Anonymous wrote: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.

4. Federal funds will be used to build anything related to this stadium. That includes improving a lot or building foundations.

Anonymous wrote: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.

If trump is for this stadium then I AM AGAINST IT!

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.

This thread is confusing.

The deal is very popular with DC residents, including residents in the ward where it will be located. I get there are some vocal opponents to it, but they are people who would oppose any stadium deal at all -- people on CH who don't want the traffic, people who don't care about football and don't think any public money should ever be spent on a football stadium. Which is fine, but it's a minority of the city.

I dislike Bowser but think this is a decent deal. I love football but have never been a Commanders fan due to history with Snyder, but this might pull me around. I also live in an adjacent neighborhood and am excited about the idea of the RFK site finally being redeveloped and think the money this will bring to the neighborhood can only be a good thing. I'm also pretty thrilled about the proposed Sportsplex and think that's an excellent use of the city funds to help develop the site, and am happy they plan to not only keep the Fields at RFK but expand it. That area is easily reachable for me via the streetcar, so it feels like a variety of city investments coming together to actually improve quality of life for residents in NE/SE. Great.

So I'm confused as to why people think this deal will be the end of Home Rule. Presumably the council will eventually approve it because people want it, and no need for Trump or Congress to get involved. Trump likes the deal, and people in DC like the deal, so it seems like it will happen.

Are people proposing that we oppose the deal because Trump likes it? That makes no sense. I just like the deal because it seems good and reflects a massive economic investment in the city at a time when the city needs it, in a part of the city that could especially benefit from it. I don't care what Trump thinks of it, Trump sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how it will play out - Council will delay and delay the vote and/or not accept this ridiculous offer, Congress/Trump will step in, we end up with the stupid stadium and lose home rule.

Thanks Muriel!!

The Senate vote that handed the RFK campus back to DC expressly forbids federal funding of the stadium.

And it seems unlikely that the House will give DC its $100 million back as long as the mayor is touting new and mind-bogglingly stupid ways of spending any funds that she may receive.

A common refrain among the astroturfers is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Which is a fine principle, except that this deal is not politically infeasible but also is going to be used as justification for keeping DC poorer for every day that it is around.

The House mandated the stadium, and it isn't 100 million, it is 1.1 billion they are holding up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how it will play out - Council will delay and delay the vote and/or not accept this ridiculous offer, Congress/Trump will step in, we end up with the stupid stadium and lose home rule.

Thanks Muriel!!

The Senate vote that handed the RFK campus back to DC expressly forbids federal funding of the stadium.

And it seems unlikely that the House will give DC its $100 million back as long as the mayor is touting new and mind-bogglingly stupid ways of spending any funds that she may receive.

A common refrain among the astroturfers is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Which is a fine principle, except that this deal is not politically infeasible but also is going to be used as justification for keeping DC poorer for every day that it is around.

Is federal funding of the "infrastructure" improvements forbidden?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now switch back to redskins

Don't you get it? That name is cursed. Two decades without a playoff win, and then they change the name and massive success within a year.

Also cursed, though: Dan Snyder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now switch back to redskins

Don't you get it? That name is cursed. Two decades without a playoff win, and then they change the name and massive success within a year.

They dropped Redskins in 2020 and adopted Commanders in 2022, so not within a year. The success is the new owner/general manager/coach and the players they brought in, most notably Daniels, not the new name (which is bad IMO but I don’t want them to go back to the Redskins either.) Now that they’ve had the success with the new name they’re not changing it. The window was when Harris first closed on the deal to buy the team before the next season started.

Anonymous wrote:TRUMP IS NOW IN FAVOR OF BUILDING THIS

Will he pay for it?

Anonymous wrote:Now switch back to redskins

Don't you get it? That name is cursed. Two decades without a playoff win, and then they change the name and massive success within a year.

Anonymous wrote:Now switch back to redskins

The team already said this isn’t happening.

I just saw the video of Bowser standing behind Trump as Trump discusses deporting people and rebuilding Alcatraz. Priceless.

TRUMP IS NOW IN FAVOR OF BUILDING THIS

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how it will play out - Council will delay and delay the vote and/or not accept this ridiculous offer, Congress/Trump will step in, we end up with the stupid stadium and lose home rule.

Thanks Muriel!!

The Senate vote that handed the RFK campus back to DC expressly forbids federal funding of the stadium.

And it seems unlikely that the House will give DC its $100 million back as long as the mayor is touting new and mind-bogglingly stupid ways of spending any funds that she may receive.

A common refrain among the astroturfers is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Which is a fine principle, except that this deal is not politically infeasible but also is going to be used as justification for keeping DC poorer for every day that it is around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of bowser, but the NFL was always going to build a new stadium here. Get over it. It is what the city wants.

I live in the city and it's what I want. It's what all of my neighbors want. If you bought a house by RFK, get over it. You should have known.

I live in the city, but not near RFK. Not sure those of us who don't live in the neighborhood should be telling the people who do live there to just get over it.

If you are paying for it, you might want to have some input.

Yes, my input has already been ignored, I don’t want the stadium and don’t want to pay for it.

But the stadium will pay for itself! Unlike every other stadium in existence. At least the Potomac Yard debacle had a chance to make a profit with the associated entertainment district and gambling. None of that appears to be proposed here. You are getting a subsidized stadium with adjacent subsidized housing.

Not to mention that the Commanders will pay no tax - corporate, property, or sales - to the District. Sales taxes will not be assessed on parking at the venue and sales taxes on everything else go right back into maintaining the stadium.

The one-sided nature of Bowser’s deal is truly remarkable. We expected something bad, but she truly outdid herself on this one.