The Presidents Seats are shameful, they should make it a prerequisite that owners but show up 75% of the time and sit at least 5 innings. Also, it is time to slash ticket prices for the most under used portion of the stadium; the left field mezzanine...$33 a pop is too much, for what I think, the worst seats in the joint. Slash them down to $10-15 they will fill up. Let hope some divine intervention will rub off onto Nats Park.

The attendance thing, if it persists, is a big problem. The city is paying back the $611 million they owe partly through taxes on tickets and concessions. If they can't draw a good crowd, those taxes will drop. That's not good.

Losing team or not, I'd hope that die-hard fans would be flocking to the new stadium and dropping mad cash on everything from beer to ice cream. It was many of them, after all, that helped push this stadium idea along.

Pretty hard to draw anything from 7 games in April. It's still cool in the evenings, kids still have school, etc.

Baseball would be a hard sell either way because this area fanbase is so transient. People who grew up Indians or Cubs fans. But I agree with the above posters, its more weather thang.

Attendance is running ahead of last season, and that's with a lousy team, bad weather, school nights, and less-than-compelling opponents. It's far too early to pass final judgment on attendance, and there should be a spike with the Mets and Cubs coming in the next homestand.

It's going to be hard for our team to drive attendance because there are a lot of variables for and against. There is the aspect that Zippy points out, that we are a city full of fans from other cities.

There is the fact that we have a losing record, and their record hasn't been impressive since we got them.

There is the fact that we don't have a compelling rivalry - just yet, a la the Red Sox/Yankees or White Sox/Cubs, etc.

The team is going to have to play better, or the wow factor of the new stadium will quickly diminish.

Two of the things that are depressing attendance:

-- Prices. I think the tickets are still a little too expensive overall.

-- Not winning. You're not going to get a lot of attendance unless you win (or unless you're the Cubs), and the Nats won't win this year. So get used to it. The Nats are going to have a losing record this year and won't have a shot at the playoffs until 2010 at the earliest.

P.S. Also, citing Ryan Zimmerman's lack of performance as a cause for worry is wrong-headed. Now, if Zimmerman wear tearing the cover off the ball and they were 4-11, then you worry. Zimm will hit.

i've been to two games now, both times got the $5 day-of tickets in the upper deck. well worth it, i say.

the empty seats behind home plate are a disgrace though. the team should open them up to let people move down into them for an upgrade fee. say i'm in the upper deck and in the 3rd inning i decide i want to move down. let me in for something like $15...maybe don't let me have the unlimited wait service or whatever special thing you get down there.

at least it wouldn't look so bad on TV like it does now with all those empty seats always on camera.

"More importantly, the District invested a lot of money in this venture and needs people to show up to justify that money"

"The attendance thing, if it persists, is a big problem. The city is paying back the $611 million they owe partly through taxes on tickets and concessions. If they can't draw a good crowd, those taxes will drop."

Bullshit.

As we've gone over roughly a jillion times now, the real revenue the city is getting will be from the several billion dollars in development going in around the stadium. From the massive income taxes paid by 10,000 new residents. From the condo taxes paid by the same. From the massive new office building taxes. From several large new hotels. Etc, etc, etc.

Do the fucking calculations already. 10,000 new residents (assuming conservatively most new condos has just one new resident). Each making, conservatively, $75,000 A year (these new condos won't be cheap). Conservatively figure their DC tax at 5%. That's $37 million a year in DC income tax.

That doesn't even count their freaking condo tax of roughly 1%. That's another $25 million a year.

Then figure in their car taxes, their dining out taxes, etc.

And factor in the millions per year DC will be saving because the neighborhood is no longer a crime-infested ghetto, sucking up police, fire, and other infrastructure.

The tickets and concession taxes are just gravy. The are not the main justification for building the stadium. Far from it.

Granted, I haven't spent days on these calculations so I'm sure I could be off, in my haste to respond to such ass-headedness as DCist insists on constantly reposting, all evidence to the contrary.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the vast majority of the $611 million comes from the big business community with a tax they approved. It does not come from 'the city'.

We get it already. You don't like baseball. You didn't want the stadium.

But at least stop the bullshit doom and gloom already. It's not only intellectually dishonest - it's stunningly stupid.

Football: they play 8 games a year at FedEx field ... on Sundays. It's impossible to compare Football to baseball since the season is so different. Also, the Nationals are a new team. When you talk about 'diehard' fans, are you talking about old Senators fans? There are no diehard fans right now! Give it a few years and some winning seasons and the fans will start to become 'diehard'.

Almost forgot the other 'value added'....

One less area in DC where you are likely to get your ass killed.

And my quickie little calculation didn't even include the massive taxes DC will get from all those office buildings and hotel rooms. Those alone will quickly dwarf whatever actual city residents paid in taxes for the stadium.

I used to think Martin and DCist opposition to the ballpark was because they are basically just young, stupid socialists.

But then I realized they are mostly just stupid. A true socialist would love this plan - get the big business community to pony up almost all the cost, and yet all the taxes go to the DC general fund, so it can be spent on yet more crappy-ass public schools, welfare programs, and other failed policies we've dumped money into for 40 years now.

the vast majority of the $611 million comes from the big business community with a tax they approved.

What happens two years from now when those same businesses decide they no longer want to pay this tax and flex their financial and political muscle to get it repealed?

Hillman,

Wow, that's a shit-ton of speculation there, isn't it? Pretty much any development in that area is a few years off. Assuming that 10,000 people will move there is, well, guesswork.

As for your other arguments, well, you're missing the key fact that the money to pay back that $611 million is coming from the tax on business AND the taxes on tickets and concessions. You can't merely dismiss those taxes; they were factored into the equation when the city agreed to borrow this much money. The minute the city can't make a payment -- which can happen, given the swings in the economy -- is the minute that that debt becomes VERY public.

This has NOTHING to do with not liking baseball. This does, though, have plenty to do with hoping that the city can keep up with the payments on that huge investment. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anyone with a stake in the city's finances should be concerned.

BTW, Hillman, by your logic, Americans aren't really paying for the war in Iraq because it's essentially being put on the country's credit card.

When a city levies a tax to pay back a debt -- regardless of who it's levied upon -- it becomes a public obligation, no matter what machinations you want to engage in to pretend like its not.

Diehard Nats fan here. And I live with a second diehard Nats fan, and know quite a few others.

No matter how many times y'all repeat the myth of DC =transient, it is less so than you believe.

That said, we've only been once so far, but that can be blamed on our 20 game package - we've only had one set of tickets so far.

I've been once and had a great time despite their loss - there was nice weather, a great stadium, decent food. To round-out the only-in-DC experience we happened to sit next to a Congressman (and we weren't even in the money seats). With time and word-of-mouth I think people will start showing up.

"When a city levies a tax to pay back a debt -- regardless of who it's levied upon -- it becomes a public obligation, no matter what machinations you want to engage in to pretend like its not."

Sure. Nobody is arguing otherwise. It's just that the idea of all the large businesses in DC suddenly packing up and leaving town is just stunningly stupid.

Again, in the first year alone they are up $20 million dollars, above and beyond the debt obligation. JUST from the large business tax. Not even counting the shit ton of fees the city has collected for sales of all that land, building of the new buildings, condo purchase fees, etc.

Short of perhaps a nuclear attack that's just not going to happen. Period.

So let's see. Your scenario requires an absolute devastation of the entire DC economy and the collapse of the capital city of the country.

My scenario requires simply those things that are on the books as approved already to be built. And probably 2/3 of those are either built already, under construction, or the funds are obligated.

Even if construction stopped tomorrow in the new Nats neighborhood the city would still come out ahead on taxes. Way ahead.

Hillman,

First, I'll say it again -- you're right that not all D.C. residents are directly paying for the stadium. That's true. But all D.C. residents are on the hook for those payments being made. If for any reason the payments can't be made, that's money coming out of the general fund.

It's also funny you mention that the city recently got $20 million more in business taxes than they expected. They also got saddled with higher payments for a good chunk of the bonds because of the subprime mortgage market meltdown. So sure, it's easy to say that we don't have to worry as long as big business is there to pick up the tab. But there are plenty of variables at play here -- and that's where the risk is.

By the way, I'm surprised you haven't owned up to the fact that the city has actually ended up spending more than $650 million for the stadium and all the land, and they're not even done settling with owners.

To wrap this up, I don't hate baseball. I don't hate the Nats. I don't like the stadium deal, period. I think the city gave far too much, and at too high a risk. That area was developing as it was, albeit a little more slowly. I'm not convinced that the stadium will prove to be the huge draw we've all been convinced to think it will be. And as much as you like to think none of us are paying for this, the fact remains that we are all on the line for it. It's our stadium, our responsibility. If the economy goes to shit -- and it might, all things considered -- it'll be all of us shelling out money to cover the debt.

@Hillman

I noticed that during your bloviating you neglected to answer my question, so I'll repeat it. What happens when 2 or 4 or 6 years down the road the big businesses that are being taxed to pay for the stadium decide they don't want to pay anymore and use their considerable financial and political muscle to get this tax repealed, what then?

"That area was developing as it was, albeit a little more slowly."

Again, bullshit.

And spoken like someone who never actually went to that part of town before the stadium went in.

The ghetto effect in that entire area was very real. Not just a little. A whole damn lot.

There was simply no way an entire new city would have been developed down there short of the city doing something huge and dramatic, like the stadium.

Yes, several new office buildings would have been built along M Street even without the stadium, primarily to serve the new NAVSEA folks at the Navy Yard.

But that would have been it. There was a huge multi-block public housing complex there, stinky with crime. There's no way city official would have had the political balls to tear that all down without the stadium. And there's no way new residents or retail would move there with that crap still there.

And all the massive infrastructure would have been unthinkable without the stadium. Several of those crappy little roads down there have been totally rebuilt, widened by several lanes, and made capable of supporting a shit ton more development. Again, wouldn't have happened without the stadium.

What happens if it turns out the moon really is made of delicious cheese?

About the same likelihood.

The business community strongly supported baseball. Now that the predictions about the massive development around the stadium have come true, that support is probably stronger than ever.

If big business has been consistent about one thing in this country, it's their willingness to make and break agreements at their convenience. Just look at the big 3 automakers fucking their unions on health insurance; they're crying a river of salty tears about it now, but the fact is that when they agreed to pay for health care they thought they were getting over because they didn't have to pay the kind of wage increases the union was asking for. Cut to forty years later and now those same fucks are whining that health care is too expensive and are coming to gov't with their hand out.

If the deal stays as it is, everything is cool; but anyone who trusts a bunch of lobbyists and law firms to not skullfuck the city as soon as they can is fooling themselves.

@DC1

Maybe I should have been more clear. If the businesses that agreed to pay these increased taxes continue to pay them as they agreed, then I'll concede that most of the arguments against the stadium fall squarely into the category of red herring. Since many (most?) of the businesses in this category aren't really providing consumer services, I'm not overly concerned about them passing on costs to me as a consumer.

Gotta side with Hillman. The area around the Navy Yard Metro was developing at a glacial pace pre-stadium. What little development around was due to the NAVSEA move, and that was limited to small contractors. Zero residential development or ground floor retail until that stadium deal was signed. THAT's what kicked development into high gear. Saying it was "developing albeit slowly" is like saying Columbia Heights was developing albeit slowly prior to Target signing a lease. Technically true, but you wouldn't have a goddamned English gastro pub moving in without big box retail, and all the foot traffic joints like that generate.

Don't forget the pillage of the Tax Office began under Williams' "watch" as CFO. Ghandi might bear the brunt of the blame, but there's plenty to spread around.

"And by the way, those housing projects have remained, even with the stadium there."

Uh, no.

The massive ones in SE were all torn down. Yes, the residents are coming back, but mixed with a ton of market rate housing and theoretically without the same crime infrastructure they had before.

The remaining public housing is primarily in SW, across a very wide South Capitol Street. You'll note how the construction also stops at South Capitol Street. As if there were, oh, I don't know, a reason not to go across.

Yeah, I don't get the prez club seats! You cant buy them and they're ALWAYS empty. And don't give me that weather BS. Whether it's cold or not is a nonfactor. I was at the Nat's Marlins game, with a picturesque 68 degrees start time and the place was dead. C'mon people, it has not been below freezing! I've been to at least 25 skins games when it was below 40. And FedEX holds double Nat's Park and then some. I'm talking about 91,000 seats and only a few empty seats. More people need to learn America's past-time. Plan and simple. GO NATS! better yet, GO TO NATS!!!

@DC1

I've got no problem with any of that; but I'm less worried about the affected businesses moving or not expanding (where is a lobbying firm going to go?) than I am about them simply repealing the tax used to pay for the stadium.

"The problem as I see it is that the stadium arrives just in time for what looks like a major recession. In many ways, the area resembles Gallery Place when their stadium was first built. It arrived during a recession and it took a few years before the economy turned around and more than a handful of businesses moved in."

There may be some truth to that.

The one real difference I see is the massive amount of office space already built or under construction around the Nats stadium. If memory serves me correctly most of what was around Verizon Center was already there, albeit abandonded. And it was on a much smaller scale (4 story retail rowhouse buildings around Verizon Center as opposed to 10 story massive block-size buildings going up around Nats stadium).

The massive new office spaces will most likely fill pretty quickly, albeit probably not for the astronomical per square foot prices they want to charge. But either way, the city gets a crapload of taxes, whether they rent or not.

I do think it would be wise for city officials to begin extra efforts to encourage retail /restaurant in the Nats stadium area, to make sure development of that aspect keeps on track.

Maybe they could offer any new restaurant in the Nats stadium area the same sweetheart tax abatement deal they offered Bens Chili Bowl, which I don't see any of the hipster doofuses complaining about.

Hillman,

Jesus, you're think-headed. Stop with the "DCist" thing. I am the one who has primarily written on the stadium; this isn't a group editorial decision or something.

I stand behind all of my comments regarding the stadium. Why? Experience. Plenty of cities have built stadiums and other such large developments and have had them turn out badly. There are plenty of economists out there -- and no, they're not all socialists -- who have looked at the numbers and found that publicly funded stadiums rarely live up to the hype used to justify them.

As for the issue of whether this is publicly funded or not, the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter who's paying for it as long as the city is on the line for the payments. These payments are going to stretch out 30 years, and in that time anything could happen -- those big businesses could move, they could try and change the taxing arrangement, they could go out of business. Just because the city got an extra $20 million the first year does not mean that they'll be rolling in that surplus in years to come. In fact, I could see big business say, "Hey, you guys have an extra $20 million, so why don't we lower the tax we're paying to fund the stadium?" Or -- as just happened -- interest rates could go through the roof and leave the city saddled with extra payments.

So yeah, this is a public issue whether or not we were all asked to give $1,000 to pay for the stadium. The city is now $611 million further in debt than it was before, and you should know that that fact will affect any future lending it seeks out (especially since the city's debt burden is already very high). This does affect D.C. residents, though indirectly. But the key is that it does affect us.

To end, I don't think that we'll suddenly buck the trend of cities that build stadiums that don't end up producing what they say they will. And since this stadium is now costing over the $611 million cap -- and I would bet that the money used above the cap has come out of the general fund -- it's a huge, risky investment that the city did not have to make had it negotiated better.

i'm just waiting for the martin/hillman steel cage match at nationals park. that'll fill the seats, sell the concessions, and fix the budget nicely, all while giving us better entertainment than the crap baseball team we have.

sounds like a win-win-win-win-win to me!

you've sold me, hillrat. we just need to get the protagonists interested. what'll it take, guys?

"He has overcome poverty, religion, and the intransigent racism of every clerk in the DC city government."

Lovely. Pithy, yet says so much. Brings tears to my eyes. Finally, after years, I've got something worthy of putting on my gravestone.

As for Bush, I actually detest Bush. As they say, Worst. President. Ever.

Believe it or not I'm not really a conservative, other than sortof liking guns and pretty much despising welfare as we know it. I'd describe myself as more of a practical realist.

I hope that steel cage is made from recycled steel. No use contributing to our already massive carbon footprint. Then again, you know what they say about guys with big feet.

Here's a compromise: build the cage out of toiletpaper tubes, bits of feces, and the tears of children who will never afford a sky suite.

Worst President ever...so far.

It would be difficult for Jeb to be worse than his brother

Ladies and gentlemen please rise for Attorney General Neil Bush.

"and the tears of children who will never afford a sky suite."

No fucking way. Then what will I bathe in?