Facts don’t matter – Again
The city of Washington D.C. is about to spend $1 billion toward the cost of a $3.7 billion 65,000-seat football stadium for the Washington Commanders – with no return on its investment. The plan is for the surrounding land to be developed into park space, retail, and housing.
It sure seems hard to believe – a football stadium, probably used about 8 times a year – and a cost of $3.7 Billion! And a city squandering $1 billion with no return on its investment when it has so many other higher priorities. (The real costs to the city could be as high as $2.5 billion.)
As usual with these stadium deals
The Commanders keep all the ticket, concession, and suite revenue. That’s probably $80–$100 Million a year straight to the team. Where’s the city’s share for paying for 1/3 the cost? And the team shares in the profits from the other land being developed. Why’s that?
In an article in the Washington Post (you may need a subscription to read it), the Commanders’ owner says that the team was “deeply grateful for the warm return to the District.” Wouldn’t we all be grateful for a $1 billion gift.
And a gift it is indeed – to a $11 Billion owner
Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office argued that gifting $1 billion was the surest way for the surrounding development to happen. But more than 130 studies show that stadiums are not needed to redevelop land and don’t create long-term economic activity.
Let’s be honest: stadium deals are for rich owners. The Commanders’ owner Josh Harris, is worth $11 Billion. Why should taxpayers fund his pet project? Why doesn’t he build it with his own money?
What if D.C. developed the property without a stadium?
- No $1 billion payout without any return.
- More revenue to the city: Property and sales taxes from housing, offices, retail, and hotels could easily exceed $50M/year – and the city keeps all of it.
- More land to develop – with no stadium and parking.
- Year-round economic activity: No waiting for 8 football games—residents and businesses keep things moving every day.
- Lower costs, smarter growth: Less traffic, smaller infrastructure footprint, more space for parks and river access.
- Better community control: D.C. decides what gets built, how it benefits neighborhoods, and how it grows sustainably.
Does D.C. Really Need a Stadium to Redevelop RFK? Nope.
The takeaway:
A stadium is flashy—but not necessary. D.C. could redevelop RFK smarter, capture more public benefit, and create a neighborhood that works for everyone—without subsidizing the profits of a billionaire.
It sounds like what almost happened in St. Petersburg.
When will communities do the right thing – focus first on what matters to make life better for everyone.
