2002 South Capitol Nationals Stadium
"Committee of 100" response; December 18, 2002:

Illustrations 1997, left, 1997 Extending the Legacy close up; right, 2002 Stadium Study so-called M Street site at South Capitol Street

"we really have very little basis for making comparisons and reaching informed decisions among the remaining sites."

December 18, 2002 "Testimony of the Committee Of 100 On The Federal City At The Joint Roundtable Of The Committees On Economic Development & Finance And Revenue On Major League Baseball In The District Of Columbia, Regarding Potential Stadium Locations And Stadium Financing Options" by Jim Nathanson

"...As you may well know, the Committee has been a longstanding proponent of returning the national pastime [baseball] to our home city -- and the nation's capital. We have followed efforts to do so over the past several years, have been a contribute to the public dialogue, and a participant in public meetings leading to the most recent report "Washington, DC Major League Baseball Park Site Evaluation Report..." That was the report with 5 sites -- Mt. Vernon Triangle; Capitol North; New York Metro Avenue; RFK stadium north parking lot; and the so-called M Street SE site immediately east of South Capitol Street. This December 18, 2002 Committee of 100 testimony opposed the first 2 options, Mt. Vernon Triangle and Capitol North.

Longstanding planning policy for the Mt Vernon Triangle and all recent studies (there have been several) have called for its redevelopment as a vibrant, mixed use, heavily residential neighborhood. With the exception of a few individuals (mostly staff of the Sports Commission), participants in the planning work and outreach sessions uniformly rejected the notion of a stadium in this location...

Studies have shown that the desired developmental pattern now underway will produce more jobs, about 4 times the net fiscal returns and do far more to support area retail and service establishments than would a stadium. Further, market rate housing and commercial projects are proceeding without subsidy. Assuming the report's projections, the stadium would involve significant lost employment and revenue opportunities when compared with those yielded from currently underway and reasonably anticipated development -- and is likely to require substantial public support. Further, in comparison with other sites, the costs of producing the stadium in this location is far more expensive. A triple whammy.

However for the remaining 3 sites, it states:

The report identifies three candidate sites that appear good locations for the stadium. We encourage the city and the Sports Commission, working with prospective ownership groups to immediately perform and present comparative analysis of which of these sites best addresses the goals of the city, prospective ownership groups and Major League Baseball. At this point, we really have very little basis for making comparisons and reaching informed decisions among the remaining sites [emphasis added].

Illustrations from the web site of the "Committee of 100"
Check out the "Committee of 100" for yourself at
http://www.committeeof100.net/

"....to safeguard and advance the fundamental planning, environmental and aesthetic values inherited from the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Commission that give Washington its historic distinction, natural beauty and overall livability."