CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Stadium $43M over budget
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
)
The Washington Monument can be seen in the background at left as construction continues on the new Washington Nationals baseball stadium.
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The costs of acquiring land needed to build the Washington Nationals ballpark have exceeded original estimates by $50 million, busting the publicly financed stadium’s $631 million budget with more increases yet to come, documents show.
Thanks almost entirely to land acquisition, the tab for the stadium is now pegged at $674 million, an increase of $43.2 million over the original budget, according to a Jan. 16 report provided to the D.C. Council by the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission.
The 25 landowners whose 63 parcels were located on the stadium site have pocketed $127 million so far, many after losing their properties to eminent domain and then fighting the District before an arbiter. Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi’s initial estimate from early 2005 was $77 million, which he later increased to $97.9 million — the figure built into the project’s budget.
Gandhi’s projections were ridiculed by stadium critics, led by D.C. Councilman David Catania, who argued the District was using outdated assessment data to develop its numbers. He once estimated the CFO’s estimates were short by at least $30 million.
“I voted no on this 10 times, and one of the great concerns was the cost of land, and now those concerns have proven true,” said Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham. “They were lowballed.”
Gandhi told the council in March 2005 that his projections for all land-related costs were “conservative.” His figures were based on a study performed by consultant Deloitte, which came up short on every one of its estimates.
Four of the two dozen eminent domain cases have yet to be settled, a D.C. spokesman said. The District’s legal bill for the arbitration process, originally zero, is now $4.75 million. And environmental remediation has cost $16 million, twice the amount predicted.
Land acquisition was not included in the stadium’s $611 million price cap, meaning the sports commission can bridge the budget gap with excess revenues from the ballpark fund — composed mainly of stadium sales taxes and a 1 percent tax on D.C. businesses. It also means that while the project is technically over budget, it has not breached the statutory cap.
“The cap was never a real number,” said at-large Councilman Phil Mendelson, a stadium critic.
Robert Siegel, owner of 11 parcels seized by the District, is still fighting the city’s original $7 million offer.
“I feel like I’ve been shorted terribly,” he said. “It’s costing me thousands of dollars just to go through this forced arbitration.”
Stadium update
» Project work force up to 930 people between the ballpark and garage
» Ballpark and office building 95 percent complete as of Dec. 31
» On schedule to host first game March 29, an exhibition against the Baltimore Orioles
Comments from Examiner Readers
6:43 PM MST on Thu., Feb. 28, 2008 re: "District to limit street parking for Nationals Stadium visitors"
Report as inappropriate
1:59 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 30, 2008
re: "Stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
2:35 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 25, 2008
re: "Stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
1:22 PM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
10:05 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
8:18 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Land costs push Nats stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
5:50 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Land costs push Nats stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
5:50 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Land costs push Nats stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
5:26 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Land costs push Nats stadium $43M over budget"
Report as inappropriate
2:59 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 28, 2007
re: "Ballpark area contaminated"
Report as inappropriate
9:43 AM MST on Mon., Aug. 13, 2007
re: "Fenty shifts funds to get art for new Nats ballpark"
Report as inappropriate
8:45 AM MST on Mon., Aug. 13, 2007
re: "Fenty shifts funds to get art for new Nats ballpark"
Report as inappropriate
8:04 AM MST on Mon., Aug. 13, 2007
re: "Fenty shifts funds to get art for new Nats ballpark"
Report as inappropriate
7:19 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 31, 2007
re: "City considers "ballpark fare" for fans who may ride Metro to games"
Report as inappropriate
3:24 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 30, 2007
re: "City considers "ballpark fare" for fans who may ride Metro to games"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
any plans for motorcycle parking at the new park ? cycles do not take up much space and most can carry two fans
98 agree | 123 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The Md. stadium has nothing to do with any of this or do they?
126 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
DC runs 50 mill over, so what, the suckers will embrace the cost, after all the benefits are expansive though undefineable. Houston's sports entertainment knuckleheads revel in the fact that we can now 'chat over the water cooler' about the failings of our standard bearers, er, juice jack jocks.
177 agree | 180 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Robin Ficker, Broker Robin Realty said:
Let the steroid league foot the bill, not the taxpayers.
173 agree | 193 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ghandi and Fenty could split the bill.
134 agree | 156 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
GMU92 said:
Thank goodness we kept this mess out of Northern Virginia. These publicly financed ballparks, or even "public/private partnerships" invariably end up going over budget, grossly over budget, and the taxpayer gets the bill. And strong arming property owners through the use of eminent domain for the sake of a billion dollar baseball team's park is criminal.
197 agree | 313 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Train robbery! That simple!
188 agree | 153 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Joe Jena said:
With Gandhi making the financial predictions why is anyone surprised at his further incompetence. When will Mayor Fenty get the picture and do the right thing?
191 agree | 179 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maryland got suckered into building a stadium for 8 Redskins day a year. DC will get 10 times as many events - just from baseball - and then even more events because of its central location.
187 agree | 171 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Your headline "Ballpark area contaminated" is highly misleading but not as misleading as your earlier headline of "Ballpark May Be Contaminated". Yes, the ballpark was contaminated before they started construction, but it was cleaned up and no longer contaminated. Additionally, your article is referring to one future development site in Capitol Riverfront / Near Southeast. Yes, your article may get clicks due to the over-exaggerated headline, but it is exactly what will keep readers like me from not reading your newspaper's material in the future.
365 agree | 301 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike Licht said:
The claim that stadium sculpture will be owned by the District and will eventually be moved elsewhere is absurd. The application for this Site-Specific Art included architectural drawings. Claiming this art is on loan is like saying you don't own your own dental work but have merely borrowed it. You don't see many used dental crowns on the market; the same with site-specific public art. This sort of pubic art is usually funded by the developer or tenant, and public arts agencies provide technical assistance. Well-know local examples include the Convention Center and Reagan National Airport. Construction of lighting and maintenance of the stadium art works, also provided by the District, are not included in the $700K. There goes your budget cap. Councilmembers: use the $700K to fund a competitive, peer-reviewed Capital Arts Grant Program for DC community arts organizations.
379 agree | 382 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
What else said:
We build it, we decorate it, we will transport you to it and what else may we help you with the Nats ballpark? By the way could you please pay the cashier on your way out....Ooops I forgot we will take care of that too!!!
372 agree | 360 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
ballparkcrazi said:
Shuld'nt the new owners who seem to be very rich put their own money for the art? this makes no sense to me and the countless others looking for funding daily
320 agree | 371 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The problem is the number of trains to carry fans. For fans that must make a connection at Metro Center, the wait can be grueling and hot in the summer.
328 agree | 504 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike Licht said:
DC Government must require high game-day parking fees at all facilities within strolling distance of the ballpark as a disincentive to drivers. Offering bargain train fares to casual Metro users is simply insane. Tinker with the Metro fare structure and you incur the well-deserved wrath of hundreds of thousands of regular commuters, steady Metro clients. This is the price citizens pay when government allows salesmen to conduct the planning process.
270 agree | 328 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree