Well, I knew this gripe about the baseball team was coming.The DC proposal, and the financing legislation, has been on the table for some time. The election results had nothing to do with DC's position, or the Mayor's. They did, however, get Major League Baseball off its ass and force its hand to finally decide about moving the Expos.Three pro-stadium councilmembers lost their seats in the primary. The victors in those races, however, will not become members of the council unless they win in November. That's probably a technicality, since DC is unfortunately controlled by one party, but it's worth mentioning, since you assume they've already won. One party dominance is never good, regardless of the party.Of more significance, while these three are anti-stadium, I'm not aware that any of them made that position the centerpiece of their campaign, or that it was a determining factor in any of the three races. Do you have some info that this is the main reason, or even a significant one, in why they "got the boot by the voters?"I read an interesting piece in Sunday's Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50520-2004Sep25.html) about the Ward 8 race. Turnout was 26%, meaning that Barry was elected with 15% of the registered vote. Not only is that not a mandate for anything, but the stadium project wasn't mentioned as a major issue. In fact, the stadium project arguably addresses some of the gripe in Ward 8 that there is no public spending or gov't attn to that part of DC.Also, none of the funding comes from new taxes on individuals or their property. The business community, with it acquiesence and support, will bear the new taxes necessary to finance the stadiums. Arguably those costs will trickle down, but that would be the case with any gov't spending increase. This proposal would appear to have the biggest impact on those with the deepest pockets.Building stadiums will create jobs, and I'm talking about he actual construction and not selling beer at the park (liberal argument -- public works), and the mixed development around them, for businesses and new housing, will bolster the tax base (conservative argument -- promote business and homeownership).As for crumbling schools and DC's myriad social problems, the last time I looked at this in any detail, and it's been a few years, DC's spending per capita on education and social programs was equal to or higher than most major cities. I am not one to oppose spending what it takes to solve a problem, but it's not at all clear to me that more money is what's needed. Maybe a better-trained and more accountable bureaucracy and a better allocation of resources would be more effective?