by Larry Janezich
Posted: June 10, 2025
RFK Stadium. Photo: DC Events
Editorial: My Verdict on the Stadium Deal
Development of the RFK Stadium site is like building a small city: a vast, waterfront parcel in the heart of the capital.
Contrary to Mayor Bowser’s public assertions, the legislation transferring ownership of the site to DC does not require the construction of a stadium.
Then why build one?
Some people will always be against a stadium. Citing the missed chance to redevelop this parcel as mixed-use development, Greater Greater Washington calculates an “opportunity cost” totaling $3.3 billion over the course of the next 30 years. Other opponents regard the NFL as an abomination, or maybe an enormous NFL stadium which stands empty and idle most of the year as a bad investment of taxpayer dollars.
Likewise, some people will always support a stadium on this site, particularly one that returns the Washington Commanders to DC. Presumably Mayor Bowser numbers among this group, given the remarkably poor deal she negotiated with the Commanders.
Setting aside these two ends of a spectrum, I’d guess that most people fall somewhere in between. This editorial is directed to them, particularly to Capitol Hill/Hill East residents.
A Stadium, But Not on These Terms
It is not surprising to learn that the city will be on the hook for the “horizontal” costs, or the necessary infrastructure improvements, entailed in stadium construction.
But the term sheet presented by Mayor Bowser also includes a taxpayer subsidy for “vertical” costs: stadium construction ($500 million) and parking garages ($356 million). Somewhat lost in the outcry over this direct subsidy to billionaires are the indirect costs of the deal, including the property tax that the city will waive for the developers; the sales tax that will be collected but won’t go to the District; and the interest payments on bonds that the city will need to carry to complete this project.
Rather than defend the terms of a poorly negotiated deal, Mayor Bowser has done her best to ramrod it through the Council as currently written. According to the term sheet, an “exclusive negotiation period” between the District and Commanders will expire by July 15 – or it will expire if the Council makes any significant changes to the term sheet. According to Greater Greater Washington, Council chair Phil Mendelson “is signaling” that he will let the deadline pass so the Council could review the deal properly and insist on better terms. After all, to consider the baseball field, the Council had 11 months; the Council discussed the deal on Audi Field for 7 months.
DC has suffered enough of high-handed treatment of late. It’s a shame that, in this, her legacy-making move, Mayor Bowser has decided to treat the Council with such contempt. As it currently stands, given that the Mayor has tied the stadium deal to the budget, the Council cannot even hold a hearing focused only on the RFK stadium deal.
A Stadium, But Not at This Time
Regardless of the fate of the national economy, DC is now headed for a localized recession, owing to the devastating employment effects of the Trump Administration’s cuts to the federal government.
Recently, in the wake of these cuts, Moody’s downgraded DC’s bond-rating, meaning that a stadium constructed under the Trump administration will cost more than one built under an administration run by Kamala Harris.
More important, even if Congress passes DC’s Local Budget restoring the city’s money, the city still faces an enormous budget shortfall – meaning, there will be steep cuts to city government.
In her just-released budget, Mayor Bowser has shifted some payments to next fiscal year and declared a hiring freeze in an attempt to blunt the effects of this shortfall. But already a new DC jail is gone from the budget. Notably, the Council has shunted aside the Mayor’s economic forecast for the stadium and commissioned their own.
Amid turmoil and retrenchment, it is difficult to say what this stadium will “cost” the city in terms of what is defunded as a result of its construction.
A Stadium, But One That Works for the Neighborhood
Economic research demonstrates that stadiums do not generate “new” growth or revenue. In the best-case scenario, they just focus growth on a certain location.
Stadiums might be worthwhile if they are used to kickstart the revitalization of a particular neighborhood, but, even then, there exists a very real danger of overreach. An astonishing number of empty storefronts currently surround Capital One Arena, a more active stadium located in a much more commercial neighborhood. Public officials assured us that the keeping the Leonsis’ teams and a promised stadium renovation would bring tenants back; so far, that hasn’t happened.
By and large, Hill East is not a neighborhood in need of revitalization. The kinds of things that Hill East might need or want would be best served by a mixed-use development, not a stadium.
In light of just what little purpose a stadium can serve, the hulking parking garages planned under the current term sheet are an affront to the neighborhood. No stadium in the heart of a city built in the 21st century should be based on automobile traffic. In this and in other respects – particularly in regard to the environment – the Mayor has declined to seize this opportunity to construct a stadium of the future.
Instead, she wants to build a 20th century stadium while the city strains under the weight of a 19th century presidency.
My Verdict on the Stadium Deal
In more stable times, the case for stadium construction would be stronger, particularly given the fact that the city has slow-walked Phase II of the Reservation 13 development, effectively tying its fate to RFK.
At this time, facing the Trump administration, a strong case could be made for RFK redevelopment without a stadium, which would create new housing and neighborhood resources, generating growth and revenue.
In more stable times, the case for a stadium would be stronger if it were a 21st century stadium that better harmonized with the surrounding neighborhood.
But it is bad luck for the Commanders ownership that their bid for a new stadium coincides with a crisis moment in DC history, the likes of which I have not seen since the 1980s.
The only way to make the case for an NFL stadium at RFK at this particular moment is if the public subsidy for vertical construction is reduced to $0; the DC Local Budget Autonomy Act passes Congress and is signed by the President before the DC City Council votes on the stadium deal; and the stadium development makes better use of public transportation and green technology.
Maybe the DC City Council will move the dial on the public subsidy and a more imaginative development, both of which are under their control. But the Commanders’ owners, who profess to love DC, would do well to pledge the necessary resources to move Republicans in Congress to respect our city a little more.
CAPITOL HILL CORNER 
All excellent points. From a design, transportation, financial and community perspective , the Mayor’s plan is a disaster, and should not be shoved down our thoughts to benefit a wealthy few
Thank you for your well thought-out opposition to building a new football stadium, especially given the sweetheart deal for the owner billionaires that is currently on the table. There are so many better ways to make use of that prime real estate that would benefit the whole community. I hope saner minds prevail and this vanity stadium project dies, or if does not, that its terms are completely revamped with greater attention to the needs, incluing financial, of DC and its citizens.
Thank you for this. There is nothing progressive about corporate subsidies while cutting social services. In a District that votes 90%< Democratic, surely we have the political will to do something MUCH more visionary
This “deal” needs significant renegotiation. I don’t understand the contention that “the sales tax that will be collected but won’t go to the District.” If true, it was an egregious giveaway. Indeed, the District should require a sales tax on all tickets sold for all events at the stadium to pay for infrastructure improvements.
There is also the seminal question of whether all those infrastructure improvements, mainly for traffic and parking are worth it for about 10 games and a few concert events. Indeed, the stadium would be competing with the downtown arena and Nats stadium for concert events which suggests there would be fewer than speculated.
An original proposal called for underground parking instead of hulking parking garages that would blight the surrounding area. The Commanders should be on the hook for both the stadium and parking. I also agree with the comment that non-automobile transportation should be required whether via METRO or provisions for bus transport from and returned to various locations in the DMV.
There is little question that the District is on the hook at one of the most inauspicious times in its economy history. Every effort should be made to limit the District’s financial contribution toward the stadium and to improve the recoupment of costs through sales taxes on all tickets, food, and other materials and products sold on site.
Failing the significant reduction of the District’s financial responsibilities for the stadium, the loss of the stadium to some other jurisdiction would be of little impact.
Indeed, housing and retail could be supported along Benning road without a stadium. Meanwhile, the remaining parcels could be turned into a major public recreation area for local baseball, football, soccer, tennis, volleyball, hiking and walkabouts, picnics, water activities on the Anacostia, wildlife preservation with public boardwalks along the river and just plain loafing. The more I think about it, the less I see any advantage of a stadium to the people in and around DC
(Ed. Note: Per the Greater Greater Washington article referenced above, according to the term sheet, DC would not get the sales taxes on tickets, concessions, and merchandise sold at events. This sales tax revenue would go to a “RFK Campus Reinvestment Fund” to pay for maintenance and upgrades. In addition, the term sheet waives property taxes as part of the deal.)
That’s a bad idea and a bad deal. If the Commanders are to have a stadium, then they should pay for it including maintenance. That means the price of tickets should reflect maintenance and upgrade costs. The loss of revenue to the District is wholly unacceptable.
Football is a business. A very lucrative business in which the principals are extraordinarily well paid. The way this deal is constructed football is an unregulated public utility paid for by people who don’t even use it. I hate to say it but the NFL appears to have created a socialist economy in which the principals get increasingly rich while the public pays the price. The present scheme would even be offensive to the Republic of China. Football is a kleptocracy.
This is a really balanced and well constructed argument. I’d put myself in category of reflexively anti-stadium because the evidence is against publicly funded stadia, but even if I welcomed a new stadium this is the wrong deal at the wrong time. The District has an affordable housing crisis which this fails to adequately address, and the prioritization of concessions to billionaire sports franchise neglects the real costs to District residents impacted by attacks on Federal workforce and local economy structured around federal support.
I really don’t like the obfuscating and the utter dismissive of the concerns and realities on the ground.
They talk about revitalizing the neighborhood — when the neighborhood that is all residential on one side and a river on the other. The 200 “activations” — when we all know that is not 200 uses a year for the stadium itself and they know most people will misunderstand what is being talked about. Talk of sales tax benefits — when it seems that most of that will just go back to maintenance to the what is part of this project and not in the general city coffers. And that is just a start.
RFK is not in the same neighborhood it was when it was in full use – despite the fact that it hasn’t actually moved – and the pro stadium either don’t understand or don’t care that all the changes to the neighborhood and the culture of football bring challenges that need to be addressed and not dismissed.
In addition to the wonderful people residing in Kingman Park, one of the best neighborhood features Park is access to parks and green space. This area has thrived despite the hulking shell of old RFK stadium. It would be a travesty to cut this neighborhood off from the river by building massive largely underutilized parking garages along Oklahoma Ave.