be wiser to first improve the management before we throw more money at these things. In fact, if all these infamous city servies were better managed, we would probably spend less on them today. DC has a $9.6 billion annual operating budget, about twice that of city's with twice the population of DC. DC has investment grade bond ratings from all 3 major rating agencies, and DC has a bond rating higher than a lot of states in this country. So, don't go carrying on like this project is breaking the bank. It is most certainly not. I really do mislike when people spew around mistruths and mask them as being reality. This is most certainly the case due the ignorance shown on these comment boards.
What are DC residents getting with this stadium? Well, we can start with the immediate demolition of 20-acres of derelict, blighted DC land in less than 3 weeks time! Most certainly a record in someone's books. That indeed makes the whole Near SE neighborhood more attractive. Or should we have let this land and area to rot which it was most certainly doing with some businesses in the neighborhood who WERE NOT DOING A BLESSED THING TO CLEAN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD in which their businesses operated. Yes, we would have waited another 30 years for this land to redevelop. Now, with the stadium, the max is now 10 years. In addition, a comprehensive package was passed in conjuction with the stadium resolution which indeed benefits DC residents in the form education, community services, an improved metro station, and improved infrastructure. Mayor Williams certainly understands that more revenue for the city NOW means more city services for the city NOW. Not in another 50 years. But, maybe some of you are not able to grasp this concept.
And, Fenty's presumed goal of more focus on community and neighbourhoods will only build upon the success of Mayor Williams as he EXPANDED the tax base of DC thus providing the future revenue that Fenty will need to improved communities. It is my hope that Fenty will not shun economic development because it is that money that will keep this city moving forward.
And, DC residents are not the only tax-paying group in this city. DC businesses pay taxes also. They have needs and desires as well. Yes, the two groups cross on many levels, but they do have separate agendas. The DC government is the medium.
The area was absolutely developing before news of the stadium. Before DC secured the team, or chose the stadium site, abandoned warehouses and industrial facilities near the site that was eventually chosen were being replaced by massive office, retail, and residential projects in development speculation sparked by factors other than the stadium. The size and scope of the SE Federal Center project combined with the Navy Yard and the new Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters were (and continue to be) the driving force for the extensive redevelopment that has been occurring and growing at the area surrounding the stadium site before the stadium plan was announced.
In addition, Andy Altman, former director of DC's Office of Planning, said in a statement that accompanied the site evaluation studies conducted in 2002, that the area [containing the eventual chosen stadium site] would be redeveloped and economically transformed "whether a ballpark is there or not," and excerpts from the site evaluation study confirm this opinion.
The site was largely industrial and un-beautified, but it was neither dilapidated nor decaying. The landowners, entrepreneurs and residents maintained businesses, studios, and a few homes there, and payed taxes. It certainly was not blighted. With the overindulgent use of eminent domain has come the careless use of the term "blight." Again, Development was knocking on the door of the site before it was declared for the stadium, and could have been developed fair and square had the stadium's rushed deadlines not required immediate taking of the land by eminent domain.
And as difficult as it is for economists to agree on anything, virtually every independent economist argues that even the most successful stadiums do not generate enough economic activity and revenues to justify large public subsidies, let alone at least $611 million, plus all the risk. And with some of the economic activity that had been promised for community benefits, now replaced with hulking aboveground parking garages without retail, hotel, or condo space, there is no justification on the basis of economic development or community benefits.