Which would you hate more: Commanders leave DC, or Commanders stadium in your neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Commanders stadium in your neighborhood would be the worst. I don't care if we have an NFL Team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A football team and stadium is an amenity for the region, like parks, museums, and libraries. It isn't just about economic benefits. I'd love love to see the Commanders return to DC.

NFL teams aren’t public goods….. I hope that helps…

a local sports team is absolutely part of a public cultural good that a city is well justified in promoting and supporting, just like the arts and recreation. Hope that helps!

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that the current Commanders stadium - located a short 20 minute Metro ride from the RFK campus - doesn't allow the team to serve as a "public cultural good" in its current incarnation?

Watching live football is a nice hobby to have. I also partake. I have other hobbies as well. But it's not reasonable to ask every current and future DC taxpayer to pay for your hobbies, especially when we have a mountain of studies that show that building shiny new football stadiums do very little for the economic and cultural lifeblood of cities like DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if you'd LOVE to have the Commanders local to you because of that sweet sweet economic promise, I guess let us know that too.

Redskins anywhere.

[Anonymous]

The bill still designates a significant portion of the land as green space AND a good portion of the land is a flood zone.

So how is a large football stadium working here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

+1 Look at the Nats Park neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

[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:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

I would think this money has been budgeted for awhile. The stadium was originally set and ready to go to be demolished in 2020 but the pandemic delayed what work had already been booked 5 years ago. Are you upset that they are going to do something with this site? I used to live near it, don't anymore, but I am so happy that the sad, litter ridden, concrete wasteland will finally be dealt with.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

I would think this money has been budgeted for awhile. The stadium was originally set and ready to go to be demolished in 2020 but the pandemic delayed what work had already been booked 5 years ago. Are you upset that they are going to do something with this site? I used to live near it, don't anymore, but I am so happy that the sad, litter ridden, concrete wasteland will finally be dealt with.

DP to add, repeatedly, posts ignore the reality of the site - I will be interested in seeing what they develop for a football stadium concept. Much of the site is a floodzone with the Anacostia river there), and a portion of the site must be dedicated to green space so they cannot build up the entire thing. The entire site, big as it is, cannot be a typical football stadium. I think they are really going to need to beef up public transportation as it cannot be a big parking lot, but people need to get there somehow. But also it needs to tie into the Kingman Island nature area that is right there, Anacostia river trail and park across the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A football team and stadium is an amenity for the region, like parks, museums, and libraries. It isn't just about economic benefits. I'd love love to see the Commanders return to DC.

NFL teams aren’t public goods….. I hope that helps…

a local sports team is absolutely part of a public cultural good that a city is well justified in promoting and supporting, just like the arts and recreation. Hope that helps!

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that the current Commanders stadium - located a short 20 minute Metro ride from the RFK campus - doesn't allow the team to serve as a "public cultural good" in its current incarnation?

Watching live football is a nice hobby to have. I also partake. I have other hobbies as well. But it's not reasonable to ask every current and future DC taxpayer to pay for your hobbies, especially when we have a mountain of studies that show that building shiny new football stadiums do very little for the economic and cultural lifeblood of cities like DC.

obviously … because it is not in DC.

But by your reasoning why should any government support any recreation? so much for the museums, pools, parks …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bill still designates a significant portion of the land as green space AND a good portion of the land is a flood zone.

So how is a large football stadium working here?

I’m curious to see how that is addressed as well. If you look at the current site, the stadium is elevated enough from the river that I don’t think it could get flooded, but maybe I’m wrong. The flood risk would be the portion closer to the river that is part of the parcel. But in all my time here I’ve never seen it flood there.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

I would think this money has been budgeted for awhile. The stadium was originally set and ready to go to be demolished in 2020 but the pandemic delayed what work had already been booked 5 years ago. Are you upset that they are going to do something with this site? I used to live near it, don't anymore, but I am so happy that the sad, litter ridden, concrete wasteland will finally be dealt with.

DP to add, repeatedly, posts ignore the reality of the site - I will be interested in seeing what they develop for a football stadium concept. Much of the site is a floodzone with the Anacostia river there), and a portion of the site must be dedicated to green space so they cannot build up the entire thing. The entire site, big as it is, cannot be a typical football stadium. I think they are really going to need to beef up public transportation as it cannot be a big parking lot, but people need to get there somehow. But also it needs to tie into the Kingman Island nature area that is right there, Anacostia river trail and park across the water.

That flood zone would make an ideal parking lot. You already know what that's going to happen.