A good read on how every previous effort to bring a top-level professional sports team to Virginia has failed:
https://cardinalnews.org/2023/12/15/excited-about-youngkins-deal-to-bring-2-major-league-teams-to-virginia-weve-been-here-before/
- Redskins / Commanders (twice)
- Expansion baseball team in 1993 and 1998
- Expos / Nationals
- NHL team in Hamton Roads in the 1990's
- Sacramento Kings to Virginia Beach in 2013
As I recall, the Virginia effort didn’t fail as much as Warner (who was eyeing the senate at the end of the lame duck governor term) started to get heat from the Post (which seemed to switch from boosting Angelos’s arguments for years to boosting DC over Virginia in their coverage when the decision was about to be made). He reportedly had made no issue for years about the long-planned funding mechanism through the Virginia baseball stadium authority put in place by the Commonwealth.
The support for the bond mechanism also seemed to be the case with Gilmore before him and Kaine after him (when the lease deal reportedly was faltering under disputes with baseball in late 2005 and didn’t get resolved until February 2006 when DC had to pony up more including reportedly having to sell development right outside the ballpark). Throughout all of that, the legislation for the stadium authority stayed in place, and of course happened to have reportedly been re-purposed nowadays first for the reason NFL stadium bid and now for this:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/authorities/virginia-baseball-stadium-authority/It was quite something to see Warner up there front and center on the current plan when he reportedly got so particular at a critical juncture during the relocation process about the “moral obligation” clause related to one of the bond issuing plans that have apparently been well-established years beforehand and could’ve been adjusted had there been any issues.
https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/virginia-officials-wary-of-using-moral-obligation-for-baseball“Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, a Democrat, and some state lawmakers have expressed concerns about the proposal to issue bonds backed by a moral obligation pledge in order to finance a baseball stadium to be operated by a for-profit enterprise should Virginia win the Montreal Expos franchise and have to build a stadium.”
“Del. Vincent F. Callahan Jr., R-McLean, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, appeared to favor the use of moral obligation debt and accused Warner yesterday of being "still on the fence" regarding its use for stadium debt.
“Even if the relocated Expos were to have the worst attendance figures in the league, for example one million fans per year, the team owners could still make a profit, Callahan said in an interview yesterday. "The chances of the state being called on to pay, or of a default happening, are extremely remote," he said.
“Under the current financing proposal, which would need state legislative approval, the Virginia Resources Authority - the only entity in the state that issues moral obligation debt - would issue a combination of tax-exempt and taxable debt for the proposed facility. Based on its moral obligation pledge, VRA bonds typically receive a double-A rating from credit agencies.
“Although triple-A rated Virginia has never had to call on it, the state's moral obligation pledge significantly enhances the credit quality of its loan programs becauseif a bond issue's capital reserve fund drops below its minimal requirement, the issuer may submit a request to the governor for needed funds, and he in turn is legally bound to request the appropriation from the legislature.”
With the rug essentially pulled out the more that Warner and his press secretary made clear to news outlets the lack of state support on this basis, it opened the door for Williams and the DCSEC to pledge the sweetheart of sweetheart deals as it was called. Of course, it almost fell apart because it didn’t have any actual backing but was subject to the council vote in 2004 and needed further final lease approval with the reported development rights giveaway in 2006 that may have almost cost them the team.
Plus, there’s this claim from the “Virginia failed” article that doesn’t seem to bear up to scrutiny:
“The Northern Virginia group was forced to shift its focus to a stadium site near Dulles. That wasn’t nearly as appealing in an era when downtowns were considered the prime sites.”
In fact, articles written afterward indicated that Virginia was preferred as far as key baseball officials (including Selig and Reinsdorf) were concerned until the effects manifested of political winds billowing perhaps at the behest of the Post editorial board. Their support of Virginia was when Dulles was clearly the site those baseball officials would’ve been considering. Also, the appeal of “downtown” as the deciding factor against Virginia also seems to get shut down given the reported preference for the RFK site:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080129171813/http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/1/23/ChiSox-owner-Nats-new-site-was-a-mistake“ChiSox owner: Nats’ new site was a mistake
“Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who was intimately involved with selecting Washington as a baseball city, had some second-guessing to do Tuesday on where the team will be located.
“Speaking at George Washington University, Reinsdorf recalled how Commissioner Bud Selig asked him and a group of other owners to select a city to relocate the Montreal Expos.
“”Whatever you do, don’t give me Washington,” he said Selig told him.
“That’s exactly what they did, although Reinsdorf said the decision had “nothing to do with my love for D.C.” (he got his bachelor’s degree from G.W. in the ’50s) but was “strictly business.
“Nevertheless, he said he preferred Northern Virginia over downtown due to its “better fan base.” Then he told the crowd, which included Nats principal owner Mark Lerner, that he “would have requested a different location” in the city.
“”We were sold on the idea that there would be enough parking,” he said. “I’m afraid that’s not the case. I would have insisted on [the RFK site].”
Once again, the Post appeared to have a hand in that, evidently not highlighting the potential level of environmental contamination at the Navy Yard site (which IIRC hadn’t had its testing done at the rime of selection but end up having dozens of buried oil tanks amongst the contamination). Meanwhile, they were amongst those seeming to pass along without much or any question the claims from Jack Evans and others about insurmountable environmental and NPS barriers at the RFK site taking 2 to 3 years at a minimum to straighten out – – something that mysteriously disappeared from future reports concerning bids to return the NFL to the same site despite no environmental work.
This article from the time of the lease revisit restates that assertion related to environmental hurdles from “city officials”, made even more remarkable by the number of council members, who at the time were talking about potentially reversing the votes after being “hoodwinked”, and claiming the the mayor had “total disregard for the law”:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/7/20051207-123820-1379r/“City officials also said the estimate for the RFK site likely will show virtually no savings over the cost of the South Capitol Street site because of heavy environmental problems that would trigger delays of up to three years. The city says it would like to break ground on a stadium by March and already has begun acquiring land at the site on South Capitol Street.”
“Several council members voted in favor of the resolutions on the grounds they were unaware they had voted last month to allow the city to remove borrowing costs, infrastructure, Metro upgrades and other non-ballpark costs from the $535million to be borrowed. The changes were made in technical amendments to the financing plan, which was passed by the council 10 votes to 2.
“”People feel misled,” said Kwame Brown, an at-large Democrat who voted in favor of the technical amendments last month but was for yesterday’s resolutions. “And because they were misled, they want an opportunity to reverse their vote.”
“”I was hoodwinked on the technical amendments,” Graham said. “I feel they got away with something.”
“Catania, who voted against the technical amendments, said the council never should have approved them last month, arguing that the changes were substantive. By categorizing the changes as “technical,” council chairwoman Linda Cropp was able to block the council’s ability to make major changes to the financing plan.
“”It’s a game of three-card monte, revising history and taking advantage of people,” Catania said. “We have a mayor who has total disregard for the law.””
The three card monte and revising history part seems apropos to how things evolved and are remembered (or not) in certain accounts.
