Thank-yous might also be extended to Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and members of the D.C. Council, who muted their disagreement over whether the land should be used for a new football stadium. That open dispute complicated previous congressional efforts to transfer control of the 174-acre property from the federal government to the city. Not this time.
Now that legislative progress is well underway, and prospects of Senate passage seem bright (so long as the measure continues to include no federal funds to upgrade and maintain the land), it’s time for the District to turn full attention to the pesky details of how to use the defunct RFK campus — based solely on what’s in the city’s best economic interests.
Bowser’s concerns are quite clear. She wants to bring back the Landover, Md.-based Washington Commanders football team to the home that it abandoned — while named the Washington Unmentionables — nearly 30 years ago.
Bowser, in a statement, hailed House passage of the bill as “a significant step forward in our efforts to unlock the full potential of the RFK Campus — for our residents and visitors, the community, and DC’s Comeback.” But she clearly sees the legislation as a means to erect a new NFL stadium. There certainly are plenty of D.C-based Commanders fans who want the team back in town. Whether they speak for the city as a whole is another question. Fans have every right to pay the team’s owners for a product they value. But all taxpayers would shoulder bills for hundreds of millions for the infrastructure and land redevelopment needed for a new stadium.
When the question was raised on Capitol Hill two years ago, a majority of the D.C. Council sent a letter to Norton thanking her for her work to gain control of the land, citing the “unparalleled opportunity to develop much need housing at various affordability levels, new parks and green spaces, new retail and economic opportunities creating jobs and careers, and environmental protections along the shores of the Anacostia River — all with easy access to Metro and transit.” However, they added, “we also want to make clear that we believe a future football stadium at this site is incompatible with this vision.”
“We will not support a football stadium,” they concluded.
Two signers, Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) and Elissa Silverman (I-At Large), no longer serve on the Council.
This week I asked the remaining endorsers — Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who organized the letter campaign; Robert C. White Jr. (D-At Large); Brianne K. Nadeau (D-Ward 1); Christina Henderson (I-At Large) and Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) — about their positions on a football stadium.
Allen, in an interview, said his position is unchanged. A football stadium is not an economic generator, he said, no matter how many pretty pictures are shown of buildings, parks and development. The land can be put to better use to serve broader and more diverse city interests, he said.
From Henderson’s office: “Council member Henderson’s position is still the same. She does not believe a football stadium is the best use for the site.” Same for Nadeau: “The council member’s position has not changed.”
Robert White said in a written statement: “Whatever goes on the RFK site needs to prioritize low- and mixed-income housing. If there is a way for a stadium to do that, then I’ll look at it, but housing is my priority.”
Neither George nor her staff responded to phone and email messages.
There’s no getting around it. The question must be joined: Is siting a football stadium at the RFK complex the most economically and socially beneficial use of the land?
On behalf of District taxpayers, city leaders need to sort this out among themselves before entertaining serious discussions of the matter with the Commanders. “Don’t promise what you can’t deliver” is a piece of advice that often gets tossed around when it comes to negotiations. Nostalgia has its place. But so, too, mixed-use development with both upscale and affordable housing, thriving retail, jobs and parks — a livable community on Anacostia’s shores.
Credit: Source link
