Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington), a longtime supporter of the stadium authority's quest for a team, said putting the state's weight behind the stadium bonds is no different than backing other private investments intended to create jobs and stimulate local economies. Moreover, she added, the authority is doing what it was created to do.
"The General Assembly has already determined that [luring a baseball team] is a legitimate purpose," Whipple said. "We're the ones who said, 'Go out and get us a team.' "
In interviews, Hanger and other members of the Senate Finance Committee echoed their chairman's skepticism about such a bond plan. The committee would vote first on the plan.
How the bond plan could affect the state's finances depends on a host of unknown factors, state finance officials said. But the primary question is theoretical: How likely is a shortfall in repaying the bonds?
Authority officials said the chance of a shortfall is remote. Their plan, they said, would pay off the bonds even under a "meltdown scenario" in which game attendance falls precipitously.
"Our plan works if the attendance goes down to the lowest attendance in Major League Baseball," said Gabe Paul Jr., the authority's executive director. "At the end of the day, our plan works if we go down to 1 million attendance a year. That's not a bad year. That's every year."
The plan calls for two-thirds of the stadium cost to be funded with taxes on stadium-related business, such as concessions, players' salaries and also revenue from developers working with the authority. Team owners would pay the other third in rent. Hannigan said a recent decision to sharply reduce the size of a development around the ballpark would have no impact on the stadium financing.
Authority officials and their advisers also said that even if there were a default, Virginia would not be required to repay the bonds because the state is not guaranteeing them as it would traditional general obligation bonds.
Hannigan, citing the authority's legal advisers, said the moral obligation pledge, while "not legally enforceable," is a powerful stamp of approval because it goes to the state's credibility.
"If the bonds are never called on, there really is no impact" on state finances, said Pam Currey, Virginia's deputy finance director. She said she could not estimate the potential costs to the state in the case of a default, largely because it would depend on the size of the debt. "There are a lot of different variables," she added.
Detractors said the state should direct its resources toward more important public pursuits.
"This is corporate socialism at its worst," said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), adding that the state should not put public money into a stadium for private business that will help "some millionaires to get richer. Forget that spitball!"
But proponents said putting the Expos in a Northern Virginia stadium would provide an economic engine.
"It really has long-term benefits for the commonwealth as a whole," said Sen. Benjamin J. Lambert III (D-Richmond), a member of the Finance Committee. "It stimulates tourism and would bring some excitement to Virginia."
Added Callahan, "It would be a feather in the governor's cap if, on his watch, Virginia gets a baseball stadium."
Baseball backers are counting on those promises of economic benefits and a survey showing support among many Virginians to persuade lawmakers to follow through with the financing.
Paul Shiffman, a lawyer who is part of the Virginia Baseball Club, an investment group seeking to buy the team, said, "In the end, the question is going to be, 'Do these politicians want an epitaph written that they are the reason baseball doesn't come to Virginia?' "
