Baseball Files for Arbitration on D.C. Stadium

Williams said it was unclear whether the arbitrators could order the District to approve a lease deal or simply rule that the city owes monetary damages to baseball. Baseball officials said yesterday that they believe the arbitrator can impose the lease conditions without council approval. However, a city lawyer expressed doubt about whether the arbitrator can override the council.

The arbitration process would be aborted if the D.C. Council were to approve the lease in the meantime, officials said.

Council member Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6), a stadium supporter, said her colleagues must understand that the city could be liable for hefty fines if the arbitrators rule against the District.

"I don't know where we'd be getting money to cover the fines we could get," Ambrose said. "If the fines have to come out of the general fund, then we've got a problem."

At his news conference, Williams said he was taken aback by an editorial column written by DuPuy that appeared in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

"The District, for all its many pluses, is not an easy city with which to do business," DuPuy wrote. "City leaders frequently quibble with baseball about its commitments, and they often quarrel with each other. There are so many interested parties in the D.C. government that it seems on some days that no one is in control and on other days that everyone wants to be in control."

Williams acknowledged that the District government had room to improve in terms of efficiency and accountability. But he added that baseball also missed its own deadlines repeatedly, such as on the long-awaited sale of the Nationals. Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has set several deadlines for the sale starting in the spring, but the franchise still has not been sold.

"How many commitments has baseball made that they do not keep?" Williams asked. "No one should be pointing fingers at anyone else."