Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

United Study Bill Approved by House

By a vote of 17 to 7, the House Appropriations Committee has given a favorable vote to a bill allowing the Maryland Stadium Authority to study the feasibility and economic cost of building a stadium in Prince George's County for D.C. United. The Post's Maryland Moment blog discusses the vote.


By Greg Manifold  |  March 30, 2009; 4:15 PM ET
Categories:  D.C. United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sixty Six, the Movie
Next: USA Roster Changes

Comments

17-7 is better than I feared. Now lets hope it clears the next two hurdles in the next 6+ hours.

Posted by: buck-bass-goal | March 30, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Who were the seven dissenters and what was their logic? It authorizes a study..............a study! Give me a break!

Posted by: blackandred777 | March 30, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

YEAHHHHHHH!!!!! Great sign there. Hope the study comes with very positive news.

Posted by: DCUnitedFootball | March 30, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Well, the study costs up to $200k. If some members are dead set against the idea, they don't need a study to change that and want to quash this now.

Posted by: Kev29 | March 30, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@blackandred777: If you ask a committee of politicians to vote on the existence of gravity, they will not be unanimous.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 30, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Who were the seven dissenters and what was their logic? It authorizes a study..............a study! Give me a break!

Posted by: blackandred777

It must've been those left-wingers.

Posted by: Reignking | March 30, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

They were those 5 who voted against last last week they were r wingers.

Posted by: DCUnitedFootball | March 30, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I know it costs $200K but it potentially generates millions. Small price to pay even for a politician in the grand scheme of things.

Posted by: blackandred777 | March 30, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

maybe the more prudent course of action would have been the approval of a study to examine the feasibility and economic cost of approving a study to examine the feasibility and economic cost of building a stadium.

Posted by: stairs | March 30, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

In unrelated news, Marcelo Gallardo's home in Argentina was invaded by criminals (he and his family are safe).

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1113436

Maybe he should have taken a steep pay cut and stayed here.

Posted by: JPHT | March 30, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Wait, didn't the Maryland Stadium Association already do a study along these lines?

Posted by: Colm1 | March 30, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

It must've been those left-wingers.

Posted by: Reignking | March 30, 2009 4:50 PM


Can they cross a ball? Have them bring their boots to the practice field....

Posted by: JkR- | March 30, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

@Colm -- Yes, the Stadium Authority commissioned a study. They are seen as being in the stadium business. Dissenters don't take their study seriously. So, to overcome those objections, they had to fund a new study -- one that is more specific and with projections that don't come just from the Stadium Authority.

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

YEAh, a Study! We are SO going to have to move to Greenland.

Posted by: UnitedDemon | March 30, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Greenland? Is it close to a Metro station?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 30, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I think this study is meant begin designing the stadium and provide more accurate cost figures.

I'm actually suprised this passed given all the negative press lately.

If the state really isn't paying anything towards the stadium then there really is no reason to oppose it. Think about it- they pay nothing. People will have to be hired to build it and work there- they will pay income tax to the state so Maryland is guarenteed that money. The big question is if fans will spend there money in Maryland- I would think that would depend on how the surronding area is developed. MacFarlane is in this for the real estate so I would think this deal comes with more land he gets to develop around the stadium- which I imagine is also in Maryland's best interest.

I just don't see a downside for them.

Posted by: laur84 | March 30, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I gotta say that I am most encouraged by the PG Council chairwoman's comments that she expects the Council to vote in favor of something on Tuesday (not sure if she means the study of the project). If the Council looks like they want this, then I'm guessing it passes the House and Senate. A year from now, armed with a positive study, I like the stadium's chances....

2012 seems like a long way away, but not so much for the team. They'll get an uptick in season's tickets next year, and big jump in 2011, as fans try to get in line for the 2012 season.

There's something in the bill, though, that ought to be of interest to DCU fans. It might be a tad optimistic, but the original bill contains language about directing funds from PSLs (personal seat licenses) to pay off the bonds. We don't really think that DCU will try to extort us with PSLs, do we?

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@ I-270. It's on the Green Line, natch.

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Do we know which members of the committee opposed the bill? Where were they from? Which political party did they belong to?

Posted by: davethelad | March 30, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

babysteps!...

Posted by: dfunkt | March 30, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I should add that PSL monies are actually allocated to paying off the teams relocation costs, including any money owed to Dc and the cost of building training facilities -- any excess would go to the Stadium Authority. While the language would apply to any sports franchise moving into Maryland, I'm a little curious why it's in this bill. Perhaps, the legislators just want to make sure that the team won't pocket exorbitant PSL costs for themselves -- a CYA provision -- but, it may be that there has been some discussion of PSLs by DCU.

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

2012 seems like a long way away, but not so much for the team. They'll get an uptick in season's tickets next year, and big jump in 2011, as fans try to get in line for the 2012 season.

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 5:07 PM


Plus all the good press they'd recieve this year and next with a deal in place. Those kinda positive vibes (or general excitment) never hurt in the attendence dept.

Posted by: laur84 | March 30, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

PSLs...ug...what a crock...

Posted by: Reignking | March 30, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

DC United! (clap 5 times) DC United! (clap 5 times) DC United! (clap 5 times)

Posted by: Gambrills4 | March 30, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

DC United! (clap 5 times) DC United! (clap 5 times) DC United! (clap 5 times)

Posted by: Gambrills4 | March 30, 2009 6:16 PM

+1

Posted by: DadRyan | March 30, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Seems there was a bit of a hiccup in the bill.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2009/03/not_so_fast_on_dc_united_bill.html

The bill was supposed to give the committee heads some say on funding before this moved from an economic study to actual facility design work. Apparently, that runs afoul of some constitutional separation of powers. So, the Appropriations committee will have to revisit the bill. Too late to make the "crossover" deadline, which would have automatically moved the bill to a Senate hearing. Doesn't mean it's dead for this year, but it does mean the bill will need some Senate allies to move it along.

Posted by: fischy | March 30, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Time to write my senator again. At least I'll focus on the study funding instead of the stadium funding.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | March 30, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company