RFK stadium

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

Run for Council at large and you have my vote on this sanity alone.

why are you pretending this is an original idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

Why are you so obsessed with where people live? It’s a little creepy.

If the Commanders are so profitable, why can’t they issue their own damn bonds? Why put DC taxpayers on the hook and crowd out the ability of the District to finance other, more economically and socially productive, ventures?

DC doesn’t need another stadium and certainly not a football stadium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

Here we have a shill for billionaire owners and millionaire players calling taxpayers “idiots” because they don’t understand that “bonds” are magic money.

Educate yourself, fool: https://envzone.com/the-sport-stadium-debate-why-privately-owned-buildings-built-with-public-money/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

Run for Council at large and you have my vote on this sanity alone.

why are you pretending this is an original idea?

What a weird accusation.

Please list the current at-large councilmembers who would vote against a stadium.

[Anonymous]

DC has used public financing very effectively.

That article is old. They are still talking about the Wizards moving to Alexandria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has used public financing very effectively.

That article is old. They are still talking about the Wizards moving to Alexandria.

DC has used public financing very effectively to transfer wealth from taxpayers to billionaires.

The article is from June 2024. Nothing material to this discussion has changed in the interim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

DC can’t issue bonds when we hit our spending cap and thus current far left council is pushing the limits. I’m an urban planner and I can tell you that a football stadium is not the revenue dream you think it is. Yes, the commanders are insanely profitable..for the OWNERS. To make this viable, DC needs congress to approve local control for the entire 100 acre site along the water front and build a new neighborhood like the capital riverfront. However, this will get litigated into oblivion, no way DC can they this done in under 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

DC can’t issue bonds when we hit our spending cap and thus current far left council is pushing the limits. I’m an urban planner and I can tell you that a football stadium is not the revenue dream you think it is. Yes, the commanders are insanely profitable..for the OWNERS. To make this viable, DC needs congress to approve local control for the entire 100 acre site along the water front and build a new neighborhood like the capital riverfront. However, this will get litigated into oblivion, no way DC can they this done in under 10 years.

I don't think it will get caught up in litigation. I think it will go smoother than you think. It's federal land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

DC can’t issue bonds when we hit our spending cap and thus current far left council is pushing the limits. I’m an urban planner and I can tell you that a football stadium is not the revenue dream you think it is. Yes, the commanders are insanely profitable..for the OWNERS. To make this viable, DC needs congress to approve local control for the entire 100 acre site along the water front and build a new neighborhood like the capital riverfront. However, this will get litigated into oblivion, no way DC can they this done in under 10 years.

I don't think it will get caught up in litigation. I think it will go smoother than you think. It's federal land.

The city won’t be able to develop anything along the waterfront north of C St without decades of litigation. The area between C St and the Congressional Cemetery is fairer game, but you’re never going to get a real waterfront there because Kingman Lake and the Anacostia Railroad Bridge.

Any entertainment district there is going to be as dead outside of game times as the area around FedEx is now and even then is only going to be drawing people away from Navy Yard and the Wharf. DC probably has a couple too many entertainment districts as it stands. The last thing the city needs is to publicly finance another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

cities always pay for at least this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

Why are you so obsessed with where people live? It’s a little creepy.

If the Commanders are so profitable, why can’t they issue their own damn bonds? Why put DC taxpayers on the hook and crowd out the ability of the District to finance other, more economically and socially productive, ventures?

DC doesn’t need another stadium and certainly not a football stadium.

because municipal bonds are less expensive to issue and more efficient for investors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

Where in DC do you live?? Have you reviewed the projected revenue is for the Commanders over the next ten years. Esp when the gambling deals are finalized?? are you kidding me? LOL, you are really questioning whether a top 5 profitable NFL team justifies a stadium. OMG. Look at the projections for 2030. additionally The current stadium is the worst in the league and the owner and team are paying a substantial portion, some citys are so thankful they pay all. Incredible

where is dc do you live?

Huh? It would hard to imagine a worse case for public subsidizing the stadium. I can’t imagine DC paying for new offices for any other super-profitable corporation. If the team wants to move back to DC, they can pay for the construction costs, market rates for the land the stadium and any parking will occupy, whatever infrastructure needs to be built to support the stadium, and the MPD overtime for the games. In fact, they can also pay additional taxes commensurate with the various negative externalities stadium events generate for everyone else in the city, which include traffic jams, pollution, noise, litter, and petty crime. If there is another city whose hard-working residents want to pay for all that so that billionaires can make even more money, then then Commanders can go there.

um, they issue bonds. look into it under "project finance". idiots. Where in the city are you again?

DC can’t issue bonds when we hit our spending cap and thus current far left council is pushing the limits. I’m an urban planner and I can tell you that a football stadium is not the revenue dream you think it is. Yes, the commanders are insanely profitable..for the OWNERS. To make this viable, DC needs congress to approve local control for the entire 100 acre site along the water front and build a new neighborhood like the capital riverfront. However, this will get litigated into oblivion, no way DC can they this done in under 10 years.

I don't think it will get caught up in litigation. I think it will go smoother than you think. It's federal land.

The city won’t be able to develop anything along the waterfront north of C St without decades of litigation. The area between C St and the Congressional Cemetery is fairer game, but you’re never going to get a real waterfront there because Kingman Lake and the Anacostia Railroad Bridge.

Any entertainment district there is going to be as dead outside of game times as the area around FedEx is now and even then is only going to be drawing people away from Navy Yard and the Wharf. DC probably has a couple too many entertainment districts as it stands. The last thing the city needs is to publicly finance another one.

It wouldn't draw people away from the Wharf and Navy Yard...it would extend those riverfront neighborhoods east as the District population continues to expand. That was the vision under Tony Williams, and it will likely be realized in his lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

Run for Council at large and you have my vote on this sanity alone.

The current councilmember could have written this.