I attended the Community Ballpark Meeting on Nov. 2; it was hosted by the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission, which led to grumbling from the audience that the many DC government agencies who also have a hand in the stadium and surrounding development weren't in attendance. The one real piece of news (to me, anyway) was that the orientation of the ballpark has been decided on, and it's north-northeast, as you can see in the schematic contained in the handout. There are supposed to be public meetings in December to discuss the architecture, which I guess means that the design of the stadium will be unveiled at some point before then (hee hee). They are planning for zoning hearings in January, and now list April 2006 as the groundbreaking date. UPDATE: I've now scanned the 17-page agenda/handout (PDF), which has a lot of bullet points addressing economic opportunities, neighborhood "protection" (i.e., noise, lighting), transportation systems (traffic, parking, Metro), and community activities being undertaken (none of which at the moment are actually in the stadium neighborhood, which brought about much audience angst). UPDATE II (11/11): The Nov. 10 Voice of the Hill has (on page 3) a story on the meeting, detailing the somewhat fractious question and answer session.

Thursday's Post ("Bill Would Sell Land Promised to DC") picks up on what NBC4 published last week, that a bill in Congress would have the effect of forcing DC to buy certain federally owned property rather than have it transferred to the city's ownership for free. The gist is thus: "Pombo's plan has also outraged D.C. politicians because it would undermine legislation sponsored by Davis and endorsed by President Bush that would transfer land for free to the city to compensate for Congress's ban on a commuter tax and for the resulting increase in the city's fiscal burden. The areas affected by the bill include 100-acre Poplar Point, where the District is planning a 70-acre waterfront park surrounded by offices, shops, hundreds of apartments and possibly a professional soccer stadium; 15 acres of parking lots and fields just north of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, where the Washington Nationals baseball team currently plays; and parcels near the Eastern Market Metro station on Capitol Hill, Waterside Mall in Southwest and the site of a new stadium for the Nationals just off South Capitol Street." But note that the only land in the stadium footprint that is currently federally owned is little tiny Reservation 124, the triangle of land between 1st, P, and Potomac. Rep. Davis is quoted: "At the end of the day, this stuff is not going to become law." UPDATE: The entire budget bill was pulled late today.

Bud says that there won't be a new Nationals owner by the time the owners meet next week in Milwaukee. He's still interviewing prospective ownerships groups. (Oh, and there's no lease agreement yet, either.)

For those of you who just can't get enough of zoning regulations, here's the final rulemaking and zoning order published in the Nov. 4 DC Register that amended the Capitol Gateway Overlay District regulations to include specifications for the ballpark. (Still waiting for Chapter 16/Capitol Gateway to reappear in the online DC Municipal Regulations!) Note that the design of the ballpark itself will still have to go through zoning hearings; nothing's appeared on the Zoning Commission schedule yet, but there's been hints of a January 2006 hearing date--I imagine that any delay past January on the zoning process would possibly start to impact the start of construction. Tick, tick, tick...!

On Nov. 1 the city recorded in its real property database the change in ownership of those baseball stadium properties seized by the city via eminent domain. Out of the 23 landowners, 16 had their property taken--presumably the other seven have reached a sale agreement with the city, although those sales have yet to be recorded. You can see which were seized on my Stadium Offers page; those 16 owners will now go through the courts to have the fair price determined for their land (presuming they fail to prove that the seizure was illegal, which most observers seem to think is likely given the Supreme Court's Kelo decision).

The AP reports that the Post reports (don't you love that?) that there's still no deal on the lease agreement on the new baseball stadium, and that the two sides will continue to talk next week. Sticking points include terms of rent payments and development rights outside the stadium.

A fun quote from Mayor Tony in the Examiner's piece on the possible stadium cost overruns ("Mayor promises Nats stadium will cost D.C. less than $535M"): "People aren't going to be sitting on folding chairs or rugs, but it's going to come in under $535 [million]."

This morning's Washington Times reports that DC and Major League Baseball officials are to meet today to finalize the lease agreement on the new baseball stadium. Other notes: DCSEC officials downplay the Cadillac-vs-Buick talk of scaling back the stadium design; and DCSEC is to meet with HOK Sport on Monday morning to review ballpark designs (with briefings for city officials and the council in the pipeline before the designs are released publicly). This is outside of my purview, but I get asked about it a lot so I'll mention it although I won't be following it--the article says that DCSEC has received Marion Barry's support to build a new soccer stadium at Poplar Point, which is just across the Anacostia River from Near Southeast. From the article: " Barry, who has long opposed the construction of a facility for D.C. United east of the Anacostia River, changed his position after reviewing plans that included the construction of affordable housing and neighborhood-serving retail, commission members said.  [...] Officials hope the new soccer stadium can open around the same time as the new ballpark, but the city must first wait for a transfer of the land from the federal government. Legislation to approve the transfer awaits action by Congress."

Reading the Associated Press so you don't have to.... In "Mayor Williams Hopes To Firm Up Ballpark Lease; Avoid Overrun Costs," Mr. Bowtie says that he hopes the lease agreement on the new ballpark is firmed up this week, and that the new owners (whoever they are) may be called on to add some of the "bells and whistles" needed to make the ballpark "special" (you know, a Cadillac and not a Buick). And in "City Pushes Job Opportunities with Stadium Construction," there's (very) brief coverage of the Ballpark Business and Economic Opportunity Conference that was held today at the Convention Center.

Wednesday's Post brings us "Stadium Cutbacks Considered", which states that "the rising price of construction materials has significantly increased the projected cost of the District's baseball stadium complex, prompting officials to begin discussing what to eliminate from the project[....] [P]otential cutbacks could come from features inside or outside the ballpark, such as reducing the size of concourses, suites and other amenities or moving parking above ground and reducing the number of retail stores at the site." While this sounds disconcerting, I think a simple solution has probably already been arrived at, if not announced--to no longer include the land immediately south of N Street, which was always considered to be "amenity space," as part of the stadium construction, and instead let the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation handle that land's development as part of the Ballpark District. And this is hinted at in the Post piece: "Sports commission officials said last week that plans for underground parking, retail shops on the stadium site and some plazas outside the park might be eliminated. Those features are not considered core items by Major League Baseball, but they have been sought by the city to help generate more revenue from a ballpark entertainment district along the Anacostia in near Southeast that would feature restaurants and retail. [...] If necessary, features not contained in the agreement will be eliminated or paid for in other ways, such as by private developers." In fact, a schematic drawing of the stadium site included in a handout at the DCSEC's public ballpark meeting this evening show those areas as blacked out. I would imagine that private developers would be quite happy to get the opportunity to build on the stadium site, and the city would get the on-site retail and entertainment venues it wants without having to foot the bill....