The DC CFO office has posted Natwar Gandhi's prepared remarks from Monday's roundtable on the stadium--the PDF also includes a table of estimates of the costs for the stadium, showing the new $589 million figure. [On another front, Mr. Gandhi, I know you are very busy these days fending off snarky attacks from DC council members, but could you prod your staff to get the DC Property Sales database updated? I'm pretty sure there have been more than four property transactions in all of DC since Sept. 30th (although you were certainly quick to get the 45 stadium property eminent domain transfers into the system).... ]

From Wednesday'sWashington Times, "Evans: No need for $20M for D.C.", discusses the misstatement about a $20 million payment from MLB, the status of the lease negotiations, and how the city council potentially would vote. Today also brings an AP story ("MLB Pressures DC on Ballpark") about a letter sent to Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp from MLB expressing concern about the progress of the lease negotiations. And, a day late, here's Marc Fischer's Tuesday column in the Post, "Grinches Try to Steal Baseball."

From today's DC city council roundtable on the new baseball stadium: The Post reports that the city will submit the stadium lease agreement to the council for approval ("District to Submit Lease Agreement for Stadium"), which, as the article notes, "sets up another tenuous December for boosters of the $535 million stadium project along the Anacostia River in Southeast. After a bitter debate, the council passed the stadium-financing package last December by a 7-6 vote."  (Maybe the stadium can be paid for by selling a Nationals-branded line of Maalox to stadium supporters.) In better news for the pro-stadium folks, negotiators say that the lease agreement is close to completion, and DC Sports and Entertainment Commission chair Mark Tuohey told the city council today that baseball will pay $20 million for additional costs ranging from land acquisition to labor, insurance and materials. It was also said that the stadium will be going in front of the zoning board in early December. UPDATE: streaming video of the roundtable is now available on the DC council web site.

From Saturday's Post ("New Hurdle For Stadium Lease Deal"): "A majority on the D.C. Council is demanding a vote on a stadium lease between the city and Major League Baseball, and several council members said they will reject the deal unless baseball agrees to pay for any cost overruns on the project. [...] The council's involvement in the lease represents a setback for the mayor, the sports commission and baseball, all of which had been operating under the assumption that any lease agreement reached by the negotiators would be locked in place." From Sharon Ambrose, who voted in favor of the financing package last year: "I'm not prepared to continue being one of the biggest baseball boosters in the city without taking a look at that lease. Baseball is something the city really wants, but nobody wants it at any cost. . . . Wouldn't you think baseball wants a snazzy, attractive stadium in the nation's capital? Well, guys, ante up a little bit."

The DC Sports and Entertainment Commission is now saying (in Thursday's Washington Times, "Ballpark estimates made without data on area, design") that they were "forced to predict the cost in 2004 before knowing where the ballpark would be built or what it would look like and that unforeseen delays contributed to rising costs that have pressured the city to stay under a $535 million budget. " But Mark Tuohey, chairman of DCSEC, is quoted as saying, "There are no cost overruns ... it's all manageable. We're going to build the stadium for $535 million." Jack Evans is quoted (again) about getting different designs (saying that he asked HOK Sport for three designs, but got only one), but DC government official Stephen Green says that the "iconic" glass-stone-and-steel design is not inherently too costly.

The back-and-forth about the new baseball stadium has become exasperating for everyone--and finally Thomas Boswell has weighed in, with "Play Ball--Now" in Thursday's Post. The summary: "But now is the time to abandon such tough-guy negotiating methods. Both sides should stop stalling. Stop pretending to debate who pays for the last 2,000 parking spaces for the richest customers. Or (get a load of this one) what happens if the District is destroyed by a super catastrophe like New Orleans and the new ballpark has cost overruns. Seriously, that is the kind of stuff these geniuses claim they've been squabbling about. What, no mandatory Meteor From Mars insurance? Let's finally cut to the chase. Both sides need to stop posturing over the last few million bucks and bragging rights. Instead, compromise, shake hands and start mining the gold from this Washington mother lode. Together."

The Washington Times is reporting that the DC Council will be told at the Nov. 28 stadium roundtable that the $535 million cap on the new stadium's pricetag is written in stone, meaning that either the design would have to be scaled back or Major League Baseball would have to chip in (yeah, right). The story also reports that the stadium lease agreement appears to be far enough along that it will be able to be discussed publicly at Monday's roundtable (which is expected to be, the article quite rightly notes, a fairly contentious meeting). Will the "iconic" glass-stone-and-steel design that was presented to DC officials recently have to be scaled back? Would a brick retro stadium a la Camden Yards be cheaper? Will this ever end?

The DC government has delayed by one month the vacate date for landowners in the footprint of the new Nationals stadium, according to Wednesday's Post ("Stadium Property Takeover Delayed"). Properties must now be vacated by Feb. 3, 2006; the mayor's spokesman says this will not effect the stadium's completion date. The article also says that several of the landowners filed counterarguments in court this week to the city's eminent domain proceedings: "Some are contesting the city's legal right to the land, some are challenging the amount of money the city is offering for the properties and some are fighting on both fronts." A hearing has been scheduled for Feb. 24, although one owner has requested a hearing date before the Feb. 3 vacate deadline. You can visit my Stadium Offers page to see which lots have been seized by the city, what the properties were assessed for in 2005, and what the city offered.

The Post editorial board weighs in (unhappily) on the state of the financing for the new Nationals stadium.

ANC6D chair Andy Litsky has penned an open letter to Mayor Williams (posted at DC Watch, scroll down to find it) alerting him to the Nov. 28 town meeting being held by ANC6D and the Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, "How Baseball Will Impact Southwest." He explains: "Whether by design or default, it has become apparent that baseball stadium project management is balkanized. We'd like our November 28th meeting to provide an opportunity for all parties under one roof to provide our community with as complete a picture as possible of what is going on presently and what we can expect moving forward. Timelines and, more importantly, a clear delineation of who's in charge, would be most welcome."  The letter goes on to cite specific DC government entities that have their hands in the stadium, and what organizers would like to hear from them at this meeting.