"We've heard the call from our public to link our baseball initiative to continued support for other important priorities in the city, and that's what we're going to do," Williams said at his weekly news conference, where he was flanked by a dozen ministers and labor union leaders and two D.C. Council members.
"We're going to . . . match our community investment to the value of the stadium project," Williams added. "We've listened to our citizens, we've listened to our leadership and we're acting."
But the mayor's proposal was immediately denounced by some stadium opponents, who said the lack of details showed that the plan is theoretical at best.
"Can they really generate $400 million? It's not clear. When will it start? Unclear," said Ed Lazere, co-leader of a group called No D.C. Taxes for Baseball. "It will be interesting to see how people react to it. Do they believe it? Do they trust that it's real?"
Under the mayor's new proposal, the city would sell as much as $400 million in bonds and dedicate the money to the community investment fund. Williams said he and council members have yet to decide how to allocate the money. His only requirement, he said, is that it be spent to build and renovate facilities rather than to pay salaries and operate programs.
City Administrator Robert C. Bobb said the bonds would not be paid back through existing revenue, but he declined to elaborate. After the stadium is built by 2008, officials said, development in the surrounding community is expected to contribute a gush of new taxes to city coffers. At that point, those new taxes would be used to repay the bonds.
While the city has used this form of financing -- known as tax increment financing -- on a number of city projects, much remains to be determined about this one. The mayor said he has yet to decide the boundaries of the tax district.
The Rev. H. Lionel Edmonds, pastor of Mount Lebanon Baptist Church, said the mayor's promise to create the fund marks a significant improvement over what the stadium legislation initially promised the community.
Gandhi's analysis of the stadium deal was based in part on interviews his office conducted with officials from the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, the D.C. Department of Transportation, Metro and the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. Also considered were previous large projects, such as the Washington Convention Center, and similar stadiums in other cities.
But Green challenged many of Gandhi's basic assumptions. Cost overruns to renovate RFK might not occur because not all renovations have to be completed before Opening Day on April 15, he said.
He argued that an upgrade to the Metro station nearest the proposed site for a new stadium in Southeast -- near the Navy Yard and South Capitol Street -- is not necessary because people can get off at other nearby stations, too.
Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), one of the leading supporters of the stadium plan, said Gandhi's estimates did not change his position.
"People are comparing apples to oranges to tomatoes, throwing numbers around," he said.
