D.C. United seeking tax kickbacks for Buzzards Point stadium

In case you’ve been wondering whether the owners of D.C. United are still talking to D.C. officials about that Buzzards Point site they’ve been looking at more or less forever, yes, they’re still talking to D.C. officials about that Buzzards Point site they’ve been looking at more or less forever. D.C. councilmember Jack Evans even told the Washington Post that he hopes to have “the framework” for a stadium in place by the end of the year, but 1) that just means having a plan drawn up, not anything actually approved, and 2) you know what they say about ifs and buts.

In any event, the main piece of news here is that, according to the Post, “United would cover the costs of constructing the stadium but also seek to keep a share of the tax revenue.” Or, as it’s better known, not cover the costs of constructing the stadium, because the city would partly be doing so via a TIF.

No word yet on how much “a share” would amount to — either the Post didn’t ask or Evans isn’t saying. Total cost of the stadium has previously been projected at $157 million, which is more expensive than most proposed MLS stadiums but not more expensive than all.


4 comments on “D.C. United seeking tax kickbacks for Buzzards Point stadium

  1. Wow wonder if Baltimore willing to build one is reason United getting greedy. Or maybe Nats getting half a billion for free.

  2. Neil, you’re exposing your bias. If there are no revenues, then United get nothing, correct? They pay all that money to construct a stadium and never see a return. There has to be some paying customers first. Are you upset about the O Street market project too?

  3. D.C. United wouldn’t be looking to get a cut of any increased tax revenues over what’s currently spent at RFK Stadium; they’d be looking to get a cut of any increased tax revenues over what’s currently collected at Buzzards Point. So they’d be effectively moving their business from one part of town to another, but gaining the ability to pay taxes into their own pocket rather than the D.C. treasury.

    Unless the Post means something else by “keep a share of the tax revenue” other than what’s usually meant. Which is always possible, since they seem to have their own definition of “cover costs.”

  4. A stadium offer from Baltimore wouldn’t be a reason to think you’ve gained some kind of advantage in negotiations. There’s no way United could say with a straight face that they’d consider moving that far north. Almost all of their fans come from Montgomery County (MD), Northern Virginia and DC. As much as I enjoy watching the occasional United match, there’s just no spin-off value in subsidizing an MLS stadium. It makes about as much sense as throwing $tens of millions at a new stadium for my local high school. If they want to move, why not work out a partnership to use existing facilities at UMd or George Mason?