Development of the Parking Garages...

[blue911]

Inner harbor has,  but go a few blocks from Camden in the wrong direction,  and it looks a little different.  M and t has done nothing

Right because a football stadium isn't going to bring in fresh clientele. The other 3 major sports at least bring in fresh patrons for the evening. 

[HalfSmokes]

which is funny because there is going to be an enormous fight over the redskins in a few years

[Mathguy]

Oh c'mon Blue - there are other factors beyond the stadium, such as the influx of professionals into the DC area and the shrinking housing supply.  I'm not saying every sports development turns into a bonus, but the one on the DC waterfront did turn into a great success

If a stadium is the catalyst to development, what happened to RFK or FedEx or Safeco or the SilverDome or Giants Stadium or Shea or Nassau Coliseum? A stadium can be part of a larger urban renewal project i.e. San Diego but alone they're just empty parking lots 95% of the time.

[Mathguy]

In what way ?

which is funny because there is going to be an enormous fight over the redskins in a few years

[HalfSmokes]

In what way ?

DC wants them, PG wants to keep them, and you can bet that there will be some push for a Virginia location

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Football stadiums do not create walking traffic because the parking lots tend to make them remote and they are not used enough.  About the best you can do with a football stadium is build a traditional mall to use the lots on off days, with enough football themed restaurants to get  a kick when there are events.  That I think is the model for Gillette and Patriots Place.

[RL04]

You are either not very bright or extremely clueless.

The team is paying "rent" to DC to use the stadium.

Plus, Washington gets a cut out of every single hot dog and cup of beer sold.

It is amazing that that is so hard for you to understand.        

[NJ Ave]

I'm not arguing that Nationals Park was a sound investment for the city, although I think it's foolish to think that tax hikes that were (a) passed at the same time as the Stadium bonds and (b) specifically touted by all the council members as the way the city would pay back the Stadium bonds...are not tied to the economic return of building the stadium.

It's all well and good to say - DC would have passed those taxes anyways. There's no proof of that. There's no proof the city wouldn't have raised the funds another way - through a tax on the wealthy (like the one passed in 2011) or through an additional sales tax instead of a tax on city businesses.

But that still doesn't mean it was a good use of money. The city still used $600 million of its debt-issuing ability to build a stadium instead of renovating schools, improving infrastructure, etc.

I have no idea why, besides the vanity of some council members, DC would want to bring back the Redskins. HUGE logistical nightmare, HUGE expense for a limited number of events per year and massive parking lots. I guess the reasoning is that the city isn't really allowed to develop that land (National Park Service owns it) so why not? I guess it wouldn't be so bad if Dan Snyder paid for the entire thing, but it can't make financial sense for the city to spend a ton of money developing an island in a sea of parking lots when no one is legally allowed to develop around it.

[RL04]

They are not making their money back many times over. Not yet anyway.

Yes, true, thay haven't made all of the money back yet.

They will.   Investments don't fully pay back in one day.

Plus, see post above, DC has money continuously coming in from the Nationals.

And ... the stadium is going to be a key integral part of development in that part of the city.

This was a very sweet deal for Washington.   Anyone who believes otherwise probably also thinks Barry should be mayor for life.   

[HalfSmokes]

You are either not very bright or extremely clueless.

The team is paying "rent" to DC to use the stadium.

Plus, Washington gets a cut out of every single hot dog and cup of beer sold.

It is amazing that that is so hard for you to understand.        

You are either not very bright or extremely clueless. The city is getting less in 'rent' than they are paying to service the debt for the stadium. It is amazing that that is so hard for you to understand.      

[NJ Ave]

Well, it's obviously not just the rent. There are the economic benefits of the redevelopment of the area. Of course, there is a huge disagreement over how much of that is attributable to the Nationals, and how much is simply due to the fact that this was an enormous, largely undeveloped area with metro access on the right side of the river in a growing and wealthy city. I think much of the development would have happened anyways, although it was probably sped up with the Nationals bringing 35,000 people to the area 81 times a year.

But it's impossible to ignore the fact that there are new businesses, 3,000 new residents, meter fees, parking lot receipts, etc. that are to some degree driven by the stadium being there instead of Ashburn.

[NJ Ave]

In the most basic example, even if you ignore every other resident or business, there would be no "Bullpen" without the park.

Would that it were so.

[OldChelsea]

[...]But that still doesn't mean it was a good use of money. The city still used $600 million of its debt-issuing ability to build a stadium instead of renovating schools, improving infrastructure, etc. [...]

[not nit-picking with you or the District but] GEEZ I get so bloody tired of hearing people bring this up whenever spending on a sports facility comes up - and seemingly ONLY when spending on a sports facility comes up. All these people boohooing over money that they feel could be better spent on education, health care, low-income housing et al - why aren't they campaigning for this during normal council sessions and normal election campaigns, instead of (seemingly only) when sports facilities comes up?

Not that such people don't have a legitimate beef, but they need to bring it up at other times besides this.

[HalfSmokes]

[not nit-picking with you or the District but] GEEZ I get so bloody tired of hearing people bring this up whenever spending on a sports facility comes up - and seemingly ONLY when spending on a sports facility comes up. All these people boohooing over money that they feel could be better spent on education, health care, low-income housing et al - why aren't they campaigning for this during normal council sessions and normal election campaigns, instead of (seemingly only) when sports facilities comes up?

Not that such people don't have a legitimate beef, but they need to bring it up at other times besides this.

because if you have a normal budget with normal allocations, there normally is no issue, it's when you consider spending a large amount of additional money and then direct all of that money to a private enterprise. If the city is in a position to raise that extra money (which they seemingly are if they decide to do it for an arena), why not open a debate about the best use for the additional money?

[NJ Ave]

[not nit-picking with you or the District but] GEEZ I get so bloody tired of hearing people bring this up whenever spending on a sports facility comes up - and seemingly ONLY when spending on a sports facility comes up. All these people boohooing over money that they feel could be better spent on education, health care, low-income housing et al - why aren't they campaigning for this during normal council sessions and normal election campaigns, instead of (seemingly only) when sports facilities comes up?

Not that such people don't have a legitimate beef, but they need to bring it up at other times besides this.

This is crazy. New taxes were passed - city taxpayers should roll over and pay them to fund a stadium rather than (a) anything else the money could be spent on, or (b) keeping their own money in their frickin' pockets? New bonds were issued - that affects the city's creditworthiness and the price of making other improvements by issuing further future bonds.

Also, the REASON you might only hear it when a sports facility comes up is that people DON'T see a sports facility as a good use of public money, and do not raise the same issue when discussions come up about new taxes to fund schools, roads etc. because they DO see that as a good use of public money.

But if you don't think people raise hell about how local taxes are spent, what priorities are, whether we give more to schools (and how we allocate that between recruiting/retaining teachers or improving facilities/educational opportunities, how we spend money on roads, parks, etc...and you think it's only happening when a sports facility comes up - you aren't paying attention.

[Slateman]

DC wants them, PG wants to keep them, and you can bet that there will be some push for a Virginia location

The only way DC will get them back is if they agree, in the contract, to not attempt to change the name.

[not nit-picking with you or the District but] GEEZ I get so bloody tired of hearing people bring this up whenever spending on a sports facility comes up - and seemingly ONLY when spending on a sports facility comes up. All these people boohooing over money that they feel could be better spent on education, health care, low-income housing et al - why aren't they campaigning for this during normal council sessions and normal election campaigns, instead of (seemingly only) when sports facilities comes up?

Not that such people don't have a legitimate beef, but they need to bring it up at other times besides this.

Because, in theory, a stadium is a one time expense AND will bring in revenue. Sales taxes and jobs. Where as those other things don't have that kind of fiscal impact.

[HalfSmokes]

Because, in theory, a stadium is a one time expense AND will bring in revenue. Sales taxes and jobs. Where as those other things don't have that kind of fiscal impact.

what theory? Even if you consider a bond to be a onetime expense, there is still upkeep which can run a couple of million a year. As far as fiscal impact, most studies show that, at best, it's less than expected, and often a net loss. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/

[NJ Ave]

It should be pretty obvious that it's a net loser, at least in the short to medium-run, because the city had to pass new taxes to pay for it.

But let's be honest, this is a rich-ass city, and getting richer. We should have paid for a nice new stadium because it was our chance to get a baseball team for the first time in 35 years, and because we can afford it without batting an eye. Now it's stupid in cities where they're really struggling to pay the bills they already have - Miami comes to mind although I don't know Miami's exact finances.

Whether or not it was the "best" use of money, I'm still happy we have a really nice new stadium in the middle of a (resumed) rapidly developing area, and that if it was a borderline bad investment that the city and its residents can afford it many times over.

I'd prefer the Redskins not come back to town, but that's because I find the football parking lot culture more suited for the suburbs. I hate using vast swaths of city land for parking lots.

[Ray D]

Because, in theory, a stadium is a one time expense AND will bring in revenue.

But the annual revenue has to exceed the annual cost of the debt.  Otherwise it's a bad deal. 

[Ray D]

The only way DC will get them back is if they agree, in the contract, to not attempt to change the name.
 

Speaking as one who  does think they should change the name, honestly I think all the talk about forcing them to do so is nonsense.  I don't see that there is any legal basis for anyone to cpmpel them to change the name "Redskins".  The name "Washington" is another matter. In fact, the irony is, the city probably has more leverage to compel them to change the name if they stay out of DC, because they probably do have legal basis to compel them to stop calling the team "Washington" if they are not in Washington.  So they could invoke the threat to sue over that if they don't change the name "Redskins".  Obviously they couldn't hold that threat if they move back to DC.

[Mathguy]

Believe it or not, I know something about statistics.  This is a good article for the average of a number of examples where sport stadiums haven't always panned out.  But please look at DC singularly, for it has become one of the meccas in the country for job growth and economic activity.  Please don't lump the experience here with other cities.

what theory? Even if you consider a bond to be a onetime expense, there is still upkeep which can run a couple of million a year. As far as fiscal impact, most studies show that, at best, it's less than expected, and often a net loss. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/

[HalfSmokes]

Believe it or not, I know something about statistics.  This is a good article for the average of a number of examples where sport stadiums haven't always panned out.  But please look at DC singularly, for it has become one of the meccas in the country for job growth and economic activity.  Please don't lump the experience here with other cities.

do you see the term "washington" anywhere in the quote that I was replying to? If you want to make it about Washington, how does the stadium have anything to do with 'become one of the meccas in the country for job growth and economic activity'?

[NJ Ave]

do you see the term "washington" anywhere in the quote that I was replying to? If you want to make it about Washington, how does the stadium have anything to do with 'become one of the meccas in the country for job growth and economic activity'?

This is the biggest problem with determining the "impact" the ballpark has had on the neighborhood there. Proponents will point to things like a 10X growth in residents, businesses, etc. But most, if not all, of those were coming anyways, with or without the stadium. Even without the stadium, this was a huge development opportunity - a large swath of land almost entirely undeveloped, separated geographically from SW by South Capitol and from Anacostia by the river, with a Metro stop.

Plus, DC is growing and becoming more prosperous anyways.

My gut feeling is that at most, the stadium is spurring development a couple years ahead of schedule. At worst, the rent from the stadium (~$6 million a year) is actually LESS than the city would gain from having about 1,500 new residents and accompanying businesses on the ballpark footprint if they built out those blocks the same way they did the rest of the neighborhood.

But DC can afford a luxury item like the park, so who cares?

[Slateman]

But the annual revenue has to exceed the annual cost of the debt.  Otherwise it's a bad deal. 

Yea, I get the concept.

[NJ Ave]

But the annual revenue has to exceed the annual cost of the debt.  Otherwise it's a bad deal. 

Just to continue playing both sides, I don't agree with this necessarily. There are plenty of local expenditures on things like homeless shelters, art, libraries, education etc. that make life in the District better for all its residents that don't have a quantifiable ROI.