Forest Hills Connection || News and Life in Our DC Neighborhood

Covering Forest Hills, Van Ness, North Cleveland Park and Wakefield

  • About Us
    • About Forest Hills Connection
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Donate & Subscribe
  • Classifieds
  • News
    • ANC 3F
    • Business
      • Business in Brief
      • Out to Eat
      • Shop & Eat Local
    • Getting Around
    • Main Street
    • Neighborhood in the News
    • Opinion
    • Parks and Streams
    • Real Estate
    • UDC
  • Style
    • Food
    • History
    • Meet the Neighbors
    • Neighbors Recommend
    • Services
    • Things To Do
  • Home Front
    • High-Rise Life
    • In the Garden
    • In the Kitchen
  • Backyard Nature
    • Local Wildlife
    • Wildlife Photos
  • Kids & Pets
    • At School
    • At Play
    • Kids Write
    • Pets
  • Calendar

Perspective: Say ‘No’ To A Publicly-Funded Soccer Stadium

May 30, 2014 by FHC

Last week, the Washington Post reported that DC officials were close to a deal to build a new major league soccer stadium a few blocks from Nationals Park. A few days later, Mayor Gray asked the DC Council to approve a “complex series of land deals” to give the stadium its promised home. The DC taxpayers’ price tag: $120 million, as well as $40 million in tax breaks for D.C. United.

Forest Hills neighbor William Breer’s preference: No deal. He writes:

I have sent the following letter, which is self-explanatory, to Mary Cheh and will send to the rest of the council and to the mayor. I found the Nationals’ deal a huge rip off and the current one promises to be smell as bad. It would help if you could also weigh in and pass the word to others.

From: William Breer
Date: May 26, 2014 10:07:10 EDT
To: Cheh Mary
Subject: Soccer Stadium

Dear Mary:

Advertisement

Saturday’s Washington Post wrote that Mayor Gray is urging the council to approve the use of taxpayer money and city real estate to build a soccer stadium for private benefit. It is not clear what, if any, benefits the citizens of Washington would reap. On the basis of the plan in the Post, the major beneficiaries will be the property developers and owners of the soccer team, not the taxpayers of D.C. Ahead of the Nationals deal, there was much bragging about how much D.C. would benefit from the city’s investment, but there has been no public disclosure of the financial results and prospects of the Nationals deal. It appears that the city and promoters have something to hide.

I am totally opposed to using taxpayer money to construct a facility that will be used for private gain and to enrich so-called “private enterprise” at taxpayer expense. How about more money for education or for repair of our third world roads and sewers? The deal stinks like our aged sewer system.

Sincerely, William T. Breer

polls

Forest Hills Connection is produced by volunteers, and supported by you. We appreciate your support – financial and otherwise. Here’s how to donate.

Filed Under: News, Opinion

Comments

  1. Joe says

    May 30, 2014 at 9:49 am

    My “no” vote derives largely from the fact that my taxes helped pay for the Nationals baseball stadium, and yet my low cost (affordable) cable service does NOT provide coverage of Nationals games. There is no reason to believe soccer coverage will be any better.

    • Lois Steinberg says

      May 30, 2014 at 5:00 pm

      Hi Joe,

      I don’t know what cable service you have, but at least some of the games are being broadcast on local Channel 9. I would hope local broadcast channels are available on the most basic cable option.

      • Joe says

        May 30, 2014 at 10:56 pm

        Lois,
        Yes I do get channel 9 (with Comcast), but according to the Washington Nationals web site, channel 9 only broadcasts 13 games out of a 162 game season. I wouldn’t call that adequate coverage. Would you?

    • John says

      June 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm

      The TV rights weren’t negotiable.

      With out the local TV rights being granted to MASN, the franchise wouldn’t be in Washington (this is due to Washington having been a primary market of the Orioles). I’m not a lawyer or expert, but this is the gist of it.

      • Joe says

        June 4, 2014 at 6:02 pm

        Thanks John, for the explanation. I assumed that politics and money had something to do with it, but there is still “something wrong with this picture.”

  2. Jane Solomon says

    May 31, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Stadiums–ugh! A complex issue, but in general I’m opposed to public funding because I don’t think cities demand sufficient detailed public benefits to justify the costs. But one thing I LOVE is the Connection giving us the opportunity to comment and register our opinion on topics of interest to us all.

About Forest Hills Connection

  • Who we are
  • How to advertise
  • How to donate
  • How to submit a story idea
  • Contact us
Tweets by foresthillsnews

Subscribe to Our Blog

Receive an email alert whenever we publish a new article.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Arrives in your inbox around mid-month.


Newsletter Archive         

Connect With Us!

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSS

Local Links

  • Schools, Services and More
  • Restaurants

Latest Comments

  • Pat Kasdan on Murch “Blue and Gold” EXCLUSIVE: Teachers share their embarrassing grade school moments
  • Green Eyeshades on DDOT to present Connecticut Ave. bike lane concepts at June 28 and 29 public meetings
  • Christine on Hearst Pool, DPR’s first outdoor swimming pool in Ward 3, is open
  • Jack Koczela on School updates: Signs of change at Jackson-Reed High include changing the signs
  • Barbara Alk Berman on School updates: Signs of change at Jackson-Reed High include changing the signs

Archives

About Forest Hills Connection | FHC + VNMS | Who We Are | Contributors
Submissions Policy | Contact | Advertise | Donate
© Forest Hills Connection | Site by: VanStudios