| Page 2 of 2 < |
Baseball Questions Stadium Cost Cap
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
But under the council's legislation, that revenue is now earmarked for cost overruns related to the city's purchase of stadium land. If anything remains, it must go into a Community Benefit Fund, the council's bill states.
The community fund was promised by Williams, who said the city will tax new businesses near the ballpark to help fund libraries, schools and other social needs. The city would get less money from the sale of development rights if an above-ground parking structure was built.
The council's spending cap includes $21 million for a 1,225-space, surface-level parking structure. Officials have estimated that building underground parking for the same number of vehicles would cost $55 million.
"We will need to look at other avenues to pay for parking," council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) said yesterday. "Underground parking is a better approach. We should use above-ground for development. It's a much better use of space."
The council's emergency legislation reads: "Any excess revenues derived from development rights that are not used for cost overruns for land acquisition and environmental remediation shall be deposited into the Community Benefit Fund."
That provision was added by Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) early Wednesday, just after midnight and moments before the council voted to approve the document. Barry could not be reached to comment.
Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, a think tank, has opposed the stadium. Yesterday, he said, "The direction they seem to be going appears to suggest the stadium cost estimate is already over the $611 million cap by council."
Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), a staunch stadium supporter, said the council's frantic negotiations on the deal, with amendments coming on the dais late after a long day, left it unclear whether the council had made a reasoned analysis before blocking the use of development money for underground parking.
