District and MLB reach agreement on a revised stadium lease, but does this really change anything?
Isn't the biggest sticking point in this whole deal the problem of how to handle cost overruns? Sounds like this wasn't even specifically addressed.
Williams promised to send more documentation about capping stadium costs in a separate document called the Construction Administration Agreement...That agreement, which is expected to specify how the construction companies contracted by the city would build the stadium, will be voted on separately by the council (via Washington Post 1/28/2006)
So now we're talking about something else for the City Council to vote on?
"We haven't seen the documents. . . . I'm not sure we settled anything." (Vincent Gray, Ward 7 councilman, via Washington Post 1/28/2006)
Council Chair Linda W. Cropp said she had not seen details of the new deal but said if the agreement meets the concerns of council members, she would schedule a vote for Feb. 7. (via AP/Yahoo.com 1/27/2006)
Mrs. Cropp said the changes yesterday should be enough to get the seven votes and 'possibly more' if all 12 requests are met. (via Washington Times 1/28/2006)
So nothing has changed - the vote on Feb. 7 still hinges on an agreement that meets the council's Dirty Dozen demands. And it doesn't seem likely that MLB will bow to the demand for local ownership simply because that's what the District wants. The last paragraph of the article in today's Post sums up baseball's stance:
Council members also had asked baseball to select an ownership group for the Nationals that has strong local ties. But the letter simply said the 'MLB Constitution, the ownership guidelines and the best interests of the sport will guide the selection.' (via Washington Post 1/28/2006)
So we'll see what happens when the votes are cast on Feb. 7.