NFL Commanders building $3bn new stadium in Ward 7 on the old RFK site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

Why is DC paying to develop the land for housing? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

Why is DC paying to develop the land for housing? That makes no sense.

That's what DC does. Most of the billion is a giveaway to developers and amenities for the GGW crowd. Parks and bike lanes cost money. As does grading the land and upgrading the electrical, water and sewer to handle the proposed increase in housing. That's what increasing "attainable" housing entails.

Take away the stadium, which DC is not paying to build, and it's everything the people opposed to the stadium want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

I think the team should pay for everything anywhere in the proposal — you want to use the land for your stadium? You also pay the costs for preparing the site and for the park facilities and the transportation needs. I also thought the city should have required this of D.C. United when it built Audi Field (and I have season tickets there); I realize this isn’t usually how such deals work, but I wish cities would drive a harder bargain with teams.

[Anonymous]

Im not a football fan but have what may be a dumb question. Don’t football fans like to get to stadium early and tailgate with grills and such? Will there be space for that here? Or will this require a shift in football culture? I wonder if that will also lead to less drunkenness at games. I’ve had neighbors tell me they don’t take kids to commanders games because everyone is so wasted after hours of tailgating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

Why is DC paying to develop the land for housing? That makes no sense.

That's what DC does. Most of the billion is a giveaway to developers and amenities for the GGW crowd. Parks and bike lanes cost money. As does grading the land and upgrading the electrical, water and sewer to handle the proposed increase in housing. That's what increasing "attainable" housing entails.

Take away the stadium, which DC is not paying to build, and it's everything the people opposed to the stadium want.

The bike lanes are already there dumb*ss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im not a football fan but have what may be a dumb question. Don’t football fans like to get to stadium early and tailgate with grills and such? Will there be space for that here? Or will this require a shift in football culture? I wonder if that will also lead to less drunkenness at games. I’ve had neighbors tell me they don’t take kids to commanders games because everyone is so wasted after hours of tailgating.

It will be most similar to Seattle and Minnesota, which have stadiums in an urban area. No tailgating allowed. Open containers are illegal in DC anyway without a permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want an 8000 car parking complex AND a metro stop (that they won’t pay for). Nope. I’m in favor of the stadium but with only the amount of parking that we have at the Nationals stadium (around 1800 I believe). It would be an absolute crime to hog up that land with parking garages for that sit empty except for 8 days/year.

Why would they need a new Metro stop? There’s one there already.

Federal handout for WMATA. Congress will be asked to fund it, they will fund 80%, and the localities will be forced to pick up the remainder.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a new Metro stop is needed. It isn’t.

+1 This was my question and I still don’t understand why you would need one and where it would go. The new stadium isn’t much bigger (10,000 seats?) than RFK, it looks to be situated in the same part of the site, and the one Metro station was always sufficient even for sold out games there - I went to a lot of them. Do they want one halfway between Potomac Avenue and Stadium-Armory, at the entrance to the DC Jail? Or north further into Kingman Park?

I believe a metro stop was proposed years ago for Kingman Park at the corner of Oklahoma and Benning, but the neighborhood opposed. If there, it could meet the bus/streetcar commuters that come down H St/NOMA. I used to live in KP so really wished there was one there, would be nice for the neighborhood if they did add one. Honestly wouldn't even be that hard, they just need to adjust the tunnel slightly under the parking lot/fields, not like they would have to navigate it around existing housing.

Man I bet I know exactly the type of “neighbors” who opposed this.

?? this would have been quite a long time ago. Like before I was born.

Not necessarily. The NOMA Metro station is fairly new.

The Kingman Park metro station was proposed (and vetoed by the KP Civic Association) in the 1970s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want an 8000 car parking complex AND a metro stop (that they won’t pay for). Nope. I’m in favor of the stadium but with only the amount of parking that we have at the Nationals stadium (around 1800 I believe). It would be an absolute crime to hog up that land with parking garages for that sit empty except for 8 days/year.

Why would they need a new Metro stop? There’s one there already.

Federal handout for WMATA. Congress will be asked to fund it, they will fund 80%, and the localities will be forced to pick up the remainder.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a new Metro stop is needed. It isn’t.

+1 This was my question and I still don’t understand why you would need one and where it would go. The new stadium isn’t much bigger (10,000 seats?) than RFK, it looks to be situated in the same part of the site, and the one Metro station was always sufficient even for sold out games there - I went to a lot of them. Do they want one halfway between Potomac Avenue and Stadium-Armory, at the entrance to the DC Jail? Or north further into Kingman Park?

I believe a metro stop was proposed years ago for Kingman Park at the corner of Oklahoma and Benning, but the neighborhood opposed. If there, it could meet the bus/streetcar commuters that come down H St/NOMA. I used to live in KP so really wished there was one there, would be nice for the neighborhood if they did add one. Honestly wouldn't even be that hard, they just need to adjust the tunnel slightly under the parking lot/fields, not like they would have to navigate it around existing housing.

Man I bet I know exactly the type of “neighbors” who opposed this.

?? this would have been quite a long time ago. Like before I was born.

Not necessarily. The NOMA Metro station is fairly new.

The Kingman Park metro station was proposed (and vetoed by the KP Civic Association) in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman_Park#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201970s%2C%20the,to%20complete%20the%20Inner%20Loop.

"In the early 1970s, the Washington Metro proposed allowing the planned Orange/Blue Line to come above-ground after it left the proposed Stadium–Armory Station. In addition to the Stadium-Armory stop south of RFK Stadium, Metro also proposed an "Oklahoma Avenue Station" with a large parking lot north of RFK on Oklahoma Avenue NE. Residents on Oklahoma Avenue NE and members of the Kingman Park Civic Association bitterly opposed the parking lot, fearing heavy traffic and streets clogged with non-residents parking illegally in front of their homes. The Civic Association demanded that the station be placed underground, a request Metro opposed because it would cost $40 million.[37] Residents also demanded that Metro cancel the parking lot. Residents began heavily lobbying District and federal officials against the parking lot, and in 1977, Metro finally canceled all plans for an Oklahoma Avenue Station—marking the only time citizen groups in the District of Columbia were able to get an entire station scrapped."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

Why is DC paying to develop the land for housing? That makes no sense.

That's what DC does. Most of the billion is a giveaway to developers and amenities for the GGW crowd. Parks and bike lanes cost money. As does grading the land and upgrading the electrical, water and sewer to handle the proposed increase in housing. That's what increasing "attainable" housing entails.

Take away the stadium, which DC is not paying to build, and it's everything the people opposed to the stadium want.

The bike lanes are already there dumb*ss.

Hey dumbass, the new housing hasn't been built and is currently park land. There's also improvements as part of this for the Anacostia River Trail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want an 8000 car parking complex AND a metro stop (that they won’t pay for). Nope. I’m in favor of the stadium but with only the amount of parking that we have at the Nationals stadium (around 1800 I believe). It would be an absolute crime to hog up that land with parking garages for that sit empty except for 8 days/year.

Why would they need a new Metro stop? There’s one there already.

Federal handout for WMATA. Congress will be asked to fund it, they will fund 80%, and the localities will be forced to pick up the remainder.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a new Metro stop is needed. It isn’t.

+1 This was my question and I still don’t understand why you would need one and where it would go. The new stadium isn’t much bigger (10,000 seats?) than RFK, it looks to be situated in the same part of the site, and the one Metro station was always sufficient even for sold out games there - I went to a lot of them. Do they want one halfway between Potomac Avenue and Stadium-Armory, at the entrance to the DC Jail? Or north further into Kingman Park?

I believe a metro stop was proposed years ago for Kingman Park at the corner of Oklahoma and Benning, but the neighborhood opposed. If there, it could meet the bus/streetcar commuters that come down H St/NOMA. I used to live in KP so really wished there was one there, would be nice for the neighborhood if they did add one. Honestly wouldn't even be that hard, they just need to adjust the tunnel slightly under the parking lot/fields, not like they would have to navigate it around existing housing.

Man I bet I know exactly the type of “neighbors” who opposed this.

?? this would have been quite a long time ago. Like before I was born.

Not necessarily. The NOMA Metro station is fairly new.

The Kingman Park metro station was proposed (and vetoed by the KP Civic Association) in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman_Park#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201970s%2C%20the,to%20complete%20the%20Inner%20Loop.

"In the early 1970s, the Washington Metro proposed allowing the planned Orange/Blue Line to come above-ground after it left the proposed Stadium–Armory Station. In addition to the Stadium-Armory stop south of RFK Stadium, Metro also proposed an "Oklahoma Avenue Station" with a large parking lot north of RFK on Oklahoma Avenue NE. Residents on Oklahoma Avenue NE and members of the Kingman Park Civic Association bitterly opposed the parking lot, fearing heavy traffic and streets clogged with non-residents parking illegally in front of their homes. The Civic Association demanded that the station be placed underground, a request Metro opposed because it would cost $40 million.[37] Residents also demanded that Metro cancel the parking lot. Residents began heavily lobbying District and federal officials against the parking lot, and in 1977, Metro finally canceled all plans for an Oklahoma Avenue Station—marking the only time citizen groups in the District of Columbia were able to get an entire station scrapped."

So, yup. The same type of person that opposes parking nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

He is actually right to do this. Because that money is already owed to all the people in lesser-resourced parts of DC.

The people are entitled to it because of DC’s failure to address gentrification and systemic white racism in DC.

Not a damn cent should go to some stadium for rich people.

[Anonymous]

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2025/04/30/22661/commanders-stadium-plan-is-somehow-even-worse-for-dc-taxpayers-than-we-thought/

Shocking: The reality isn't what Bowser claimed.

"That all adds up to … I dunno, $2.5 billion in public subsidies? $3 billion? It would surely set a new record for the most taxpayer money poured into a single stadium in the history of the U.S. if not the known universe, in any case."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like MD's republican congressional reps are trying to block DC's ability to use its own funds to lure the Commanders. Just heard an interview with Andy Harris talking about how DC shouldn't be able to have the billion dollars currently blocked from use to fund a stadium

For the the first time ever, I agree with Andy Harris: D.C. should not use this particular billion dollars to fund a stadium. But that's because we should be able to use those billion dollars to fund the operating expenses they were budgeted to cover.

I'd also prefer if D.C. spent $0 to fund a stadium — I think the Commanders' owners are quite capable of paying the full cost themselves — but I doubt Andy Harris agrees with me on that as a general principal.

Josh Harris is paying the full cost of building the stadium. DC on the other hand is paying the cost to develop the surrounding land, including DPR facilities, bike lanes and infrastructure for the new housing. Heck, the Anacostia trail expenses in the current budget are part of the deal.

What line item costs in the current proposal do you think DC should not pay? We're not paying anything for construction of the stadium itself. That $1 billion is for the "attainable" housing, park facilities and "multi-modal" transportation.

Not PP, but even though I don’t know what the number is I’d be happy for DC to at least cut in half the line for “attainable housing”. The mayor already pulled a bait-and-switch a couple blocks away over by the jail and switched the development from mixed to all subsidized housing. If they keep doing that they’re just building future slums. That kind of housing as to be dispersed to keep the area desirable

[Anonymous]

DC should also provide more free or subsidized affordable parking to residents if they want to provide more free or subsidized affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want an 8000 car parking complex AND a metro stop (that they won’t pay for). Nope. I’m in favor of the stadium but with only the amount of parking that we have at the Nationals stadium (around 1800 I believe). It would be an absolute crime to hog up that land with parking garages for that sit empty except for 8 days/year.

Why would they need a new Metro stop? There’s one there already.

Federal handout for WMATA. Congress will be asked to fund it, they will fund 80%, and the localities will be forced to pick up the remainder.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a new Metro stop is needed. It isn’t.

+1 This was my question and I still don’t understand why you would need one and where it would go. The new stadium isn’t much bigger (10,000 seats?) than RFK, it looks to be situated in the same part of the site, and the one Metro station was always sufficient even for sold out games there - I went to a lot of them. Do they want one halfway between Potomac Avenue and Stadium-Armory, at the entrance to the DC Jail? Or north further into Kingman Park?

I believe a metro stop was proposed years ago for Kingman Park at the corner of Oklahoma and Benning, but the neighborhood opposed. If there, it could meet the bus/streetcar commuters that come down H St/NOMA. I used to live in KP so really wished there was one there, would be nice for the neighborhood if they did add one. Honestly wouldn't even be that hard, they just need to adjust the tunnel slightly under the parking lot/fields, not like they would have to navigate it around existing housing.

Man I bet I know exactly the type of “neighbors” who opposed this.

?? this would have been quite a long time ago. Like before I was born.

Not necessarily. The NOMA Metro station is fairly new.

The Kingman Park metro station was proposed (and vetoed by the KP Civic Association) in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman_Park#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201970s%2C%20the,to%20complete%20the%20Inner%20Loop.

"In the early 1970s, the Washington Metro proposed allowing the planned Orange/Blue Line to come above-ground after it left the proposed Stadium–Armory Station. In addition to the Stadium-Armory stop south of RFK Stadium, Metro also proposed an "Oklahoma Avenue Station" with a large parking lot north of RFK on Oklahoma Avenue NE. Residents on Oklahoma Avenue NE and members of the Kingman Park Civic Association bitterly opposed the parking lot, fearing heavy traffic and streets clogged with non-residents parking illegally in front of their homes. The Civic Association demanded that the station be placed underground, a request Metro opposed because it would cost $40 million.[37] Residents also demanded that Metro cancel the parking lot. Residents began heavily lobbying District and federal officials against the parking lot, and in 1977, Metro finally canceled all plans for an Oklahoma Avenue Station—marking the only time citizen groups in the District of Columbia were able to get an entire station scrapped."

So, yup. The same type of person that opposes parking nowadays.

Black middle class?