I recently heard a fellow Seattle native who lived in D.C. for a few years remark that one of the things he disliked most about it is that it's filled with so many talented, politically effective people who don't give a damn about the city itself, which is one of the poorest and most decayed in the nation. And that includes a lot of Democrats.
Today, Josh Marshall provides us with a case in point, pointing with apparent approval to Drop Cropp, an effort to recall the city council president for her role in stopping the recent baseball deal there. Or, more precisely, insisting that at least half the funding for a new stadium come from private sources.
Good for her. Washington D.C. lost its only public hospital three years ago for lack of funds. Its library system is among the most underfunded in the country. The size of its homeless population is a national shame. The infant mortality rate there (14.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, according to the CDC), is the second-highest in the country and higher than much of the third world. Much of the most valuable real estate in the city is federally-owned and hence exempt from local property taxes, which severely limits the city budget (which, as with all city legislation, is subject to amendment by Congress any time it chooses); sales tax in the city is already 10%. This is not a city which has a half-billion dollars lying around to spend on a new baseball stadium, of all things. For a fuller argument covering the specifics of the deal, see former-mayor Marion Berry's recent op-ed in the Washington Post.
"Drop Cropp" is a project of Grassroots Enterprise, a Democratic web firm headed up by Mike McCurry, Clinton's former press secretary. So there's no doubt this is a serious, well-organized effort (likely by a bunch of affluent white Democrats) to flood Councilmember Cropp with outraged e-mails.
Here's the appreciative e-mail I'm sending her (lcropp@dccouncil.us, if you'd like to join in):
I'm writing to offer my congratulations for your courageous actions regarding Major League Baseball in Washington D.C. Though I do not currently reside in Washington D.C., I recently spent several months there, and am simply baffled by the notion that a new baseball stadium could be the highest fiscal priority for a city struggling with so many pressing social problems.Posted by Michael at December 16, 2004 08:01 PM | TrackBackI'm from the "other Washington" (Seattle), where taxpayers in the '90s were forced to pony up billions for two brand-new sports stadiums. While both are beautiful additions to our city, I hardly think either could now be considered justified in a time of record-setting budget deficits at all levels of government.
I'm sure you are now under a great deal of pressure to cave into the demands for a half-billion in corporate welfare for Major League Baseball. I urge you to stand strong in defense of the hard-working citizens of our nation's capital.
Absolutely. There's never been hard, numerical proof that building stadiums with public money helps the local economy. Plenty of theories and people who say there is a benefit, which I believe there is, but if you're Washington D.C. and you're in a financial, social services crisis, you don't go build a ballpark with public money.
That's why they have the Orioles in Baltimore anyway.
Posted by: Travis at December 16, 2004 10:06 PMEveryone needs to remember, unless you own a fairly large business or actually buy some tickets you will not pay any more in taxes.
It's not a choice between services and stadiums!
Money is not being taken away from anything, in fact it's the next best thing to a commuter tax as all these Virginians will drive in from their McMansions and spend money in our city...and help revitalize SW DC.
Economics 101: you place a tax on businesses, they will pass some portion of it on their customers. So yes, everyone in the city will be paying more in taxes. I'm not familiar enough with the tax structure in D.C. to know whether the proposed taxes are appropriate ones. But if they are, they should be used to fund desperately-need services. So yes, it is a choice.
Also, if everyone going to games will be from the burbs, and all the tax revenue being generated by the stadium is going to pay for it, what exactly is the value to the city?
Posted by: Michael at December 19, 2004 05:31 PM
Do you even live in DC??
People stream into our city every day, thousands of them and they use our roads and other public services, but pay us no taxes at all. They live in Maryland and Virginia and pay taxes on their DC earned income to those states. Sure they buy lunch and stuff in DC, but the big wad (income) is taxed by another jurisidiction, so we really loose out.
The more money we can get them to spend IN DC the more that is taxed.
That's 10% from every restaurant bill before a game for example. Take a look at the area around MCI center, 10 years ago the only thing down there was porn shops and drug dealers. No thousands of people eat and drink down there before games.
The sad fact is nothing will change if the stadium does not get built. The same sorry set of chumps are in charge of the city....and the crappy schools, anemic libraries, and the lack of a public hospitial will be still be issues that nobody will be able to fix.
Posted by: Mike Panetta at December 20, 2004 11:35 AMI thought I was pretty clear about the fact that I don't currently live in D.C., though I did for several months about a year ago. So yes, I'm familiar with the general problem of D.C.'s lack of tax revenue. It shares most of that with other major cities, but has the additional unfortunate characteristic of having a limited property tax base.
Here's the thing, though: municipalities paying for sports stadiums don't increase tax revenue. There's simply no good independent studies to suggest that it does, and many to suggest that it doesn't.
I'm sure a stadium would "revitalize" SW DC with some trendy restaurants, but that's small comfort to the residents who will, if anything, see the quality of city services decrease.
I've no doubt that some of the city's political leadership is inadequate, but I'd humbly suggest that if you're really interested in improving the lives of D.C. residents, as opposed to giving rich people a place to see baseball, using your considerable political connections to push for greater federal investment in -- and fiscal autonomy for -- the city would be of far more use.
Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2004 01:27 PM