I’d been wondering if it was worth noting the report from over the weekend that D.C. councilmembers were considering reworking the D.C. United stadium deal to eliminate the controversial land swap portion, when late yesterday this happened:
I believe we can get a new soccer stadium deal done by the end of the year – and de-link the Reeves Ctr swap from the deal.
— Muriel Bowser (@MurielBowser) November 18, 2014
That’s D.C. councilmember and mayor-elect Muriel Bowser, so it’s a pretty big deal that she’s throwing her weight behind this plan. Though “plan” is probably overstating it: The swap of the city-owned Reeves Center government office building to developer Akridge for part of the required stadium land is a key piece of the deal as concocted by outgoing mayor Vincent Gray, and won’t be unraveled so easily.
First off, Akridge would have to agree to take cash for its land instead of the valuable Reeves Center property. And second, D.C. would then have to come up with not just the bonding capacity to pay Akridge (which some councilmembers think they can now manage) but the cash to pay off those bonds — $10-15 million a year, according to the Post, though that sounds high for an estimated land purchase price of $94 million. Either way, though, it’s a significant chunk of change, and eliminating the land shuffle makes it way harder to hide the fact that D.C. would be shelling out a bunch of guaranteed money now for the promise of an economic benefit on Tuesday.
That part, though, doesn’t seem to bother Bowser. In her address to the Federal City Council, a local group of top business and political leaders, she made clear that her opposition to the Reeves Center swap doesn’t extend to the rest of the deal:
“I want to be very clear about this,” she told her audience, which included two former mayors and several of the key players in the stadium deal. “I support building a soccer stadium in the District of Columbia, and I support investing public dollars to get it done.”
And she supports doing it in the next seven weeks, while reworking a deal that was already hazy even after years of negotiations. There’s no possible way this can go wrong.
Neil, I find the entire Pro Publica report on Goldman-Sachs to be interesting. Have you considered a blog post on this subject? Not only is what happened in New York to be scandalous, I’d bet this is indicative of how GS operates in general. I don’t think they lie in New York, and are wonderful everywhere else.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/rising-scrutiny-as-banks-hire-from-the-fed/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
The Goldman Sachs case is interesting, what does it have to do with stadiums exactly?
I never cease to be amazed by the governance theory that states that giving away free money to developers (by undervaluing a city property) is somehow better for the budget than spending actual money.
Even if this silly project gets built, the fact that it might have the actual cost broadcast in the budget, without land swaps or targeted taxes, will at least be a nod to a kind of transparency unusual in DC politics.
Still plenty of time, though!
“The Goldman Sachs case is interesting, what does it have to do with stadiums exactly?”
They were the brains behind the Yum!-debacle, and are financing 100% of the debt in Sacramento (both the private and the public side).
GS is the brains behind these operations, and when cities/counties then ask GS to redo the terms, GS is the party that just says, “You agreed to these terms; we’re not changing them. Thanks for playing.”
They are the smartest guys in the room, basically.
By the way, I’m not sure Sacramento will be able to sell its bonds before Spring. That seems to be the implication in this article:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/city-arena/article4035320.html
“Legal challenges still remain on the project. Saltonstall’s group is pressing a broader fight at the appeals court under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. A separate group is continuing to challenge the City Council’s decision to pump $255 million in public money into the project; that case is due to go to trial next spring.”
Wonder what (if anything) hiccups in the Kings progress would mean for Sacramento getting an MLS team. I believe the league just shortlisted three finalists for the last spot—Vegas. Minneapolis, Sacramento. The latter’s 8000-seat stadium probably won’t fly with MLS. That means they will HAVE to have a new stadium to have any shot at the franchise. In fact the stadium situation alone makes it hard to see how it goes anywhere but Minneapolis, especially now that Garber has basically said that it’s okay to play in a football stadium if you’re a super rich NFL owner getting a brand new enormo-dome.
Eminent domain is the big plan, likely saves the city money over the previous deal, kind of crappy for the current owners though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-to-act-on-legislation-to-build-a-soccer-stadium-for-dc-united/2014/11/24/b49e199a-741c-11e4-9c9f-a37e29e80cd5_story.html?wprss=rss_Copy%20(2)%20of%20local-arlington-social&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter