The Stadium Lease Deal

MAYOR ANTHONY A. Williams is right, and has been from the start, that baseball will be good for the District as well as for the region as a whole. Washingtonians showed in the Nationals' first season here that they want baseball back and will support it. A new stadium in Southeast Washington would, as Mr. Williams maintains, hasten development in its neighborhood, generating tax revenue and helping create another attractive urban destination. Most fans will come from the suburbs, transferring resources, with the taxes they pay on tickets and hot dogs, to a city that is otherwise forbidden to tax commuters. And the city will pay for the stadium largely with revenue -- from stadium taxes, the baseball team's rent checks and a new tax on top businesses -- that would not have been available for school renovations or other needs.

Yet critics of the baseball deal on the D.C. Council also are right in many of the points that they make. However much the baseball deal ends up costing -- $600 million, $700 million or even more -- it is a staggering sum and a huge addition to debt load for a city with many other needs. The projected costs have risen dramatically since the mayor first announced the deal, from $435 million to $631 million, and they could well rise again. The risk of increasing costs falls entirely on the city as the deal is currently structured and not at all on Major League Baseball or a future team owner.

MLB, in other words, has itself a sweet deal. Thanks to the stadium that the District will build and the value of this market, team owners will realize a whopping profit when they sell what used to be the Montreal Expos. MLB negotiated from strength in 2004, as city officials saw it, because the league could have taken its team elsewhere. Then, contrary to what Commissioner Bud Selig had given the city to believe (though no promise was in the contract), he delayed sale of the team, putting the city in its current position of being asked to sign a lease without knowing who the owner will be.

It's not surprising, then, that council members are troubled by the uncertainties posed by the lease they will be asked to approve Tuesday. Construction is to be financed by selling $535 million in bonds. But the city's chief financial officer, Natwar M. Gandhi, notes that $36 million in infrastructure cost is not covered by the bond financing. The D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission and the mayor speak of Metro and the federal government paying infrastructure costs, but as of today, there are no commitments. Likewise, the commission and mayor have budgeted $43 million in contingency funds. Should cost overruns exceed that amount, where will the city get the money? From the general fund, which the mayor pledged not to touch?

So the council is left without attractive options. Our view, though, is that if the District cannot improve its position between now and Tuesday, the council should approve the lease and expect the city to arrange a better sharing

of costs and risks with the new owners once

the team is sold. An owners group should be prepared to enter into discussions with the sports commission and the mayor on cost overruns, risk sharing and other aspects of financing the new ballpark. After all, any owners group that identifies with the District's civic life and its aspirations should be a willing partner in this venture.