Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

The argument that DC taxpayers should pay for a stadium so that we can get a Taylor Swift concert every five years or a Super Bowl every twenty years is just painful to read.

No sane person would want such massive events to take place within the city. FedEx is a great location for them to occur.

But think of all the retail they could build at the site. Retail that no one would be able to visit since it doesn't have metro or parking. What a bargain for any entrepreneur.

Seriously? Of course it has metro.

RFK would be ideal

Anonymous wrote:
It's going to be a small stadium. Pay attention to the details of the bill.

Please cite the details from the bill that you believe ensure a "small" stadium. Like the GGW article, this is what I am concerned about, that the NFL and the Commies will insist on a modern sized stadium with all its assorted parking at RFK. I would support a new stadium of around 50k with a progressive approach to parking (as in much less than currently available at Landover). I don't think Harris and the NFL will accept this and there's no way Mafioso Muriel will do anything to tell the Commies and the NFL that they can't have exactly what they want.

Anonymous wrote:
Super Bowl? They won't play the Super Bowl in D.C. -- weather is too unpredictable in February.

They will if it's a domed stadium. But it will only be one, not "Super Bowls" that stadium proponents like to claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

It's going to be a small stadium. Pay attention to the details of the bill.

Nah, I read it and the GGW article. My guess is that they dig down so half the stadium is sunken below street level. They will be forced to limit the parking and really on expensive parking garages.

NFL will dump their parking requirement for the Super Bowl. It's so anachronistic.

Super Bowl? They won't play the Super Bowl in D.C. -- weather is too unpredictable in February.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

Tearing down the stadium will cost about $20 million, and maintaining RFK has been costing about $2 million a year, so demolition is an easy call.

Building a new stadium will cost billions, and I don't personally want to pay for any of that. For what it's worth, I also objected to the city paying for a portion of the D.C. United stadium (the team paid for the stadium but the city paid for site improvements and utilities, etc.), even though I have had D.C. United season tickets for more than 20 years. I just don't believe the public ought to be paying for things that the owners of private professional sports teams could be paying for instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

Wonderful! The NFL can pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

The argument that DC taxpayers should pay for a stadium so that we can get a Taylor Swift concert every five years or a Super Bowl every twenty years is just painful to read.

No sane person would want such massive events to take place within the city. FedEx is a great location for them to occur.

But think of all the retail they could build at the site. Retail that no one would be able to visit since it doesn't have metro or parking. What a bargain for any entrepreneur.

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

The argument that DC taxpayers should pay for a stadium so that we can get a Taylor Swift concert every five years or a Super Bowl every twenty years is just painful to read.

No sane person would want such massive events to take place within the city. FedEx is a great location for them to occur.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A football team and stadium is an amenity for the region, like parks, museums, and libraries. It isn't just about economic benefits. I'd love love to see the Commanders return to DC.

NFL teams aren’t public goods….. I hope that helps…

a local sports team is absolutely part of a public cultural good that a city is well justified in promoting and supporting, just like the arts and recreation. Hope that helps!

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that the current Commanders stadium - located a short 20 minute Metro ride from the RFK campus - doesn't allow the team to serve as a "public cultural good" in its current incarnation?

Watching live football is a nice hobby to have. I also partake. I have other hobbies as well. But it's not reasonable to ask every current and future DC taxpayer to pay for your hobbies, especially when we have a mountain of studies that show that building shiny new football stadiums do very little for the economic and cultural lifeblood of cities like DC.

obviously … because it is not in DC.

But by your reasoning why should any government support any recreation? so much for the museums, pools, parks …

This is a good question and one that is well answered in most introductory economics classes.

I'll spare you the economics lecture here, but the argument for public funding of things like museums, pools, parks and other forms of public facilities and services hinges on the argument that these facilities generate benefits for the general public - improved public health, activities for otherwise idle teenagers, preservation of history - that extend beyond those who directly use the facilities.

Large stadiums generally do not generate benefits for the general public over and above those who attend - and can pay for - events that are held there. Unlike museums, pools, and parks, stadiums generate revenue that benefits extremely wealthy people who are perfectly capable of financing the construction of the stadium and associated infrastructure.

There is really no good reason why the taxpayers of DC should even partially finance a stadium, especially when there is already a very good stadium just 20 minutes down the blue and orange lines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

It's going to be a small stadium. Pay attention to the details of the bill.

Nah, I read it and the GGW article. My guess is that they dig down so half the stadium is sunken below street level. They will be forced to limit the parking and really on expensive parking garages.

NFL will dump their parking requirement for the Super Bowl. It's so anachronistic.

Anonymous wrote:This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

It's going to be a small stadium. Pay attention to the details of the bill.

This will allow stadium-level music acts to come through DC properly. Taylor Swift reportedly skipped DC because they were not happy with the condition of FedEx Field or the location.

This is going to be huge for DC. I predict a lot more global music tours (TS, Beyonce, Coldplay, etc) plus use for large music festivals. DC can potentially host the Super Bowl.

I'm curious if they will add a hotel to the property. Frankly, I think they end up making parking quite limited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

I would think this money has been budgeted for awhile. The stadium was originally set and ready to go to be demolished in 2020 but the pandemic delayed what work had already been booked 5 years ago. Are you upset that they are going to do something with this site? I used to live near it, don't anymore, but I am so happy that the sad, litter ridden, concrete wasteland will finally be dealt with.

DP to add, repeatedly, posts ignore the reality of the site - I will be interested in seeing what they develop for a football stadium concept. Much of the site is a floodzone with the Anacostia river there), and a portion of the site must be dedicated to green space so they cannot build up the entire thing. The entire site, big as it is, cannot be a typical football stadium. I think they are really going to need to beef up public transportation as it cannot be a big parking lot, but people need to get there somehow. But also it needs to tie into the Kingman Island nature area that is right there, Anacostia river trail and park across the water.

That flood zone would make an ideal parking lot. You already know what that's going to happen.

I believe the bill would probit that in that particular area. Only something over half the site can actually be developed, per the bill.

https://ggwash.org/view/98029/the-size-of-the-rfk-site-will-force-the-district-to-pick-and-choose-what-goes-there

DP to add, technically the federal government will still own the land, right? So I think that people cannot live on that land full time, cannot be apartment buildings. Maybe retail?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's DC's justification for this stadium?

That it will make tons of money for the city.

It definitely will not, stadiums almost never make money for cities.

Then how city councils and administrators make the business case for it?

The business case is all of the development that will happen as a part of the stadium. Also, the NFL wants the stadium in DC. That's why the bill got passed as a standalone.

If you moved around RFK then you should have assumed that a stadium was going to be there.

Just like all the development that happened around FedEx?

Please.

Study after study shows that large stadiums are an absolute boondoggle. And DC has no money to pay for one anyway.

The odds of the stadium being built in the next 5 years are not great.

The MD stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The odds are great b/c the NFL wants it in DC.

The NFL is valued at $190 billion. If they want a team in DC, they can afford to pay fair market value for the land and pay for all of the infrastructure upgrades that will be necessary to accommodate the influx of fans and stadium employees. But that's not how this ever happens.

No one is paying for the land. It was transferred. The bill allows DC to put additional things on the land including housing and retail. They couldn't do that before.

Where did the money come from to tear down the existing stadium?

The stadium is crumbling. The city has been planning to demolish it for a while so that is nothing new. For liability reasons alone, the city had to deal with it.

That still doesn't explain where the money came from in cash-strapped DC.

I would think this money has been budgeted for awhile. The stadium was originally set and ready to go to be demolished in 2020 but the pandemic delayed what work had already been booked 5 years ago. Are you upset that they are going to do something with this site? I used to live near it, don't anymore, but I am so happy that the sad, litter ridden, concrete wasteland will finally be dealt with.

DP to add, repeatedly, posts ignore the reality of the site - I will be interested in seeing what they develop for a football stadium concept. Much of the site is a floodzone with the Anacostia river there), and a portion of the site must be dedicated to green space so they cannot build up the entire thing. The entire site, big as it is, cannot be a typical football stadium. I think they are really going to need to beef up public transportation as it cannot be a big parking lot, but people need to get there somehow. But also it needs to tie into the Kingman Island nature area that is right there, Anacostia river trail and park across the water.

That flood zone would make an ideal parking lot. You already know what that's going to happen.

I believe the bill would probit that in that particular area. Only something over half the site can actually be developed, per the bill.

https://ggwash.org/view/98029/the-size-of-the-rfk-site-will-force-the-district-to-pick-and-choose-what-goes-there