Abandoning Maryland seems stupid. I do wish we'd put a team in Richmond.
Is there some reason they wouldn't relocate the Chiefs? Honest question, don't flip out on me. Seems odd to have a team up there, and it's cold early in the season.
Pronoun - who do you mean by "they"?
The Washington Nationals/Lerners do not own the Syracuse affiliate. The Washington Nationals have a development agreement with the Chiefs, these agreements are usually for a 2 or 3 year period.
The Chiefs are "Community owned" according to wikipedia. Community owned means that the CHiefs aren't leaving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse_ChiefsBut in a normal scenario, if the owners wanted to move, then the Chiefs would need to find a city to relocate to - that would build them a stadium, or give them some land. Or the Chiefs could (GAH!) foot the bill themselves.
So, now that they have a city that wants them, they would need approval from MLB (to make sure that they are not in anyone's MLB territory) and approval from the National Association (they oversee the affiliated minor leagues at all levels) to abandon Syracuse and to move to the new location.
To get an idea of how this sometimes works: Up to 2 seasons ago, there was a AA team in Zebulon, NJ - the Carolina Mudcats. Someone got approval to buy the Mudcats franchise and build a stadium in Pensacola, FL. The team remained in the AA Southern League but now plays in Pensacola as the Blue Wahoos. The Single A Carolina League Kinston Indians played in an outdated stadium in Kinston, NC. As part of the Pensacola deal, the National Association moved the Kinston franchise to Zebulon. Now, the Caroliina Mudcats are a Carolina League team.