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:
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
Joe says
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
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
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
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
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.”
Jane Solomon says
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.