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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP re the financing. I’d also hate to see the soccer fields and playground area demolished. Lots of groups use those fields. And we have so few outdoor spaces like this as it is.

From the Post article: “an expanded recreation district, where the District plans to build an $89 million SportsPlex next to the Fields at RFK.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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]

This has turned every sports bro into an economist and GGW into a bunch of NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has turned every sports bro into an economist and GGW into a bunch of NIMBYs.

let me guess...they say "NeEdS mOrE hOuSiNg", while ignoring the fact that a whole neighborhood is going to be built that was never going to exist otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has turned every sports bro into an economist and GGW into a bunch of NIMBYs.

let me guess...they say "NeEdS mOrE hOuSiNg", while ignoring the fact that a whole neighborhood is going to be built that was never going to exist otherwise

Nobody's opposing a new neighborhood. The question is whether there will be a huge stadium and even larger parking lot displacing thousands of additional units of housing that could be built in that neighborhood. Developers will be eager to build either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please read up on the difference between operational and capital spending.

Money is money.

Not when you are talking about capital budgets versus operational funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has turned every sports bro into an economist and GGW into a bunch of NIMBYs.

let me guess...they say "NeEdS mOrE hOuSiNg", while ignoring the fact that a whole neighborhood is going to be built that was never going to exist otherwise

Nobody's opposing a new neighborhood. The question is whether there will be a huge stadium and even larger parking lot displacing thousands of additional units of housing that could be built in that neighborhood. Developers will be eager to build either way.

Thanks for literally proving my point. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

The reason it works for DC is because most of the people coming to games are from out of the city, so it is a transfer of entertainment dollars from VA and MD to DC. It works for the Nats and Capital One (MCI Center/Verizon Center, whatever) because between them, it is about 300 events a year. This stadium would only be a financial success if there are enough concerts and other events located there, in addition to NFL football - so how many international soccer, concerts, NCAA tournament etc can be scheduled annually? If it isn't more than 20-30 over and above the football, then it will be a boondoggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With the exception of Congressional interference, the city has a AAA bond rating. So wall street disagrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

The reason it works for DC is because most of the people coming to games are from out of the city, so it is a transfer of entertainment dollars from VA and MD to DC. It works for the Nats and Capital One (MCI Center/Verizon Center, whatever) because between them, it is about 300 events a year. This stadium would only be a financial success if there are enough concerts and other events located there, in addition to NFL football - so how many international soccer, concerts, NCAA tournament etc can be scheduled annually? If it isn't more than 20-30 over and above the football, then it will be a boondoggle.

Yep. Also, none of the old studies about a stadium's ROI is referencing the new style of stadium development: private spending to build not only a stadium but a some public spending for a district around it that also provides some economic return (to both the city and the team). Simply put, developing the area around the stadium (either for residential, or commercial/entertainment) is the only way these days to get a project of this size off the ground (for both political and economic reasons).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

This is juked / fake data because of the alleged “$4 billion” total cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please read up on the difference between operational and capital spending.

Money is money.

Not when you are talking about capital budgets versus operational funds.

DP. The capital budget is generally funded by bonds. The operating budget is used to pay for debt service on the bonds unless they’re special tax bonds in which case they have a dedicated revenue stream associated with them. Even for special tax bonds, DC could choose to obligate that revenue stream to something else.

Short version:
General obligation bonds are paid for using general tax revenue, leaving less tax revenue available for operating expenses.

Special tax bonds are tied to a specific revenue stream but the council decides how the proceeds of the bond auction may be spent.

Even shorter version:
Money is money.

[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.

You failed economics, didn’t you?

[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.

Why would they need a new Metro stop? There’s one there already.

Federal handout for WMATA. Congress will be asked to fund it, they will fund 80%, and the localities will be forced to pick up the remainder.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a new Metro stop is needed. It isn’t.