Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL most of Congress wants to see games when their home team is in town.
This is a done deal.
as a Hill East resident, I’m not against this! I think there’s still plenty of room for open space/fields as long as they aren’t allowed to take up all the space with parking. everyone can metro or take special buses down E Cap.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL most of Congress wants to see games when their home team is in town.
This is a done deal.
as a Hill East resident, I’m not against this! I think there’s still plenty of room for open space/fields as long as they aren’t allowed to take up all the space with parking. everyone can metro or take special buses down E Cap.
Anonymous wrote:LOL most of Congress wants to see games when their home team is in town.
This is a done deal.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/
Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.
Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.
This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.
They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.
Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.
The portion in the flood zone is where the built the athletic fields.
Eh, they only put fields and playground on a portion of the flood plane, but much/most of the flood plane area is still yet untouched. It's just the portion of the land where the stadium itself sits that isn't a flood plane, but the rest of it is on both the north and south sides of the stadium and then all back to the river. There was supposed to be one of those multi purpose open air markets put in near the soccer practice field on Oklahoma Ave and Events DC was collecting RFPs, but that fell by the wayside with the pandemic and who knows if that will ever happen.
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/District%20of%20Columbia%20Floodplain%20Map%2042x50%2009112018.pdf
DP, but that flood plain map is from 2018 and one has to wonder how much of that would change in the next 20 years with the state of the climate.
If they're spending hundreds of millions or billions on a redevelopment it would be trivial to include flood mitigation. They could even integrate a seawall into a riverwalk sort of promenade to make it attractive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/
Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.
Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.
This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.
They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.
Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.
The portion in the flood zone is where the built the athletic fields.
Eh, they only put fields and playground on a portion of the flood plane, but much/most of the flood plane area is still yet untouched. It's just the portion of the land where the stadium itself sits that isn't a flood plane, but the rest of it is on both the north and south sides of the stadium and then all back to the river. There was supposed to be one of those multi purpose open air markets put in near the soccer practice field on Oklahoma Ave and Events DC was collecting RFPs, but that fell by the wayside with the pandemic and who knows if that will ever happen.
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/District%20of%20Columbia%20Floodplain%20Map%2042x50%2009112018.pdf
DP, but that flood plain map is from 2018 and one has to wonder how much of that would change in the next 20 years with the state of the climate.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/
Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.
Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.
This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.
They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.
Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.
The portion in the flood zone is where the built the athletic fields.
Eh, they only put fields and playground on a portion of the flood plane, but much/most of the flood plane area is still yet untouched. It's just the portion of the land where the stadium itself sits that isn't a flood plane, but the rest of it is on both the north and south sides of the stadium and then all back to the river. There was supposed to be one of those multi purpose open air markets put in near the soccer practice field on Oklahoma Ave and Events DC was collecting RFPs, but that fell by the wayside with the pandemic and who knows if that will ever happen.
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/District%20of%20Columbia%20Floodplain%20Map%2042x50%2009112018.pdf
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/
Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.
Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.
This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.
They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.
Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.
The portion in the flood zone is where the built the athletic fields.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the PP’s rumor about the team moving to Richmond were to come to fruition, would that bring Balmer and DC closer together like when the Os had the sole local area team market for MLB?
It’s a shame the RFK stadium is not maximized to its fullest potential. It could be a Part-time youth sports plex.
The DC TV market has 2.5 million households. The Richmond, VA TV market has 600k households. You do the math. They are not moving to Richmond. They were however on course for a move to NOVA until Dan Snyder screwed it up being a greedy liar. I would expect that a NOVA move will still happen but it will take a little more time to negotiate. I suspect the choice is basically Fairfax or Loudon with subsidy or Dumfries with no subsidy.
FYI, the DC TV market is 7+ million
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the PP’s rumor about the team moving to Richmond were to come to fruition, would that bring Balmer and DC closer together like when the Os had the sole local area team market for MLB?
It’s a shame the RFK stadium is not maximized to its fullest potential. It could be a Part-time youth sports plex.
The DC TV market has 2.5 million households. The Richmond, VA TV market has 600k households. You do the math. They are not moving to Richmond. They were however on course for a move to NOVA until Dan Snyder screwed it up being a greedy liar. I would expect that a NOVA move will still happen but it will take a little more time to negotiate. I suspect the choice is basically Fairfax or Loudon with subsidy or Dumfries with no subsidy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Weird that you are confidently posting about this when you are wrong about the facts:
https://wtop.com/dc/2022/03/dc-envisions-new-sportsplex-at-rfk-stadium-site-with-or-without-nfl-football/
Under the terms of the lease D.C. has with the federal government, which runs until 2036, the land can be used for sports and recreational purposes. A new NFL stadium would fit the bill.
Now you are correct that this can be legislatively fixed but there is in fact a binding lease on the property.
This doesn't mean shlt if the DC Council and a Dem controlled Congress void it.
They tried awhile back but Obama administration declined until Skins name change which happened too late for that administration. There was another bill submitted that went to House Committee about the deteriorating state of RFK and some seemed to support the idea of selling the land back to DC (this was during Trump admin I think). After that, Holmes did submit a bill for DC to buy back the land but that bill was largely ignored or never went anywhere.
Should note, RFK land is a flood plane. Not sure what can realistically be built there.