George M. Steinbrenner III
Owner, New York Yankees

Dear Mr. Steinbrenner:

So you want to be the man who tears down "the House That Ruth Built." And for what? More profit.

Neither you, nor the city government you pressured, nor anyone else should ever do this to a place so rich in history and tradition as Yankee Stadium. Would the city ever tear down Carnegie Hall? Adding wasteful insult to senseless injury, you command hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies and primary neighborhood parkland to support a new impostor stadium.

The Honorable Anthony A. Williams
Mayor, District of Columbia

Dear Mayor Williams:

Your Administration can no longer ignore the significant environmental hazards that exist at the construction site for the proposed new baseball stadium. On June 8, 2006 the Washington Post reported a major discovery of 53 tanks of oil under the soil at the stadium site that has caused $2.9 million extra to be spent on environmental cleanup. This troubling level of contamination is only the beginning and I renew my request, with increased urgency, for you to call for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the stadium site.

Testimony of Ralph Nader
Before the Committee on Economic Development
District of Columbia City Council
December 13, 2005

Members of the Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony. I would ask that my testimony be made part of the official record of this hearing.

In the Sunday, December 11, 2005 Washington Post, an unnamed city official admitted to low-balling stadium costs in an effort to gain approval from the DC Council prior to the vote on stadium financing last year. "The source," wrote the Post, "who spoke on condition of anonymity because the project is at a sensitive stage, said officials also added relatively small contingency costs because they knew it would be hard to persuade the council to approve a larger budget."

Testimony of Ralph Nader
Before the Committees on Finance and Revenue, and Economic Development
District of Columbia City Council
November 28, 2005

Members of the Joint Committees, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony. I would ask that my testimony be made part of the official record of this hearing.

Last year in the District, a mobilized citizenry emerged to challenge a proposal by Mayor Williams and the DC Council that would have subordinated the life necessities of District residents to a private, for-profit, monopoly entertainment corporation. District residents were heavily opposed, by an over two-to-one margin, to a publicly-subsidized stadium for Major League Baseball. Voters ended the representation on the Council of all three incumbent members up for re-election who supported spending tax dollars on a stadium, and replaced them with three who campaigned against it.

Council of the District of Columbia

Dear Councilmembers:

Where is the DC Council oversight on this runaway stadium gravy train? The recent maneuver to introduce as "technical" three amendments to last year’s rush-job stadium bill, and to block all other amendments, is the latest example of a Council which has fallen to its knees. As reported by the Washington Post on October 18, 2005 regarding the utilities tax amendment, "Wall Street wants a guarantee in the legislation that the utilities tax will bring in at least $12 million a year, enough to cover the ballpark debt service." This amendment is a substantive change and anything but technical.