Thanks to Distinguished Senators for the link to a message board, where supporters of the Washington and Virginia bids for the Expos are duking it out.
And for those of you convinced that public subsidies for stadiums are a good idea, Skip Sauer, The Sports Economist, is somebody you ought to be reading. Here's a passage from his latest, a post about how the benefit from hosting MLB's All-Star Game isn't nearly the boon some people make it out to be:
Pittsburgh is slated to host the All-Star game in 2006, according to this report in the Post-Gazzette. The article's title: "All-Star Game a boost for city's image, but economic impact limited" suggests that the reporters have done their homework. They cite Victor Matheson's research on the impact of MLB's all-star games from 1973-1997. Matheson found that "actual job growth lagged behind projected growth" and that "quarterly tax collections dropped in each case." That any boost from the game is minimal should not be a tremendous surprise. A large percentage of seats at the All-Star game are occupied by season ticket holders - i.e. local residents. The money they spend on $200 tickets to the All-Star game does not get spent at the movie theater or hardware store.
This is a very critical item to remember in the sometimes nasty public feud that's brewing concerning the competing bids to bring the Expos to the greater Washington area. You'll have no arguments from me that putting the stadium near a Metro line downtown makes the most sense. But the whole package won't make much sense at all, if a new stadium winds up doing more harm than good to the District's financial condition -- a real risk considering the way the city plans to finance the proposed ballpark.
POSTSCRIPT: For more Expos-related fun, check out Traveling Expos. Thanks to David Pinto for the link.



Angelos is in no position to promote his value to the community, especially given his attempt to bilk several billion dollars from the Maryland state treasury following the multistate tobacco litigation. O’Malley may be a small-time politician, but Angelos is a master thief with a Bar card.
And a minor point of correction: O’Malley is still technically in his first term as mayor. He was elected in 1999 at the same time the city charter was ameded to switch elections to the presidential year. Consequently, O’Malley’s term was extended until the end of this year. He did, however, win a Democratic primary in November 2003 (a scheduling quirk forgot to move the primary), so he’s effectively been reelected, though it’s not offiicial until November.
Is there anyone more reprehensible as a human being than Peter Angelos in baseball today? Having said that, I can’t really fault him for wanting to protect the value of his investment, no matter how ill gotten it was.
I don’t know that O’Malley is small time. He could be huge.