The Lease Agreement
Regardless of the various views of the proposed lease and its contents, it is probably without argument that it would have been preferable to have completed  the terms before now. However, with the less than supportive nature that some on the Council have shown toward baseball and the Nationals, even after a banner first season, one can understand the caution, deliberative and contractual circumstances the agreement evolved from.
 
During the debate a year ago there were members on the Council that said over and over that this was the worst lease and stadium agreement in Major League Baseball history and added inflammatory terms far worse in tone. From attending the hearings a year ago I noted the debate was more political than about baseball, construction or lease terms. Arguably, this is not the worst baseball lease around nor is the City providing more financial support than all other cities and states seeking a new baseball team to relocate. The degree to which cities and states have been more or less generous with local and state tax revenue for securing or maintaining a team has been determined by many factors. Some states and Cities have used new sales tax revenues, some have used lottery - track-betting revenues, some have used general funds and some have used the bonding approach with a dedicated revenue stream. Some cities and states have featured lease terms involving little or no rental charges. For example, the Yankees agreed to stay in the Bronx in the early 1970’s nearly rent free while they paid only a percentage from their profits with generous deductions for operations, maintenance and related items. The proposed lease before the Council asks the Nationals to pay a substantial lease payment starting at $3.5 million annually and escalates from there to a level higher than most cities ask of their sport teams.
 
To their great credit, the Sports and Entertainment Commission also secured a lease with the most important points favoring the City and the fans. For example, the City will get a set escalating rent amount, maintain development rights around the stadium and require the Nationals owners to pay the entire cost of the stadium if the team is moved for any reason. In addition, they secured $20 million from MLB to pay contingency costs for the stadium as well as receive parking revenues on days the stadium is used for events other than baseball.
 
Rather than comment on the many terms in the lease I believe each Washington, DC and every City has to decide how much they want baseball and negotiate the best deal possible in that context. Those that want baseball will find this lease one of the better ones recently negotiated around Major League Baseball.   Without question, some cities have put up far more, earned far less and that is mostly determined by local factors, including local politics. Washington, DC and its negotiators made an agreement that if the Nationals came here our City would build a quality stadium on a site both baseball and the City could benefit from. The negotiated proposal is now on the table and I urge you to approve it with the PLA guiding the construction effort. Once the lease is approved the Nationals can be sold to an owner and the team can move forward filling its roster for the 2006 season.  Only then can the new owner become involved in this process with local officials to attempt solving the issues raised by opponents of baseball, the stadium and it financial arrangements with the City.
 
I offer you my assistance and that of my association in securing the Nationals, the new stadium and quality construction in the District of Columbia. 
 
Thank you.