D.C. approves $200m or more in spending on Nats stadium upgrades, calls this “no new cost” to taxpayers

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, the day when the United States celebrates the ancestors of some of its ruling class accepting lavish gifts from local residents, while famously providing in exchange smallpox and pain and degradation.

In completely unrelated news, the Washington, D.C. council voted yesterday to approve $515 million in upgrades for the Capitals and Wizards arena that we’ve known about since April, and while doing so they also approved funneling a large but unspecified amount (more on that momentarily) of tax money to the Nationals for upgrades to their stadium, in exchange for the team continuing to play in D.C. for an additional 13 seasons:

On Tuesday, the D.C. Council passed legislation to create a dedicated stream of revenue that the Nationals could use for upgrades and maintenance at Nationals Park, with no new costs to D.C. …

“We’re talking about a site that is generating 150 events per year,” [councilmember Charles] Allen said of the ballpark. “That type of return on investment is what we want, the same way the arena is a place where 250-plus events is creating the investment and the return that comes back on that. It’s a bit ironic we’re voting on both these things on the same day — we don’t want to find ourselves in a position like we did last year.”

Allen did not mention that although the district paid to build the stadium and owns it, Nats owner Mark Lerner gets to keep all the revenue from those 150 events a year. D.C. does get $5.5 million a year in rent from the team, plus whatever sliver of sales tax money it gets from those events that would not be spent in the city otherwise, but that’s nowhere near enough to cover the roughly $30 million a year D.C. is on the hook for in stadium debt. The rest is covered by district business and additional sales taxes that are being diverted to pay off stadium bonds.

Those bonds will paid off soon, though, thanks to tax proceeds coming in — and going back out to pay for the stadium — faster than expected. Which means those tax streams will soon be available to D.C. to pay for other public needs. Or would be, if Lerner weren’t angling to get it for future stadium upgrades instead. As a previous Washington Post article from January noted:

[D.C. Council Chair Phil] Mendelson’s legislation would create the Ballpark Maintenance Fund, ensuring a steady stream of dedicated money — with no new costs to D.C. — that could go toward repairs and improvements that the Nationals had been asking for under the terms of the team’s lease at the ballpark with the city….

“We made a commitment to the team we would build the stadium and we would maintain it, and we just don’t need these stories about deferred maintenance and failing scoreboards,” he said. “So let’s provide a certain path that we’re going to maintain our facility and maintain it as a very attractive ballpark in the major leagues.”

That’s two separate Post articles saying the new funding would be at “no new costs to D.C.,” which is wrong on two counts: 1) D.C. already shelled out the money it promised the Nats owners to pay for stadium construction, so handing over any leftover tax money as well is absolutely a new cost, and 2) the Mendelson legislation would continue to kick back stadium sales tax proceeds and Nats rent payments after the team’s current lease expires in 2037, which is even more a new cost.

How much in new public subsidies this would add up to is unclear: Ol’ “Democracy Dies in Darkness” didn’t bother to calculate a figure, and the D.C. council website doesn’t appear to have entered the bill into the record yet. But if we assume it would amount to at least 13 more years of the same $5.5 million a year in rent and roughly $12.5 million in sales tax money, plus whatever is left over in the current stadium account … let’s estimate the total at upwards of $200 million and leave it at that, though it obviously could end up much more. Lerner still has to okay a lease extension through 2050 to cash his check; one hopes that the D.C. council will post any new lease terms for the public to read, but one probably shouldn’t hope too hard.

This kind of last-minute-before-holiday-weekend stadium renovations approval is going around: Harris County, Texas just approved $35 million in fresh spending on new scoreboards for the Houston Texans to avoid “an embarrassing, unrecoverable failure mid-season.” (No, it wasn’t explained what kind of scoreboard failure would be “embarrassing [and] unrecoverable”; they just can’t get spare parts for the old displays, so presumably we’re not talking about something like this.) And that’s only part of potentially $264 million in upgrades the county is looking at making over 20 years, quintuple its current operating budget for repairs. The grift that keeps on giving is a nice benefit, if you can convince the natives to cough it up.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

13 comments on “D.C. approves $200m or more in spending on Nats stadium upgrades, calls this “no new cost” to taxpayers

  1. In 2024, Nationals Park has hosted 5 concert dates (not counting the 3 concerts held on game days), so I don’t know where that council member came up with 150 events per year. He must be including high school games, private events where companies rent board rooms, or tours of the stadium when the Nationals are on the road.

    Given the current playoff format, the most number of MLB games the stadium can host in a season is 95. Regardless, it is interesting he thinks it is a good investment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate a building that he thinks is not used only 215 days a year.

    On another note, reportedly Blake Snell’s new contract includes a $50 million signing bonus. Because he lives in Washington state, he doesn’t have to pay state income tax on that amount. Someone needs to notify the city council members in Portland who think they will be rolling in taxes on MLB salaries if they spend money on a stadium to get a team.

    1. Not correct. Baseball players pay taxes where they play, so Oregon could collect the taxes if they didn’t decide to give that away. I doubt a baseball player is has a ‘no trade clause to high income tax states.”

      https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/taxation-is-the-name-of-the-game-for-professional-athletes

      1. Not correct. Signing bonuses are reported on state taxes where players live, not where they play.

        https://x.com/FoulTerritoryTV/status/1861836906259980577?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

        1. -the state has experience with this with the Blazers so I’m sure they know what they are getting into

          -Owner is the guarantor for the bonds

    1. Although the “ruling class” bit is more the result of numbers than anything else. While a very small number of my very distant cousins might be categorized as such, there are millions of us descendants who aren’t ruling anything beyond the walls of our modest homes.

    1. Agreed. Why the author insists on shooting himself in the foot over and over again is beyond comprehension.

      1. Concern trolling is so weird. I guess it’s meant to be a kind of mansplained shaming — “you’re so close to getting it right, but you keep sabotaging yourself by doing this one thing that I disagree with, if you would only smarten up it would be better for everyone!” Except for people who are interested in how political power structures work and have worked throughout history, which is, you know, kind of the entire reason this site (and the book) exists.

        Anyway, concern trolling, amirite? It’s a puzzler.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed and will be removed.