RFK Stadium home of the Commanders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will happen if we get a new owner.

I think so too. Billionaire Dan Snyder is radioactive, particularly to the DC government.

I can see DC underwriting some special purpose bonds if it's the right ownership group and the owners agree to redevelopment of the land.

DC can't just underwrite special purpose bonds like that...hence another reason for statehood.

The council already said it’s a nonstarter to use tax dollars for an NFL stadium.

I agree 100%. Complete waste of money for 8-10 football games a year. No, concerts will not add anything. DC already has multiple other concert venues. There are multiple other more attractive options for the RFK site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

And why is that relevant? Soldiers home is in federal land and there is an approved site plan for a mixed use community there. Why would the federal government object to housing at the RFK site? They could just treat it like a BRAC facility and request bids from developers, in coordination with DC.

[Anonymous]

The Commanders are awful, please move the team to St. Louis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

And why is that relevant? Soldiers home is in federal land and there is an approved site plan for a mixed use community there. Why would the federal government object to housing at the RFK site? They could just treat it like a BRAC facility and request bids from developers, in coordination with DC.

There is a stipulation that the RFK land has to be used for sports in some manner. I'm not sure if the new soccer complex there meets that requirement and I don't believe it has to be exclusively used for sports but if the new fields don't meet the requirement whatever goes in there needs to include some sports use or alternately there will need to be some Federal legislation to change the usage.

Having said that I don't think that anyone expects that to be that big of a hurdle but who knows if the Republicans are back in charge and Snyder gets enough support on the DC Council it could make things tricky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

And why is that relevant? Soldiers home is in federal land and there is an approved site plan for a mixed use community there. Why would the federal government object to housing at the RFK site? They could just treat it like a BRAC facility and request bids from developers, in coordination with DC.

There is a stipulation that the RFK land has to be used for sports in some manner. I'm not sure if the new soccer complex there meets that requirement and I don't believe it has to be exclusively used for sports but if the new fields don't meet the requirement whatever goes in there needs to include some sports use or alternately there will need to be some Federal legislation to change the usage.

Having said that I don't think that anyone expects that to be that big of a hurdle but who knows if the Republicans are back in charge and Snyder gets enough support on the DC Council it could make things tricky.

There is no such stipulation, I’m not sure where you get that from. It’s U.S. Park Service land. The only thing needed to turn it into a mixed use community is enabling legislation from Congress, which should not be difficult to obtain. What is preventing that from happening is that Holmes-Norton won’t introduce legislation until there is agreement between the Council and Mayor on what to do with the site. The mayor adamantly wants to build the Dan Synder a taxpayer funded stadium. The council wants anything but a taxpayer funded stadium. That’s it. That’s what is holding up turning acres of Metro accessible land into a new neighborhood of tens of thousands of homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

And why is that relevant? Soldiers home is in federal land and there is an approved site plan for a mixed use community there. Why would the federal government object to housing at the RFK site? They could just treat it like a BRAC facility and request bids from developers, in coordination with DC.

There is a stipulation that the RFK land has to be used for sports in some manner. I'm not sure if the new soccer complex there meets that requirement and I don't believe it has to be exclusively used for sports but if the new fields don't meet the requirement whatever goes in there needs to include some sports use or alternately there will need to be some Federal legislation to change the usage.

Having said that I don't think that anyone expects that to be that big of a hurdle but who knows if the Republicans are back in charge and Snyder gets enough support on the DC Council it could make things tricky.

There is no such stipulation, I’m not sure where you get that from. It’s U.S. Park Service land. The only thing needed to turn it into a mixed use community is enabling legislation from Congress, which should not be difficult to obtain. What is preventing that from happening is that Holmes-Norton won’t introduce legislation until there is agreement between the Council and Mayor on what to do with the site. The mayor adamantly wants to build the Dan Synder a taxpayer funded stadium. The council wants anything but a taxpayer funded stadium. That’s it. That’s what is holding up turning acres of Metro accessible land into a new neighborhood of tens of thousands of homes.

Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/

Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.

Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/

Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.

Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.

This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
RFK was a great stadium for football & concerts and easy to get to!

So what? I want a RFK property for DC residents and not suburban fans.

RFK is on Federal land

And why is that relevant? Soldiers home is in federal land and there is an approved site plan for a mixed use community there. Why would the federal government object to housing at the RFK site? They could just treat it like a BRAC facility and request bids from developers, in coordination with DC.

There is a stipulation that the RFK land has to be used for sports in some manner. I'm not sure if the new soccer complex there meets that requirement and I don't believe it has to be exclusively used for sports but if the new fields don't meet the requirement whatever goes in there needs to include some sports use or alternately there will need to be some Federal legislation to change the usage.

Having said that I don't think that anyone expects that to be that big of a hurdle but who knows if the Republicans are back in charge and Snyder gets enough support on the DC Council it could make things tricky.

There is no such stipulation, I’m not sure where you get that from. It’s U.S. Park Service land. The only thing needed to turn it into a mixed use community is enabling legislation from Congress, which should not be difficult to obtain. What is preventing that from happening is that Holmes-Norton won’t introduce legislation until there is agreement between the Council and Mayor on what to do with the site. The mayor adamantly wants to build the Dan Synder a taxpayer funded stadium. The council wants anything but a taxpayer funded stadium. That’s it. That’s what is holding up turning acres of Metro accessible land into a new neighborhood of tens of thousands of homes.

Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/

Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.

Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.

“A binding lease” with use restrictions just like the McMillan Reservoir right?

[Anonymous]

If the PP’s rumor about the team moving to Richmond were to come to fruition, would that bring Balmer and DC closer together like when the Os had the sole local area team market for MLB?

It’s a shame the RFK stadium is not maximized to its fullest potential. It could be a Part-time youth sports plex.

[Anonymous]

What's good for the city? Stadium or housing? Is it going to be cheap housing adding more density and crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the PP’s rumor about the team moving to Richmond were to come to fruition, would that bring Balmer and DC closer together like when the Os had the sole local area team market for MLB?

It’s a shame the RFK stadium is not maximized to its fullest potential. It could be a Part-time youth sports plex.

The DC TV market has 2.5 million households. The Richmond, VA TV market has 600k households. You do the math. They are not moving to Richmond. They were however on course for a move to NOVA until Dan Snyder screwed it up being a greedy liar. I would expect that a NOVA move will still happen but it will take a little more time to negotiate. I suspect the choice is basically Fairfax or Loudon with subsidy or Dumfries with no subsidy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the PP’s rumor about the team moving to Richmond were to come to fruition, would that bring Balmer and DC closer together like when the Os had the sole local area team market for MLB?

It’s a shame the RFK stadium is not maximized to its fullest potential. It could be a Part-time youth sports plex.

The DC TV market has 2.5 million households. The Richmond, VA TV market has 600k households. You do the math. They are not moving to Richmond. They were however on course for a move to NOVA until Dan Snyder screwed it up being a greedy liar. I would expect that a NOVA move will still happen but it will take a little more time to negotiate. I suspect the choice is basically Fairfax or Loudon with subsidy or Dumfries with no subsidy.

DP. Why do you think they would get a subsidy to build in an area that is more desirable for them but no subsidy to build in a less desirable area? That seems a bit backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:

https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/

Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.

Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.

This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.

They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.

Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's good for the city? Stadium or housing? Is it going to be cheap housing adding more density and crime?

When has cheap housing been built in the city in the last three decades? Hint. Never. It would not be cheap housing.

I mean, I'm all for affordable housing but it's not going to happen. Housing prices go in one direction in this city and that's up.