As debate begins on the future of the RFK site, I’ve written a series of longer posts at Greater Greater Washington examining the arguments for and against. For the benefit of Hill Rag readers, I’ve summarized them here:
A Stadium Will Be Expensive
The average price of stadiums in the U.S. has ballooned in recent years from an average of $477 million in the 2000s to an astronomical $1.7 billion in the 2020s. Owners are particularly lavish when they get to spend other people’s money. Taxpayer subsidies of these private facilities have also exploded to an average of $500 million dollars per stadium (and a high of $1.26 billion) and show no sign of slowing down.
Having just shelled out $515 million to Ted Leonsis and $200 million more to the Lerners, exactly how much more of our city’s budget do we want to give away? We could spend those same dollars on affordable housing, healthcare, schools, parks or put it directly back in the pockets of DC residents. Particularly now, with the Trump istration and Elon Musk illegally attacking our regions’ residents and governance, now is not the time to frivolously waste precious public dollars.
A Stadium is a Bad Investment
Of course, that’s not how the Mayor and stadium boosters frame it. They describe a stadium as a smart investment that will generate economic activity, jobs and tax revenue for the District. The Mayor even has an unscientific pseudo-study to her claims. That certainly sounds nice, but unfortunately it’s just not true. Economists have been studying the impact of stadiums for decades, and the results are conclusive: stadiums don’t just fail to pay back their lavish public subsidies, they don’t make much of an economic difference at all. As one analysis of decades of research on the subject 1 puts it, “The empirical evidence is unambiguous: Stadiums do not confer large positive economic or social benefits on host communities.”
Perhaps nervous about the weight of the economic logic against her, the Mayor has also tried to cast the stadium as a necessary “anchor” to jumpstart development at the rest of the site. But this too is faulty. DC is full of examples of successful new development with far smaller or even no anchors: think Union Market, the Wharf and NoMa. The true economic engines of all of these neighborhoods are the thousands of new residents and workers that call them home now. Compared to occasional stadium visitors, office workers and permanent residents (and their friends and families) will spend money in a neighborhood every single day. And more than just a bit of sales tax, the income and business tax they generate for the city is even more valuable. Building an abundant amount of mixed-use buildings at RFK will do far more for the city than a stadium ever could.
There’s Not Room for Both
Ok a stadium may not be the linchpin, but if we add it to a robust mixed-use development it can be a shiny cherry on top right? That’s certainly the Mayor’s message; she has consistently repeated that “with 174 acres we can have it all.” But it’s an empty promise concealing massive tradeoffs. Once you for the protected riverfront, legally-required acreage for open space, the stadium itself, and an NFL-standard 20,000+ parking spaces, there’s probably only about 20 acres left for everything else. That’s not a neighborhood with a stadium, that’s a parking center with a few homes in front.
The only way to turn the RFK site into a real, economically resilient neighborhood that benefits the whole community is to let our lovely neighbors in Maryland build the new stadium just six miles (and four Metro stops) away. DC residents will have the same easy access to every thrilling Commanders playoff game and unmissable concert tour without sacrificing land and public dollars. It’s a clear win-win.
Nick Sementelli can be found at [email protected].
1 The study referenced above is the The Economics of Stadium Subsidies: A Policy Retrospective by John Charles Bradbury et al.
