Author Topic: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?  (Read 2185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19204
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #25: September 17, 2016, 01:54:33 PM »
I think nats stadium is as close to a decent deal as you'll see for a city; 82 regular season home games plus playoffs + events pulls a lot of people into the city. Nfl is a fraction of that and I doubt Snyder wants to take a pay cut, so I think you'll see him demand a bunch of city revenue while kicking in as little as possible. I think it ends up coming down to PG vs DC just because I can't see Arlington, Alexandria, fairfax or moco coming close to giving him what he wants and I think loudon voters would end up balking too. It could be interesting though to see how it would fair in the DC city council where you have a decent lobby for smart growth

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #26: September 17, 2016, 06:26:14 PM »
oddly enough, I think that it is more plausible that there's economic benefit to the DC with Washington team stadiums than there typically is in other cities.  DC finances these stadiums through bonds paid for by ticket and parking taxes.  Those taxes are paid by the MoCo, PG, Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax residents who buy the tickets.  The argument that any restaurant and development around a park merely shifts it from other places may hold water in, say, Pittsburgh, but in DC, the shift is from the burbs to the city.  No DC revenue or jobs for a stadium out in Dulles.  I'm still not sure it pays back enough, but DC might be the place it makes sense the most.

The moment the ballpark was announced, real estate values shot up significantly.  Businesses (and a handful of residents) that were forced out via eminent domain made fat profits on the appreciation in value.  For the city however, this has been a really big real estate tax boon as the area rapidly develops.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 3943
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #27: September 17, 2016, 07:19:17 PM »
The moment the ballpark was announced, real estate values shot up significantly.  Businesses (and a handful of residents) that were forced out via eminent domain made fat profits on the appreciation in value.  For the city however, this has been a really big real estate tax boon as the area rapidly develops.
I'm not positive about this but prior to the announcement that the stadium was to be built I can only recall one new building east of So Cap St and that was 2001 near the 11th st bridge. Five years from now there wont be a vacant lot that hasn't been developed.., Bye Bye parking at a decent rate!!

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 24847
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #28: September 17, 2016, 07:51:07 PM »
DOT's building was on the table back around 1990.  That was supposed to be the pioneer development.  I forget when they made the move.  Needless to say, it was a lonely outpost for a while.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 3943
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #29: September 18, 2016, 06:26:02 AM »
DOT's building was on the table back around 1990.  That was supposed to be the pioneer development.  I forget when they made the move.  Needless to say, it was a lonely outpost for a while.

You are correct. I was referring to private development

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19204
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #30: September 18, 2016, 07:45:13 AM »
The stadium.probably pushed private development in that direction, but once credit freed up again after the 2008 crash, it was may have just been a matter of navy yard vs another neighborhood.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 24847
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #31: September 18, 2016, 09:37:06 AM »
You are correct. I was referring to private development
DOT was supposed to stimulate private development.  It didn't do too much.  It is something of an inward facing structure, with a good cafeteria IIRC (have only been there for one meeting).  I think you did get some of the M street office buildings for the beltway bandits working there and at the Navy Yard. 

The stadium.probably pushed private development in that direction, but once credit freed up again after the 2008 crash, it was may have just been a matter of navy yard vs another neighborhood.
Well, isn't that part of the point?  If it stole development from another part of the city, then it is kind of futile, but if it stole it from PG /Alex/MoCo/Arlington//Fairfax, then it has to be counted in favor of the DC.

I'm going to split off the development thread, put it in Red Loft, so maybe JD can weigh in.


Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 3943
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #32: September 18, 2016, 11:05:17 AM »
The stadium.probably pushed private development in that direction, but once credit freed up again after the 2008 crash, it was may have just been a matter of navy yard vs another neighborhood.
Why wasn't Half St ( the Akridge property) developed as it was suppose to be one of the earliest.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 7447
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #33: September 20, 2016, 12:32:25 PM »
Stole it from another part of DC is probably wrong.  It may have changed the order in which development happened in DC, but the non Navy Yard parts of DC are still being developed.

DOT was supposed to stimulate private development.  It didn't do too much.  It is something of an inward facing structure, with a good cafeteria IIRC (have only been there for one meeting).  I think you did get some of the M street office buildings for the beltway bandits working there and at the Navy Yard. 
Well, isn't that part of the point?  If it stole development from another part of the city, then it is kind of futile, but if it stole it from PG /Alex/MoCo/Arlington//Fairfax, then it has to be counted in favor of the DC.

I'm going to split off the development thread, put it in Red Loft, so maybe JD can weigh in.



Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Re: Re: Politics in 2016 - Send in the Clowns
« Reply #34: September 20, 2016, 05:02:09 PM »
  If it stole development from another part of the city, then it is kind of futile, but if it stole it from PG /Alex/MoCo/Arlington//Fairfax, then it has to be counted in favor of the DC.


I don't really buy the zero sum game for economic development, stadia projects or otherwise.  This sort of argues that no matter what you do, economic growth in the aggregate will remain zero.  It is a fact in my mind that the stadium construction ignited a land rush to the SE and SW neighborhoods in the area that paused only briefly for the 2008 - 2009 banking meltdown, but has fully resumed.  New development bringing in new residents, spending new money that is creating new jobs, raising the tax base, bringing a blighted area alive.  Giving people reason to spend their money and creating incentive (good things to spend it on) to generate increased earnings propels economic growth.

The argument that this sort of development would have happened anyway is weak. 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 42673
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #35: September 20, 2016, 05:08:56 PM »
I don't really buy the zero sum game for economic development, stadia projects or otherwise.  This sort of argues that no matter what you do, economic growth in the aggregate will remain zero.  It is a fact in my mind that the stadium construction ignited a land rush to the SE and SW neighborhoods in the area that paused only briefly for the 2008 - 2009 banking meltdown, but has fully resumed.  New development bringing in new residents, spending new money that is creating new jobs, raising the tax base, bringing a blighted area alive.  Giving people reason to spend their money and creating incentive (good things to spend it on) to generate increased earnings propels economic growth.

The argument that this sort of development would have happened anyway is weak. 

I think the issue is that tax payers are paying way more than it's worth. It's not liek sports owners are hurting for money. They shouldn't be able to get a massive tax break (that's what it is) with the promise of some construction jobs and then other, low paying, low ceiling jobs.

SE is a lot better than it was, but if it takes 600+ million to get that far, I want someone to do some studies about alternative ways of doing it. Because, frankly, SE still sucks balls.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #36: September 20, 2016, 05:12:47 PM »
I think the issue is that tax payers are paying way more than it's worth. It's not liek sports owners are hurting for money. They shouldn't be able to get a massive tax break (that's what it is) with the promise of some construction jobs and then other, low paying, low ceiling jobs.

SE is a lot better than it was, but if it takes 600+ million to get that far, I want someone to do some studies about alternative ways of doing it. Because, frankly, SE still sucks balls.

DC is making a killing off the dramatic increase in property taxes.  These tax payers are getting their money's worth - dramatically increased values of their property.  It's become a much more desirable place to live, work, or visit. 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19204
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #37: September 20, 2016, 05:18:59 PM »
DC is making a killing off the dramatic increase in property taxes.  These tax payers are getting their money's worth - dramatically increased values of their property.  It's become a much more desirable place to live, work, or visit. 

I'd like to see a study actually showing that- most come to the opposite conclusion

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 42673
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #38: September 20, 2016, 05:20:30 PM »
I'd like to see a study actually showing that- most come to the opposite conclusion
This. There is very little information/evidence to suggest that a tax payer funded stadium brings in more than it costs.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #39: September 20, 2016, 06:05:47 PM »
I'd like to see a study actually showing that- most come to the opposite conclusion

I wonder if you could find property tax records online for a handful of properties and examine the values before the park was announced, through to  now.  I recall that the eminent domain (land acquisition) costs were higher than originally projected because the properties had already appreciated sharply in anticipation of the ballpark itself impacting desirability. 

There is a whole cottage industry of economists who conclude the stadiums don't make economic sense.  And I do appreciate some of the arguments, but then you see wisdom like this, signed by 90 economists:

Quote
"Because sports stadiums are not used most of the year, they do not stimulate much development outside the stadium," the letter stated. "Most modern stadiums include restaurants and other entertainment offerings, limiting the money that goes to neighboring businesses. . . . In short, it is dubious to justify the use of public funds to subsidize construction of a DC baseball stadium on economic development grounds."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52665-2004Oct21.html

I think a casual look around the ballpark area will lead one to conclude the exact opposite, that restaurants, bars, and other businesses are in fact thriving and benefiting directly from their not accidental locations next to the park.  Vacant lots generate parking revenue pending development.  The much anticipated boom in the area is a reality now, and to say it would have happened anyway ignores that now is better than 20 or 40 more years in the future.


Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 8795
  • Team America 2018
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #40: September 20, 2016, 06:17:48 PM »
First time I went to a Nats game in 2010 the Navy Yard area was awful. Get in then leave as fast as possible. Past few years the area has gotten progressively better and not a number of restaurants and bars are down there while I can't really remember there being more than maybe one a few years ago. Also new residential and commercial buildings have shot up. The left field view past few years at Nats Park has been a ton of cranes. I think if the new DC United stadium really develops as a mixed use facility with the northeastern plaza bringing in some new restaurants and bars, plus more residences nearby, then then in 2023, fifteen years after Nats Park opened, you won't be able to recognize the area with multiple major parks in easy walking distance to each.

I'll let someone else argue the question of costs to the taxpayer as well as the idea with property value so high in DC, Northern Virginia, and development of Anacostia made development in the Navy Yard area a guarantee with or without the stadium. I think more often than not stadium deals are bunk for taxpayers and don't see major change in the area but Nationals Parks seems to have been an overall pretty darn good deal and redeveloped the area like the MCI Center did Chinatown. So, yes, I think the deals have been good for DC compared to other venue deals around the nation.

But, overall, I hate the idea that taxpayers are paying massive amounts for stadiums and arenas. I am all about governments at the local and state level sweetening the pot and using smart incentives for economic development purposes but for some reason pro sports have found a way to take this to an absolutely ridiculous level.

If I was DC I would see very little reason to subsidize a new Redskins stadium. Baseball, hockey, and basketball are questionable deals but they cost significantly less and have many more home dates.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 42673
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #41: September 20, 2016, 06:20:10 PM »
I wonder if you could find property tax records online for a handful of properties and examine the values before the park was announced, through to  now.  I recall that the eminent domain (land acquisition) costs were higher than originally projected because the properties had already appreciated sharply in anticipation of the ballpark itself impacting desirability. 

There is a whole cottage industry of economists who conclude the stadiums don't make economic sense.  And I do appreciate some of the arguments, but then you see wisdom like this, signed by 90 economists:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52665-2004Oct21.html

I think a casual look around the ballpark area will lead one to conclude the exact opposite, that restaurants, bars, and other businesses are in fact thriving and benefiting directly from their not accidental locations next to the park.  Vacant lots generate parking revenue pending development.  The much anticipated boom in the area is a reality now, and to say it would have happened anyway ignores that now is better than 20 or 40 more years in the future.



So . . . basically . . . mindfacting.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18600
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #42: September 20, 2016, 06:21:51 PM »
It's what we do, Slate.

Seriously, though, all the taxes paid by all those well-to-do young professionals in those residential towers... that's gotta be some serious money. Thousands of units.

So . . . basically . . . mindfacting.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19204
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #43: September 20, 2016, 07:41:08 PM »
I wonder if you could find property tax records online for a handful of properties and examine the values before the park was announced, through to  now.  I recall that the eminent domain (land acquisition) costs were higher than originally projected because the properties had already appreciated sharply in anticipation of the ballpark itself impacting desirability. 

There is a whole cottage industry of economists who conclude the stadiums don't make economic sense.  And I do appreciate some of the arguments, but then you see wisdom like this, signed by 90 economists:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52665-2004Oct21.html

I think a casual look around the ballpark area will lead one to conclude the exact opposite, that restaurants, bars, and other businesses are in fact thriving and benefiting directly from their not accidental locations next to the park.  Vacant lots generate parking revenue pending development.  The much anticipated boom in the area is a reality now, and to say it would have happened anyway ignores that now is better than 20 or 40 more years in the future.



I think the neighboring business argument is based on the premise of a limited entertainment budget, so a night out at the ballpark means no dinner and a movie

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3162
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #44: September 20, 2016, 07:44:00 PM »
One thing I will always come back to is, when you are arguing that you could float $650 million in bonds for other, better, projects, you have to remember you are dealing with the D.C. Council.

So maybe this was the best use of the debt after all. :)

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #45: September 20, 2016, 09:10:26 PM »
So . . . basically . . . mindfacting.

Pretty much.  Not seeing much data out of you though....


Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18600
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #46: September 20, 2016, 09:12:03 PM »
You can't find data to support what did not occur.

Pretty much.  Not seeing much data out of you though....

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #47: September 20, 2016, 09:14:39 PM »
I think the neighboring business argument is based on the premise of a limited entertainment budget, so a night out at the ballpark means no dinner and a movie

It does, and it's a completely inane argument.  It assumes a static population of people who are already completely maxxed out on their incomes and have no ability to save less/spend more, nor sell their units to more affluent gentrifiers, nor work a couple of hours more to earn some more spending cash, or any of a myriad of ways in which more $$$ can materialize to be spent.  The zero sum assumption is quite ridiculous the more you compare to the real world.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 32692
  • Hell yes!
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #48: September 20, 2016, 09:20:11 PM »
You can't find data to support what did not occur.

It would be nice if there was a "ballpark district" that one could easily query out the real estate values and tax receipts for the area, say from 2002 or whenever the first suggestion of where the part was to be built was.  The footprint of the stadium itself would take some properties off the tax roles, but the rest are generating significantly more income now. 

Anyway, I refer to Smithian's well crafted opinion statement, this is pretty much where I fall.  I would agree that generally stadium benefits are overstated, governments shouldn't be bidding against one another with subsidies, etc. but in this case I think the evidence would seem to indicate that bringing the Expos to Washington and putting them in Nats Park has been a rousing success for the city.


Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18600
Re: Replace Fed Ex? How did Nats Park work out for DC?
« Reply #49: September 20, 2016, 09:29:52 PM »
It's also be pretty clear that baseball brings crowds 81 times a year. Football, eight.

It's a whole different ballgame.


It would be nice if there was a "ballpark district" that one could easily query out the real estate values and tax receipts for the area, say from 2002 or whenever the first suggestion of where the part was to be built was.  The footprint of the stadium itself would take some properties off the tax roles, but the rest are generating significantly more income now. 

Anyway, I refer to Smithian's well crafted opinion statement, this is pretty much where I fall.  I would agree that generally stadium benefits are overstated, governments shouldn't be bidding against one another with subsidies, etc. but in this case I think the evidence would seem to indicate that bringing the Expos to Washington and putting them in Nats Park has been a rousing success for the city.