"If baseball doesn't come to Washington, all this is meaningless," Evans said. "But if baseball does decide to come here, this is a vehicle we could use to begin financing the Banneker site."
Ambrose, however, said she opposes funding the stadium with profits and tax revenue from waterfront development -- money earmarked for roads and bridges along the riverfront, as well as development in poorer riverside communities.
|
_____ Boycott the Birds? _____
• What's your opinion?
Note: This is an unscientific survey of washingtonpost.com readers.
| | |
_____Stadium Site Survey_____
•
The District has narrowed its choices for a new baseball stadium. What's your favorite?
|
| |
_____Gallery_____
•
The District has been without major league baseball for more than 30 years. Look back at a visual history of the Washington Senators.
|
| |
|
"It just makes a commitment of resources that is just entirely different than what has been discussed," she said.
In interviews, four of five council members on the economic development committee said they were open to the plan. The fifth, Chairman Harold Brazil (D-At Large), did not return a call to his office.
But several committee members questioned the wisdom of picking a stadium site before Washington has any guarantee of getting a team.
"The problem is we're getting the cart before the horse," said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1). "I'd like to get a better picture on whether we're going to have baseball and where the $400 million is going to come from before we wade into the controversy of where the stadium is located."
Miller, whose attorneys drafted the amendment, said a public airing of his plan could quell any controversy over the site.
"I think there needs to be a real discussion about how this can be done without impinging upon the residents," he said. "Once they see the concept, I think they'll see that it improves the neighborhood."
Staff writer Thomas Heath contributed to this report.
