Report a Comment

1. The Nats drawing 85% of their fans is good news for the District government and taxpayers -- though, the team would probably like to make bigger inroads among District residents...

I think this is also pretty instructive with respect to DC United's efforts to build a stadium. Half their fan base is in Northern Virginia, and another quarter or more from Maryland. Losing the team would be a lost opportunity for the city to bring in revenue from 'day tourists' -- repeat business that would an unequivocal good for the city.

Those who oppose any civic spending for sports teams note that entertainment dollars just get shifted around. For city leaders, though, this news suggests that's not true with respect to city coffers, because the stadiums bring in money from outside the city...money which might otherwise be spent on restaurants and movies in the suburbs -- or far-flung vacations.

2. Frankly, I don't think there would be much development in the Waterfront/Riverfront area without a ballpark? It created an impetus -- a belief that the neighborhood would take off. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without the stadium? Likely not.

3. The last argument is ridiculous. It's a city. Anti-density NIMBYs have good arguments in suburban and rural areas. In a city? Sure, there may be limits -- a point at which density becomes overwhelming and a net negative, but it's hard to argue that DC wouldn't be a better, richer and more vibrant city with a more developed core.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 2, 2012 12:00 pm • link • report