Field of Schemes

THOSE FAVORING the use of city money to help build a soccer stadium on the D.C. waterfront are irked that word about their plans leaked out. Publicity is seen as death to the project. What, though, does it say about the worth of this undertaking if the details must be hidden and if even its champions are nervous? It is time to get deliberations out of the shadows and see whether the plans can withstand public scrutiny.

Legislation authorizing the use of $150 million for construction of a stadium for D.C. United was in the works for next Tuesday's D.C. Council session. The plan being developed by Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) and council members Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) envisions a 27,000-seat stadium as part of a larger, mixed-use development at Poplar Point. Fallout from the front-page story written by The Post's David Nakamura put a chill on the on-again, off-again project, but it seems that negotiations are continuing. Indeed, the latest report is that D.C. United officials now want $225 million.

No doubt it's the nature of business dealings for things to be hammered out in private. But it's troubling that -- in a bid to avoid the kind of protracted and bitter debate that surrounded the baseball stadium -- efforts are underway to line up seven council votes even before legislation is presented. As painful as the debate on baseball was, it served an important purpose in airing issues, vetting details and making for a better deal.

We supported the use of public money for the Washington Nationals because we became convinced it was a $611 million investment that would pay off for the city with the much-desired return of baseball and in the revitalization of neighborhoods in desperate need. Proponents of using public money for a soccer stadium should have to make their case, too.

If, as supporters contend, a soccer stadium would kick-start the transformation of Wards 7 and 8, it could be money well spent. But a key issue is whether the District even has the money to consider this development. The financial climate is much different today from what it was when then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams led the fight for baseball. The future is uncertain, and Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi is right to be worried about how much debt the District takes on. If the council decides to fund soccer, what other project won't be undertaken? Should the District pay out these millions of dollars when it is still unable to address the basic needs of many of its residents? Then, too, there is the burden on businesses to consider. Is it fair that they continue to pay what was billed as a baseball tax so that extra revenue can be diverted to a soccer stadium?

To date, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has been a strangely reluctant player, content to let the council lead the way. Mindful of his image as a fierce opponent of public funding for the baseball stadium, Mr. Fenty nonetheless seems willing to help council allies who favor the stadium. That's not good enough. Mr. Williams put his marker down for baseball. If Mr. Fenty really thinks the soccer stadium is in the District's best interest, he must put it on the line.