This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
December 26, 2006
Landover is burning!
Ten years after the Washington Redskins' FedEx Field was first approved, the Washington Post takes a look back at the project today. Their findings: People who didn't like it then don't like it now - "From the traffic to the noise, the whole gamut, nothing good has come out of it," says Prince George's County resident (and longtime stadium opponent) Freddie Dawkins - and those who liked it then still think it's the bee's knees - "The Redskins stadium ignited a different perspective of the Landover region," said former county executive Wayne Curry.
What about concrete evidence of the effects of the stadium? The stadium brings in an estimated $10 million a year in sales and ticket taxes, which at least would be enough to repay the public's $71 million in expense on the stadium - though given that that money came out of state coffers and a good chunk of spending by Redskins fans likely went elsewhere in Maryland before the team arrived, it's not all a net gain. Meanwhile, the Post notes that there are still "many boarded-up homes, run-down apartments and trash-strewed streets in some neighborhoods" of Landover. But how can you put a price on igniting a new perspective?
"Swanson said some things cannot be measured, however, including the national exposure Landover receives each time the team plays at home."
Hah! I'm a big sports fan and I wasn't sure if FedEx Field was in Virginia or Maryalnd or DC. I looked on Redskins.com to see if Landover got ANY publicity online and it looks like the only mention of Landover on the entire website is the Landover Metro stop in the directions to FedEx field (FedEx gets a TON of publicity).
Posted by joejoejoe on December 31, 2006 02:40 PM
I remember the days when the Capitals plays in Landover, MD...... Hockey mattered in DC back then.
Posted by Bertell Ollman on January 1, 2007 04:13 PM
"The stadium brings in an estimated $10 million a year in sales and ticket taxes, which at least would be enough to repay the public's $71 million in expense on the stadium - though given that that money came out of state coffers and a good chunk of spending by Redskins fans likely went elsewhere in Maryland before the team arrived, it's not all a net gain."
With all due respect, I think this is an example of bias reporting on your part.
1. RFK is located in DC, whereas FedEx Field is located in Maryland. Therefore, any taxes that arise from spending at FedEx would be a net gain for Maryland, since previously they went to DC.
2. You provide no numbers or statements to back up your argument that "it's not all a net gain." Shouldn't you provide figures before you say this?
Posted by Mike on January 2, 2007 09:17 AM
1. That logic only works if every single current Redskins ticketholder otherwise would have been spending the same amount of money at RFK. Since a) FedEx Field holds more fans than RFK, b) FedEx Field has higher ticket prices than RFK, and c) I'd be shocked if no Virginia or D.C. fans dropped off the season ticket list to be replaced by Marylanders when the team moved north, at least some of the money currently being spent on Redskins games would have been spent elsewhere in Maryland if the team had remained at RFK.
2. See 1.
Posted by Neil on January 2, 2007 10:30 AM