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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That site is truly terrible for driving. Capitol Hill? No way.

Right? I’m laughing at how this is pitched as “centrally located.” Centrally located to whom? It’s simply the only mega site available in the District and the mayor is a billionaire lapdog eager to give them whatever they want.

It's right off 295 and it's only about 15 blocks off from being in the literal dead center of DC, which is the geographic and economic center of the region. How is it anything but centrally located?

Let me guess, you live in Upper NW or NOVA and think the world revolves around people scared to go east of Eastern Market?

Are you a Commanders’ PR bot or some worthless hack in the mayor’s office and this is how you spend your “work” day?

Not that PP, but it literally was their prior location, also the location for the Nats prior to the current stadium, and has hosted many concerts, large events over the years. To say it's some crazy location choice is quite odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That site is truly terrible for driving. Capitol Hill? No way.

Right? I’m laughing at how this is pitched as “centrally located.” Centrally located to whom? It’s simply the only mega site available in the District and the mayor is a billionaire lapdog eager to give them whatever they want.

It's right off 295 and it's only about 15 blocks off from being in the literal dead center of DC, which is the geographic and economic center of the region. How is it anything but centrally located?

Let me guess, you live in Upper NW or NOVA and think the world revolves around people scared to go east of Eastern Market?

Are you a Commanders’ PR bot or some worthless hack in the mayor’s office and this is how you spend your “work” day?

Not that PP, but it literally was their prior location, also the location for the Nats prior to the current stadium, and has hosted many concerts, large events over the years. To say it's some crazy location choice is quite odd.

*And DC United as well before their current stadium

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That site is truly terrible for driving. Capitol Hill? No way.

Right? I’m laughing at how this is pitched as “centrally located.” Centrally located to whom? It’s simply the only mega site available in the District and the mayor is a billionaire lapdog eager to give them whatever they want.

It's right off 295 and it's only about 15 blocks off from being in the literal dead center of DC, which is the geographic and economic center of the region. How is it anything but centrally located?

Let me guess, you live in Upper NW or NOVA and think the world revolves around people scared to go east of Eastern Market?

Are you a Commanders’ PR bot or some worthless hack in the mayor’s office and this is how you spend your “work” day?

Not that PP, but it literally was their prior location, also the location for the Nats prior to the current stadium, and has hosted many concerts, large events over the years. To say it's some crazy location choice is quite odd.

My DH didn't have a problem getting there for the big 9/11 concert in 2001, so I think the PP can handle it, especially if they beef up public transportation.

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s a third of the parking that FedEx has.

You won't need as much parking b/c not as many people will need to drive to get there.

Precisely.
- PP

[Anonymous]

The RFK stadium site has been a waste of space for decades now. Looks like the football ownership will pony up $2.7 billion to build the new stadium. DC will pay the rest. I think it's ok. I have no faith in the DC government's ability to spend money wisely, but at least the stadium will be a destination that brings in revenue. With concerts and other non-football sports like final four and major soccer games it should be used fairly frequently. This is the capital of the United States and Dan Snyder is gone. There should be a decent stadium here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're talking about a billion dollars. That's something like $1,400 for every person, including children, in DC. That amount of money could do so much more. They will argue it will promote economic development. Sure, any huge investment will, but spending that money on housing and schools and parks and stores will result in WAY more economic development than a football stadium that's used 8 days a year.

They’re projecting 200 events per year (which is ridiculous) but it’s going to be way more than 8.

[Anonymous]

Imagine what could be if that $3B dollars was instead distributed equally among all residents of DC living at or under the poverty line. Imagine what a force to change the trajectory of lives that could be.

What a difference that could make, instead of a football team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're talking about a billion dollars. That's something like $1,400 for every person, including children, in DC. That amount of money could do so much more. They will argue it will promote economic development. Sure, any huge investment will, but spending that money on housing and schools and parks and stores will result in WAY more economic development than a football stadium that's used 8 days a year.

They’re projecting 200 events per year (which is ridiculous) but it’s going to be way more than 8.

Assuming you ignore maintenance and depreciation. Stadiums don't go up in value.

[Anonymous]

Every single independent analysis (that is, not done by consultants paid to come up with the "right" answer) finds that it's a boondoggle.

Taxpayers Shoulder a Heavy Burden for Sports Stadium Subsidies
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/sports-stadium-subsidies-taxpayers/

Team owners looking to build or revamp big league sports stadiums often seek public funds in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But research conducted over decades indicates these investments almost never lead to massive economic gains for host cities.
https://journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/

In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

They claim that stadium subsidies are justified because they provide economic benefits to the communities where they’re built. But in reality, stadiums are terrible economic development tools.
https://economicaccountability.org/get-informed/stadium-subsidies/

The idea that sports is a catalyst for economic development just doesn’t hold water.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/page-one-economics/2017/05/01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums

But do the economic benefits generated by these facilities—via increased tourism, for example—justify the costs to the public? Chicago Booth’s Initiative on Global Markets put that question to its US Economic Experts Panel. Fifty-seven percent of the panel agreed that the costs to taxpayers are likely to outweigh benefits, while only 2 percent disagreed—though several panelists noted that some contributions of local sports teams are difficult to quantify.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-economists-think-about-public-financing-sports-stadiums

[Anonymous]

I bet this forum is full of people who think housing operated by the city should be on this land instead. News check: you need private development and people with a vested interest in keep this area maintained and thriving.

Who else is going to come in and develop this area properly? If not the commanders it will turn into the socialist council having developers building "low income housing" that then gets handed off and falls into a state of disrepair.

Grocery stores and retail don't just appear because the government directs stores to appear somewhere. There needs to be a private entity responding to demand. With the state of the city's economy I don't see anyone stepping up to properly develop this area but the Commanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine what could be if that $3B dollars was instead distributed equally among all residents of DC living at or under the poverty line. Imagine what a force to change the trajectory of lives that could be.

What a difference that could make, instead of a football team.

The city investment will be far short of a $1bn. This city spends more per capita than any city in the US. The DC government is epic at wasting money on failed programs. I'll say no to more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The RFK stadium site has been a waste of space for decades now. Looks like the football ownership will pony up $2.7 billion to build the new stadium. DC will pay the rest. I think it's ok. I have no faith in the DC government's ability to spend money wisely, but at least the stadium will be a destination that brings in revenue. With concerts and other non-football sports like final four and major soccer games it should be used fairly frequently. This is the capital of the United States and Dan Snyder is gone. There should be a decent stadium here.

Exactly. All the people complaining are the same ones who got DC government to double it's budget in the last 10 years on failed programs that showed no results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're talking about a billion dollars. That's something like $1,400 for every person, including children, in DC. That amount of money could do so much more. They will argue it will promote economic development. Sure, any huge investment will, but spending that money on housing and schools and parks and stores will result in WAY more economic development than a football stadium that's used 8 days a year.

They’re projecting 200 events per year (which is ridiculous) but it’s going to be way more than 8.

Good God, what a bootlicking hack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the team wants to pay for every single cent involved in this project, fine. If the city has to put up any money for "infrastructure improvements," it's an outrage given our overall financial situation at the moment. I grew up as a fan of the team and I'm glad they're back to winning ways, but public money doesn't need to subsidize the NFL.

The city would need to pay for infrastructure improvements whether it is a stadium or 20 square blocks of new residential and retail. So either way, the city is spending that money.

For me, I am more interested in a compact, urban stadium with minimal parking and wrapped in mixed use and residential, so it can blend in more with the surrounding neighborhoods and not be an island.

Sure, they'd have to for residential and retail, but residential and retail would not be owned or operated by billionaire NFL franchisees. So as far as I'm concerned, the team can pay its own way for all of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That site is truly terrible for driving. Capitol Hill? No way.

Right? I’m laughing at how this is pitched as “centrally located.” Centrally located to whom? It’s simply the only mega site available in the District and the mayor is a billionaire lapdog eager to give them whatever they want.

People definitely used to drive to RFK for NFL games, it's perfectly centrally located within the region. (Source: I attended a lot of games at RFK in the 1980s and 1990s, and we often drove there.)