I hope the investigators look at all of the campaigns and money to at least 2001. As Sharon Pratt said, "it is time to clean house."

This is an incredible embarrassment for the District.

by William on Jul 12, 2012 8:40 am • link • report

Re: DC United Stadium at Buzzard Point: It looks like a good idea on paper, but hopefully they'll get the buzzard population under control before they host their first game, because fans won't be back for a second game if they're menaced by bloodthirsty buzzards throughout the game.

by Dan's High Top Fade on Jul 12, 2012 8:42 am • link • report

Regarding the cracked rails, at what point did WMTA become so incompetent? Richard White era?

Isn't rail maintainace sort of the first, most basic thing a railroad should do?

by charlie on Jul 12, 2012 8:42 am • link • report

Isn't rail maintainace sort of the first, most basic thing a railroad should do?

Yes and no. The thing that people notice most is service frequency and fares. So WMATA's incentive is to divert money for long-term maintenance to keep service frequent and fares lower than they would be otherwise (and of course to continue paying outrageous increases in union benefits). That's why WMATA needs better oversight and governance.

WMATA got away with deferring maintenance indefinitely until the Red Line crash. The silver lining of that tragic incident is that people said "never again", which necessitates tackling WMATA's huge maintenance backlog.

by Falls Church on Jul 12, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

I imagine that David is penning a piece that says as much, but I feel that Gray should be allowed to finish out his term, and sternly told not to run again.

We're not going to get a good mayor from an interim election, and the transition period will harm the city.

The big thing that the people of DC need to be asking right now is "How can we avoid another control board?" I seriously think we might be approaching that point.

by andrew on Jul 12, 2012 9:00 am • link • report

What are the requirements to hold a recall election in the District? 2015 is a long ways off.

by Nicoli on Jul 12, 2012 9:01 am • link • report

RE: Sidewalk or Trees

If this area actually had a functioning street grid then bicyclists wouldn't have to use Wisconsin Ave or the narrow sidewalk at all. Or they could take out the median and install some bike lanes. I can't say I understand the point of ripping up all these trees to put in an 8 foot sidewalk/cycling path for 0.7 miles that will just dump you back onto the same narrow sidewalk/major arterial when it ends. What's the point if it's not part of a network?

by MLD on Jul 12, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

Vincent Gray must resign. not only is is name tarnished, but also his office. As long as he remains, the office of Mayor has no respect or credibility.

by ceefer66 on Jul 12, 2012 9:18 am • link • report

The Washington Post article on the soccer stadium didn't really have any meat to it.

All the author pointed out was that he likes soccer, other cities hand out money for stadiums like it grows on trees, and the Verizon Center spurred substantial revitalization of Chinatown. Of course, I happen to like frisbee golf, but you don't see me penning an article about how it's a good idea to spend hundreds of millions on a pro frisbee golf venue. Why? Because there is no evidence that cities tend to get a return on their investment in these stadium boondoggles. Our city's budget can be better spent elsewhere.

As has been discussed at great length on this blog and in other venues:

Verizon Center: 150(?) events per year, pretty successful
Nats Park: 90(?) events per year, waste of money
Hypothetical soccer stadium: 25(?) events per year, probably a money pit

by JAN02000 on Jul 12, 2012 9:18 am • link • report

@MLD

I drive this stretch of road every morning. It is a nightmare, the sidewalk is about 3 feet wide, and most opt not to use it because of its narrowness. Bikers are commonly on Wisconsin there, which always makes me nervous, as the average speed in that stretch runs roughly 42 MPH.

Not sure why Bethesda ever allowed this country club to have such a huge plot of valuable land, but that is another issue entirely.

by Kyle W on Jul 12, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

Ban his snag?

by Anon69 on Jul 12, 2012 9:21 am • link • report

Because there is no evidence that cities tend to get a return on their investment in these stadium boondoggles.

However, the "return" is very good if the city isn't investing anything like in this case. DCU will pay for the entire stadium. All they're asking from the city are some infrastructure upgrades which are required regardless of who or what puts something at Buzzard's Point.

by Falls Church on Jul 12, 2012 9:24 am • link • report

@JAN02000

I would certainly disagree with your ascertain that Nats park has been a waste of money. It has created a new vibrant neighborhood where once was blight. The bonds are going to be paid off a decade earlier than expected.

Once the nations economy gets going again, and all of the planned projects get underway, I think we will be able to say that Nats Park has been an overwhelming success.

A soccer stadium will be much much cheaper, and will likely have more like 50-60 events per year, due to the smaller footprint. It will be a much better target for concerts and such, due to not having to sell 40k tickets.

by Kyle W on Jul 12, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

Plus, I would argue that the events at a soccer stadium have much more knock on value than the baseball games. Soccer matches, especially the countless international and team USA matches it would host, will be out of town visitors who rent hotels and eat at our restaurants.

by Kyle W on Jul 12, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

@Falls Church

I think they're also asking for land acquisition costs as I thought the plot of land they want to use was owned by JBG?

by jj on Jul 12, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

Not sure why Bethesda ever allowed this country club to have such a huge plot of valuable land, but that is another issue entirely.

Maybe the club owned the property, or a previous owner did, before Mont. Co. decided to make Wisconsin Ave. so wide. If you really want to blame someone, blame the king of England for granting colonists land.

Anyway, this remains a sidewalk to nowhere, as there is nothing on that side of the street except a long stretch of fence. There is a sidewalk on the other side that goes along the houses and provides access to the side streets. If the need is for bicyclists, why not find a way to build a bike lane on the road?

by ah on Jul 12, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

The only reason Gray isn't in prison right now is his steadfast claims he had no idea all the people he personally hired, all long term friends were doing any of this, which of course is complete lunacy but it is his claim.

If the feds can prove this conversation took place 18 months ago like she says, then everything that has come out of that mans face since is a lie. All his assertions, all his claims that he had "no" idea...complete BS.

We all knew Gray was just a younger Marion Barry...I just didn't think he would prove it to us all so quickly after elected.

by Barry-Lite on Jul 12, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

ok..here we go again with this Verizon Center renewed its area meme. The area around the arena was already being rebuilt with condos and prestigeous office buildings before the arena. In fact it took a huge parcel of land OFF the property tax rolls and required, and continually requires, a lot of DC subsidy.

South Capitol Street is now being rapidly restored. A soccer stadium will not be the cause of its renewal. It will take a huge parcel off tax rolls and need DC money.

deja vu all over again.

It looks like Gray's replacement election (yes he knew & is toast) will be a special election. Totally different dynamics than a general election and PM and Wells will be in weird positions.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 12, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

@JAN02000

Tracee Hamilton isn't a he. Also, I think she's not that much of a soccer fan. Certainly, past columns have shown she doesn't know much about the sport. ON this point, she does seem to be better informed.

As for the stadium -- to use Verizon Center as the measurement bar is unfair. That was a uniquely successful facility -- probably unmatched anywhere, except maybe the impact the baseball stadium had in Cleveland. Not even sure Camden Yards had the impact Verizon Center has had, but the Verizon Center is more than a sports arena. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Verizon Center hosts as many non-sports events as sports.

The soccer stadium will boost the waterfront area, for sure -- even if it won't be quite the destination that Penn Quarter has become. It's not centrally located enough and Anacostia isn't a great neighbor, either. Over time, that will change, though. The Waterfront will become more of a destination in decades to come. The DC United stadium will be a key piece of that, adding to the flavor.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jul 12, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

Based on the evidence and facts, Mayor Gray is either corrupt (likely), incompetent to the point where he is unable to asses and acknowledge corrupt behavior among his associates, or just simply willing to turn a blind eye towards said corruption. None of this speaks well for him.

As someone else pointed out, a transition period might do more harm than good for the city. Perhaps a better way forward would be to call for him to no run for re-election.

by Fitz on Jul 12, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

"South Capitol Street is now being rapidly restored. A soccer stadium will not be the cause of its renewal. It will take a huge parcel off tax rolls and need DC money."

with condos that advertise their proximity to Nationals Park, as it happens.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 12, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

pardon - condos and apartments

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 12, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris -- Yes, the area around Gallery Place was developing on its own. It was a nice quiet little theatre district, with upscale condos and a nice restaurant in Jaleo's. The Verizon Center radically transformed that the neighborhood became. It would never have become the nightlife destination it has become without Verizon.

As for taking a big piece of property off the tax rolls -- I wasn't aware that this was true, but I'm not questioning you. Even if true, I would bet it has been a huge net plus for city coffers.

The DCU stadium will not be on South Capitol. It will be several blocks away, at the end of a dead-end street -- and, if it is built, it will replace empty lots, a shuttered power plant and a silo the city uses for sand/salt. Down the road, if the neighborhood develops more quickly as a result, it will also mean that the gravel business, now located at the western foot of the bridge will find it profitable to sell that plot, too.

Ultimately, a boom along the waterfront will help Anacostia, too. Those who want the streetcar to connect Anacostia to the city center should be applauding the stadium idea. WIth a proposed stop that will run within a block of the stadium, this would a huge kick-start to that project.

Whatever it might cost the city to (1) give some under-utilized land for the stadium, and (2) maybe to pay PEPCP for its parcel; (3) to improve access to the site by following through on streetcar plans and (4) to make Potomac Ave a more usable street -- these costs will bring the city big returns in the long run, with increased tax receipts and a huge boost for the waterfront area and Anacostia.

Plus, to be a modern, major international city in the 21st Century means having a pro team and a modern soccer stadium

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Jul 12, 2012 9:57 am • link • report

I am not so sure that there will be a special election.

All the revelations so far suggest that Gray was careful to maintain deniability. There may not be enough hard evidence against him to support a criminal indictment. And what Gray's recent statements suggest is that absent an indictment, he's not going anywhere.

Of course, Machen could have the goods on him already, and is just patiently building as iron-clad a case as possible. We shall see.

by Phil on Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

I don't see how anyone can oppose the soccer stadium. The owners are willing to pay for it. DC has to provide the infrastructure to support it. That's more than a fair compromise--no matter what goes at Buzzard Point, it won't get built without City infrastructure.

And Mendelson as Mayor, even on a temporary basis? Talk about disaster. First thing you can forget is the H Street streetcar, because he'll bow to NIMBY pressure before he's even sworn in. I'd rather keep Gray, scandals and all.

by Circle Thomas on Jul 12, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

I don't know whether Gray should resign now or not - but this notion that any resignation is premature unless there are actual charges filed is just nonsense. What an incredibly low bar to set - it reflects a disregard for the importance of ethics rules and effective governance. Our expectations for our elected officials, and their expectatiosn for themselves, should be far higher than, "can serve until awaiting trial on criminal charges."

by dcd on Jul 12, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

I think they're also asking for land acquisition costs as I thought the plot of land they want to use was owned by JBG?

I know DCU is asking for "help" with land acquisition but it wasn't clear if that meant cash, or political help assembling the parcels needed for the stadium.

Bottom line is that the investment required by the city is far less for DCU than for Nats Ballpark or other pro sport stadiums because DCU will cover all stadium construction costs. That said, it's impossible to talk about "return on investment" until there's greater clarity on exactly the size of the investment required by the city. At first blush, it seems like a far better deal for the city than virtually any other pro sports stadium project.

by Falls Church on Jul 12, 2012 10:16 am • link • report

The big thing that the people of DC need to be asking right now is "How can we avoid another control board?" I seriously think we might be approaching that point.

When Gray was elected, I asked what the over/under was on Control Board Part Deux. To be honest, I wonder if the city would not be better served if the entire Council also announced that none of them would run for the Mayoral seat if Gray finished his term and did not run for reelection.

by Dave_J on Jul 12, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

Aw man, this looks bad. But I hope Gray ignores the cattle chorus and not resign.

I am a bit confused.

The report said that Gray had a conversation w/Harris 7 months ago as they were compiling documents for an OCF audit. They talked about the federal investigation of the campaign and this is when Gray found out about the unreported funds. Gray instructed her her to provide records of any campaign expenditures.

What confuses me is that Gray has denied knowing about the illegal activities prior to that meeting. The Post reports that this meeting "marks the first indication that Gray knew of the funds prior to the March raid of Thomas' home." They go on to report that prior to the meeting, Harris had prepared "dummy" invoices...or at least I assume they were. But, they don't know if Harris told Gray or his staff about the source of the money nor the amount?

So are they really reporting that Gray had a meeting w/Harris this past January where she told him about the unreported funds? Yet, they STILL don't know if they knew anything beyond that? Are they suggesting that Gray should have informed somebody when he found out about the undocument funds? Or that he knew about the undocumented funds but told Harris to submit all the expenditures really as a rouse..knowing that she would submit fake ones? Did the campaign submit the "false" records and not inform OCF about the undocumented funds? I can't wait until we get more definitive answers @the conclusion of this investigation.

by HogWash on Jul 12, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

So AT BEST, Gray surrounded himself with a number of people who committed criminal acts in furtherance of his campaign all without his knowledge. And somehow I'm supposed to feel comfortable that he hasn't done the same thing in office? Regardless of whether he knew or not, his negligence is pretty damning of his managerial/leadership skills.

by 7r3y3r on Jul 12, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

Fischy (Ed F.), you are correct that the Verizon Center is used for more than just sports. The building is in use about 250 days a year. Besides being home of the Capitals, Wizards, Mystics, and Gerogetown Hoyas basketball, it regularly plays host to a wide variety of concerts, the circus, the annual horse show, Disney on Ice, and the occasional self-help guru session. It is not unheard of for there to be a basketball game in the early afternoon, followed by a hockey game.

Part of the reason for hosting so many events is, despite the city subsidies, the ownership group has to make payments on the loans that were taken out for construction (Ted Leonsis' group took those over when they bought out the Pollin family).

by Birdie on Jul 12, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

Oh, DC "government." Every month you make me want to move back to Arlington just a little bit more.

by worthing on Jul 12, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

I wonder if the city would not be better served if the entire Council also announced that none of them would run for the Mayoral seat if Gray finished his term and did not run for reelection.

So, who would run then? I certainly think we can recruit a decent mayor outside of the council (and that this might actually be a good thing), but I'm coming up short on actual names. Tregoning? Lanier?

by andrew on Jul 12, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

Oh, DC "government." Every month you make me want to move back to Arlington just a little bit more.

Somehow, with all its faults, the DC Government is still preferable to living under McDonnell/Cuccinelli.

by andrew on Jul 12, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

On the Examiner article -- It's nice to see that Metro has finally come up with a reasonable standard for university names. Main campus within a half mile is a clear and reasonable standard that will prevent schools from cluttering the station names while still allowing the university to be placed on the name if it makes sense (Georgetown University stop if we have get a separate Blue Line for example).

Obviously it would be nice if we could get rid of the VA Orange Line university names, but one step at a time I suppose.

by JW on Jul 12, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report

Vincent Gray should resign. He should have resigned yesterday. Will GGW show some guts here and call on him to resign? I hope so. You hit Virginia's governor every week...but here we have a totally corrupt Mayor and only silence. Come on...so the guy likes bike lane and trolley's...those are not good enough reasons to keep a serial liar and thief in office.

by Pelham1861 on Jul 12, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report

Breaking: DC Streetcar to be operated by RATP (ie. Paris's WMATA).

by andrew on Jul 12, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report

@Andrew, heck I wonder if Carol Schwartz could be talked out of retirement. Tregonning might be another good choice, but not Lanier.

There are probably a good dozen or more people with the skills, smarts, and financial wherewithal to run, but they are also probably too damn smart to want the job, regrettably.

by Dave_J on Jul 12, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

Gray knew of the massive shadow campaign in January, said and did nothing about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mayor-gray-this-is-not-the-campaign-we-intended-to-run/2012/07/11/gJQASDL6cW_story.html?hpid=z4

He needs to resign.

by anon on Jul 12, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report

@Falls Church and other soccer boondoggle defenders -

I'm pretty sure the soccer people are asking for the land for free, massive tax breaks, and for the city to guarantee the bond issuance. That's tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars. Look, I get that you guys like soccer. But there's no way that this isn't a money pit. I happen to be a baseball fan, I like football just fine, and I think soccer is impossibly dull. But I'm telling you straight-up: the city paying for a baseball stadium was a bad deal, and paying for a soccer stadium is even worse. Same thing with building another stadium for the Redskins.

Metro needs repairs and expansions, there are big swaths of the city that stand to benefit from underground power lines, the rivers are dirty, the schools, despite recent gains, are still pretty bad. City parks could use upgrades. The police force could use help. DYRS desperately needs reform and better oversight. The city government is corrupt. These are the areas of need where our political efforts and our tax money should be going. Once all these problems are under control, we can debate whether it is a good use of our remaining resources to subsidize soccer, jai alai, arena football, box lacrosse, cricket, rugby, Australian rules football, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-gUXl7usc

Does anyone want to make the case for the soccer stadium who won't buy tickets? Keep in mind: most of the city, and most Americans in general, won't pay to see professional soccer.

by JAN02000 on Jul 12, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report

Plus, I would argue that the events at a soccer stadium have much more knock on value than the baseball games. Soccer matches, especially the countless international and team USA matches it would host, will be out of town visitors who rent hotels and eat at our restaurants.

And now let's get back to reality...

First off, there is no evidence that the new DCU stadium would host "countless" team USA matches. National team matches are spread all over the country and there are only so many on US soil each year (in 2011 only the Home Depot Center hosted two men's games, all other cities got one). At most, you are talking one men's and 1 women's match, and women's soccer simply doesn't draw nearly as well as the men (rarely more than 15,000 fans). However, the stadium may be too small for men's matches. Why would the national team pick the DCU stadium over FedEx or RFK? Guess what, the team could care less about Metro accessibility to helping DC revitalize a neighborhood.

Second, no international professional matches of any significance will be played at the DCU stadium as it will be too small. Those matches need at least 60,000 seats (the largest MLS stadium is less than half of that), that means FedEx, which is where they are played now. So you are getting no bump in hotel rooms.

Third, the Nationals are an "out of town" draw, especially when they play Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis. During those series the two hotels nearest the stadium (the Residence Inn and Capitol Skyline) are packed with visiting fans. That will change a bit as the Nats local attendance improves, but they will still be an out of town draw.

Fourth, Nats Park hosts 81 games a year. Verizon hosts 41 games each for the Wizards and Caps, so that is 82 right there, plus major concerts. I am not counting the Mystics who draw crickets or Georgetown which draws big crowds for only a few games. DCU plays 17 home games. You might get a national team game, maybe a college tournament with some fans (college regular season games draw no one), so lets say 20 games. One fourth of what you get at Verizon or Nats Park.

If the DCU owners want to build a soccer stadium, more power to them, but don't make the argument that it will have anywhere near the economic impact of the Verizon Center or Nats Park.

by dcrepublican on Jul 12, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report

I'm fairly certain that the people out there with the most vitriol toward public sports venues just hate sports because they were picked last in gym class when they were young.

by Dan's High Top Fade on Jul 12, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report

Oh. I guess there's also the option of Anthony Williams, but I think that's cheating...

by andrew on Jul 12, 2012 2:19 pm • link • report

@JAN02000:

. . . we can debate whether it is a good use of our remaining resources to subsidize soccer, jai alai, arena football, box lacrosse, cricket, rugby, Australian rules football, etc.

Oh, I see what you did there. Clever. If you added duckpin bowling your attempt to claim that soccer is a marginal sport might have been too obvious.

I'm pretty sure the soccer people are asking for the land for free, massive tax breaks, and for the city to guarantee the bond issuance.

Are you sure or just assuming? Because I have yet to read anything indicating that DCU ownership is asking for the land for free.

These are the areas of need where our political efforts and our tax money should be going.

I certainly don't disagree with you nor do I firmly support DCU's plan to build a stadium at Buzzard Point. (Particularly because I haven't heard the exact details of what public assistance they're looking for.) But I do understand the idea that if businesses locate in the District, it could attract more residents and visitors which in turn support more businesses and in the end creates more tax revenue for the District. So the DC government does have an incentive in helping business establish themselves in the District, even sports/entertainment businesses.

The question is: does that business' economic benefit to DC at least match or outweight the amount/type of assistance being requested? You haven't really answered that but instead say "I dislike soccer, think it's a marginal sport, and won't bring in any money" without actually addressing the issue of income potential vs. assistance requested. In short, you're being as subjective as you claim the "soccer boondoggle defenders" are.

by 7r3y3r on Jul 12, 2012 2:22 pm • link • report

I'm pretty sure the soccer people are asking for the land for free, massive tax breaks, and for the city to guarantee the bond issuance. That's tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars.

What makes you so sure? If what you're saying is true (but I haven't seen anything saying that), then I'd agree the the return isn't worth the investment of hundreds of millions.

Does anyone want to make the case for the soccer stadium who won't buy tickets?

I have never bought a soccer ticket in my life. I do, however, own property and pay taxes in DC and want to see the city make good investments when the opportunity arises. Also, for the record, I don't own property anywhere close to the proposed stadium.

by Falls Church on Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

@JAN0200: Does anyone want to make the case for the soccer stadium who won't buy tickets? Keep in mind: most of the city, and most Americans in general, won't pay to see professional soccer.

I hate soccer, and the only way I would go to a DC United game is if someone else was paying for both the tickets AND the copious amounts of beer I would be drinking to alleviate the boredom. I think this is probably a good deal for DC.

The tax breaks and infrastructure improvements would be demanded by any major developer, and the city has a long history of providing them. Given that it would likely do so for an office development, it doesn't bother me too much that the stadium would get it. The stadium itself would be a civic value to the city, and its development would likely be a magnet for development. While stadiums in general aren't a good investment for cities, the relatively small price DC would be paying would, I expect, be made up by drawing in money from the suburbs.

Finally, while the intangibles of having a pro-sports team are generally overrated, they do exist. And this city is probably the most pro-soccer place I've ever lived. I have no doubt that they will successfully sell this stadium out most seasons, even with a major ticket price increase (and if they don't, its on the team, not the city).

My understanding of the land transfer is that the city would pledge to eminent domain anyone who refused to sell (as a deterrent to someone holding out), but not that the city would pay for the land; does anyone have a link that says one way or another? I do agree they should refuse to stand behind the bonds. If that is a requirement, that would be a bad deal.

by JW on Jul 12, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

@JAN02000

Put me in the same camp as JW. Very likely would never go to a game. Property owner in the district, but do think this would be a good investment, especially if the team is building the stadium... What are we going to spend $10,000,000 on infrastructure etc? We spent $20,000,000 to pay back city employees for four days they didn't even work, so $10,000,000 is somewhat of a drop in the bucket.

Regarding your post about the knock-on benefits. Fair enough, I tend to agree with you about the USNT matches.

I do think that this stadium would play host to a significant amount of concerts that would otherwise play JLL or Meriwhether though, and it would host some international matches (not Chelsea or Milan etc, but certainly random Mexican league teams and such?)

I think to say it would have 20 events is a joke, I am certain it would be in the high double digits.

by Kyle W on Jul 12, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report

Some circumstances I could see supporting a stadium:

(a) the team and the league are paying to build it
(b) and tax benefits and tax breaks are against commerce that does not yet actually exist
(c) any additional tax levies are only on immediate beneficiaries and against future activity, not present activity.
(d) it involves redevelopment of an area that does not actually have much, if any, commercial activity
(e) There will be some other infrastructure benefit that I will actually be able to enjoy and take advantage of

by JustMe on Jul 12, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report

"I think to say it would have 20 events is a joke, I am certain it would be in the high double digits."

You also left out high school and college sports..a lot of MLS stadiums around the country play host to these.

by Phil on Jul 12, 2012 5:13 pm • link • report

You also left out high school and college sports..a lot of MLS stadiums around the country play host to these.

How many people attend the average high school or college soccer game? A few hundred at most, and that is with generally free admission. Hosting a game like that would be a money loser for a stadium and would be done only for some community goodwill.

by dcrepublican on Jul 12, 2012 5:38 pm • link • report

I assume by "sports" he meant multiple sports, not just HS and college soccer.

But for the record, UMD has sold out its 7,000-seater multiple times. An ACC tournament might draw pretty well.

by Sgc on Jul 12, 2012 7:28 pm • link • report

Just like with the Nationals, many DC United fans and those attending games are from the suburbs. So part of this is gaining the taxes on tickets, parking and concessions into city coffers.

DC is not like other jurisdictions in this respect.

by William on Jul 12, 2012 8:13 pm • link • report

"How many people attend the average high school or college soccer game? A few hundred at most, and that is with generally free admission. Hosting a game like that would be a money loser for a stadium and would be done only for some community goodwill."

Most of these stadiums can be used for football, as well.

by Phil on Jul 12, 2012 10:17 pm • link • report

@Sgc - "But for the record, UMD has sold out its 7,000-seater multiple times. An ACC tournament might draw pretty well."

No "might" about it. At least UMD and UVA draw upwards of 5000 for their really big conference soccer games. Duke and UNC can get big crowds, too. A new soccer stadium in DC could also make a push for hosting the NCAA tourney from the semis on, and those games can top 15,000-20,000 attendees. Ooh, and lacrosse, too.

by worthing on Jul 13, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

@Sgc - "But for the record, UMD has sold out its 7,000-seater multiple times. An ACC tournament might draw pretty well."

No "might" about it. At least UMD and UVA draw upwards of 5000 for their really big conference soccer games. Duke and UNC can get big crowds, too. A new soccer stadium in DC could also make a push for hosting the NCAA tourney from the semis on, and those games can top 15,000-20,000 attendees. Ooh, and lacrosse, too.

UMD draws a few thousand a few times per year, yes. But that is on campus with students getting free tickets (and making up a majority of those in attendance). That is not a paying crowd. Move the biggest UMD or UVA soccer game of the year to DC, charge for admission, and see how many people you get. It won't be pretty. UMD doesn't even fill half of the Verizon Center for its annual BB&T basketball game (even when they were very good they couldn't fill Verizon for those games).

The NCAA tournament early round games do not draw 15,000 fans (maybe not even all together). In fact, the "College Cup" which is the final four only sells about 10,000-15,000 tickets (2 days passes so the revenue is actually pretty low) per year (the largest crowd ever was 21,000 in Richmond). But tournaments like that rotate around the country, so you might get one every 5 years or so.

As for lacrosse, the stadium will be too small for the men's final four, which is usually held in NFL stadiums. All other lacrosse games will be money losers.

Remember, nearly every college sport in this country is a money loser. Very few athletic departments break even each year, and all of that revenue comes from two sports, football and basketball. Everything else is a drain.

Most of these stadiums can be used for football, as well.

Who will play there? All of the major colleges in this area have their own stadiums that are much larger than the DCU stadium will be and big games and bowl games will play at FedEx or RFK. Are you really banking on Georgetown or Howard's football team?

As for high school football, there are, I believe, more high school football stadiums in DC then there are high school football teams right now. Big games, and those simply do not exist in DC by the way, could always be played at Greene Stadium at Howard. This isn't Friday Night Lights, DC area high school football doesn't draw those type of crowds.

Some people like soccer, I get it. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes no sound economic sense to spend one dollar of public money on a soccer stadium.

by dcrepublican on Jul 13, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by Charles Stowemaker on Jul 13, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

By "maturity" I suppose you mean callling for resignations based on press leaks from the US Attorney's office.

While I have guess (along with most people) that a plea deal that involves resignation is being worked out, I don't see why you need to jump the gun here.

And you see, it is all part of the plan. Vote for Gray, get the first white mayor.

by charlie on Jul 13, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report

I know that stretch of 355 quite well, i'm not sure why they need an 8' wide sidewalk there, a 3-4 foot wide walk would provide adequate function. Pedestrians really don't walk that far on that one side, it really just needs a bike lane. Also, while the club may not want to provide land, it could be seized under eminent domain. The Club would fight that as most would but the county has that power.

Also, the H Street trolley is a great idea but lets put the car barn down at the old recycling center that would make it easy to connect to the orange line
and really become a one city line.

by pat b on Jul 13, 2012 4:19 pm • link • report

"Some people like soccer, I get it. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes no sound economic sense to spend one dollar of public money on a soccer stadium."

That's more than a little strong, including for the implicit assumption that a proposal would actually involve a substantial amount of money, which if you've been following this saga for the years that its been drawn out, looks pretty unlikely at this point.

One other thing that wasn't mentioned is that this venue could do a pretty considerable concert business. It's a very central location, and a good venue size for many outdoor events. My guess is that it would host the most non-regular-tenant events of any sports facility in the Metro area, because of a) scheduling flexibility, b) comparably low price to open, and c) size.

by Sgc on Jul 13, 2012 4:41 pm • link • report

pat B, four feet is not enough for wheel chair access, that's why they need 8'. And there is no way they're putting a bike lane in.

by David C on Jul 15, 2012 12:53 am • link • report

It has created a new vibrant neighborhood where once was blight.

Well, not really. There is a vibrant neigborhood there, but that isn't because of baseball it might be more in spite of baseball. The always brilliant Lydia DePillis hits on some of this here. But most of what you see had already kicked in before baseball came along. The bigger catalysts were the Green line completion, USDOT moving in, Navy Yard changing its rules about where contractors have to have offices, the opening of Navy Yard land, the build out of other areas around DC and Capper/Carrollsburg. If you don't believe me go lot by lot and look at what year land was redeveloped. You'll see that it starts east of the ballpark and moves towards it. If the ballpark were the catalyst it would start at the ballpark and move away.

The bonds are going to be paid off a decade earlier than expected.

But that isn't related to baseball. We're just taxing all the big businesses in town and using it to pay the bongs. Unless you think baseball cause the whole DC economy to explode. Baseball is not paying those bonds.

by David C on Jul 15, 2012 1:01 am • link • report

Plus, to be a modern, major international city in the 21st Century means having a pro team and a modern soccer stadium

75 years ago, people would have said the same thing about horse racing. And just like you, they were wrong.

NYC is a modern, major international city in the 21st Century and they don't have a modern soccer stadium. Nor does DC - which is already a modern, major international city in the 21st Century. There are probably a lot of other examples. Hong Kong? Montreal?

Anyway, this is not a good reason to spend taxpayer dollars.

by David C on Jul 15, 2012 1:08 am • link • report

All fair points, talking about a baseball stadium that was all financed by the public at a price tag of $600M. They probably don't address the concept of spending $25M (which the city does on road and infrastructure projects often enough already that we don't even really notice it) in order to motivate a private investor to spend $150M.

by Sgc on Jul 15, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

@David C: "NYC is a modern, major international city in the 21st Century and they don't have a modern soccer stadium."
That's technically true, but there's a brand-new modern soccer stadium in Harrison, NJ, right across the river from Manhattan and an easy ride on a heavy-rail transit line.
http://www.redbullarena.us/

by A Streeter on Jul 15, 2012 10:28 am • link • report