Comments on Near Southeast rebirth started before the Nats came along - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:19:38 EDT

@goldfish I admire your commitment to quality control. Leaving fatuous comments unremarked is the last refuge of scoundrels. If we got it, I say use it.

Comment by goldfish

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:50:01 EDT

@Read Scott Martin: If you think Mr Graham should be spanked, spank him with something better than this.

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:39:00 EDT

@Goldfish Yes, let's agree not to argue with Council Member Graham. That would be awful.

Comment by Payton

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:44:42 EDT

I also liked NCPC's plan to put the Supreme Court down by the river, but the baseball stadium was an opportunity that presented itself much sooner. At least baseball should spur a wider variety of restaurants (and brewpubs!), faster than more government offices would.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:53:54 EDT

"I don't get that from what she wrote. Here's how I read it: There was no development right after it opened but that's because of the financial near-collapse. Which is more "It didn't drive development, but nothing could have.""

I can see where you could read her that way. I'd still love to see her chime in again.

Comment by selxic

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:22:16 EDT

Sorry about that BBCode tag. I forgot regular html is used here.

Comment by selxic

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:17:48 EDT

I'm not sure why I got singled out since I've largely been away from the back and forth with David C.

[blockquote]Nobody cares about whether or not David C proved what he was saying[/blockquote]I'm not sure how to respond to that...

Anyways, I was genuinely trying to understand the stance of the article. That's why I asked the questions I did in my last comment for clarification instead of attempting to put words in his mouth. I did add Poplar Point since other developments were discussed in the back and forth with others, but I believe the other questions were completely on topic.

I know JD has held a stance against covering Poplar Point, but even that is near, near SE. It's not Arlington. :P

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:02:54 EDT

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

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:17:27 EDT

she seems to think it did DRIVE development

I don't get that from what she wrote. Here's how I read it: There was no development right after it opened but that's because of the financial near-collapse. Which is more "It didn't drive development, but nothing could have."

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:12:05 EDT

"There's Arlington Mill and Penrose Square and the Shell Site and Rosenthal site have both been approved for work this year."

penrose square is done. Arlington mill is being done at county initiative, a community center and affordable housing I think not in response to the market. Yes, there are projects in planning, but not UC yet.

"And I think you're putting words in their mouth. That isn't what they said."

here is what JDLand said

" And to say that the ballpark didn't drive development right after it opened is to neglect the worldwide financial market near-collapse, and the years needed to recover from that""

she seems to think it did DRIVE development. Im not sure how she could not be referring to what did occur since its not possible to have driven development that has not yet occured.

hopefully she will chime in again and clarify

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:07 EDT

Knock it off, please, David C and selxic. Nobody cares about whether or not David C proved what he was saying, or what he did or did not say 25 comments back. Please either talk about the ballpark and Near SE, or don't, but this "you're saying this" "no I'm not" "yes you are" is not contributing.

Comment by selxic

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:37:47 EDT

I'm still seeing you fighting against a narrative that you created, David C. You're simply not making whatever point you are trying to make clearly. Do you believe the ballpark has sped up the Near Southeast revitalization? What stage of planning or development are you using as a metric? Do you believe the current amount of development would be at the state that it is without the ballpark?

How about Poplar Point?

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:29:11 EDT

Theres nothing under construction right now on Columbia Pike, per DC urban turf.

There's Arlington Mill and Penrose Square and the Shell Site and Rosenthal site have both been approved for work this year.

I think the prices would still have been high relative to historical levels

Well, we'll never know. But it's reasonable to question whether they would have been enough for the current owners - with successful clubs and businesses - to cash in.

As for councilman Graham, I think he is referring to the large amount of development that HAS occured. Thats what JDLand and others argue has sped up, not the lots that are still empty.

And I think you're putting words in their mouth. That isn't what they said.

I think the argument JDLand is making is that since the projects close to the ballpark were stopped by the financial collapse, you can't use that to argue that the projects further away were not ballpark impacted.

Clearly I disagree.

No doubt, and I would never argue that it was all just because of the streetcar. But I'll add that I think Englert chose H Street, in part, because of the streetcar.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:02:58 EDT

Theres nothing under construction right now on Columbia Pike, per DC urban turf. Construction lessened in a lot of urbanist places in DC after the collapse, which is one reasone prices/rents spiked - and the market is only moving back toward equilibrium now. The projects near the ball park, generally have a larger office component I think, and that market is weaker than the residential market - retail has also been slower in SE DC than residential. The type of project does matter.

As for lower prices, I think the prices would still have been high relative to historical levels, just not AS high.

As for councilman Graham, I think he is referring to the large amount of development that HAS occured. Thats what JDLand and others argue has sped up, not the lots that are still empty. Your claim is that the failure of the lots NEAR the ballpark to develop is evidence that the development further away cannot be ballpark related. I think the argument JDLand is making is that since the projects close to the ballpark were stopped by the financial collapse, you can't use that to argue that the projects further away were not ballpark impacted. As for why one project is impacted and not another, that has to do with the specifics of project financing, the nature of the project (including its mix of residential office retail) its size, etc.

As for col pike and H street, I think theres a considerable argument that development in those places also has other drivers - in H street its walkable proximity to Capital Hill, plus aggressive redevelopment of the bars by Mr Englert. On columbia pike its sheer proximity to the core - the auto commute is fairly easy. Now the argument that the streetcars DO matter and will matter is mainly based on what developers in those areas are actually saying. In SE DC, developers seem to think baseball is important, and include the ballpark in their advertising.

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:51:43 EDT

@goldfish if you are arguing something, then argue it.

I have. I just haven't argued what you want me to argue. I'm arguing that even if the stadium hadn't been built, you'd still have the vast majority of all of this development (if not all of it). It's right there in the opening paragraphs.

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:48:53 EDT

Had there been a ballpark, but no bubble, presumably the flipping would have happened but at lower prices

That presumption would be true if you think property owners were just as willing to sell at lower prices as they were at higher ones. That's not really how the market works. And if that's not true, then neither is your following assumption.

Many projects have been started, built and completed since the financial crises started. Some right in this neighborhood - ones that predated the stadium. Yet still the land next to the stadium sits mostly empty. At some point in time, the crisis starts to become an excuse that can't be justified. What will finally get these projects off the ground is the burgeoning population resulting from the SE federal center and the Carrol Cappersburg projects, neither of which happened because of baseball.

Given the boom and banking collapse, but no ballpark, yes, by now we would have the same non-development right near the park.

Right. So if everything else were the same, but for baseball, things would look pretty much the same. Isn't that the heart of my argument, and the opposite of Graham's?

Do you think that if we get a financial collapse in say 2013, that there will be a lot of new development near H Street or Columbia Pike Light Rail?

I think there's already been a lot of development in those corridors, including during the economic financial collapse, and that it's been because of the planning and investment in transit. You're making my point for me. Why does the presence of an actual BSO not cause development, but the promise of one does?

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:38:21 EDT

@David C: if you are arguing something, then argue it. But what this article leave me with is, "well maybe the ballparked helped, or maybe it did not." And using this to spank Mr Graham comes off as argumentative.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:28:33 EDT

"And if JDLand is going to blame the lack of development after the stadium on the worldwide financial market near-collapse, then she also needs to acknowledge that the dizzying prices paid during the land rush were related to the land and housing boom going on at the time."

the dizzying prices maybe, but the intensity of flipping was certainly due to plans to develop. Had there been a ballpark, but no bubble, presumably the flipping would have happened but at lower prices, and, in the absence of the banking collapse, the projects would have gotten underway.

Given the boom and banking collapse, but no ballpark, yes, by now we would have the same non-development right near the park.

Lesson - dont finance Bright Shiny Objects right before global financial collapses, because the collapse will undermine the prospects of getting the benefits of the BSO. Of course thats true for LOTS of different kinds of investments, especially ones designed to increase RE investments.

Do you think that if we get a financial collapse in say 2013, that there will be a lot of new development near H Street or Columbia Pike Light Rail?

Note - i lean toward support of those two street car projects, and I'm not keen on public financing of sports arenas. But I think the analytic approach you apply to Nats Park is quite different from one usually applied by contributors here (and that I guess you share) wrt street cars.

Comment by David C

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:27:14 EDT

goldfish. Why is stating uncertainty trying to "have it both ways"? The fact is that it is very difficult to know what would have happened without baseball. If I were to say with certainty one way or the other, I would be ignoring this fact. And without evidence of a deal that didn't happen specifically because of baseball, or one that did, I'm uncomfortable taking such a strong position. Perhaps it's my science background, but I don't see anything wrong with saying that something falls between 0% and 100% true.

I think it's possible that it sped up revitalization, but the evidence is weak.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:09:48 EDT

may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization

I read this as trying to have it both ways.

Comment by David C

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:10:05 EDT

MStreet,

if it MAY have sped up development, then there IS doubt that it did so.

It may not be the clearest sentence. What I was going for was that there is no doubt that putting these kinds of resources into an area may speed up revitalization. It is possible.

Where there is doubt, for me at least, is that it has done so. It's hard for me to see a project that has moved faster thanks to baseball. But maybe with more time it will become more clear.

As for JDLand's point about the land rush, I think she gives that too much credence. Yes, immediately afterward some people did come in and spend a lot of money - too much really - for some land in the area [I can't find it, but somewhere is an interview with some of the people involved with the deals who pretty much say that]. But then they did nothing with the land. In some cases they did nothing with it BECAUSE they paid too much for the land and it had to go through bankruptcy. So because of baseball, many plots of land were owned by one person instead of being owned by another, and in some cases it wound up in bankruptcy. That isn't development. And it may be that it slowed things down.

And if JDLand is going to blame the lack of development after the stadium on the worldwide financial market near-collapse, then she also needs to acknowledge that the dizzying prices paid during the land rush were related to the land and housing boom going on at the time.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:12:00 EDT

btw, this is a really weird sentence

"There is no doubt that Nats stadium, by pumping $1 billion into the neighborhood and using eminent domain to consolidate property, may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization."

if it MAY have sped up development, then there IS doubt that it did so. If there is NO doubt that it sped up development, than it DID speed it up, and "may" does not belong. Are you trying to say 'there is no doubt that someone claiming that there is NO evidence for development speed up is wrong" Thats oddly expressed, and is indeed a pretty weak assertion. Thats probably why most folks here (and JDLAND) are reading you as saying that there was PROBABLY NO SPEED UP.

its real hard to have a debate when we arent all clear on what we are debating.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:02:44 EDT

hat tip = JD land has chimed in

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm/3740/Tuesday-Tidbits-More-Post-Vacation-Catching-Up-to-Do/

"As I've said many times--of course things were happening in Near Southeast before the ballpark (I wouldn't have started this blog in 2003 otherwise). But to not recognize that the ballpark sped up *plans* considerably is to not have watched the 18-month landrush in 2004 and 2005 after the ballpark's location was announced, when so many little lots between 1st and South Capitol south of the freeway were snapped up by the big guns. And to say that the ballpark didn't drive development right after it opened is to neglect the worldwide financial market near-collapse, and the years needed to recover from that"

Comment by David C

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:30:36 EDT

Falls Church, where do you see people discounting that? I think providing opportunities for entertainment is a legitimate function of government. But, I'd point out that we had just as much "free" entertainment on TV before moving the Expos here. I'm not sure we needed a stadium to get baseball on TV.

Comment by Falls Church

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:14:16 EDT

People seem to be discounting one of the biggest benefits of having a baseball team: free entertainment. Even if the stadium does not have a postive return on investment (and not every city investment does...do dog parks, playgrounds and libraries have a positive return on investment?) the team has provided millions of person hours of free entertainment on TV. That entertainment is a huge part of the value of a team just like a big part of the value of a playground is recreation, not just the fact that amenities encourage development.

Comment by danmac

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:44:36 EDT

@A Streeter this email from Ddirector George Hawkins i
George S. Hawkins
10/27/11
to me
Hi Dan,

There are two impervious fees on our bill – one that comes to DCWater exclusively for the big tunnel project, and one that we collect for theDistrict, which does subsidize green roofs and other green development. We arediscussing with US EPA whether we can perhaps substitute green development anddownsize some of the tunnels. Stay tuned!

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:31:35 EDT

@A Streeter: the DC Water's capital needs, due to the impervious runoff flowing into the storm drains, were set some 100 years ago due to the legacy combined sanitary/stormwater sewer built in the older parts of DC. New construction cannot change that need.

Comment by Feldspar

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:07:08 EDT

DC-USA is a Bright Shiny Object? Really? Who knew a Target and a Best Buy are all you need for increased attention for more potentional residential/office renters/buyers to become familiar with an area.

Potomac Yards should take off any day now.

Comment by A Streeter

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:51:10 EDT

@Goldfish, the idea is not direct support of DC Water but indirectly reducing its capital needs by incorporating runoff-reducing features into development that the DC government finances or pays for.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:24:19 EDT

A Streeter: Since the DC government is completely independent of DC water, and since DC water is required to pay for its expenses from fees to its ratepayers, I do not see how DC can use tax revenues to support DC water. Legally or politically.

Comment by A Streeter

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:05:09 EDT

@goldfish, I think danmac meant (among other things) that some of the capital used for the stadium could have gone instead to development that reduced the amount of impervious surface, provided green roofs, etc. and thereby reduced the amount DC Water has to spend (and charge ratepayers) by reducing the amount of runoff it has to deal with.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:32:57 EDT

@danmac: DC water provides sewage treatment to Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland and Fairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia -- that is why it is independent of the DC government by an act of Congress. The impervious surface charges are for retail DC sewer customers, which has nothing to do with DC taxes, nor anything to do with how "DC spent money on low impct devlopement".

Its bonds are completely independent of DC municipal bonds, and are paid by ratepayer fees. They are not tied to DC tax revenues.

Yes, the sewer fees are escalating; but this has nothing to do with the ability of the DC government to borrow money or its power to direct development.

Comment by anon_se

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:31:45 EDT

@Randall M

I was a staunch stadium opponnent and even with the recent on field success some of the arguments against remain valid, but you make a good point about its role as an anchor. Any developer who questions the Districts's commitment to the neighborhood or worry focus and priority will shift to other neighborhoods can be assured that a $630 million sinkhole isn't good for the District (polically and financially) and it provides motivation to make more things happen.

The neighborhood is blossoming, and the best part of the stadium is that you don't need to be a baseball supporter, fan, or sympathizer to appreciate it.

Comment by Vik

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:16:51 EDT

@selxic

I agree with you. People seem to want to paint a broad brush w/ respect to stadiums and arenas in urban areas and it's just not that easy, whether we're talking from a fiscal perspective or urban planning/economic development ones.

Comment by Cavan

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:38:55 EDT

David C, I think we can both agree what D.C. got taken to the cleaners on funding that stadium 100% without any sort of contribution from the team or MLB. Personally, it's frustrated me greatly because it poisoned the well for many years with respect to a DC United stadium as the general public assumed that they have been asking for the same deal when they've always offered to pay 100% construction costs.

As for failed Bright Shiny Objects, the failed ones tend to be from the 1980's and early '90s while the successful ones tend to be from the late 1990's onwards. The difference is that in the late 1990's, we collectively started to realize that a Bright Shiny Object in an urban place needs to be urban-formatted (integrated with the street grid, no surface parking, entrances that open up to the sidewalks, etc.).

For the record, I agree with Jim Graham. We can argue that there could have been a less expensive Bright Shiny Object but there had to be one because that neighborhood was so long-forgotten by everyone except the few who lived there that no profit-seeking developer would have bet on that area.

Comment by danmac

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:36:19 EDT

@goldfish The fact is it is DC water bills that are increasing including an impervious surface fee so in fact they are related those fees are being levied to pay for those bonds and the need and size of the tunnels could be lower if DC spent money on low impct devlopement. Those multi states are not paying higher rates or an impervious surface fee. Its'need to borrow is directly related to the EPA order to DC not Maryland or Virginia.

Comment by goldfish

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:56:04 EDT

@Danmac: We face huge increases in water rates to pay for multibillion dollar tunnels when some of that billion for the stadium could have been used for low impact development , the greening of the city to reduce the size and cost of the tunnels and it would be in place now.

These two are not related. DCwater is an independent, multi-state authority, with its own bond rating. It can borrow money independently from what DC does.

Comment by danmac

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:27:58 EDT

David C has my kudos for placing in perspective the actual developement history of the area and providing a link to the superb JDLand chronicle in great pics and text of the developement of the area. I love the idea of the stadium but agree that it should have been built with at least some of the owners money. The full Capper Carrollsburg Redevelopement is still not completed and at least some of the delay according to DC is that 20 million in a bond offering could not be sold so if 640 million in bonds for the stadium were less we might have completed Capper Carrollsburg. Ghandi uses that limit on DC bonds as a club to prevent any project he deems ill advised. We face huge increases in water rates to pay for multibillion dollar tunnels when some of that billion for the stadium could have been used for low impact development , the greening of the city to reduce the size and cost of the tunnels and it would be in place now.

Comment by selxic

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:12:34 EDT

The problem I continue to have with this, David C, is that you're fighting back at a narrative you're creating. You're interrupting "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development" as nothing would be built if not for the stadium when there is no reaon to believe he isn't saying "may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization."

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:38:59 EDT

NCPC'pRoposed "Monumental S Capital Street" proposal was much better.

The stadium did destroy the. DC gay community's center as well as Nation where people flocked from NYC and Toronto on weekends.

Comment by David C

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:24:23 EDT

@Cavan,

Plans are great.

It's true that plans don't always lead to shovels. But much of what has been built was farther along than plans. Many things were built, being built of funded. Which projects do you think were sped along by baseball?

It's simply inarguable that the stadium had no effect on redeveloping down there.

I'm not sure it's "inarguable", but nonetheless I'm not arguing it. Like I said, "There is no doubt that Nats stadium, by pumping $1 billion into the neighborhood and using eminent domain to consolidate property, may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization." What I want to do is push back on the narrative that there was nothing there, then we built the stadium, and now we have this great neighborhood as a result.

Would you say that you agree more with Jim Graham's statement that "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development" or mine that "Near Southeast was a neighborhood on its way when the Nationals were still playing in Montreal."

Places outside of the Favored Quarter often need some sort of Bright Shiny Object to attract the attention and interest necessary for complete revitalization.

Perhaps that's true. But the world is filled with failed BSO's and failed neighborhoods next door. And it's unclear that this neighborhood need a BSO or didn't already have one in the US DOT HQ.

David C.'s views are that arenas and stadiums are bad

No it's not. I love areans and stadiums. It's my view that some people are exaggerating the benefits of this particular stadium.

And though not in this post, it is my view that DC got taken to the cleaners on this deal. When governments publicly finance stadiums that is often (but not always) bad - because sports leagues are negotiating from a stronger position. You end up paying money for prestige. I don't need prestige - or at least I don't need it as much as I need clean water, a power grid that rarely fails or quality education for kids.

And it is also my view that with $1B, the power of emminent domain, and the investments of thousands of hours of District employee time, we probably could have done more to develop this area than the stadium will provide.

That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth it. The jury is still out. But if development is the goal BSO's may not be the best way to achieve it. And we should think about all of this the next time a group of billionaires asks us to build them a BSO, instead of pointing to Near SE and saying "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development."

Comment by David C

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:56:20 EDT

@MStreetDenizen Why is the ballpark subject to binary thinking (IE it only counts as contributing to development if it was the sole cause of development)?

That's not what I was trying to say, and I hope that wasn't the sense that you got. Perhaps the map made it seem that way, but I understand that some projects may have moved to the left thanks to the stadium. In fact I wrote that it "may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization."

@Alan B, I think the real question is ...is the benefit enough to support the cushy financing.

I agree. But I see this as a part of that question, and that question is beyond my capabilities to answer.

@Jim Titus, thanks. Fixed.

@MLD I don't think it's really taking money away from regular people, and isn't part of the point of government bonding that we can help others pay for something that the public wants?

I'm no expert on the financing, but I'm not sure the entire cost was covered by the bonds. As I recall that was capped at like $600M. The expansion of the Metro entrace was extra, etc.. As to whether taxing big businesses takes money from regular people ("Corporation are people my friend"), I think this has limited DC's ability to borrow in the future - isn't there a limit to that. And when you raise taxes, it makes it harder to raise taxes again - so we lost the opportunity to tax for something else. And finally, Grover Norquist is part right - raising taxes does increase unemployment and slow the economy a bit. Not as much as he'd have you believe, but somewhat.

On your last point, this could definitely be considered a government function, and might even be good policy. But that wasn't my point.

@DCster, see the above commentts on what the stadium taxes are and where they come from. That they exceed expectations only says that DC's economy has done well, it does not prove that the baseball was a net benefit.

@selxic "I'm not sure what is being corrected. Most who cared to know have long acknowledged the area had plans well before MLB even owned the Expos."

So, does Jim Graham not care to know?

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:43:22 EDT

I hear that idea every time someone says "Verizon Center effect." First time I heard that phrase was when Williams and Cropp were selling the Nats stadium deal. I hear it in the worried "lifelong resident" ANC commissioner who was quoted in the Post piece Davd C links to, who doesn't think things are happening fast enough or as promised. Where did he get that idea?

Comment by selxic

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:10:51 EDT

Where does that idea exist though, Read Scott Martin?

Comment by dcdriver

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:38:55 EDT

All those that love to bash federal involvement in DC should note that it was the federal government that played a significant role in the development of near-SE with two major federal projects, the DOT and NAVSEA, and NAVSEA came at the expense of Virginia.

I actually think this article underestimates the Navy's role by not mentioning the number of private contractors that came along with the NAVSEA move and who now occupy a lot of the near-SE office space. Being involved in two wars (which saw unprecedented opportunities for military contractors) didn't hurt either.

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:26:41 EDT

@selxcic I might have said at length, "correction of the idea that adding a stadium makes a positive difference no matter where you build one or who pays."

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:24:38 EDT

Scoot, David C.'s views are that arenas and stadiums are bad, not the entirety of GGW.

There have been other posts that say that an urban stadium done right adds to a city.

Comment by Scoot

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:15:19 EDT

Why is the ballpark subject to binary thinking (IE it only counts as contributing to development if it was the sole cause of development)?

It's just part of the blog's larger narrative that sports arenas and stadiums are bad for cities.

Comment by selxic

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:00:27 EDT

I'm not sure what is being corrected. Most who cared to know have long acknowledged the area had plans well before MLB even owned the Expos. Especially in the current climate, the ballpark did help move along some of the projects though. Also, isn't it a bit unfair to not consider the stage of projects? It wasn't that long ago there was still a concrete plant on the Florida Rock site.

Comment by DCster

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:45:55 EDT

Nat Gandhi and Fischer (in the link above) have pointed out that the revenue from the business stadium taxes have been sufficient to pay off the bonds and contribute millions into the general fund. So it seems the stadium is being a net benefit for the city (and I imagine the sales tax revenue has only increased this season), whether it was the driver or just a stimulant for development in the SE area.

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:44:22 EDT

@Cavan That bright shiny object the stadium became, was made possible by another bright shiny object, the Clinton-era decision by the Pentagon to stop renting office space in Crystal City and move NavSea onto land the feds already owned at the Navy Yard. There is no way - none - that the baseball stadium location would have found favor from Major League Baseball which was running the Expos, if the federal government had not made that move, and the office buildings were not on their way up to house the defense contractors.

Comment by Read Scott Martin

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:36:56 EDT

Comprehensive. A well overdue correction that has bothered me for years.

Comment by Cavan

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:33:42 EDT

Not an exaggeration at all.

We've gone back and forth on this issue for years now. Nats Park, just like Verizon Center, just like Fenton/Ellsworth in Silver Spring is the Bright Shiny Object that attracted new attention, new investment, and made the area familiar to people who don't already live there.

That area was on the wrong side of I-395. It was cut off from the rest of the city since the late 1950's urban renewal. The existence of the Metro there meant there was potential for redevelopment but far from a given. For example, Deanwood looks exactly the same as it did in the 1970's despite having Metro service since 1978.
Meanwhile, downtown, Columbia Heights, and Silver Spring most certainly don't look the same. The difference is the Bright Shiny Objects of the Verizon Center, DC-USA, and Fenton/Ellsworth.

Plans are great. There are plans for a completed metro system in Baltimore. However, without the Bright Shiny Object, progress for revitalization around the Navy Yard would have been about as fast as completing Baltimore's fixed rail rapid transit system. You can argue that the District agreed to bad financial terms on Nats Park. (although the facility has been more than paying for its bonds due to high hotel tax receipts and high attendence this season) It's simply inarguable that the stadium had no effect on redeveloping down there. The increased attention and the fact that more potentional residential/office renters/buyers are now familiar with the area rather than taking decades for the region at large to even know it exists is immeasurable.

While the lines of the Favored Quarter are now much blurrier than before the explosion in urban place revitalizion 10 years ago, it most certainly still exists. Places outside of the Favored Quarter often need some sort of Bright Shiny Object to attract the attention and interest necessary for complete revitalization. Otherwise, they remain forgotten like Navy Yard was or, at best, quiet areas like Deanwood. Columbia Hights needed some sort of new attraction, as did the eastern part of downtown, as did Silver Spring as they weren't within the Favored Quarter before revitalizion. Today, the Favored Quarter has now expanded to include eastern downtown and arguably Mount Vernon Triangle. It's also possible to argue that Silver Spring is now in the Favored Quarter (I don't think so but if you look at residential rents, the argument is certainly there.) No new Bright Shiny Objects are needed. Now you put Bright Shiny Objects in Wheaton or a redone Crystal City etc.

Plans, while nice, don't bring attention and dollars. You may not like baseball. I don't care for it much, either. However, it's inarguable that it's a successful urban stadium.

Comment by MLD

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:49:18 EDT

I think the real question is not whether or not the stadium is good for the area, but rather the benefit is enough to support the cushy financing.

The city levied a tax on the largest businesses (who wanted the baseball team) to pay for the stadium. So I don't think it's really taking money away from regular people, and isn't part of the point of government bonding that we can help others pay for something that the public wants?

Comment by Jim Titus

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:26:28 EDT

A small detail: The Green Line stopped at Anacostia rather than Navy Yard during the 1990s

Comment by Alan B

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:04:31 EDT

I think the real question is not whether or not the stadium is good for the area, but rather the benefit is enough to support the cushy financing.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:49:21 EDT

@RandallM; isn't the stadium tax spread to the entire city -- not just the "stadium area".

Comment by Randall M.

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:45:26 EDT

Being involved on the District financing side during that time, yes, plans were in place for development that included the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.

What the Stadium did was drop an anchor, something that was relatively permanent, reassuring developers that SE was actually going to see government investment which had been lagging for years at that time. You're right, development would have come but it likely would have been at an anemic pace. I have reports going back 20 years promising the rebuilding of the Douglass bride and public / private partnerships. As soon as the stadium agreement was ratified, money flew out the door.

I think the stadium's impact has been somewhat muted due to the near-economic collapse of the last few years, but tax revenue from the stadium area has been higher than initially estimated. http://www.welovedc.com/2010/06/03/mayor-council-raid-nats-park-tax-coffers-to-cover-gap/

True, the stadium isn't all rainbows and unicorns but compared to other single purpose stadium projects that hope to spur development, this one looks pretty good. If anything, it probably needs a few more years of investment after the Great Recession to show its full impact.

Comment by monkeyrotica

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:20:54 EDT

Same thing happened when the MCI Center was built. There was already development happening in the neighborhood; the arena accelerated the growth and gave people a reason to come to Chinablock and stay besides the noodles and the wonderfully aromatic MLK restrooms.

Comment by Fitz

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:59:07 EDT

As far as development right next to the stadium, wasn't the Half Street development originally financed by Lehman? I'm sure that didn't help.

Comment by Jay Roberts

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:57:28 EDT

Sorry if this is only a tangent, but it is interesting that, until the other spots fell by the wayside, the "SE" site was considered one of the least likely DC spots for the new team (if and when). But it turns out to be the best, or so it seems.

Comment by MStreetDenizen

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:46:45 EDT

I work on M Street. When my agency moved here (just before the ball park was built) there was lots of concern about safety and crime. While most of my coworkers had no choice, Im sure crime, grit, etc mattered to lots of others who have moved here. The big change was probably tearing down the public housing, which could have happened without baseball. Tearing down the buildings where the ballpark is now, would have been much more difficult without eminent domain. And while some folks who miss those places dont like to hear it, I think its pretty likely that the presence of those places would have slowed development in the entire area.

So yeah, development would have happened in near SE anyway, sure. But I think the ballpark accelerated it.

David C is, I think, a supporter of street cars on H Street, Columbia Pike, etc. Its clear that development in both those areas came before any streetcars appeared (since they havent yet) and more would come without streetcars. Yet that does not mean the streetcars will not accelerate development. Why is the ballpark subject to binary thinking (IE it only counts as contributing to development if it was the sole cause of development)?