Redskins Mayor Trying To Get Team Back To D.C.

So here's what they just said.

The city want's to lease RFK to the team for a low cost while they build a 100,000 seat dome stadium that can host the Super Bowl.

In the past, team ownership's response to whether or not they're interested in moving the team back to D.C., has been they've never been approached by D.C. leadership.

Looks like D.C. has some finance guru doing the cost-benefit analysis of moving the team back into the city to deteremine if it's economically viable.

So I guess we'll see what happens.

Looks like D.C. has some finance guru doing the cost-benefit analysis of moving the team back into the city to deteremine if it's economically viable.


Hmmm ... I wonder what they'll say? A city-sponsored study to see if building a stadium for a multi-million dollar business at the cities expense is economically viable ... I bet it will be like that Baltimore study cited in that interview I posted earlier.

12th, don't take my concerns personally, definitely not attacking you, I just don't like the concept of stadium subsidies. I do, however, like having something else to talk about besides the coaching search disaster.

P.S.

I did go to two games at RFK. Against the 49ers in 1994 and Oakland in 1995. It wasn't that magical in those days, let me tell you. Probably better than FedEx (though that Cowboys game in 2005 that I attended WAS, in your parlance, magical) but just putting a 100,000 seat stadium in the district won't work "magic", it will just cost taxpayers a lot of money.

I couldnt post a link but
San Diego team owner is trying to build a new stadium at no cost to the city. But opinions differ as to city benefits. A U of MD economics professor Dennis Coates studies this subject. Lets get him to join the Warpath and enlighten us. A new stadium in DC would be great for the city if nightlife develops around it ala the Phone Booth.

PG county gets 10% of ticket prices - $ 200 times 92,000 times 10 times 10% equals 18 million plus. DC could use this.

oh yea cuz that money has done wonders for PG county...

Hmmm ... I wonder what they'll say? A city-sponsored study to see if building a stadium for a multi-million dollar business at the cities expense is economically viable ... I bet it will be like that Baltimore study cited in that interview I posted earlier.

12th, don't take my concerns personally, definitely not attacking you, I just don't like the concept of stadium subsidies. I do, however, like having something else to talk about besides the coaching search disaster.

P.S.

I did go to two games at RFK. Against the 49ers in 1994 and Oakland in 1995. It wasn't that magical in those days, let me tell you. Probably better than FedEx (though that Cowboys game in 2005 that I attended WAS, in your parlance, magical) but just putting a 100,000 seat stadium in the district won't work "magic", it will just cost taxpayers a lot of money.

I didn't take it personally at all. I do get passionate, however, when the city of Washington D.C. is discussed because it is my proud home. I've seen some good changes over the years and some not so good changes.

But I'm with you on stadium subsidies. D.C. has the worst public school system in the nation (ranked #51), it suffers from many social ills, and the city can't secure federal funding to save it's life. I really see a huge stadium being erected as yet another step to further gentrify that pocket of the city.

The D.C. native in me doesn't want it to happen, but the Redskin in me welcomes it with open arms.

Hmmm ... I wonder what they'll say? A city-sponsored study to see if building a stadium for a multi-million dollar business at the cities expense is economically viable ... I bet it will be like that Baltimore study cited in that interview I posted earlier.

12th, don't take my concerns personally, definitely not attacking you, I just don't like the concept of stadium subsidies. I do, however, like having something else to talk about besides the coaching search disaster.

P.S.

I did go to two games at RFK. Against the 49ers in 1994 and Oakland in 1995. It wasn't that magical in those days, let me tell you. Probably better than FedEx (though that Cowboys game in 2005 that I attended WAS, in your parlance, magical) but just putting a 100,000 seat stadium in the district won't work "magic", it will just cost taxpayers a lot of money.

By the way, I was in Columbia last weekend. I'm headed back down there tomorrow.

I have been saying this for three years but this is going to happen eventually. Fed Ex is such a landhog that it would be possible to sell the site for development and not even really lose much money. Moreover, the fact that the Cowboys are moving into a new stadium just compounds things, for reasons that don't need to be enumerated.

I don't buy the old RFK contingent returning but I still think this will be a good thing for the city and the team.

I have been saying this for three years but this is going to happen eventually. Fed Ex is such a landhog that it would be possible to sell the site for development and not even really lose much money. Moreover, the fact that the Cowboys are moving into a new stadium just compounds things, for reasons that don't need to be enumerated.

I don't buy the old RFK contingent returning but I still think this will be a good thing for the city and the team.

While I think it's a long shot, it's not impossible. I think that's what they have in mind - tear down Fed Ex, sell it for developement and make everyone happy.

I didn't take it personally at all. I do get passionate, however, when the city of Washington D.C. is discussed because it is my proud home. I've seen some good changes over the years and some not so good changes.

But I'm with you on stadium subsidies. D.C. has the worst public school system in the nation (ranked #51), it suffers from many social ills, and the city can't secure federal funding to save it's life. I really see a huge stadium being erected as yet another step to further gentrify that pocket of the city.

The D.C. native in me doesn't want it to happen, but the Redskin in me welcomes it with open arms.

12th Man, I hear you. It's a good point. I don't know, though, whether putting the team back in the RFK area would gentrify the neighborhood as much as the new Nats stadium will the South Capitol St. area. Maybe I'm not seeing what a developer would, but I don't see much more than a stadium being (re)built there--you've got 295 one side, and then the houses along east capitol st. on the other. To north and south you just have the parking lots, which you'll still need, especially if there will be more seats in a hypothetical new stadium than the current RFK (it is still standing, after all). The north end parking lots stretch almost all the way to NY ave. (don't they?), so it's not like they'd have land to build on. No?

it can not happen,who would buy Fed Ex field???Plus the deal with PG county would cost to much to get out of.The reason the Redskins are worth so much is mostly real estate value.DC will not sell RFK and won't give up all the stadium rights .........so no untill the deal is thru in PG and you have 12 more years on it and you tear down RFK becuase it can not be "re built" who builds the new stadium and how much do you think that will run the ticket holders?