March 17, 2008
Nationals Think Voting Rights Too Political for Stadium
We know. After the D.C. quarter debacle, we're getting the message -- voting rights is just too controversial an issue for the American public.
According to the Post, the owners of the Washington Nationals feel that an electronic billboard listing the amount of federal taxes paid by District residents that the D.C. Council wants to place in the new ballpark is too "political" and "controversial" for baseball fans. As you may recall, late last year the Council debated placing two signs -- one on the Wilson Building and one in the stadium -- to draw attention to D.C. residents' continued payment of federal taxes while lacking voting representation in Congress. Thankfully, Council Chair Vincent Gray isn't backing down:
"They wanted to know if we could put it somewhere else," council Chairman Vincent C. Gray said.Legally, though, the Nats can point to the stadium lease, which allows them absolute control over the signage within the stadium (just another item in the long list of ways former Mayor Anthony Williams totally caved during negotiations with MLB.) The fact that the city coughed up $611 million to build the team a beautiful new park doesn't appear to mean much to the owners, as the whole hosting the Dream Foundation Dream Gala at National Harbor fiasco also illustrates."No" was his response, he said, adding that the point of putting a sign at the stadium is that it is a high-visibility site.
Should the Nationals end up winning in this fight, it would be insulting to pretty much everyone. For District residents, we're once again being told that our very principled request to gain voting representation is too "political" and "controversial," as if we were demanding that the sign call for President Bush's impeachment. And for baseball fans, well, the Nats are pretty much saying that you guys are too weak-stomached to handle something as threatening as a sign with blinking lights on it. God forbid that your children might learn something about American democracy, right?
|
So having the President of the U.S. throw out the first pitch is "a poor choice," but turning the Stadium into a soapbox isn't?
Looks like the dcist contingent at my next box social is getting thinner and thinner.
Is that illustration supposed to be W. in...a...wig?
My wife gets that same look on chili day when I forget to flush.
Monkeyrotica,
The District paid for the stadium, and so the District should be able to use it to make a point that is at its most basic level an expression of American history and political tradition.
Seems to me to be a dangerous precedent. Once you start using the stadium for political expression, no matter how good the intentions, what political issue is off limits? District gun control? Medical marijuana? Abortion rights? Not that I have a problem with voting representation being enforced by gun-owning fetuses smoking thai sticks, but I don't really want to see that on the Jumbotron when I'm trying to eat my $12 halfsmoke.
I seem to recall that everything I've read about this sign indicates that it is to be installed "at" the stadium, not necessarily "in" the stadium. Is there no public land outside the ballpark where this sign could be prominently displayed, perhaps someplace along the walk from the Metro to the turnstiles?
It's not that the mint thought the coin design was too controversial for the American people to handle, but rather it was too controversial for a program that was designed to be vacuous.
And I understand the discomfort over not being able to decide what goes into a stadium that we paid for, but I think you are comfortable with the controversy more because it fits in with your POV, not just because you're ok with controversial messages being put up in the stadium.
Wouldn't you be pretty bothered if the Lerners used the stadium to put up a clock counting how many fetuses were aborted this year (not that I have any reason to think the Lerners are rabidly pro-life or anything)? Just as wouldn't you be unhappy if Georgia decided to use its quarter to protest gay marriage?
Oh come off your high horse. There's no reason the DC city council should be able to tell the Nationals what to post as signage inside the baseball stadium, especially on such a political topic. The city should be looking at real estate across the street so that people walking into the park and the cameras along the upper levels can pan over and show it. It will still be broadcast as filler between innings, and it doesn't require strong arming against a contract stipulation that you previously agreed to. And the financial terms and National Habor issues have nothing to do with this discussion except to rabble rouse for your cause. There are plenty of ways to accomplish the goals behind this without complaining about the lack of progress on one specific alternative, but complaining seems to be what the council and Martin do best.
Is there anything preventing the District from purchasing ad space behind home plate? Something that says "This stadium brought to you by half a million taxpaying residents of DC who have no vote in Congress?" In big friendly letters next to an ad for Extra Large Trojans with the resevoir tip and Senso-Ribs® for Her pleasure.
If they did allow the sign, would the Nationals have to be register lobbyist; since there are members of congress in attendance and all?
Am I missing something?
Although the District paid for the construction of the stadium, the Nationals are paying rent on the stadium. I would think that would grant them the authority to decide what messages are displayed there. I can imagine the uproar on this site if someone's landlord forced him to hang a Republican campaign sign on the side of the house he was renting.
I suggest comic sans serif.
Some of you are missing a big point here -- that stadium belong to the District. The city is paying for it. We shouldn't have to accept that the Lerners have absolute control, especially when District officials have asked nicely enough to have the billboard posted.
And for those of you that say this sets a bad precedent, you seem to agree that voting rights is as political a message as opposing abortion or supporting gay marriage. It's not. Asking that District residents not suffer taxation without representation is a statement of American political history, equal to having a sign that says, "Democracy Rules!" This is a principle we're talking about, one around which there is virtually no debate. Congress and the administration always argue that democracy is more than a law or a policy -- it's an undeniable right. Having that expressed in a stadium the city is paying for is no more offensive to me than naming the stadium after a famous historical figure (which, unfortunately, probably won't happen).
Krisa,
Since you claim that the council and I are good at little but complaining, please feel free to outline your political plan to get D.C. voting representation. And don't just throw out "Retrocede to Maryland" or "Get Statehood" -- outline what you would do. The council and I apparently need the help.
This is what happens when you let the most image sensitive, tradition hugging sport walk all over you.
If people really want the Nats to represent DC how about having a proportion of black players close to the population of DC. Oh wait, the Majors are less than 10% black.
Well, the Council shoulda thought about that before they ponied up the goddamned bonds to fund this freaking white elephant. Just a little line that said, "The Council reserves the right to put whatever message they want on the scoreboard next to the condom ads" would have taken care of it. Instead, they were stumbling over eachother trying to be the first to blow MLB's diseased wang. Well I say, "Hard cheese." Hire some hideously augmented Hooters girls with pneumatic teeshirt guns to huck "DC Voting Rights Now" shirts into the crowds between innings. That, or the trebuchet.
But Martin, the District sentiment is going well beyond historical references or slogans; they are very actively in lobbying Congress for District voting rights. Not sure where the legislation is, but it is out there and the issue is current. They are trying to influence the votes and change laws and that’s a far ways away from picking up the fife and drum and playing Yankee Doodle Dandy, who, by the way, might have paid for an abortion in 1774.
i vote for the trebuchet.
This is just more grandstanding. Regardless of whether you see this is a political issue or a matter of basic democratic principles, as a pro-voting rights DC resident and baseball fan, I don't want a big-ass sign hectoring me about it while I'm watching a ball game.
But that aside, Martin, your argument about this not being a political message doesn't hold water. It's a message protesting current law; it's by its very nature political regardless of the underlying principle.
Your relentless editorializing on this issue is tiresome. It isn't consistent in tone or style with the rest of the site, and it's annoying.
Go get 'em, Martin.
Keep fighting the good fight.
", you seem to agree that voting rights is as political a message as opposing abortion or supporting gay marriage. It's not."
It is. One political party almost universally opposes D.C. voting rights. One political part almost universally supports D.C. voting rights. Objective constitutional arguments support both positions. It is the definition of a political issue. Of course, "true believers" don't see it that way. True believers view this, like they view all things, as a moral fight between what is right and what is wrong, which is yet another example of how this is the definition of a political issue.
In the meantime, will someone please help me remove the blinking sign above the bed in my rented apartment telling me masturbation kills and to vote Nazi? But then again, i guess my landlord is entitled to his opinions.
Monkeyrotica's Eight Point Plan for DC Voting Rights (As seen on MILFcruiser.com)
1. Let District residents select a State in which their vote will count. Overseas military vote via absentee ballot all the time. Most will pick MD or VA but you pick whatever state you want and for tax/voting purposes you will officially be "a MD/VA/whatever citizen residing in DC." This effectively disperses the DC voting bloc among the States, so Congressional balance is maintained, and you won't get any argument from MD/VA.
2. Your Federal income taxes now go to the State you select for voting purposes.
3. Barring 1 and 2, retrocede to Virginia. (HA! Didn't see that coming, did you?) Barring that,
4. Work with Northern Virginia towards mutual secession and formation of the State of NoVADC. (There goes the region's economic engine.) If that doesn't work,
5. Annex the Sudetenland (worked before). Still not good enough?
6. Join forces with the droid separatist army under the command of General Grievous.
7. ?
8. PROFIT!
We paid for it -- I support being able to use it as a vehicle for TRUTH -- No taxation without representation!
How to get voting rights?
Easy!
Amend the Constitution.
Next question?
Guest,
"No taxation without representation" was first uttered in 1750 and became a defining rallying cry for the American Revolution. I doubt that today you could find one person that disagree with the sentiment that slogan expressed -- if you pay taxes to a government, you should have a voice in that government.
That is what this sign says, plain and simple. The issue of congressional legislation is another thing altogether. The city wants to bring attention back to the concept of no taxation without representation. There's no advocacy of a particular solution, simply a plea that Washington find a way to live up to a historical American principle. How is that political, controversial, or offensive? If anything, it should be seen as patriotic.
Martin is my homeboy.
qbert summarized my thoughts rather nicely...
that said, I suspect martin could do us some good here by grabbing a bullhorn and taking his message to the residential neighborhoods at the crack of dawn... maybe those folks would appreciate being beaten over the head with martin's sentiments?
How the hell did voting rights for taxpaying citizens get lumped in with such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control?
Are there ministers out there every Sunday preaching against the Evils of Representation for DC Residents? Does the NRA raise money with literature warning against what Eleanor Holmes Norton would do, if she's allowed to vote on the floor of the House? Did Karl Rove's strategy to win Ohio in the 2004 presidential election revolve around a ballot proposition to enshrine a lack of DC voting rights in the state constitution?
Controversial my eye.
As recently as 2005, "DC Vote's national survey of 1,007 people found that a majority of respondents were unaware of the District's status. For example, 78 percent thought that D.C. residents have voting rights in Congress equal to those of residents of the 50 states."
For there to be an actual controversy, people have to actually, you know, be aware of the situation.
Yes "electronic boards displaying the ticking amount of federal taxes paid by the District" is purely alluding to our shared political heritage.
That is kind like when NOW holds their "Night at Nationals" event during coat hanger night.
So as long as political sloganeering is vague and does not explicitly offer solutions, it fails to qualify as being political.
“Taxation Without Representation” regardless of its historical origins, is today the rallying cry of defined political group with a defined political agenda which is supported by the city council. If the council supports displaying this historical “rallying cry” then they are rallying the cry of their particular political agenda. Pretending that they’re just printing a cluster of words in a particular order doesn’t make it so.
Look why dont we work out a compromise? You dont have to pay federal taxes-
$3,164,453,000 in 2005
from http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=171535,00.html
and Ill take back the DC Appropriations bill
$ 3,692,814,000 in federal funding
at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ115.109.pdf
and then we'll call it even?
And no more of this whining about oppression by the man-you guys get an extra 500 million from the feds as it is now....
How is that political, controversial, or offensive? If anything, it should be seen as patriotic.
Well it's definitely not that controversial and it's certainly not offensive, but it is blatantly political.
seriously, people, you're all talking past each other, so i don't see any good coming of the argument here....except for one thing:
monkey's idea that we all get to choose what state we "live" in and pay taxes to.
goddamn that's brilliant! what if we all decided that we were residents of florida? the surge of hundreds of thousands of democratic votes there would assure the state would be voting democratic on the national level. instead of 3 measly electoral votes, we could guarantee 27 for a democratic nominee!
Suburban,
Ahh yes, the myth of the federal payment.
First off, all of the District's local taxes are sent to Congress and then re-allocated to the city.
Second, it was in 1997 that the feds agreed to start paying for certain D.C. functions like Medicaid expenses and prisons. Why? Because the city cannot collect taxes on 42 percent of its land (universities, churches, parks, federal government buildings), leaving it in a position that has caused a structural inbalance that is thought to exceed $1 billion a year. Also, our police are regularly called upon to serve federal functions, and we get nothing for that.
So don't go throwing that "federal payment" argument at us. Chances are that most states get more federal money than D.C. does anyhow by way of earmarks, yet you're not complaining about that...
Screw Beijing. DC oughtta make Coral Gables our sister city. Imagine DC suddenly getting 10am early bird lunch specials and all the lime green pants up by your armpits. Hell, most people in DC leave their left turn signals on all the time anyway, so we've practically got the Florida driving patterns down to a "t."
I see Martin Austermuhle has already addressed Suburban's error. You see, my suburban friend, as Martin notes, under "home rule," DC's LOCAL taxes go to Congress, which then gets to approve how we spend them...which is why it took until the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 to get Congress to let the District spend its own money on a needle exchange program.
But you know, who needs a billboard when well-informed suburbanites such as yourself clearly understand how this all works...
And btw, if the federal gov't really did offer to cancel the federal income tax, DC residents would likely take that deal in a heartbeat...Monaco would have nothing on us...
Martin-
I didnt include the $5 billion in local taxes that get sent to congress and then returned-the 3.7 billion is federal funds above and beyond that...
Yes states do get earmarks, but they dont get their own appropriations bills, they have to fight each other for the pork. As to the property tax issue, property taxes and expenses on things like the Norfolk naval complex, Davis-Mothan AFB, or Camp Pendleton far exceed what the District "looses" each year, but you dont hear Hampton-Roads, Tuscon, or San Diego complaining about lost tax revenue or having to spend for services-they love that those institutions bring jobs and $$$ to the area in far excess of their property tax value. Which is in the end what the Federal Govt does here....
The District gets far more than it gives, and then complains about it, which I suppose is just as much of the American Way as "taxation without representation"
I am truly shocked that so many of you agree that there should not be said signage at the stadium. Are you frickin' kidding me? So MY tax dollars can pay for this cluster fuck of a stadium, but I have no right to post a sign about said taxation?
OH, that's right, this is DC. Nothing I say matters anyway....
I think there is a compromise here.
Put up the billboard the council wants and underneath it put up another billboard tracking the amount of money stolen by DC city employees while the council did...whatever it is they do. Grandstand? Pander? Something like that.
But seriously, for all the high minded principles tossed around, this city is still is really sad shape and I fail to see how giving Eleanor Holmes Norton a vote is going to help make better use of the sales, income, and property taxes that I hand over every year. That's not to say it "shouldn't" happen, but on the list of things I could change about living here, it's waaay down on the list.
I would definitely trade *more* bad representation for some good representation.
Ummm, again, you're missing some key details.
Yes, we get our own appropriations bill. But given that 95 percent of that money was ours to begin with, it's not like we get a huge prize. The federal government payout is insignificant, all told, and it can be directed to little pet projects of members that don't live here and don't represent us (see flat tax, charter schools, etc.).
And sure, states with bases lose money because they can't tax that land -- but please name one state that has 42 percent of its land designated as tax-free. Plus, many of those places can tax the individuals that work on those bases because they live in that state. D.C. can't. So, we have untaxable land and hundreds of thousands of people that come into the city, make money, leave and end up paying taxes to Virginia and Maryland. Plus, we need to pay for the infrastructure that is used by those people.
Yeah, we're totally winning out.