The Post, Examiner, and Washington Times are all reporting on yesterday’s hearing before the City Council on a lease for a new stadium for the Washington Nationals. Beyond the substance of the hearing, which featured the regular cast of characters playing their expected roles, DCist has these observations to make:

MLB: Hasn’t yet learned its lesson. Every time the league has threatened or spoken down to the council (which, at this point is many times), fence-sitting members have been pushed further and further away from supporting a publicly-financed stadium along South Capitol Street. Yesterday MLB president Robert DuPuy sent the council an ill-timed letter, stating the league’s opposition to relocating the stadium to the current RFK site. DuPuy seems to have forgotten a valuable lesson in these negotiations: it’s their money, and it’s ultimately their decision. You’re not helping your case by making demands and refusing alternatives.

Mayor Anthony Williams: Is regretting not being more involved earlier on. As the Post notes, Williams made a “rare appearance” before the council to defend the stadium plan. If Williams knew that support for the plan among the council was this shaky (and he should have, given last December’s 7-6 vote), why did he purposely make himself so scarce at key moments of the debate? Williams may be a responsible city manager, but good politician he is not. And beyond that, Williams still remains vague as to who is going to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements. The city can’t afford to with the existing $535 million price-cap, Metro doesn’t want to, and no one in the federal government has stepped up to say they’d take it on. The devil is in the details, Mayor Williams, and you’ve done yourself no favors by not going into specifics with the council.

Linda Cropp: The chair of the council is playing a dangerous game. From the beginning, Cropp has set herself up as the deal gatekeeper, the person who could ultimately round up the votes and secure the deal’s endorsement. While this may seem like wise political strategy, it also carries risks: while other members of the council are defining where they stand and why they stand there, Cropp seems willing to go with whichever political wind blows hardest. Her maneuvering may be high on political acumen, but it’s low on principle.

Does anyone have any bets as to which way the vote will go? Up or down? Leave your thoughts in comments.

>>Capitol Punishment on yesterday’s hearing.
>>Tom Sherwood on the hearing.