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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The opposition falls into a few camps:

1. The "I will not be happy if a single DC dollar gets spent on something I don't like or if a single new parking space is built anywhere in the city" camp.

2. The "I am mad that this deal was only ever considered for a stadium and I somehow believe that if we told the Commanders no then a developer would magically appear and offer to turn a crumbling stadium into my dream development entirely out of their own pockets despite absolutely no indication whatsoever that there is anyone even considering doing that but if we leave this crumbling stadium for another 20 years surely our savior will arrive" camp

3. The "I'm a suburban football fan who's terrified of DC so I hate this" camp.

I don't think it has anything to do with Trump, it's just people who don't understand economics, compromise, or city planning.[/quote]

4. Financially literate DC taxpayers.

It's cute, though, that you think that those who don't understand economics are against public financing of the stadium. You have a lot of reading to do. You might start with these quick primers: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-economists-think-about-public-financing-sports-stadiums
https://journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/[/quote]

I am well versed in the principles brought up in your linked articles, but the fact that you think they apply to this particular situation clearly shows you fall into camp #2.

We're not "financing the new stadium." The DC funding is basically only going to infrastructure to prepare the site for development. That's stuff DC would have to do anyway for any other development, but there is no realistic "other development." The realistic options are "DC pays nothing and the site sits as vacant forever," "DC pays for infrastructure and gets a brand new development in a near-future timeframe," or "Someone maybe, possibly develops the site in the long-term future and DC pays for infrastructure anyway and misses out on possibly decades of growth." [b]That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best. [/b]  [/quote]

Best out of those options, maybe.  But why do we need to lease the site to the Commanders for $1?  Why does DC not get a cut of parking revenue?  Why don't the commanders have to put skin into the game for this?  Why isn't the site being bid out to other developers to see what the potential revenue uses are?

Also, if the site remains empty and that is less costly to DC taxpayers then why isn't that better?  DC tax are very high, if this is such an economic boon for the Commanders then why are they not financing it?

[/quote]

DC taxes are not "very high" as you claim. I've lived in DC for 35 years. I'm happy they are rebuilding the stadium in the city. I'm also fine with DC funds going to pay for the infrastructure. [/quote]

Are you happy that the Commanders are being rented the land for $1/year?  Are you happy that the ticket sales will not be taxed?  Are you happy that DC is building parking lots but not seeing any revenue from them?

I don't see how any of this is remotely a "deal" for DC.  If part of the deal is the Commanders coming back to DC, then what is DC getting in return?  Sure, use taxpayer funds to revitalize the stadium but then charge market rent to anyone (including the Commanders) who wants to use it.  Tax concessions and ticket sales and add it to the general coffer.  Charge for parking on lots owned by the city and that money goes to the city. [/quote]

I'm fine with it b/c the land doesn't belong to DC. It belongs the federal government. I'm tired of seeing a stadium that is falling down. I want the land used for something. There are many things that I hate that DC does, but this is not one of them.[/quote]

DC has a 99 year lease on the stadium campus. That’s the next best thing to ownership.

There is absolutely nothing that stops DC from making money from the land - or opening it up to the public - rather than spending money to develop the land and then giving it away for $1 while ensuring we get absolutely nothing back in taxes.

The deal makes no financial sense, but the mayor and the council will get a nice suite and Commanders fans will be saved the schlep to Landover, so I guess that makes it worthwhile.[/quote]

The RFK site is nearly 200 acres, many times the size of even the largest recent developments. The Wharf, for instance, was only 28 acres and cost nearly $4 billion to develop, and that happened when interest rates were near zero and the sky seemed to be the limit for DC.

In 2025 when the Prime Rate is 7.5% and DC is looking down the barrel of a gun held by its own federal government what possible developer is going to volunteer to fund a project more than 5 times bigger than The Wharf with no DC subsidies? It seems incredibly foolish to hold out hoping for a perfect unicorn when we've got a pretty good horse in the stable already. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics