The Non-Informative "E" Groups

Adopted from my 2005-2006
"The Future South Capitol Street Gateway" web site

How well-informed is the U.S. public?

And what about the private groups?

The "Committee of 100 on the Federal City"

A lack of consciousness of this planning substitution is sadly apparent with groups that could be reasonably expected to promote and protect the monumental green way concept for South Capitol, such as such that display the aerial illustration from 1997 "Extending the Legacy" on their web site's introduction page: the Washington, D.C. based "Committee of 100 on the Federal City" -- web site http://www.committeeof100.net - juxtaposed with their motto:

....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.

Illustration from 'Extending the Legacy" adopted for the Committee of 100 web site www.committeeof100.net

By showing an illustration showing the "Legacy" green way, and by juxtaposing it with a motto referring to the L' Enfant and McMillan plans, the former establishing the Mall, the latter extending it westerly and south easterly, one could reasonably infer that the Committee of 100 endorses this basic concept, particularly in the absence of any published statements to the contrary. Hence, would not such a group express a strong concern about this monumental planning substitution, perhaps some discussion and debate, and report upon it to their members and to the public?

Nonetheless, while their web site does not acknowledge the monumental nature of this planning substitution, it is profuse with praise in the form of awards for those involved with the subsequent planning, including D.C. Office of Planning Director Andrew Altman and D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, and Joseph Passonneau, of Passonneau and Associates, in Washington, D.C.

http://www.passonneau.com

"for outstanding leadership in planning the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, to unify waterfront areas with a mix of commercial, residential, recreational, and open space uses."

Cover: May/June 2002 Newsletter

For Joseph Passonneau they award their "2002 Vision Award" -- juxtaposed with the ariel from "Legacy" -- with the words:

The Committee of 100 on the Federal City takes great pleasure in awarding Joseph Passonneau the first Committee of 100 Vision award for his superb and long standing work as an architect, planner, transportation designer, and publisher in the Nation's Capital.

The first Vision Award was awarded Joseph Passonneau, Committee of 100 member and nationally known architect, planner and writer.

The Award commends unique developments and plans in the District that show sensitivity to communities, preservation of or creative adaptation to historic elements, excellence in design, good use of public space or enhancement of the district's natural features.

May/June 2002 Newsletter, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City PDF

Cover: May/June 2002 Newsletter upper right

Un-mentioned is the stark difference between Passonneau's vision and that conveyed by the juxtaposed 1997 NCPC illustration.

Whereas the illustration includes a South Capital Street green way extending between Half Streets SW and SE, Passonneau's vision is for a South Capitol Street along its existing 130' row, without the underpass at M Street, (both include massive new real estate development), as indicated by his work as the rendering (at right) that he flashed during slide show/lecture at the National Building Museum in August, 2000.

Passonneau's vision for South Capitol Street

Committee of 100, why juxtapose Passonneau's name with an illustration of the plan he opposes, rather then one of what he supports?

Passonneau acknowledged his support for major elements of the post 1997 South Capitol related planning when questioned about them during the Q&A period of his March 21, 2005 National Building Museum lecture Washington Through Two Centuries, particularly his position against the 1997 NCPC concept for a South Capitol Street green way, his position favoring constructing massive new real estate development projects before constructing a new tunnel along this corridor.

According to Passonneau, for South Capitol Street, a "green way would wreck the mall". Sidestepping the issue of making infrastructure projects more difficult and expensive by stating that "as an engineer, anything was possible". Possible sure. But how much more difficult and expensive to construct? And with what comparisons of the advantages of some real estate development occurring a few years earlier?

Passonneau has written about the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and has produced a useful set of drawings showing the historical evolving Washington, D.C., including the National Mall's westward extension and its creation of the Reflecting Pool and the Lincoln Memorial area. He has written articles and books.

Nonetheless, Passonneau's stated stance that a South Capitol Street "green way would wreck the Mall", nor any other such opinion against the Legacy green-way/promenade/esplanade/extension of the National Mall/continuous 3rd Century Mall concept for South Capitol, does not appear in his published writings. [at least those made publically].

Passonneau's book Washington Through Two Centuries: A History in Maps and Images makes only scant reference to the NCPC "Legacy" plan, mainly with a single small scale plan view of the general area at page 277 with regard to its proposed railroad relocation, without even mentioning this planning substitution.

Passonneau's article "A Perspective: History of the South Capitol Street Study Area and How the Study Area Came to Exhibit its Present Conditions" discusses the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and the focus on South Capitol Street. But it does not even mention, let alone discuss or defend the decision to replace the "Legacy" green way concept with that of yet another urban boulevard, as if the sacrifice of the relatively rare urban opportunity for a monumental green way for the sake of a plan for yet another relatively common urban surface street is too trivial of mention.

The web site of Passonneau's firm, Passonneau and Associates makes no mention of his/their involvement with South Capitol Street related planning. http://www.Passonneau.com

Much like the Committee of 100 of which he is a member, Joseph Passonneau appears to have nothing but words of praise for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, D.C. Mayor Williams and Office of Planning Director Altman.

As for the stadium issue, the Committee of 100 web site has two mentions:

The proposed baseball stadium: The Committee was pleased when some sites were taken off the District's list of potential location[s], but there are questions about all three contained in recent meetings with baseball executives. The Committee for several years has espoused moving forward with the acquisition of a baseball team. The Committee has not yet addressed the question of whether outright costs (or the costs of lost opportunities) makes continued advocacy untenable. Newsletter, April/May 2004 at page 4

"...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..." 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

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].

How about comparing this 2002 stadium study's "M" Street site immediately east of South Capitol Street's existing 130' right of way, with the significantly widened South Capitol Street featured in the illustration on the Committee of 100's home page?

Less then 6 months later (September 2004) Washington, D.C. authorities announced the contract with MLB to relocate and rename the Montreal Expos as the D.C. Nationals and its selection of the site at South Capitol Street for their new baseball stadium, with the DC City Council to hold a public hearing about this stadium -- the "Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004" Bill 15-1028 -- on October 28, 2004, chaired by Council member Jack Evans (Chairperson of the Committee on Finance and Revenue) and Council member Harold Brazil (Chairperson of the Committee on Economic Development)

Witness list October 28, 2004 Public Hearing; "Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004" Bill 15-1028

http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org/witnesslist.pdf

Committee of 100 Membership

http://www.committeeof100.net/about.html

If the Committee of 100 does not object to this stadium site because they favor abandoning the South Capitol monumental green way concept, then where do they state this view openly?

Why do they continue to display the 1997 illustration, juxtaposition it with the Committee of 100 motto, and with Joseph Passonneau and his "Vision" award?

Why not instead show Passonneau's plan?

Joseph Passonneau: apologist for the abortion of the South Capitol Mall

What about the "Smart Growth" groups; the Sierra Club, and many stadium opponents?

The web sites of other private advocacy groups involved with transportation and or land use planning suggest a general lack of consciousness of the South Capitol green way, as some even praise DCOP AWI, Altman and Williams. The D.C. Metro area Smart Growth Network web site contains nothing anywhere one might expect

http://www.washingtonregion.net/

http://www.smartgrowth.org/

http://www.smartergrowth.net/vision/regions/dc/index.html

http://www.sustainable.org/

The D.C. Sierra Club briefly discusses South Capitol Street without mentioning the significant planning changes:

http://www.dc.sierraclub.org/conservation/trans.htm

---

South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement
Tom Metcalf, June 5, 2003

The draft study from the South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement Study was released at a press conference today held at the Earth Conservation Corps. The study is available online at:

http://www.publicspace.justicesustainability.com/southcapitol/index.shtml

A related study by the National Capital Planning Commission--The South Capitol Street Urban Design Study--is also available online:

http://www.ncpc.gov/publications/publications.html

Speakers at the press conference included DDOT director Dan Tangherlini, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and Mayor Anthony Williams. Amidst effusive praise for one another, all expressed their commitment to the transformation of S. Capitol Street into a monumental gateway to the city.

DDOT is accepting public comment on the Draft study for the next 30 days. At the Air Quality & Transportation committee meeting Monday (June 9, 2003) we'll discuss a Sierra Club statement on the study. I also encourage individuals to read the study and submit their own comments.

A few of the findings:

• The Southeast Freeway must be removed for S. Capitol Street to become an urban gateway "worthy of the nation's capital.
• "Creating the Gateway appears not to require the purchase of any private residences"
• The study finds the option of a tunnel (in addition to a new & better bridge) very favorable. In particular, the tunnel would enable the removal of the Southeast Freeway. However, of the 5 bridge replacement options, the "bridge+tunnel" has by far the highest capacity, more than double the current capacity.

---

Of the abundance of anti-stadium proposal people who testified against the stadium at the D.C. City Council October 28, 2004 Public Hearing, the focus is budgetary - e.g. why not spend the $ instead on schools? This is also true with the anti-stadium group

http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20060715052153/http://www.nodctaxesforbaseball.org/

Latest Testimony and Reports:

Letter, Ed Lazere, DC Fiscal Policy Institute "RISING BASEBALL STADIUM COSTS CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THE DISTRICT", 12/16/05

Testimony, Chris Weiss, Friends of the Earth, 12/13/05

Testimony, John Capozzi, No DC Taxes for Baseball, 12/13/05

Testimony, John Capozzi, No DC Taxes for Baseball, 11/22/05

NEWS:

NEWS! Council Approves Altered Stadium Deal (Washington Post - 12/15/04)

No DC Taxes for Baseball Statement: Violate the Stadium Deal Because the Deal Violates Us - 12/13/04

News: Opposition Group Makes Final Push (Washington Post, 12/12/04)

Letter (PDF): National Minority Business Coalition Letter to Chairman Cropp on Baseball Agreement - 12/10/04

Press Release (PDF): Catania Warns Against MLB Deal with Angelos - 12/10/04

Radio Ad (Windows Media Player): Listen to the No DC Taxes for Baseball Radio Ad! (12/10/04)

Press Release: Academic Experts Send Open Letter to Chairman Cropp and Other DC Council Members;They Find DC’s Stadium Deal Is One of the Most Lopsided Ever - 12/09/04

Letter (PDF): An Open Letter from Academic Experts on Stadium Deals To Linda Cropp, Chairman District of Columbia Council, And to Other Members of the District Of Columbia Council On the Lopsided Nature of the Proposed DC Baseball Stadium Deal - 12/09/04

Media Advisory: Academic Researchers Find DC's Stadium Deal One of the Most Lopsided Ever - Thursday, December 9 at 11 a.m. 1350 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (Wilson Building), Room 104

News: Strike One. Strike Two. (Washington Post, 12/04/04)

News: Stadium foes hold on to wisdom of Yogi Berra (Washington Times, 12/03/04)

Press Release: Rising Stadium Cost Estimates Is a Serious Issue, Says No DC Taxes for Baseball Campaign, Mayor William and Council Stadium Supporters Should Not Dismiss This Problem - 12/6/04

News: Stadium Analyses Put Cost Far Higher (Washington Post, 11/13/04)

Stop the Stadium Poster! Download as a PDF or JPG. You can also email Chris Weiss to request hard copies.

WHO WE ARE:
We are DC residents and organizations who oppose taxpayer financing of a new baseball stadium. We believe that DC should use its limited resources for things that really matter - such as schools, healthcare, public safety, the environment, and basic city services. We believe that a stadium should be built by the people who stand to profit - the team owners - not DC taxpayers. And we demand an open process, complete with public hearings, on the issues of stadium financing and site selection.

BACKGROUND:
Most DC area residents would love to have a baseball team to call their own. But Mayor Williams' plan to spend $383 million to build a baseball stadium is a bad deal for the city. Research from university scholars--- as opposed to biased studies commissioned by baseball "public financing" proponents --- shows that a team would create mostly low-paying, low benefit, part-time jobs and would not strengthen the local economy. Even the most successful stadiums, such as Baltimore's Camden Yards, fail to produce enough tax revenue to justify large public subsidies. The well-off owners of Major League Baseball have told the cash-strapped District that the city must pay most of the cost of the new stadium. This is not fair, and it doesn't even make economic sense.

The DC area is the largest metro area without a team and one of the wealthiest in the nation. Major League Baseball should be begging to come here rather than making outrageous demands. The District is struggling to meet basic needs -- in environmental protection, education, libraries, health care, and other areas. It should not put in a baseball stadium before other investments that could do a lot more to improve the quality of life for DC residents and businesses.

Contact: NO DC Taxes for Baseball! Campaign, c/o Friends of the Earth,
1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036 -
202-783-7400 (phone), 202-783-0444 (fax), cweiss@foe.org

COALITION MEMBERS:
(Partial List)

21st Century School Fund

Campaign for the DC School Budget

Council of Latino Agencies

DC Action for Children

DC Black Church Initiative

DC Fiscal Policy Institute

DC Library Renaissance Project

Empower DC

Friends of the Earth

League of Fans

League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia

Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia

Manna Inc

National Association of Minority Contractors, DC Office

Neighbors Consejo

Parents for DC Public Schools

Save DC Parks and Play Spaces

Statehood Green Party

Washington Legal Clunic for the Homeless

Washington Regional Network for Liveable Communities

Wider Opportunities for Women

Little or nothing is said about infrastructure, let alone the blocking of the green way. Out of 100+ speakers, only 2 brought up stadium-related infrastructure issues: Janet Brown from the Washington Regional Network (listed as "Resident"), who mentioned the proposed replacement bridge (but not the Legacy green way nor the AWI tunnel); and www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com founder Douglas Willinger, the only speaker to bring up the stadium site's conflicts with the Legacy South green way and how it may complicate the AWI tunnel in the relatively soft soil conditions that would likely make such tunnel construction more difficult and expensive. See testimony.

This later point was explicitly acknowledged by the response of D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R)

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesuitical-new-medievalistneo-feudalist.html

Why wasn't the public informed?
MLB - Covington & Burling - DC Sports and Entertainment Commision

From The Common Denominator

http://www.thecommondenominator.com/010906_op-ed.html

Why wasn't the public informed?
(Published January 9, 2006)

By JOHN HANRAHAN

The law firm of W. Andrew Jack, one of the city's top negotiators in the deal to bring Major League Baseball (MLB) to the District of Columbia, has MLB itself and at least one baseball franchise, the Boston Red Sox, as clients. Jack, a partner in Covington & Burling, is outside general counsel to the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, which led the effort to bring the Montreal Expos franchise to D.C.

The information that Covington & Burling represents MLB and the Red Sox is contained on the law firm's Web site. It has not heretofore been reported in the press, or publicized by the sports commission and Mayor Anthony A. Williams, even though to a lay person it raises the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Given the year-long concern of many D.C. City Council members and citizens that the city's negotiators obtained a terrible deal with Major League Baseball – and with the estimated South Capitol stadium cost, now pegged at $667 million (up from $535 million a year ago) – one can wonder about the appropriateness of Jack being on one side of the table negotiating on behalf of the city, while on the other side of the table is his law firm's own client, Major League Baseball. At the very least, isn't this information which the public should have been told going into the city's talks with MLB? This matter should be referred to the Office of D.C. Bar Counsel for a ruling on the conflicts issue.

It should be noted that the law firm's Web site does not show Jack having done any work himself for MLB or its teams, but I didn't get a chance to ask him if this were the case. Jack did not return my phone call or answer my request for an interview, forwarded through the Sports and Entertainment Commission.

Mitchell F. Dolin, a Covington attorney, called me back after I attempted to contact Jack and two Covington partners who have done work for MLB. Dolin said he would try to get answers to my questions. Instead, the Sports and Entertainment Commission, in consultation with Dolin and various individuals I had called, issued -- just before The Common Denominator's deadline -- a statement that reads in its entirety:

"The DC Sports & Entertainment Commission (Sports Commission) works diligently to ensure that its staff, Board and consultants work to provide services that are in the best interest of the District of Columbia. The Sports Commission regularly obtains all appropriate disclosures with regard to potential conflicts of interest among prospective consultants and Board members and staff. With regard to negotiations with Major League Baseball, appropriate review has determined that there are no conflicts of interest by any Commission members, counsel and consultants retained by the Sports Commission or their respective firms. Indeed, the Sports Commission is benefiting from the able and zealous advocacy they are providing. With respect to counsel, we note that law firms that have recognized expertise with particular industry sectors representing multiple clients typically deal with such circumstance by making disclosures to their clients and securing appropriate consents. Counsel followed this procedure in this case."

The mayor's press spokesman, Vince Morris, voiced a similar view. "My impression is that none of them [the negotiators] have done hands-on work for [MLB] or any teams," he said. "They're very talented lawyers, and when you're in a big firm there is often going to be overlap" between areas of expertise that various members of the firm are engaged in. The mayor "has great faith" in his negotiators and "in general, we feel pretty psyched to have such talented lawyers as [William N.] Hall and [Mark H.] Tuohey working for the city for free. It saves taxpayers big bucks."

If – despite the commission's vague and generally unresponsive statement – all appropriate steps were followed by Jack, Covington, the sports commission and MLB, then Jack and Covington are likely to be technically in compliance with the conflict of interest rules under D.C.'s rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

Perhaps. But if so, this shows the weakness of the conflict rules when it comes to public bodies – especially one as secretive as the Sports and Entertainment Commission. In the case of a public agency, the citizens – not the agency – should be considered the ultimate clients, and we certainly were not informed that one of our chief negotiators was negotiating with his law firm's own client. Would we want this if we were, say, negotiating with the tobacco industry?

According to Covington & Burling's Web site, the firm's Jeremy D. Spector's "representative clients in the sports world include" Major League Baseball and the Boston Red Sox. The Web site also said senior tax partner Andrew H. Friedman's clients included MLB and the Red Sox.

Spector's "practice involves tax planning, IRS controversy work, and the structuring of corporate transactions, with particular emphasis in advising sports leagues and teams. . . ." Additionally, Spector's "sports-related work encompasses such matters as the purchase and sale of sports franchises, public and private stadium financing, player compensation, and the treatment of sponsorship, licensing and broadcast agreements."

Spector and Friedman did not return my calls, so I had no chance to ask them about their specific tax and sports-related work for MLB and if any of it overlapped with Jack's work as a city negotiator with MLB.

Covington's representation of the Red Sox can be considered relevant to this discussion because that franchise is among the 30 teams that jointly own the Washington Nationals/Expos franchise. These 30 franchise owners stand to share in an estimated profit of $330 million from the sale of the team to a new owner. The better the deal MLB negotiated with the city, the more valuable the Expos franchise, and, therefore, the higher the payment for each of the 30 owners when the Nationals/Expos franchise is sold.

The law firms of two other key city negotiators – William N. Hall of Winston & Strawn and Mark H. Tuohey of Vinson & Elkins – have lesser connections to professional baseball, as neither firm has represented MLB itself, according to attorneys at both firms and a limited news search. Tuohey is chairman of the sports commission and the lead negotiator, and Hall is a board member and longtime chairman of the commission's baseball committee.

Both Hall and Tuohey are unpaid for their baseball negotiating work, while Covington & Burling was paid $340,000 for its commission work in fiscal 2002. Of this, $120,000 related to bringing baseball back to the city, according to a 2003 D.C. Auditor's report. Figures for the last three fiscal years – when baseball talks intensified – were not immediately available from the commission at deadline.

According to Winston & Strawn's Web site, attorney M. Carter DeLorme has "represented Major League Baseball franchises in both a consulting and lead trial counsel role with respect to their player salary arbitration concerns." In a brief telephone conversation, DeLorme said it would not be appropriate for him to name or discuss his baseball franchise clients. Also, the firm's M. Finley Maxson's experience "has included transactions involving a major league baseball club. . . ."

Hall said in a telephone interview that he had never personally represented MLB or any team, and that Winston & Strawn had never represented Major League Baseball. He also said his firm's representations of management in player salary arbitration matters did not constitute anything approaching a conflict of interest.

"There is no there there," Hall said. "The entity we were negotiating with was Major League Baseball" and not any of the individual franchises. Hall would not comment on Covington & Burling's representation of MLB.

The Web site of Tuohey's Vinson & Elkins law firm shows that attorney Christopher A. Knepp "represents management's interests in numerous major league baseball salary arbitration cases." News reports and the Web site also indicate Vinson & Elkins has represented former owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team and has assisted the city of Arlington, Texas, and the Rangers in developing Arlington Stadium. I found no indication the firm or Tuohey has represented MLB or any of its teams.

In a telephone interview, Knepp, who left Vinson & Elkins on Dec. 31, said he had not represented Major League Baseball franchises directly in player salary arbitration proceedings. Rather, he said, since 1981 he has had as a client Tal Smith Enterprises, a consulting firm owned by Tal Smith, who today is president of the Houston Astros baseball team. Knepp said the Smith firm, at one time, handled arbitration cases for 15 or so MLB teams and that he had assisted Smith in 100 to 150 of those cases over the years. Knepp said he is continuing to work for Tal Smith since leaving Vinson & Elkins last month.

Tuohey did not return a reporter's phone call or respond to requests through the sports commission for comment on Jack's involvement in the baseball talks. Commission spokesman Tony Robinson said Tuohey told him that because of the press of other business he would have no further comment beyond the commission's written statement.

***

Hanrahan, a former newspaper reporter and former director of The Fund for Investigative Journalism, is opposed to public financing of the baseball stadium.

South Capitol Mall Sell-Out
Frederic Delano's 'Family':
U.S. National Capital Planning Commission,
the "Committee of 100", and Covington & Burling

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue
the Covington & Burling building

D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission gets into "bringing Major League Baseball back to Washington, D.C." with the help of Covington & Burling the firm with the connections in representing a great portion of the business of professional sports: at least as early as Spring 2002

2002 Stadium study has site that directly conflicts with NCPC's Extending the Legacy South Capitol Frederick Douglass Mall/Promenade; yet where is there any indication that NCPC objected?

2002, December 18, "Committee of 100" testimony that it does not object to list of stadium site options with the "M Street" South Capitol site.

2003 February release of NCPC South Capitol Street Urban Design Study; it is reported to public 5 months later in July 2003. It abandons SCap Promenade ostensibly to avoid eminent domain which is nonetheless embraced for real estate development , such as the Nationals Stadium..

Why does NCPC and "Committee of 100" abandon the Promenade -- a decision which physically accommodates a campaign by the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and Covington & Burling that would work for placing Nationals Stadium to block the Promenade -- without evident controversy or debate?

Only God and those involved know.

But it is worth noting that both NCPC and Committee of 100 are "cousins" of sorts, and "offspring" of the families of, you may have guessed it, Covington & Burling.

James Harry Covington (1870 - 1942)

James Harry Covington (August 15, 1863 – May 14, 1939) was an American jurist and politician. He represented the Maryland's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 1909 to 1914, and served as chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia from 1914 to 1918.

Covington was born in Easton, Maryland, and attended the Maryland Military Academy at Oxford. He entered the law department of the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia in 1891, attending at the same time special lectures in history, literature, and economics, and graduated in 1894.

Soon thereafter, Covington began to practice of law in Easton. He was an unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the Maryland State Senate in 1901, and served as State’s attorney for Talbot County, Maryland, from 1903 to 1908. He was elected as a Democrat to Congress in 1908 and served the 1st Congressional district of Maryland from March 4, 1909 until his resignation on September 30, 1914, to accept the position of chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Covington served as chief justice of that court from October 1, 1914, to June 1, 1918, when he resigned to practice law in Washington, D.C.. He was a professor of law at Georgetown University from 1914 to 1919, and was appointed by President Woodrow Wilson as a member of the United States Railroad Commission in January 1918. He and Edward B. Burling established the law firm of Covington & Burling on January 1, 1919. Covington died in Washington, D.C., and is interred in Spring Hill Cemetery of Easton.

Covington served as Worthy Grand Master on the Supreme Executive Committee of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity from 1892–1894.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Harry_Covington

Kappa Sigma Official Site

Kappa Sigmas are taught to live their lives by the Star and Crescent, which are the symbols of the Fraternity that make up the official badge:

The Star and Crescent shall not be worn by every man, but only by him who is worthy to wear it. He must be a gentleman... a man of honor and courage... a man of zeal, yet humble... an intelligent man...a man of truth... one who tempers action with wisdom and, above all else, one who walks in the light of God.^[9]

The Star and Crescent is also used as part of the guidlines behind Kappa Sigma's strict no-tolerance anti-hazing policy. The Fraternity takes all allegations of hazing very seriously and routinely pulls charters from guilty chapters which can be as old as 130 years.

They also follow the four cornerstones of the Fraternity: Fellowship, Leadership, Scholarship, and Service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Sigma

The entity today known as Covington & Burling was founded in 1919 by J.H. Covington, a former U.S. Congressman from Maryland; the firm got its current name in 1924 when it was joined by Chicago RR lawyer Edward Burling. He was married to (Louise Peasely) the sister of (Mathilda Peasely) wife of Frederic Delano, an uncle of 1933-45 U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. involved with numerous endeavors

Edward B. Burling (1877 - 1966)

Edward Burnham Burling (1871–1966) was a prominent American lawyer and the name partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Covington & Burling.^[1] He grew up in Eldora, Iowa and worked in a grocery store at age eleven, and went on to Grinnell College and then to Harvard Law School. After graduation he returned to the Midwest to practice in Chicago for almost 25 years.

Later he came to Washington as general councel for the United States Shipping Board where he was introduced to Harry Covington. They established the law firm on January 1, 1919.

In the 1940s, Burling was one of the core group brought together by Paul Nitze and Christian Herter to establish the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Burling served on the School's Advisory Council until his death in 1966.^[2] The Chair of International Law and Organizations is named after him since 1972.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_B._Burling

Frederic Delano (1863 - 1953)

This photo is a crop of a group picture of the Board of the U.S. Federal Reserve, in 1914.

Frederic Adrian Delano (1863-1953) was an American railroad president born in Hong Kong, China of the Delano family. He is the uncle of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Frederic Adrian Delano was also a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago which impacted the development of Chicago in the 19th and 20th centuries.

After graduating from Harvard University in 1885 he was employed by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad in various capacities, rising from the position of civil engineer to be general manager at Chicago. For a time he was consulting engineer to the United States War Department in respect to the railroads of the Philippine Islands. In 1905 he became president of the Wheeling and Lake Erie, of the Wabash-Pittsburgh Terminal, and of the Wabash railroads. He was appointed one of the receivers for the Wabash in 1911, and in 1913, he was elected president of the Monon Railroad. He was vice president of the American Unitarian Association in 1907. His addresses were published under the titles Questions of the Hour (1911) and Are Our Railroads Fairly Treated? (1913). He was also the chairman of the influential National Capital Park and Planning Commission and helped approve and oversee the building of the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Adrian_Delano

Frederic Delano, brother of Sarah Delano, the mother of 32nd U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was the man who founded both the Committee of 100 and the National Capital Planning Commission. He was an original incorporator of Brookings Institution, Carnegie Institution, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, director of the Smithsonian Museum, Commission for Relief in Belgium, and Belgian American Educational Foundation set up by Herbert Hoover in World War I, chairman National Planning Board 1934-43

87.3.2 Records of Chairman Frederic A. Delano
History: Frederick A. Delano served on the NRPB and its predecessors, July 1933-August 1943, and as Chairman, National Planning Board, 1933-34, and NRPB, 1939-44.

According to the the Committee of 100 web site:

The creation in 1901 of the Senate Park Commission -better known as the McMillan Commission - led to the articulation of a sweeping initiatives for extending the L'Enfant Plan and for establishing strong standards for parks, monuments, public buildings, and scenic vistas far beyond the monumental core of Washington. D.C. In the spirit of idealism that suffused the age of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the recommendations of the McMillan Commission inspired successive reforms: the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act that was passed the same year, and the Washington Zoning Ordinance of 1920. These eventful years comprised the background to the establishment of the Committee of 100.

And yet, another essential aspect of the Committee's founding was the widespread fear among concerned citizens in the 1920s that the achievements of the preceding quarter century might prove to be fragile or insubstantial without continued oversight and advocacy. The distraction of World War I, followed by the laissez-faire of the early 1920s and the escapist "Back to Normalcy" spirit, led a number of prominent planners to undertake initiatives to preserve the momentum of planning in the Nation's Capital. When Frederic A. Delano was asked in 1922 to assume the chairmanship of the American Civic Association and to form a Committee of 100 on the Federal City within that group, he accepted because, as he put it, "We all realized that comprehensive planning would be more constructive than sporadic resistance to a constant succession of proposals unrelated to a general plan." Moreover, Delano and his fellow members of the American Civic Association consciously sought to uphold the legacy of the McMillan Commission, which they feared was in jeopardy. Indeed, reminiscing in 1938, Delano recalled that when he was asked to assume the chairmanship of the Civic Association, he also was explicitly "asked to undertake a revival of the recommendations of the 1901 commission, and I began my work by inviting 100 citizens to join me."

When the original Committee of 100 was established in 1923, it was divided into ten subcommittees often persons each. These were asked to report back to the entire Committee in 1924. The subcommittees were as follows: architecture; forest and park preserves; school sites; playgrounds; housing and reservations for housing; zoning; streets, highways, and transit; extension of metropolitan Washington beyond the District lines; waterfront development; and industrial development and limitations. Responding to the recommendations of these subcommittees, the Committee of 100 released its first report in January 1924. The report recommended a major extension of Washington's park and forest preserves under the guidance of an overall planning agency that would focus on park planning as one of its major responsibilities.

For a number of years, prominent Washingtonians had decried the loss of open and scenic countryside around the Nation's Capital to unplanned or ill-planned development [WHAT ABOUT NATIONALS STADIUM?!!!]. Not the least of these prominent Washingtonians were members of the business community. Before the creation of the Committee of 100, the Washington Board of Trade had drafted a bill to create a National Capital Park Commission with authority to acquire lands in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts. The report released by the Committee of 100 in 1924 lent decisive support to this legislative initiative The Ball-Gibson Act creating the National Capital Park Commission was signed into law on June 6, 1924.

But the Committee of 100 had advocated more than just an agency for parkland acquisition. The Committee had recommended that broad planning powers be vested in such an agency. And it was the Committee's continued advocacy of this concept that prompted the passage of the Capper-Gibson Act on April 1, 1926. This act overhauled the agency created in 1924 and renamed it the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Its authority was extended to include preparing, developing, and maintaining a comprehensive plan for the Nation's Capital and its environs embracing transportation, subdivisions, public housing sites, sewerage, zoning, commerce and industry, and other elements of city and regional planning. Frederic A. Delano, who was chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 to 1944, served concurrently as chairman of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission through most of its formative years. Delano directed pioneering efforts aimed at the creation of comprehensive planning for the federal city, most notably a comprehensive plan for parks, parkways, and recreation facilities for Washington and environs, submitted to Congress in 1928. This plan gave the impetus to the passage of the Capper-Cramton Act of May 29, 1930, which authorized funds for parkland acquisition not only in Washington, D.C., but also for the George Washington Memorial Parkway on both sides of the Potomac River, as well as extensions of parkland along Rock Creek and the Anacostia River into suburban Maryland.

Throughout the first decades of its existence, the Committee of 100 maintained a strong liaison with NCPPC - a liaison that went far beyond the propitious circumstance of Frederic A. Delano's chairmanship of both organizations - and with other vital civic organizations in the Nation's Capital. Horace W. Peaslee, vice-chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 until his death in 1959, created the Architects' Advisory Council, a group of architects who provided free design review to individuals seeking building permits, and Allied Architects, a group responsible for helping to select outstanding architects for the design of federal buildings. John Ihlder, chairman of the Committee's subcommittee on housing, urged the protection of low-density residential areas throughout the city and worked to ameliorate poor housing conditions.

The years of the Depression and the New Deal constituted an ambiguous time in the history of planning for the federal city. In some ways, the legacy of the McMillan Commission continued to be extended: the passage of the Shipstead-Luce Act of 1930, which provided for review by the Commission of Fine Arts of new construction adjacent. to the monumental core of Washington, and also adjacent to Rock Creek Park, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway and other strategic sites and vistas of the L'Enfant Plan; the continued construction of grand architectural monuments in keeping with the "City Beautiful" vision - the Supreme Court building, the National Archives, the National Gallery of Art, the Jefferson Memorial; and the construction of public housing.

The New Deal reforms, however, created certain problems. A vast influx of federal workers precipitated severe housing shortages in Washington, along with the first major problems of traffic congestion. The emergency of the Depression, and the experimental nature of the. New Deal programs created to alleviate the crisis, frequently impelled the creation of short-term federal agencies, whose imperative need for physical premises prompted expedient shortcuts around the comprehensive planning efforts of NCPPC. Despite the fact that Chairman Delano enjoyed considerable influence - not only due to his professional stature but also due to the fact that his nephew was Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the power of NCPPC continued to be diminished by short-term policy considerations. This situation took a dramatic turn for the worse in the 1 940s when World War II preempted almost every long-term planning provision for the federal city in favor of emergency needs in the wartime nerve center. In 1941, for example, the War Department pushed through its plans for the construction of the Pentagon over the objections of both the Fine Arts Commission and NCPPC. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned against "further encroachment upon the parks and playgrounds of the National Capital," and commented sourly upon the "grab bag method of putting a road or a building on any bit of vacant land that can be discovered.

In the aftermath of World War II, the growth of the Washington metropolitan area continued to be explosive. Concurrently, the Committee of 100 entered a new era with the passing of its founding chairman, Frederic A. Delano, in 1944: Successive chairmen were Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts (-1945), retired Congressman Clifton A. Woodrum (1946-47), Board of Education President C. Melvin Sharpe (1948-57), and Rear Admiral Neill Phillips, USN Ret. (1958-67). Later chairing the Committee were Grosvenor Chapman, FAIA (1968-70), David Sanders Clark (1971-72), Mrs. James H. Rowe, Jr. (1973-80), Mrs. Marion K. Schlefer (1980-83), David Grinnell (1983-87), and Dorn C. McGrath, Jr., AICP (1987-present). The postwar period witnessed a major change in the spirit of public-sector planning as well, a change that would challenge the ideals and the mission of the Committee of 100.

From its early days as champion of the McMillan Commission's legacy -the legacy of the classicist "City Beautiful" movement - and its role as an advocate and initiator of federal planning programs created to further the work of McMillan-style planning, the Committee of 100 was ironically forced in the period after World War II into more of an adversary stance against some of the very planning agencies it helped to create.

What accounted for this was a shift in intellectual and cultural values. In the post-World War II period, the "City Beautiful" version of civic order was gradually overtaken and supplanted by the legacy of radical modernism, itself augmented by the culture of the automobile. In the formative years that produced the Committee of 100, the war against urban blight had been waged on behalf of expanded parkland low-density public housing, and the long-term concepts of the L'Enfant Plan. But after World War II, the Committee was chagrined to find that the war against urban blight was redirected into massive urban renewal and freeway projects that produced major problems of fragmented development and over-building. To many observers, these nominal reform efforts seemed to constitute a case of well-intentioned ideas gone totally out of control - to the point where the freeways and the high-rise redevelopment appeared to be a new form of urban blight unto themselves....

http://www.committeeof100.net/history.html

According to the NCPC web site Frederic Delano, who later became the leading light of the American Civic Association and Chicago's Regional Planning Association, moving on to the National Capital Parks and Planning Commission in Washington and, finally, becoming Roosevelt's chief of the National Planning Resources Board.

http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/winter93/page2/page2.htm

The Triumph of 1914

"E" Groups That Did Not Support the South Capitol Mall Oppose Poplar Point Development

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."

Who got Involved

2002- efforts to bring Major League Baseball to Washington D.C. with a new stadium, 3 site options, with 1 abutting the existing 130' South Capitol Street right of way.

This study and its November 6, 2002 "Major League Baseball Park Site Evaluation Project Report", comes with the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission's negotiating efforts to bring Major League Baseball back to Washington, DC, through the efforts of its Chairman, Mark Tuohey, a Partner in the law firm Vinson & Elkins; one of its members William Hall, a Partner in the law firm Winston & Strawn; and W. Andrew Jack a Partner at the law firm Covington& Burling.

Upper right illustration from: http://www.cov.com/offices/washington/description.html

From: http://www.vinson-elkins.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?H4AttyID=000321664305

Mark [Tuohey] concentrates his practice in complex civil and criminal litigation, internal corporate investigations and compliance programs. His practice is largely devoted to representing corporations, their officers and directors, and individuals in civil and white-collar criminal litigation and Congressional investigations. In addition, Mark is involved in alternative dispute resolution matters including arbitration and mediation, in the United States and abroad.

Activities and Affiliations

• Distinctions: The Best Lawyers in America in business litigation and criminal defense, 2005 and in commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense, 2006-2007 and in bet-the-company litigation in 2007; Chambers USA: America's Leading Business Lawyers in litigation law, 2004-2006; International Who's Who of Business Lawyers in business crime law, 2005-2006; Euromoney's Guide to the World's Leading United States Litigation Lawyers, 2005
• President: District of Columbia Bar, 1993-1994
• Chair: District of Columbia Bar Foundation, 1996-2001
• Fellow: American College of Trial Lawyers; American Bar Foundation; American Law Institute
• Member: District of Columbia Federal Judicial Nominating Commission; American Bar Association House of Delegates; Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit; Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Office of Corporation Counsel; ABA House of Delegates, 1990-2003
• Master: William J. Bryant American Inn of Court
• Faculty Member: National Institute for Trial Advocacy
• Lecturer and Writer: various trial advocacy topics, including issues relating to complex civil and criminal litigation, and Congressional oversight investigations
• Trustee: Catholic University of America; Gonzaga College High School; Washington Jesuit Academy
• Recipient: 2001 D.C. Lawyer of the Year, Bar Association of the District of Columbia

From http://www.winston.com/attprof.nsf/vSearchFrames/AVOS-3UUP3J

Bill Hall is a partner and head of the Washington, D.C. office's environmental department, and has been extensively involved in D.C. revitalization activities. His environmental and health and safety practice includes representing the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI), the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), and companies in the resilient flooring, paint, pharmaceutical, chemical, and power tool industries.

Experience and Clients: Mr. Hall has handled regulatory, enforcement, and litigation matters involving waste disposal and cleanup, asbestos, lead paint, recycled and green materials, chemical production, water and air permits, and occupational health and safety. He has participated in numerous agency rulemakings and has acted as lead counsel for RFCI in judicial review petitions challenging the OSHA asbestos standard, OSHA slip resistance standard, EPA recycled material regulations, and New York state green building requirements. He has defended NPCA in lead paint litigation in Baltimore, Maryland and defended clients in asbestos personal injury and property damage cases. Mr. Hall has represented corporate clients and PRP committees in responding to CERCLA cleanup demands and natural resource damage claims and has been lead counsel in a CERCLA contribution action against 1,181 defendants in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Hall has also defended clients in RCRA corrective action matters and Clean Water Act citizen suits. He has lobbied Congress on EPA, HUD, CPSC, and California Prop 65 issues and lobbied state legislatures and the D.C. City Council on asbestos and green building issues. He also has represented insureds in obtaining insurance coverage for environmental and asbestos liabilities. Pro Bono/Professional/Community Activities: Mr. Hall is a board member of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, a mayoral appointment, and has been chair of the Commission’s baseball committee since 1996. He has played a leading role in bringing major league baseball back to Washington. Mr. Hall also is a member of the Federal City Council, a business and professional organization committed to improving Washington, D.C. From 1994 to 1995, he served on the board of the National Capital Development Corporation, which developed the MCI Sports Arena. From 2001 - 2005, Mr. Hall has served on the Restoration Advisory Board for the Spring Valley (DC) neighborhood, which addresses environmental issues arising from chemical warfare production at American University during World War I.

Education: Mr. Hall received a B.A. in Economics, cum laude, from Bucknell University in 1975. He received a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, where he was case and notes editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. Recent Speeches and Publications: Mr. Hall has written and lectured on a wide range of environmental topics. He is co-author of a lead article in the Harvard Law Review on the disclosure of pre-sentence reports (June 1980).

It is Covington & Burling, located at its building at 1200 Pennsylvannian Avenue NW with its extensive background with working in the field of professional sports that appears to be the most connected.

From: http://www.cov.com/lawyers/ajack/biography.html

W. Andrew Jack, partner: has a diverse corporate and securities practice with clients principally in the industrial manufacturing, real estate and sports and entertainment industries. His experience includes mergers and acquisitions, financing activities, venture capital investments,Sarbanes-Oxley and 1934 Act compliance, corporate governance counseling, and executive compensation arrangements. He is listed in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business 2005......

As outside general counsel to the District of Columbia Sports and Entertainment Commission, Mr. Jack helped lead the successful effort to return Major League Baseball to Washington D.C. and he remains involved in baseball matters as well as licensing and related matters with D.C. United, Anschutz Entertainment Group, ARAMARK and others arising from the Commission's operation of RFK Stadium and the D.C. Armory. He previously advised the National Football League in several high-profile matters including the League's public-private partnership with the City of Cleveland to design, develop and finance the new Cleveland Browns stadium, sale of the expansion Browns franchise to Alfred Lerner, sale of the Houston Texans expansion franchise to Bob McNair, capital markets financing for NFL Films' headquarters, specialized software development projects for unique NFL applications, and efforts to develop NFL-themed entertainment and dining establishments. Other sports and entertainment experience includes personal seat licensing programs for football and motorsports clients, general representation of a Caribbean-based thoroughbred racing and gaming company, and sales of radio and television broadcast stations.

His real estate industry experience includes corporate, securities and financing work for Interstate General Company L.P. and American Community Properties Trust, two affiliated developers of residential and commercial properties in St. Charles, Maryland, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In pro bono service, Mr. Jack advises the Ivymount School, and he co-founded and chaired the Southern Anne Arundel Special Education Support Foundation.

Mr. Jack received his J.D., with highest honors, from George Washington University, National Law Center, in 1986, where he was a member of Order of the Coif and the Law Review. He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1983, with a major in international affairs. He is a member of the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals.

From: http://www.cov.com/lawyers/afriedman/biography.html

Andrew H. Friedman, a senior tax partner, focuses on corporate tax matters and transactions, with substantive industry experience in professional sports, e-commerce, and insurance companies and products. He has served as head of the tax group, co-head of the corporate/tax/benefits umbrella group, and the partner in charge of the firm's overall media relations and marketing activities.

Representative clients in professional sports include all four major leagues -- Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League -- as well as the United States Tennis Association, the Arena Football League, and professional sports clubs including the Boston Red Sox. Representative clients in other industries include Clark Enterprises, M Financial Group, MFS Investment Management, Sotheby's, Sun Life Financial, and Yahoo!.

Transactions and matters on which he has been counsel include John Henry's sale of the Florida Marlins baseball club and purchase of the Boston Red Sox and related entities; the establishment of the NFL Network; the establishment of the World Baseball Classic tournament to debut in 2006; the formation of a new regional sports network combining the baseball Orioles and Nationals broadcast rights; the establishment of the U.S. Open Series, a series of tournaments leading up to the U.S. Open in September; Computer Associates' acquisition of Sterling Software; the NFL's expansion to Cleveland and Houston; the financing structures for the stadium in Cleveland and other sports facilities; the NFL and NHL credit facilities; Buffalo Bills v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl 794, 1994; and numerous life insurance, annuity, and mutual fund arrangements and product offerings.

This year, Chambers USA chose Mr. Friedman for its inaugural list of leading sports lawyers in America. Mr. Friedman received a B.A., summa cum laude, as Valedictorian, from Trinity College in 1977 and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1980.

Covington & Burling: Sports Leagues and Religious Institutions

From: http://www.cov.com/practices/oid37186/description.html

NATIONAL NONPROFIT

Sports Leagues

For over thirty years, the Firm has been the principal outside counsel for the National Football League, and we have also engaged in substantial work on behalf of the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the North American Soccer League, World Championship Tennis, United States Tennis Association and other major sports interests. Several Firm alumni now serve in highly visible positions in the world of sports, the most prominent being the Commissioner of the NFL. Our lawyers also work for sports-related federations, such as the International Amateur Athletic Federation, International Association of Athletics Federations and International Paralympic Committee.

Religious Institutions

Covington represents numerous religious institutions on a wide rage of matters. Past and present representative clients include the Jewish Publication Society, Catholic Diocese of Richmond, American Jewish Committee, Holy Orthodox Church of North America, Upton Hindu Community Association, Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation, American Bible Society and the Interfaith Center of New York.

From: http://www.cov.com/practices/oid52748/description.html

SPORTS TRANSACTIONS

Covington & Burling's sports law practice is without parallel. For over thirty years, the Firm has been the principal outside counsel for the National Football League, and we have engaged in substantial work on behalf of the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the International Amateur Athletic Federation, the North American Soccer League, World Championship Tennis, and other major sports interests. Several Firm alumni now serve in highly visible positions in the world of sports, the most prominent being the Commissioner of the NFL.

Our representations in the sports field have included not only professional sports leagues, but also individual clubs, apparel manufacturers, stadium authorities, and amateur athletic organizations. With regard to sports-related products, the Firm is heavily involved, in the United States and abroad, in marketing, distribution, licensing, sponsorship, financing, and product liability issues. More generally, our sports-related practice includes litigation, arbitration, transactional work, tax planning, the protection and utilization of intellectual property, as well as labor, antitrust, franchise, legislative and executive compensation matters. Illustrative of the breadth of our practice were our extensive roles in the creation and development of NFL Enterprises, which pioneered the public distribution of game broadcasts by satellite, and the World League of American Football, including all aspects of that European venture's commercial, tax, and intellectual property interests. We also have extensive experience representing professional sports leagues (like the NFL and NHL), amateur sports governing bodies (like the IAAF), and others in arbitration and litigation matters involving contract disputes, competition issues, labor and employment matters, and performance-enhancing drug disputes.

There is no aspect of sports-related legal practice in which Covington & Burling does not have substantial experience.

Links:

DC Sports and Entertainment Commission

http://www.dcsec.com/index.html

Covington & Burling

http://www.cov.com

Vincent & Elkins

http://www.vinson-elkins.com/

http://www.vinson-elkins.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?H4AttyID=000321664305

Winston & Strawn

http://www.winston.com/WSHome.nsf/pFrame?OpenPage