Since the original announcement of a deal between the Office of District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray, real estate developer Akridge, and D.C. United back in May, fans have had a slow trickle of news to digest throughout this summer regarding the future of the Buzzard Point stadium proposal. The DC City Council must debate and pass the current proposal which includes a land swap with Akridge to make the dream of a soccer-specific stadium a reality in the nation’s capital. The land swap has proven to be the most contentious part of the proposed deal; a highly polarizing mechanism for financing the acquisition of the land that D.C. United seek to call their home.
Organizations affiliated with D.C. United and the Buzzard Point Stadium proposal have undergone a massive online and in-person public relations push to build support for the it, including the land swap. Opponents of the deal argue that that land swap undervalues city-owned land at 14th and U Streets, NW. The property is home to the Reeves Center, which spurred economic development in Ward 1’s Shaw neighborhood since it broke ground under then-Mayor Marion Barry; since then it has sat at less than full occupancy, costing the city tax revenue that new development there could help to generate.
Interestingly, the idea of redeveloping the Reeves Center is not controversial in and of itself, but rather the kind of development that goes there sparks passionate dialogue in public forums. Officially called <The District of Columbia Soccer Stadium Development Act of 2014, this bill would swap the city-owned Reeves Municipal Center property with Akridge’s holdings at the proposed stadium site in Southwest DC near Nationals Park. It is hoped that the Reeves Center will be relocated to Anacostia, where it can spur economic development in the area around the intersection of Good Hope Rd. and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. much in the same way as the current Reeves Center did for the U Street Corridor.
On the surface, this is an uncontroversial proposal, but the valuation of the Reeves Center property is heavily disputed by both private and government appraisals. In lieu of a cash transaction the city is using the land swap as a mechanism to acquire the land, while simultaneously allowing for the redevelopment of a city-owned property that has outlived its intended purpose and become a drag on the city’s finances. Opponents argue that the Reeves Center property is being undervalued in the current land swap scheme, as estimates on the parcel’s value have widely varied from $75 million to over $150 million. The concern is that the city is losing out on a financial windfall from the property were it sold on the open market.
The hurdles to this project’s ultimate passage are the same as stadium proposals of years past throughout the DMV region; politics. From a financial standpoint, this proposal is fiscally prudent and an investment in the city’s future growth; from a political one, the question is murkier whether more money could be made for the city using other means. There is also the question of whether the city should be investing millions of dollars into a team owned by an Indonesian billionaire. Former Mayor Marion Barry made quick work of the latter argument, stating that regardless of a person’s means, the decision to spend $150 million on a new stadium must make economic sense for both the private and public entities involved. This deal is unique and revolutionary when it comes to the development of sports stadiums and their financing using public funds: the only money the city spends is infrastructure, while the team and private investors finance the stadium itself. I’ll leave the politicos to debate the advantages and disadvantages of government investment in infrastructure, but for the most part this is a responsibility traditionally left to municipal and state governments, regardless of whether that investment is tied to some larger economic development package.
A Summer of Slow, Steady Developments
The D.C. City Council has had one committee hearing on the bill, complete with public testimony, on the day the United States was slated to play Germany in the World Cup. Despite some periphery conspiracy theories about the meeting’s scheduling, it was well-attended by both supporters and opponents of the current stadium deal. Unite for D.C. and the Office of D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray hosted two World Cup watch parties for the US Men’s National Team’s match against Belgium, where they sought to generate support for the stadium proposal from both casual and die-hard soccer fans. In a city that boasted the highest television ratings in the United States for nearly all World Cup matches this cycle, it was undoubtedly a successful attempt to make the public aware of the plan and its imminent decision day’s approach. D.C. Mayor Candidate Muriel Bowser (D) also hosted a series of public forums in Wards 1, 2, and 8 where residents could openly state their case for or against the bill. In all cases, opposition to a new home for D.C. United was minimal, in principle–once again, the land swap is what seems to draw the most confusion.
In Ward 1, which includes the Reeves Center property, the main concern is what will take the Reeves Center’s place when Akridge begins developing that real estate. The parcel at the intersection of 14th Street and U Street is considered prime real estate by most D.C. residents, as it is both highly accessible by metro and a major epicenter for D.C. nightlife. Ward 1 residents want development that stimulates the “daytime economy”, filling the plentiful restaurants and bistros during the lunch and evening hours before D.C.’s large millennial population hits the bars. The Reeves Center once filled that need for the U Street corridor and Shaw neighborhood, but as its use has declined, the number of daytime employees at that facility has dwindled. The development of the U Street neighborhood appears to be self-sustaining, but residents are right to claim it is missing that critical component to ensure the neighborhood remains an up-and-coming hot spot in the city. Most are adamantly opposed to further development of high-rise apartments, preferring mixed-use development in the form of commercial and community space, accommodating the Office of Latino Affairs, the LGBT Center, the US Post Office, and a well-attended farmers’ market.
Ward 2 residents worry about housing affordability and traffic in a community that is in the process of a rapid revitalization. Longtime Ward 2 residents are concerned that, combined with the already-realized increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic, their family homes will become unaffordable for them as property taxes begin to rise dramatically in the wake of further commercial and residential development. This will continue to be an issue for residents in the long term, and there is concern that a Buzzard Point stadium would exacerbate the problem.
Ward 8 is the least economically-mobile and least developed of D.C.’s 8 wards; residents and businesses there are itching for further municipal investment to stimulate the “daytime economy” there, much like the Reeves Municipal Center did for Ward 1. There is a sense that moving the Reeves Center could be the catalyst the economy in that ward needs to truly come alive and reverse years of failed policies to alleviate poverty and curb violence there. Essentially, there is hope that the Reeves Center experience on U Street can be recreated elsewhere. Being the constituents of Former Mayor Marion Barry, these residents have likely heard his oral history of how that city project was the catalyst that changed a while entire neighborhood more times than they care to recall.
In an interesting move, Council Member Bowser made an appearance before the D.C. United match on August 16th against the Colorado Rapids, where she spoke for a few minutes about what the team means to the city and her support for a new stadium. She is still openly critical of the process that led to the land swap deal, saying that not enough public comment has been heard for the City Council to make an appropriate decision. She is also critical of the land swap itself, arguing that the concerns of the residents of Ward 1 must be addressed adequately to gain her vote. As the Democratic candidate for the D.C. Mayor’s Office, she must run against fellow Council Member David Catania (a former Republican, turned independent). Catania has openly stated that he opposes the land swap as a mechanism to acquire the land at Buzzard Point, instead favoring an auction of the Reeves Center for sale to the highest bidder. Black and Red United have an informative piece detailing why that route would be a mistake for the city, and others have chimed in to say the same.
Now, D.C. United fans will have to wait just a little longer for the City Council to come back into session in early September, when news should be a near-constant stream as government officials and the public make their case for or against the new stadium. Ultimately, the council must make a decision one way or the other before the new year. Meanwhile, United continue to play at RFK Memorial Stadium–a venue literally infested with wasps and raccoons–without a permanent home. The most adamant stadium opponents argue that the team should shoulder the cost of renovating RFK to suit its needs, but neglect to note the exorbitant costs associated with such a project, not to mention the issue of RFK simply being too large for all Major League Soccer clubs, except maybe the Seattle Sounders. Those same opponents also underestimate the importance, both now and in the future, of MLS franchises playing in soccer-specific stadiums (SSS). The Columbus Crew were the first MLS side to play in a SSS, back in 1999. Fast forward fifteen years and only D.C. United, the New England Revolution, and the 2015 MLS expansion side New York City FC do not play in a SSS or have one in some phase of construction.
The development of SSS is what made MLS teams financially-viable, and would serve the city year-round with ticket and tax revenue from concerts, NCAA events, and even the possibility of other small professional sports matches like lacrosse. And let’s face it, in D.C. even the tennis team has its own venue…the tennis team! D.C. United has been a boom for Washington and a responsible and steadfast participant in the District community. It is time to build D.C. United a stadium and the Buzzard Point site is both a financially viable and fiscally responsible investment for the city. The land swap mechanism facilitates this deal in lieu of a cash purchase or a sale of the Reeves Center property that could put off construction at the stadium sight for the foreseeable future as the city plays a “wait-and-see” game with developers from all over the world. Akridge is a local company with local roots, and exactly the kind of business local government should entrust to further develop and revitalize not one but three neighborhoods in three separate Wards. The Buzzard Point Stadium is truly a stadium for all D.C., and the city council should make a point to pass the current proposed bill without much further delay.
Audio of the 23 July Hearing:
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow me on Twitter – @LWOSAlec. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter – @LastWordOnSport – and “liking” our Facebook page.
For the latest sports injury news, check out our friends at Sports Injury Alert
Feel free to discuss this and other footy related articles with thousands of fans at /r/football.
Photo via UniteDC.org
