Residents at Second D.C. Hearing Reinforce Stance Against Stadium

The second part of a public hearing to discuss plans for financing the city's baseball stadium drew a small crowd of residents to council chambers yesterday, many of whom were there to express ongoing opposition to the stadium.

More than a dozen people testified and about two dozen more sat in the crowd, wearing T-shirts with anti-stadium slogans. Yesterday's public hearing came after Friday's presentation by private parties interested in funding construction of the stadium along the Anacostia waterfront.

Some residents argued that the current home of the Nationals, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, is good enough for the team and that spending the District's money on a new venue takes away from needier city programs.

"This stadium does not contribute to the education, health, safety or welfare of the residents of the District of Columbia," Burnetta Coles, a resident of O Street SE, said of a plan that would result in a stadium near her home.

The largest applause from a crowd of about three dozen came when Ahmed Assalaam, a neighborhood commissioner in Southwest Washington, urged citizens to "rise up and take their city back" and not accept that a new stadium is a done deal.

In December, the council approved public financing of the $535 million stadium with the provision that Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) find $140 million in private money. On Friday, Deutsche Bank described its financing proposal, which is worth $256 million and is one of two certified by Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's chief financial officer.

If the council does not authorize a private financing plan, the stadium will be funded with a tax on gross receipts from businesses; a utility tax on businesses and federal offices; an annual rent payment by the Washington Nationals; and a concessions tax at the stadium.

Susan Hager of the D.C. public relations firm Hager Sharp Inc. said taxes are hammering small and medium-size businesses such as her own, which pays a larger percentage than bigger companies.

"This is wrong, this stinks and you know it," Hager said. "You have to make it fair."

Ed Lazere, head of No D.C. Taxes for Baseball -- which protested the District's agreement to spend public money on a new stadium -- said D.C. leaders have been misleading residents about the benefits of baseball to the city and aren't clear about the hidden costs of a privately funded plan.

"Private financing sounds like it's cheaper for the city, but in fact it's not," Lazere said.

Bob Peck, president of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, echoed the warning to council members that even though private financiers assume more risk, their proposal is far more expensive in the long run. "This is not philanthropy but financing," Peck said.

The audience included members of the Capitol Area Minority Contractors and Business Association, who were there in support of the group's general counsel, Mark Hall. He testified about the group's lack of involvement in the city's last big project, the new convention center.

"We got really burned on that last one," Hall said. "We are afraid the same thing is going to happen now."

Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), chairman of the Committee on Finance and Revenue, said he will advance the legislation June 1 and that committee members can offer amendments at that time. The council might vote on the bill before its summer recess begins July 15.