United Study Bill Approved by House

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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....

@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.

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

Greenland? Is it close to a Metro station?

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.

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?

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

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

babysteps!...

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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