Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please stop making stuff up and passing it off as fact. The most recent poll, conducted by the Washington Post last year, found that public opinion is split - 47% of DC residents support using city funds for a stadium and 46% are against it. But it's stupid anyway to reduce complex stadium financing schemes down to basic questions. What would be a meaningful exercise is to have a representative sample of DC residents study the term sheet and relevant studies and then give their opinion. Which is kinda why we have elected representatives to decide these issues for us . . .

There are good things that are included in the proposal, no doubt. The Sportsplex and the expansions of The Fields are good, as is the general plan to develop the area.

What is not good is the details, what DC will be paying for, and what DC will get back in terms of revenue (almost nothing). I encourage you (and others who are supportive of the deal based on what they heard at the press conference) to read this: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2025/04/30/22661/commanders-stadium-plan-is-somehow-even-worse-for-dc-taxpayers-than-we-thought/ and this: https://ggwash.org/view/99327/a-commanders-stadium-at-rfk-will-actually-cost-taxpayers-6-billion

In sum, the deal has DC stuck with funding $500 million for what is essentially stadium construction and another $350 million for parking garages, but yet will not be able to recoup any revenue on property taxes (since the stadium, which DC will own, will be leased to the Commanders for $1) or taxes on sales at the stadium (which go to a fund for maintaining the stadium) or on parking (which are expressly exempt from sales taxes).

Meanwhile, SoFi stadium in LA was built with no public money.

I've been to a few events at FedEx and I hate it with a passion. I would love to have the option to see large events closer to my home and in a much better stadium. But I'm also a DC taxpayer and intend to live in the city for the foreseeable future.

Even if the city were flush with cash, I'd probably have issues with using our tax dollars to make billionaires richer, but it's straight up madness for the Bowser administration to be contemplating a deal as bad as this in the current economic environment. DC is bleeding tax revenue, losing jobs (and probably population), has a maxed-out capital budget, just took a hit to its bond rating, and will face much higher financing costs if bond yields continue to rise.

We all want nice things, but giving away money we don't have and won't get back just as we are about to lose our lunch is idiocy.

A newly released WaPo poll finds 55 percent of DC residents now favor the plan and only 39 percent oppose. Sorry this goes against your little narrative there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/05/08/rfk-stadium-commanders-financing-poll/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

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.

Bingo. Anyone claiming that this is a good deal for DC doesn't know anything about it beyond what was laid out in the Commanders marketing pitch.

Plus this is going to be trumps Nazi stadium. Dont fall for it!

Assuming we're still planning on following the Constitution, Trump will have been out of office for two years before the stadium opens (slated for 2030, presumably the fall; his term expires at noon on Jan. 20, 2029). So "it'll be Trump's Nazi stadium!" is probably not the most compelling argument against the project that's out there. I dislike Trump and also dislike subsidizing billionaire sports owners, but let's not get carried away.

Trump already has 2028 merch for sale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

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.

Bingo. Anyone claiming that this is a good deal for DC doesn't know anything about it beyond what was laid out in the Commanders marketing pitch.

Plus this is going to be trumps Nazi stadium. Dont fall for it!

Assuming we're still planning on following the Constitution, Trump will have been out of office for two years before the stadium opens (slated for 2030, presumably the fall; his term expires at noon on Jan. 20, 2029). So "it'll be Trump's Nazi stadium!" is probably not the most compelling argument against the project that's out there. I dislike Trump and also dislike subsidizing billionaire sports owners, but let's not get carried away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

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.

Bingo. Anyone claiming that this is a good deal for DC doesn't know anything about it beyond what was laid out in the Commanders marketing pitch.

Plus this is going to be trumps Nazi stadium. Dont fall for it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

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.

Bingo. Anyone claiming that this is a good deal for DC doesn't know anything about it beyond what was laid out in the Commanders marketing pitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

You are clearly not because if you were, you wouldn't be parroting Commanders talking points. If we honestly want to determine whether there are other "realistic options", there is a time-tested way of doing that - it's called a request for proposals. I'm not aware of one being issued, but please correct me if I have that wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

It's not just going to pay for the infrastructure. A lot of the $500 million is going towards works that integral to the stadium itself. And another $350 million is going to parking garages for the stadium. The argument that is being disseminated far and wide that these are things DC would have to spend money on anyway - regardless of how the site was developed - is nothing short of nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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/

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." That's it there are no other realistic options and of those the Stadium deal is clearly the best.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm a D.C. resident, though I live in upper NW, not near the RFK site. I oppose any public spending on stadiums in any form, because I think the people who own sports teams can afford to pay for the full cost of their stadiums — not just the building, but also the infrastructure and the land and the improvements and ancillary development. I felt the same way about the Nats stadium and the D.C. United stadium, even though I have D.C. United season tickets, which would likely have been more expensive (possibly expensive enough that I wouldn't have gotten the tickets) if the project had been funded the way I wanted it to.

I have been around long enough to know that cities, and sports teams/leagues, will never actually proceed the way I want them to, but understanding that I'm not going to get what I want doesn't make me change my underlying belief that billionaires don't need our tax dollars.

I'm glad to see the RFK site will be used productively, and especially glad that the Fields at RFK (where my kids often play games) will be expanded. But is there any reason Josh Harris can't pick up the tab for that, too? He just doesn't want to.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The House didn't mandate the stadium, they authorized the transfer of control of the land.

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. 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/

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please stop making stuff up and passing it off as fact. The most recent poll, conducted by the Washington Post last year, found that public opinion is split - 47% of DC residents support using city funds for a stadium and 46% are against it. But it's stupid anyway to reduce complex stadium financing schemes down to basic questions. What would be a meaningful exercise is to have a representative sample of DC residents study the term sheet and relevant studies and then give their opinion. Which is kinda why we have elected representatives to decide these issues for us . . .

There are good things that are included in the proposal, no doubt. The Sportsplex and the expansions of The Fields are good, as is the general plan to develop the area.

What is not good is the details, what DC will be paying for, and what DC will get back in terms of revenue (almost nothing). I encourage you (and others who are supportive of the deal based on what they heard at the press conference) to read this: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2025/04/30/22661/commanders-stadium-plan-is-somehow-even-worse-for-dc-taxpayers-than-we-thought/ and this: https://ggwash.org/view/99327/a-commanders-stadium-at-rfk-will-actually-cost-taxpayers-6-billion

In sum, the deal has DC stuck with funding $500 million for what is essentially stadium construction and another $350 million for parking garages, but yet will not be able to recoup any revenue on property taxes (since the stadium, which DC will own, will be leased to the Commanders for $1) or taxes on sales at the stadium (which go to a fund for maintaining the stadium) or on parking (which are expressly exempt from sales taxes).

Meanwhile, SoFi stadium in LA was built with no public money.

I've been to a few events at FedEx and I hate it with a passion. I would love to have the option to see large events closer to my home and in a much better stadium. But I'm also a DC taxpayer and intend to live in the city for the foreseeable future.

Even if the city were flush with cash, I'd probably have issues with using our tax dollars to make billionaires richer, but it's straight up madness for the Bowser administration to be contemplating a deal as bad as this in the current economic environment. DC is bleeding tax revenue, losing jobs (and probably population), has a maxed-out capital budget, just took a hit to its bond rating, and will face much higher financing costs if bond yields continue to rise.

We all want nice things, but giving away money we don't have and won't get back just as we are about to lose our lunch is idiocy.