Lerner Family/Southeast Development

Washington Post staff writers Dana Hedgpeth and Alec MacGillis were online to discuss the Lerner family's impact on Southeast development issues. They explored the issue in an article this week, writing that the city has discovered that it's always about business with the Lerners, whether in D.C. stadium negotiations or the vision for the Anacostia waterfront.

A transcript follows.

Related Articles:

A Dynasty of Closed Ranks

Southwest Waterfront Will Finally Get Over the '60s

A gallery of artists' renderings of proposed development in Southwest is available online, as is a video with reactions of neighborhood residents.

____________________

Alexandria, VA: So, what about a signed contract doesn't the city get? The rest of us have to abide by contracts, whether it's a credit card rate or paying our mortgages on time. Why does the city seem to think legal contracts should be "flexible" ???

Dana Hedgpeth: You raise a good point that they struck a deal and it is detailed in the contracts. Of course every good businessman does try to negotiate more.

_______________________

Washington, DC: The Lerners claim the important thing is completing the stadium, and "in time," redevelopment will fall into place. That has never happened at RFK. Isn't the stadium likely to attract more visitors if it's at the heart of a vibrant neighborhood?

Dana Hedgpeth: Yes, that's one way to look at it. But one of the reasons it was approved to put the stadium in Southeast was there was a school of thought that it would be a catalyst to revive the area. That remains to be seen, although some projects are planned and starting in that area.

_______________________

Harwood, MD: Your article seemed critical of the Lerners for their "hardball" approach, making sure their contracts are strictly construed and enforced. But isn't this how businesspeople make money? The Lerners didn't get where they are using slipshod methods and giving away things in a business context. If they out maneuvered and outbargained city and MLB lawyers, and it appears they have, why back down, especially when standing firm will get them millions of dollars in damages? The article admits they are fan-friendly and the family does much charitable work. Do we really have a right to ask for more?

Dana Hedgpeth: Good points. Usually successful businessmen get to where they are by being tough negotiators.

_______________________

Alec MacGillis: Hello everyone, thanks for joining us. We're here to answer any questions you might have about the debate over development around the new Nationals ballpark, and also any questions you might have about the Lerners, the developers who are the team's new owners, and their general approach to business, both at the ballpark and in their other projects, at Tysons Corner and elsewhere. Fire away!

_______________________

Washington, DC: I work in the FBI Building so know first-hand how the Verizon Center revitalized what had been a dead, and dangerous, section of town. I grew up in old Southwest DC and would love to see the same thing happen near the new stadium, but don't see how that can happen without a lot more DC money that is unlikely to be voted. Most of the buildings were already in place around the Verizon Center and all 5 Metro lines stop within a couple blocks, 3 of them actually under the building.

Alec MacGillis: You raise a very good point. The city would like to see a repeat of the Verizon Center dynamic, but there are some important structural differences, including the fact that the ballpark area is just a lot harder to get to, and that there is less room to work with there -- you've got the river on one side, after all.

_______________________

Fairfax Station, VA: Since how and when the garages are completed is a concern to the City and to the Nationals, why don't the Lerners get involved in the development of the garages so that they meet the BSA identified parking needs of the Nationals, the development needs of the City and provide a profit to the Lerners?

Dana Hedgpeth: The Lerners have been involved in some ways of coming up with a parking solution. They just have their own views of how it should be done and so does the city. It's called negotiating.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Is all of this arguing over the surrounding area (e.g., parking) impacting the actual stadium construction? Is the construction schedule on time and will the park itself be completed in time for Opening Day 2008?

Alec MacGillis: Good question. The contractors say the construction is on schedule for Opening Day 2008 -- the steel was just delivered to the site last week, an important step. But what is already happening is that there is such pressure to get the park done on time that the likelihood of cost overruns is increasing -- as disputes arise over who pays for what, there's not time to settle them in the most cost-efficient way, because there's a need to just keep charging ahead with the building. And there is also a dispute over just exactly what 'on-time' means -- the contractors say they'll have it ready for the April 15 home opener, but the Lerners point out that the contract actually calls for it to be done in March.

_______________________

Yudanta, MS: Are the Lerners hard-nosed, or just cheap? It's one thing to not take the lead in redeveloping Southeast DC, but do you expect the family be roadblocks to the process?

Alec MacGillis: That really depends on who you talk to. In some ways, the Lerners have shown themselves quite willing to spend on quality, as they have done at their premier developments in places like Tysons Corner. In other ways, they are known for keeping track of every dollar they spend. As for whether they will actually be roadblocks in the development, that remains to be seen. The city would argue that the family has in fact presented roadblocks with their demands for parking. No one really expected them to take the lead in the redevelopment, that's not their duty, but what has been notable to many is that they have seemed so relatively uninterested in being a part of the whole effort.

_______________________

Eastern Market, Washington D.C.: The debate over stadium parking really puzzles me.

On the one hand, the city argues, correctly in my view, that mixed-use development will not only generate more revenue than surface parking or parking garages, it will also enhance the "fan experience" of visiting the ballpark, a priority of the Lerners and Stan Kasten.

On the other hand, city leaders seem to forget that the ballpark is in the midst of a broader redevelopment process, which is already underway in the blocks neighboring the stadium. If surface parking is necessary as a temporary solution until a better plan emerges for the site, it seems there will still be economic dividends from other development.

Why is there so much consternation over one parcel of land (albeit an important parcel)?

Alec MacGillis: There is a lot of consternation over that one parcel, but understandably so, because it is one of the few decent-sized available pieces of land directly adjacent to the stadium, in the direct line of approach for those coming to the stadium from downtown or the Metro stops. So it is appealing both to the Lerners who want to have parking right next to the stadium for the luxury box holders, and to the city officials who want to see an entertainment district around park like what you have at the Verizon Center. As for the temporary surface parking solution, that in fact is an option that the city has been considering, but that the Lerners aren't keen about.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Wouldn't a vibrant entertainment district, a la that around the Verizon Center, generate more income for the Lerners in the long run? I've lived in both St. Louis and Cleveland, among other places, and know the idea of high rise parking garages should be a non-starter. You might as well plan to sleep in your car if you're parked on an upper level. You should at least add nearby post-game options, if that's going to be the plan.

Alec MacGillis: You would certainly think that the Lerners would see it that way. And they did tell us in our interview that they are not against development around the park, that they know that it's in their interests to have that occur. But they are quite adamant about the fact that it all centers on the ballpark itself, and that if people can't get in and out of the park easily, it won't matter if there are bars and whatnot around it. It's a chicken and the egg thing and they're very set on the fact that in this case the chicken comes first and that the chicken is the stadium and parking.

_______________________

DC: I am in the development industry and have seen a circulating draft of a letter to the Lerners to be signed by several major developers. The letter encourages the Lerners to "do the right thing" for the city and residents of DC. Do you think such a letter would have any impact on the Lerners?

Alec MacGillis: It certainly couldn't hurt to send it, but as you probably are well aware, the Lerners have generally tended to do what they think is best and what is in their company's and family's best interest, as they see it. They don't really see themselves as part of a broader business community or see their projects as part of a broader development landscape. It's interesting, for example, that they aren't active in the Greater Washington Board of Trade, even as they are one of the most successful businesses in the area.

_______________________

Alexandria, Virginia: In lite of the Washington Post front page story the other day on the Lerner's, there was a tremendous amount of chatter on 3 different Nats Blogs debating whether The Lerner's are really good business people, or, only out to make money and, in the long run, do very little to make the Nationals a Top Flight Franchise competing for the championship each year. What impression do you have on their willingness to spend and build a GREAT BASEBALL FRANCHISE. Is it in them?

Alec MacGillis: This is the question that is on the minds of many fans that we didn't really get into with this article, which was more focused on the development issue. It is going to be very interesting to see how the family actually operates the team. On the one hand, the Lerners are known for hiring quality, experienced people -- such as Stan Kasten -- and they like to be associated with top-class enterprises, such as their premier office towers and shopping centers. On the other hand, they are not known for throwing money around the way some other sports owners are. They really do seem to see the team as a long-term financial investment and not just as a way to get some attention for themselves. What that means for the team remains to be seen -- maybe they'll invest heavily in it, figuring that a winning team draws more fans, but maybe they'll be reluctant to spend a lot.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If the City Council does not approve the additional $75 million requested by the Mayor to ensure that D.C. Zoning Commission approved permanent parking structures are built in time for the new ballpark, won't the Lerners show no mercy? I can't imagine they would accept as a "temporary" solution a slap dash, five acre paved parking lot in lieu of permanent parking structures that are required to be in place by March 2008.

Let's see ---$50 million per annum in damages, loss of the City's exclusive development rights north of the ballpark, and the City, of course, would still be on the hook for the garages. Am I missing something?

Dana Hedgpeth: You're right there has to be some agreement reached on the parking. As you mention the Lerners are unlikely and have not agreed to a temporary parking solution.

_______________________

SW Washington, D.C.: Any idea where the parking will be for regular people and what kind of parking? Little has been mentioned about that.

Dana Hedgpeth: There has been some talk about where other spaces will be and some of those go pretty far out. There has also been talk of running a shuttle service from such places as RFK, where there is lots of parking, to the new stadium. You'll get some exercise if you're not a season ticket holder.

_______________________

Glover-Tunlaw: From Monday's article: "Every few days, the Lerners call or visit city officials with their latest desire: an executive dining room, and in the luxury suites, individual bathrooms and a special window glaze. The Lerners defend their style of doing business, saying they stick to their agreements and expect the same of others."

It's ridiculous for the city to acquiesce as they have to continued ballpark demands from MLB and the Lerners (who threaten to sue if they're asked to pay over a dollar more in ballpark work) above and beyond the scope of the lease and the CAA that call for higher costs that the public is expected to cover - in this case, for stadium upgrades that only the well-connected and not the public at large who's footing the bill will ever see. These upgrades must be prohibited unless the Lerners pay for them out of pocket, and the Lerners should have no problem with this if they truly want to honor the original deal.

Alec MacGillis: Many people certainly feel the same way as you do. What the Lerners argue is that these features -- bathrooms in each luxury box, etc -- are becoming more or less standard in new ballparks these days, and that it's just the fact that a team makes a lot of its money off the high rollers. The family has recently agreed to pay for the bathrooms out of its own contingency fund, but that leaves nothing in that fund to pay for other things that might come up that the city believes should be covered by the Lerners. Meanwhile, the two sides are still arguing over who will pick up some of the other extras.

_______________________

DC 20036: I have this crazy pipe dream of buying a condo next to the new stadium and, having bought my current condo in 1979, could actually afford this if prices don't collapse. What do you think the odds are of my being able to do this? They seem to be getting longer and longer and the Lerners have only owned the team for a few short months.

Dana Hedgpeth: Hmmm. There are condos to buy there now, just off M Street so the area is starting to change. Tough to say how fast it will happen though.

_______________________

SW Washington, D.C.: The article also didn't take into consideration the youth baseball academy planned, as well as other civic-minded projects. The Lerners have only had less than six months of ownership of the Nationals which tossed a large amount of responsibility in their laps. That's hardly long enough to judge the outcome of redevelopment that has barely begun (and most of which is not their responsibility). I would expect them to be shrewd business people. We've watched how the city council waffles on decisions and stances and the "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile" phrase seems appropriate. You did see how long it took (well past deadlines) to get the stadium approved in the first place, right? Now we're watching the same thing over parking that only affects a handful.

Alec MacGillis: You're certainly right that the family's ownership is still in its early stages and that its relationship with the city is still young. What is striking is simply how quickly things have soured after the good feelings of the ownership announcement in the spring. There is a worry that the parking dispute could well augur bigger fights when other things come up down the road, such as major overruns or a construction delay.

_______________________

Springfield, VA: Has work started on expanding the Navy Yard Metro Station to accommodate the anticipated crowds? Crowds at the Stadium/Armory station can get pretty hairy when dealing with a large Nats crowd, but that's a big stadium served by two lines. The Navy Yard station is tiny and served by only one line. Fortunately for me, it's my line, and I do like to read, but esp. on a work night I'm afraid tempers will run short.

Dana Hedgpeth: There are plans to expand the Metro stops in the area.

_______________________

W.C., Washington, D.C.: Thanks for having this chat. My question might or might not pertain to the Lerner Family's impact on developing the DC waterfront. Here goes anyway: are there any projects in the works to build a mega-fitness center on the waterfront which would be similar to the well known Chelsea Piers up in New York City? Chelsea Piers, which is in lower Manhattan, provides everything from basic gym equipment to indoor tennis/squash courts, golf driving ranges, batting cages, hockey rinks, indoor soccer/lacrosse courts, basketball courts, etc. I have to think a project like that could generate substantial long term value to the DC waterfront neighborhoods. At least it would offer more value than just another dozen chain restaurants that you could find already in Bethesda, Georgetown, Chinatown/Gallery Place or Arlington. Thoughts?

Dana Hedgpeth: There hasn't been any talk that I'm aware of to build something similar to that project, which I'm familiar with. It is a good idea though, but I suspect that other things need to happen there before such a mega project like that would work.

_______________________

Washington, DC: The article points out that acquiring a baseball team was an unusual move for the Lerners, who are primarily real estate developers. So wouldn't it follow that they want the development rights next to the baseball stadium? Hasn't the city given them enough?

washingtonpost.com: A Family That Plays Hardball

Dana Hedgpeth: I think you're probably right that the Lerners would want development rights near the stadium, but so far they've been really focused on mainly building the stadium.

_______________________

Brookland, DC: Why does it not surprise me that DC is having its pocket picked by a group of shrewd businessmen who outnegotiated the city on every level, so the city either has to pay millions more to get the park done on time or pay those same millions to the Lerners in damages? I hope they at least put that money back into building a winning team. A lot would be forgiven if we could have a winner!

Dana Hedgpeth: I think both the city and Lerners would like to see a winner. You're right.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Thank you for providing this forum!

There has been a lot of speculation and discussion about the near SE redevelopment. How about the "near SW" and, more generally, SW redevelopment? What impact will the stadium and related development have on SW, and to what extent do you think that higher-end retail and restaurants (white tablecloth) can prosper in SW? Why have developers been slow to act in SW when it is strategically located near 3 metros, I-395, the National Mall, and the Waterfront?

Finally, please tell Mr. Hoffman: the success of the SW redevelopment plan will hinge on having a pedestrian and bike path, connecting from the near SE. Now, bikers and joggers have to navigate a mess of cars and parking lots, broken glass, and narrow sidewalks next to busy Maine Avenue just to get to the Jefferson Memorial and Haines Point. Are there considerations to build a pedestrian/bike-only bridge across the Washington Channel to Haines point to alleviate this problem?

Thanks!

washingtonpost.com: Southwest Waterfront Will Finally Get Over the '60s

Dana Hedgpeth: I believe there are plans for some paths to connect areas in SW>

_______________________

Anonymous: If the Lerners are so concerned about parking, why don't they find a way to work with the city to get it done? They just keep stonewalling everybody by insisting upon keeping to the letter of their agreement. That may earn them a reputation for playing hardball, but it's not always a way to get things done.

Dana Hedgpeth: Good point but from their perspective they've spent a lot of money to buy this team. They are talking with the city to try to get things done, but they have strong opinions about how things should be develop and proceed.

_______________________

Is their experience just too suburban?: "Hard-nosed, eye on the ball" decisions might have payed off in the suburbs where closed-box malls have less interaction with the world around them (for better or worse). But the Lerners should recognize that even their private profits on a baseball stadium in the city are dependent a thriving, safe neighborhood that depends on more than parking. And they can't wait for it to come later, because it won't come if stadium goers don't come back for second and third visits.

In other words, it's in their hard-nosed interest to think 'outside the box' - and pay attention to those nambie-pambie urban planners, politicians, and activists.

Why don't they see this?

Alec MacGillis: You're right, there is a basic difference between the suburban landscape where the Lerners have done most of their work and what they are dealing with now. Even at Tysons, in the heart of the suburbs, the county planners have struggled to get the Lerners to cooperate more with their vision for an urban-style downtown there. The Lerners have said they do see the benefit of development around the park, btu they are really convinced that the ballpark must come first -- that the most important thing for that first or second visit by a fan is not having bars next door but being able to get to the park easily and get back and forth from their car.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Based on the Lerners' pattern of charitable activities -- almost exclusively towards Jewish charities -- and their neglect of properties in areas that subsequently developed substantial African-American populations, is it fair to say that the Lerners are, at best, racially insensitive, or, at worst, racist?

Alec MacGillis: It would be going way too far to jump to that conclusion. What can be said, based on the family's business experience, is that it has focused most of its projects in the more affluent, fast-growing parts of the metro area, which is not surprising from a business perspective. And it is true that the family's one major project in a majority African-American area, Landover Mall, has not fared well. The fact that that one mall has not succeeded may say something about how much the family's success in other places has depended on the surrounding affluence -- if you're building malls, it sure helps if your malls are in the middle of some of the richest suburbs in the country. As for the family's charities, it is true that it has focused its considerable giving on Jewish groups, which the family says comes simply from a feeling of special familial obligation to those causes.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Would the Lerners prefer that the area around the new ballpark not be commercially developed to leave more room for parking?

Dana Hedgpeth: I don't think they are interested in just having parking around the stadium. And that alone. They believe other development will come once the stadium is open on time.

_______________________

Bethesda MD: The Lerners do not seem to be comfortable in the role of tenant as opposed to landlord. While they are certainly familiar with the renter/rentee dynamic, it seems like they are having difficulty accepting the fact that they are renting the ballpark from the city, and not vice versa. The city also seems to be uncomfortable asserting itself as the owner. The city should build to the minimum requirements of the MLB stadium contract and make the Lerners responsible for anything above and beyond (which the Lerners would certainly do if the roles were reversed).

Alec MacGillis: This is a very good point. The Lerners are used to being the owners, and city officials do feel as if the family is not being sufficiently appreciative of the fact that the park is being built with public money. At the same time, you're right that the city has seemed reluctant to push back as hard as it could on some scores.

_______________________

Bethesda: The Lerners are spending a huge amount of their money on a historically risky venture (i.e. baseball in DC), made more risky by dealing with government (i.e. any government entity, in this case the District of Columbia). The Lerners understand the risks, but given those risks have every right to insist on the fulfillment of all contractual terms. The city must come to understand that if the parking, and even more importantly, the ingress and egress issues, aren't resolved satisfactorily, neither the new stadium nor the redevelopment issues will matter, because no one will come. (As grimy and gritty as RFK is, everyone loves how easy it is to park and drive home quickly after a game.) And if no one comes, the city loses. Your thoughts?

Alec MacGillis: That is exactly how the Lerners see it. And you can certainly see their point. What seems to be problem in the relationship so far is how the family is going about making this case, or how the city feels the Lerners are going about making it. The fact is, there are different ways of hashing out these kind of disputes.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va: Please describe to us what the area surrounding the new stadium will look like 5-10 years from now. What will it be like to go to a game at that time? Thank you.

Dana Hedgpeth: Depending on how the commercial real estate market and economy do in the coming years will depend a lot on whether many of the planned retail and condo projects happen there. Some planners and developers say it will look like the area around MCI Center but that could take five years or a decade -- depending on how you ask.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: As a Nationals 20-game season ticket holder, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the prospect of driving to, and parking at, the new stadium. Compared to the acres of parking at RFK, the two parking garages being discussed for the new stadium aren't going to cut the mustard, regardless if they're above ground, below ground, or built on stilts. Are the Lerners committed to making access and parking a relatively easy experience for those of us below the luxury box and suite $$ level? Or, do they appear to be concerned only about the big-money folks?

Alec MacGillis: The Lerners are indeed very concerned about how other, non-luxury boxholders are going to get to the game -- remember, these are people who provide parking for ALL the shoppers who come to their malls, parking is their lifeblood. In addition to pushing for the 1,250 spot the city must provide for the box-holders, the Lerners have been pressing the city to identify garages and lots for other fans. The city says there are plenty available places, but the Lerners argue that many of them are too far from the park or unlikely to be available come Opening Day.

_______________________

Anonymous: Have the Lerner's and/or the city followed other successful city's leads in redeveloping a waterfront area with a ball park. Baltimore obviously, but what about San Francisco. I lived there during the redevelopment and the building of AT&T Park. They got it right. It's an amazing area now.

Alec MacGillis: San Francisco is a good comparison to make, better actually than Baltimore, because the park in S.F., like the Nationals one, is further from the center of town than is Camden Yards, and it is also right on the water, the way the Nationals one will be.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Even though the River is on one side of the Ballpark Development, good business people always see opportunity that you and I don't--Those talented business folks I am just sure are chomping at the bit, looking at every nook and cranny for a money-making venture. 20 years from now, I am sure that area will be well developed and vibrant. The Verizon Center re-development happened after the, then, MCI Center opened its doors.

Dana Hedgpeth: Yes, much of the redevelopment around the Verizon Center did happen after it opened and it is likely to be that way around the new ballpark. Many developers like Monument Realty, which is the biggest owner of land there, has said it is not breaking ground on some of its major projects into the stadium construction is far along.

_______________________

Great Falls, VA: Is it known if the Lerner's have made aestheic/design changes to the stadium plan. The orignal plan called for a lot of use of glass and concrete. Has Katsen had a large input on the aesthetics?

Alec MacGillis: The Lerners have generally been accepting of the stadium design, though who knows how much they really like it. Their requests for changes in the design have mainly been focused on certain interior features -- wanting to add an executive dining room, revising the centerfield restaurant, etc.

_______________________

DC: The Lerners are extremely concerned with the fan experience (especially the high$ ones who generate revenue). Do you all and the city really think opening a stadium where there are luxury boxes without bathrooms, no convenient parking available to suite holders, and amenities not ready at the time of the opening is the way to attract and more importantly keep the big corporate dollars that are so vital to a team success and helped make the MCI/Verizon revitalization work.

The guys spending $50+ a pop on tickets are the ones who also spend upwards of $20 a head on dinner at a local restaurant or shop at the nearby stores before the game because they happen to get there early.

The "on a budget crowd" are a super important part of the baseball team and the stadium environment, but lets be honest...they do not bring the kind of money to the table that created $500,000 1 bedroom condos, shops and bars

Alec MacGillis: Exactly how the Lerners would put it. These are the realities of new ballparks today, you're right. The problem lies in how to go about making sure this is all there on time. The city feels that in their laser-focused pursuit for these features, the Lerners have shown no interest in everything else.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Now it's obvious why so many fans and elected leaders wanted the Washington Baseball Club, led by Fred Malek and Jeff Zients. They believed that owning the Nationals was about business but, more importantly, about the community you live in.

Alec MacGillis: You're right, many city officials and others were rooting for the Malek group. The Lerners came with advantages of their own -- very deep pockets, very strong local roots, their development experience -- but there was a sense that their deep privacy and their business-minded approach wouldn't be the best match.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Nationals President Stan Kasten was President of the Atlanta Braves when they built their new stadium ten years ago. While, it is a beautiful stadium, it has had no evident positive impact on the economically depressed area around it. As in the situation in Atlanta, I am sure the Lerners and Mr. Kasten will do everything they can to make a lot of money from their stadium but throw out the vision Mayor Williams and others had for ensuring the stadium would anchor development in the neighborhood. The argument over the parking/condo issue is a troubling sign of that.

Dana Hedgpeth: As the Lerners point out their job is to make smart business decisions and not get caught up in what planners want whether that's in Tysons or around the stadium. That's why some in the city are concerned that they don't have the larger picture in mind.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Don't we have to lay the blame for this mess on Anthony Williams and Linda Cropp who pushed a deal and a contract that wasn't in the best interests of the people of the District. It appears that in their zeal to get baseball they were willing to give away the store.

I don't think we should fault the Lerners because they want the city to stick with the contract. But I do hope that the next Mayor can work with them to find a win-win situation where they get what they want and the city gets a revitalized waterfront. I would see that getting Herb Miller out of the mix would be the first thing that is positive and may make the Lerners more amenable to making a deal for the future. According to your article they already are building an office building near the stadium so they must see the financial benefits of growth in that area.

Dana Hedgpeth: Yes you are correct the Lerners point out that their building down near the stadium is a sign of their belief in the redevelopment of that area. And yes the current deals were negotiated by Cropp and Williams so it will be interesting to see how Fenty deals with the Lerners and they with him.

_______________________

Capitol Hill: I find it strange that with all the development that is taking place around the stadium, it is still being seen as only possibly being a catalyst for a revamped area. I walk down through near Southeast and by the stadium every weekend and I can't believe how much is going on down there (besides the stadium construction itself). The public housing that was a horrible blight to the area for years is being replaced with mixed income housing, at least 5 large new buildings are currently under construction. The DOT building is nearly complete and probably 10-20 more projects are planned for the area in the near future. The area is literally being transformed before our eyes right now! I think that the biggest question is who will move into all the new condos, apartments and offices in the area. The parking structures near the stadium should be built so that they can eventually incorporate retail/office/residential space, but if it doesn't happen right away, I don't think the city's finances will suffer. In fact, it may be best to wait for the current glut of building to be completed before moving forward.

Alec MacGillis: You raise a good point. There is a lot going on there besides the ballpark -- in fact, one of the new buildings going up, a 10-story office tower on M street, is being built by the Lerners.

_______________________

Crazy Land: Am I crazy or did the city negotiate the deal with MLB....not the Lerners?

The deal was in place far before them. The Lerners are simply working to make sure the deal MLB and the city agreed to is follwed.

This makes them bad how?

Alec MacGillis: You're right, this is a deal the city signed. One of the problems, though, is that there are some gray areas in the agreement. And some of the things the Lerners are seeking are also outside of the contract, such as asking the city to pay for some design upgrades that the Lerners say the ballpark must have.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Isn't the development around the stadium suppose to pay for the bonds issued to build the stadium? If development "comes later" as the Lerner family suggest, won't that have an impact on the City's ability to pay for the stadium?

Alec MacGillis: The city is indeed relying on that development to pay for some of the ballpark. The Lerners would argue though that the development won't work unless the stadium runs well from the get-go.

_______________________

Columbia, MD: The thought of the new DC Park sitting in a run-down area surrounded by acres of surface parking and nothing else, sort of like old Memorial Stadium, is pretty depressing. How would you apportion the blame for the housing/shopping/dining district idea biting the dust?

Alec MacGillis: This may be a too gloomy view of the situation. There won't be acres and acres of surface parking around the ballpark because there just isn't that much space around the park. And the possibility of housing and dining, etc around the park isn't totally dead, it's just hard to see at this juncture how and when it's going to occur. It seems unlikely that surface parking will be any more than a temporary solution.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't seem to understand why the Lerners and Kasten seem to only care about having free standing parking garages for opening day. The stadium is a long term investment. They seem to have the mindset that everything needs to be up and ready for opening day 2008. I think they should have the mindset that there will be continual development, and that a free standing parking garage will kill any kind of development that could've happened on that parcel of land. My solution. Pave over the area and create a temporary parking solution to meet MLB's requirement for spaces. Over time, come up with a good plan as for what should go there. People.. listen to me!!!

Alec MacGillis: This is exactly how the city sees it, and why the above-ground garages were nixed, and why the city sees temporary surface lots as a possible solution.

_______________________

Bethesda: A key argument for DC financing the new stadium is that it will stimulate construction of upscale businesses around it, like the Verizon center. A major difference between the 2 is that the Verizon center is available year-round for a range of events (concerts, etc) beyond just basketball that can sustain restaurants and shop. It seems that the stadium is really just for baseball in the summer. Has this been raised in the planning?

Dana Hedgpeth: Your point is being taken into consideration and that's why many city planners and officials, and the Lerners are saying that there needs to be development beyond the stadium. Their difference of opinion comes in that the Lerners want to focus on just the stadium and making sure it works while the city thinks the planning and building of the area should be done in tandum.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am one of the many Washington, D.C. residents who opposed spending millions of tax dollars to build a baseball stadium when the District government has many problems serving the citizens. The problems with the baseball stadium and the Lerner family do not surprise me. I think that a lot of people feel the stadium project is overrated and wasteful.

Alec MacGillis: You're right, many do share that view, and it's one reason why the Lerners find themselves on such new territory. In the past, the only public constituency they've had to deal with are the shoppers coming to their malls and the people showing up at zoning meetings to complain about traffic or other effects of their projects. Now, they must contend not only with fans demanding a winning team but the thousands of people who are paying for the park which their team is playing in.

_______________________

Eric -- Wash, D.C.: The singer/poet Gil-Scott Heron had an appropriate line from one his songs about people who want to be in "show business" will often get shown exactly how much they "don't know business." The "people" in this case are there members of the D.C. city council who voted to finance the stadium. The owners are what they are: business people, shrewd and demanding. Mayor Williams/Cropp/Evans are what they are: business novices who can't understand why someone would NOT want the city to pay, before it's all over, close to a billion dollars. Now, comes Mr. Lerner, who is what he is: another shrewd business person and the city is not at all ready to deal with him.

Alec MacGillis: Nice reference there. There are some who see it the other way around, though -- that the Lerners, while clearly successful in business, are not necessarily suited to the demands particular to show business, most notably the need for a higher public profile and for a real relationship with one's customers/fans/audience.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The D.C. Zoning Commission specifically ruled against standalone above-ground parking garages at that site as desired by the Lerners. Why do the Lerners think the commissioners might change their minds?

Dana Hedgpeth: Yes, the zoning commission has said they don't want above ground garages there. I believe the Lerners are realizing this isn't going to work and are negotiating with the city to come up with another parking plan. This isn't building in the suburbs!

_______________________

Washington, DC: I have lived down in Southwest, approximately a block from the new stadium, for about five months, and while I am excited about the changes to the community, there really has got to be a lot more energy invested in the surrounding area if people are going to be vaguely interested in going down to the area.

I find this dispute about parking for the luxury boxes particularly irritating because this is not going to be what concerns the rank and file fans when the stadium opens.

The whole are from the waterfront to the freeway is just not very well maintained. There is a lot of litter, no street cleaning, blocks upon blocks of empty and abandoned and overgrown lots, and a lot of businesses that were kicked out down there with little plan for replacement. The neighborhood is actually safer with the strip club still down there, because otherwise there would be an entire sixteen square block area where there is no activity whatsoever. If nothing is put in there, this area - which is the primary way to walk from the hill to the stadium - will be unsafe for pedestrians.

The city is concerned about a small number of parking spots, but what about making the area generally presentable for the rest of the fans.

Alec MacGillis: This is a very good point. The fact is that the area still has a ways to go, and both sides in the face-off are using this to their advantage -- the Lerners argue that one has to have parking close in because the area is still sketchy enough that people don't want to be walking a long way from their cars, whereas the city argues that you need to do as much as possible to encourage the development to make it all more presentable. It is going to be very interesting to see what things look like come April 2008.

_______________________

Hyattsville: Lerner's completely in the right to demand actual plans and locations of the souvenir store as per the CAA and lease agreement, since the location of development on the ballpark project footprint determines which set of specific development and revenue rules will apply to each piece of land. This late in the game (October 2006), it's ridiculous that the DCSEC is actually trying to paint Lerner is some hardball nut and reacting with incredulity that the team owner and development partner in many instances simply wants to see "actual plans" concerning a major part of the ballpark development and its location, this after we've heard so much last week from Miller, Barry, and Cropp about the time sensitivity of the development and revenue rights that might sunset shortly.

Alec MacGillis: Well said. The relationship is clearly not going well.

_______________________

Native Washingtonian in Germany: Thank you, Dana Hedgpeth and others at Washington Post, for reporting so enthusiastically and informatively on economic development issues in and around Washington, D.C.

It seems as though the Lerners' dynasty of closed ranks is not compatible with the urban entertainment business such as owning a MLB team. As we commanded in my former military days "Open Rank, March"! The Lerners appear to be prosperous and efficient in its private business deals. Dealing with the city is definitely not a private affair, and it seems that the Lerners are having a little difficulty adjusting to the new lifestyle. The Lerners are definitely not a "match made in heaven" for the city while it tries to get the Lerners on-board their vision for economic development. The Lerners should realize that if were not for the city investing $611 million for a new baseball stadium, then the Lerners would most likely not be owning a team right now. D.C. deserves a little more wiggle room to maximize its investment. It is all about the bottom line for the Lerners, but they appear to be a little short-sighted. The Lerners' suburban will not work here in this city. The baseball stadium is not a shopping mall complex or an office building.

In reference to the Southwest Waterfront development, the DC Attorney General's office has more of a role in stalling development than this city's citizenry is lead to believe. The NCRC agreed to transfer the SW Waterfront land to the AWC almost 2 years ago, and the DC Attorney General is in the center of it all. The DC Attorney General has not been helpful in rectifying the legal matters concerning the transfer between these two agencies. No development will occur at the SW Waterfront until the transfer takes place, and the DC Attorney General has a leading role in it.

It seems as if the DC Attorney General is anti-business and proficient at stalling development around the city by not making timely decisions on the legality of issues - notably the DC USA development, the current legal issues surrounding the Herb Miller proposal, and the current legal issues surrounding the transfer of land from the NCRC to the AWC.

What is the latest that you have heard, if any, out of the DC Attorney General's office as to what the remaining legal issues are with the transfer of land and leases at the site?

Dana Hedgpeth: The Lerners are realizing that owning a team and having a publicly financed stadium means becoming more public. And after decades of being very private it's a lesson they are still grappling with.

On Southwest and the land transfer, you're right that doing those deals will hold up development in that area. I believe they're "still negotiating" that one.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Globetrotting Mayor Williams has pretty much dropped the ball on this and Mayor to be Fenty has opposed it from the get-go. How does this impact on the final plans? I kinda had my eye on a waterfront condo and am sorry to see them going by the by.

Alec MacGillis: The political dynamic is not promising, no. Just last week, Williams joked that the Lerners are now the "problem" for Fenty to deal with. Fenty says he'll work to make the ballpark a success despite having voted against it, and the Lerners say they've been reaching out to him, but it's going to be interesting to see how the relationship plays out.

_______________________

Alec MacGillis: Well, that's all we have time for today. Thanks very much for your good questions, and sorry that we weren't able to get to all of them. It'll be interesting to see how things develop in the coming months. See you at the ballpark in April 2008 (assuming it's ready by then!)

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.