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

[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?

Tearing down the stadium will cost about $20 million, and maintaining RFK has been costing about $2 million a year, so demolition is an easy call.

Building a new stadium will cost billions, and I don't personally want to pay for any of that. For what it's worth, I also objected to the city paying for a portion of the D.C. United stadium (the team paid for the stadium but the city paid for site improvements and utilities, etc.), even though I have had D.C. United season tickets for more than 20 years. I just don't believe the public ought to be paying for things that the owners of private professional sports teams could be paying for instead.

The city is probably going to pay for the infrastructure. No matter what they do to the site, the city is going to have to pay for the infrastructure - whether it's housing or retail. At least with a new stadium, the plan is to get the stadium, housing and retail.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Someone has a public school education. Note the use of "work with" which doesn't seem to lay all fiscal burdens at the feet of the Commander's organization.

[Anonymous]

She would not commit to not using public money for the stadium. She also said that only 20 acres will be used for the stadium EXCEPT that didn't include parking. She's a weasel with a Redskins tattoo somewhere.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they will be in DC.

[Anonymous]

they will be in dc

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/sports/washington-commanders/dc-commanders-deal-stadium-rfk-site/3893651/?amp=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they will be in dc

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/sports/washington-commanders/dc-commanders-deal-stadium-rfk-site/3893651/?amp=1

Where is this $850 million coming from?

The Commanders would put up as much as $2.5 billion, and the District would provide up to $850 million

[Anonymous]

So now much is the developer paying for the land they are using for mixed used development? There are more than 100 acres of land there other than the staidum and parking right? How much are they paying DC to develop this 100 acres of land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now much is the developer paying for the land they are using for mixed used development? There are more than 100 acres of land there other than the staidum and parking right? How much are they paying DC to develop this 100 acres of land?

Hopefully $850 million.