It’s been no secret that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser really really wants to build a new Washington Commanders stadium at the site of RFK Stadium, and yesterday some details were leaked via NBC Washington reporter Mark Segraves:
D.C. is close to a deal worth more than $3 billion to bring the Washington Commanders back to the District and build a new stadium at the RFK Stadium site.
So the “deal” is worth $3 billion, for both a stadium and a “mixed-use residential and retail development.” And who would be paying for that?
Multiple sources familiar with the deal told News4 that Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Commanders have the framework for a deal in place that would see the team paying the vast majority of the costs to build a new stadium and much of the money provided by the city going for infrastructure that will support the entire 180-acre development.
“Vast majority,” you say? So how much would D.C. taxpayers be on the hook for?
The Commanders would put up as much as $2.5 billion, and the District would provide up to $850 million, documents obtained by News4 show.
This is what’s known in news circles as “burying the lede,” and that’s quite a lede to bury. The unnamed sources specified that the district’s money would only go toward “infrastructure,” plus also “eligible capital costs,” with one example being parking garages that would be used by the new complex. Would D.C. get to recoup parking fees at the garages it built, at least? Or would Commanders owner Josh Harris get 100% of the revenues while taxpayers covered a quarter of the costs? The sources were silent on this, or else Segraves never asked.
As for where D.C. will get that $850 million, $350 million would be “paid in 2032 through taxes generated from the new development,” which is super unclear — bonds would be sold in 2032 based on future tax revenue? which taxes? — but not nearly as unclear as where the district would get that first $500 million:
One hurdle is the looming $410 million in budget cuts D.C. faces for the current fiscal year that were imposed by Congress. That must get resolved, then the mayor can present her budget for fiscal year 2026, which needs to be approved by the D.C. Council and Congress.
Details! Bowser claims her budget is ready to go, in which case we — and the D.C. council — should soon learn more actual specifics of this proposed deal.
In the meantime, a campaign called “Homes Not Stadiums” has launched a petition drive to hold a voter referendum on a measure to block the use of the RFK site for a stadium so that it can be used for affordable housing instead. “To prioritize the stadium over the needs of the people who actually live here, it’s not acceptable, and the mayor should allow the people to have a say in it,” said campaign organizer Kris Furnish, who is an experienced local activist, albeit not previously around budget or housing issues.
Neil maybe she’ll just put another 500 speed cameras up in the district, you know like she already has done. Those speed cameras rather than fund infrastructure for pedestrian cyclists and motorist safety instead go to the districts general slush fund. And people wonder why the Democrat party is so unpopular…it’s because of corrupt corporate sell out shills like Boswer.
You forgot to mention how DCs new budget eliminates public safety overtime…and Bowser defended the stadium proposal saying the operating and capital budget are separate.
Let’s recap: Bowser bends knee to Trump, removes BLM plaza saying it will protect the city …. then congress cuts her budget with a chainsaw…she cuts public safety but says trust us this stadium will bring in revenue.
Whatever she says…
I feel like the empty gesture that designating BLM plaza was in the first place (and was said as much at the time by local activists), followed by promptly removing it at the demands of the Trump Administration and House Freedom Caucus with nary a peep less than 5 years later, kinda sums up a lot about the Democrats.
Yep, the point isn’t BLM Plaza, it’s more Bowser removing it to appease Trump before he slashes her funding and she hands out tax dollars for sports stadiums.
As long as the builder actually pays their taxes (haha), I believe cities should build the infrastructure (roads, sewer, sidewalks, etc) to support private investment. Your thoughts?
Cities should build whatever they would for any other development. Calling stuff like “build me a bunch of dedicated shuttle bus routes and bridges over highways and a special highway exit just for luxury suite owners” isn’t really that.
A developer building a bunch of townhouses or something similar is expected to build all the roads, sidewalks, curb & gutter, etc., at their own expense. They build them to meet government standards and then turn them over when the construction is done. That developer is probably merely a millionaire (if that). Why shouldn’t we expect the same from billionaire team owners?
The activists should focus on the public money rather than the public land. There are lots of places in DC to build more housing, especially if DC would get rid of its dumb height requirements, but $500m is $500.
NBC4 also buried the lede on their scoop:
“The preliminary agreement News4 obtained refers to the team as the master developer, meaning the team would not only build the stadium but also develop the entire 180-acre campus, which the mayor and council members have said they want to be a mixed-use residential and retail development.”
Getting a no-bid contract to build out one of the largest development opportunities in the District decades may well be worth more than the subsidy.