September 27, 2006
Fenty's First Challenge -- the Stadium
Mayor-to-be Adrian Fenty is probably marveling at the sheer irony of the situation -- a project he voted against may become his first challenge as the District's chief executive.
As the Post reported last weekend, the development plans for the area around the new stadium have largely fallen apart, virtually assuring that the April 2008 opening date will find the Washington Nationals playing in an area that remains desolate and under-developed. The problem? Developer Herb Miller couldn't secure the proper financing for two 13-story condominium towers adjacent to the stadium, a project that the Nats' new owners, the Lerner Group, were never much fond of. Instead, the Lerner's are pushing for the city to find enough parking for 5,000 cars, a prospect that may permanently limit the area's development potential and starve the city of the tax revenue they need to finance the $611 million in construction bonds.
And herein lies the irony. Fenty consistently voted against the public financing of the stadium, arguing that in one way or another the city would end us using public funds to finance the bonds. His concerns were often brushed aside by Mayor Anthony Williams and other baseball boosters who contended that the sheer development of the area and the increase in tax revenue would more than cover the yearly financing charges. The development may still come, but chances are that the city will take the easy way out and pave over enough lots to provide the requested 5,000 parking spots -- thus delaying any commercial or residential growth for years after the stadium opens.
What's Fenty to do? Well, he knows he can't pull out of the deal all together. Doing so would prove what his doubters always said -- that he's bad for business. Can he try and negotiate with the Lerner Group for something that balances the city's development needs with their parking demands? Yes, but not yet. He hasn't been elected officially (he's still facing the November general election), and authority or not, Williams won't be abandoning his perch in the Wilson Building any earlier than required by law. Though he soundly defeated Linda Cropp in the Democratic primary and will likely sweep the general election, Fenty isn't mayor yet, so his word only goes as far as Lerner and Williams are willing to take it.
As the Post opined yesterday, though, the situation may prove beneficial to Fenty. Should the development be delayed, Fenty could take office in January with the full authority as mayor to tell the Lerner's that like it or not, the area around the stadium will not be just parking lots. The city is only obliged to build 1,225 parking spots (it's the Lerner's that want 5,000) by April 2008. Everything else is fair game. If the development is delayed by a year, so be it. But it will come. Fenty may not have ever liked the deal, but now that it's set in stone, he may as well flex his muscles and let the Lerner's know that it's the city's stadium and the city's land. The District can't afford another RFK, and Fenty can't afford to explain to his base why public funds might be needed to finance the stadium's construction.
Image of stadium taken from Land of JD
|
Mayor-to-be Fenty will have the city build a parking lot for 1225 spot and be done with it. He lacks the attention span and probably the vision to fully appreciate the positive economic effect of development. If there is a deal to be struck for development and a parking lot on the land then it will probably be put together by Jack Evans and Vincent Gray who understand such things.
Also, the city is not risking another RFK just because this one, albeit huge, parking lot will just be a parking lot. There is a great deal of housing and retail already in the works for the stadium area. D.C. will have another Chinatown with or without development on the parking lot land next to the stadium.
This is the old DC "affordable housing" story writ large. For every major condo development downtown, the city tries to negotiate setting aside a percentage for low/middle income, and the developers assure them that they'll include it. Then, when it comes to actual construction, wouldn't you know it, they "can't make the numbers work." Au revoir, affordable housing.
Williams negotiated funding for the stadium based on the assumption that mixed-used development was a given. Now, surprise suprise, they "can't make the numbers work." So both Williams and Fenty are in the same boat as Macbeth, "I am in blood/ Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,/ Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Logan,
Much like Fenty, Gray firmly opposed the stadium deal, and only came around when the deal was inevitable and he could gain political points by aproving the lease. Why is he poised to be your hero now?
I'm inclined to agree with Logan on this, but I admit that I was all for the stadium and that was one of several issues I was looking at in opposing Fenty. Still trying to work out who I'm writing in instead of voting for him.
More importantly, however -- Kudos to Monkeyerotica for working in the Shakespeare reference.
He's not. I voted for Kathy. However, I do think Gray understands what it takes to expand the city's revenue base.
300 parking spaces are already included (and funded) underneath the stadium on the south side of the site.
There are only 900 parking spaces that are needed on the north side of the site to complete the 1225 parking requirement.
Also, the city cannot build free-standing above ground parking garages since it is not allowed by the DC Zoning Commission and DC law. Mixed-use development on that site is the ONLY option. The DC Zoning Commission already rejected a backup plan to build free-standing parking garages on the site.
The city should have taken this into account before they approved funding for the entire project in the first place.
The question that everyone should ask is: Why did the city have the architects draw up renderings for two free-standing parking garages when the city (Mayor and DC Council) should have known full well that DC law prohibited it in the first place at such a site? I think this is a major oversight.
Make that: "only 925 parking spaces that are needed on the north side of the site to complete the 1225 parking requirement."
DC Stadium = fiasco
. . . say it a few times if it doesn't sink at first
Do the agreements state WHERE the parking spots must be? How about creating 1500 new spaces near the Springfield metro? :)
Rich, as a Springfield born and bred girl, I can assure you there is no room out there anymore either. Not a tree left in sunny Springfield.
Too bad that Fenty doesn't understand financing to actually make this happen. Say what you will about Cropp, but fiscally she understands how a budget and a city works. This should be an amusinc circus to watch.
Re #2 - Isn't this the fault of our sorry ass elected officials who lack the stones to provide for some sort of financial penalty for developers not including the promised affordable housing? Why is the city the only entity in this deal that has to hold up its end of the bargain? Is pulling the plug on the whole deal a realistic option?
the stadium should be known at 'Tony's Folly'
"Gray understands what it takes to expand the city's revenue base."
What, bending over and grabbing your ankles?
Hill Rat, I'm with ya: Is it too late to pull plug on this whole thing? Highly unlikely. But we would all be better off, in my small opinion.
Not to be a hater, I luv sports. But this is just not good at all.
It will never happen, too much loss of face for the pols involved and it's bad business for the city to boot.
Too late to pull the plug? Uh, have you driven down South Capitol lately? The stadium is halfway built.
A bit off topic, but there's a camera trained on the stadium at all times, and you can view current and past photos of its construction:
http://clarkconstruction.oxblue.com/clarkhuntsmoot/
Too late to pull the plug? Uh, have you driven down South Capitol lately? The stadium is halfway built.
Holy Fong! I had no idea they had done that much work already. It's amazing that a stadium will go up in half the time it took them to repair Thomas Circle.
Looks like the RFK site wasn't so bad after all. Now we get a stadium with no development around it (like RFK) but without the easy highway and Metro access that RFK has.
I don't know which option will be worse, taking the Metro, and being forced to wait up to 20 minutes after a game for a Green Line train, and being forced to walk a long distance to a station that is not designed to accomodate many people, or driving and having no easy way to access any of the region's major highways after the game.
Come to think of it, that drive up I-95 to Camden Yards is looking better and better.
Halfway built? Are we looking at the same pictures?
Any lots that the city would find to pave over for 5,000 parking spaces would not be anywhere close to the stadium site. As you can see at
http://www.jdland.com/dc/corridor-map.cfm
the properties directly bordering the stadium on the north and south are all spoken for by private developers, who already have plans in the pipeline. The adjacent WASA and Southeast Federal Center sites already have buildings on them, only WASA could possibly get paved over, and the city has already said they want to put 800 residential units on that site. Perhaps Florida Rock to the south might offer some spaces on the western side of their property, since their project (starting construction in early 2008) will move east to west.
But can we please stop saying that the death of the Miller deal is the death of the Ballpark District? The Miller deal covered two blocks, and as you can see from the map linked to above, there's all sorts of projects by commercial developers that are moving forward whether the Miller deal did or not.
Nice map and key, JD
Thanks JD. The same folks saying the development is going to fail are the ones who said the stadium is being financed by general fund money that should have gone to the schools.
"... and having no easy way to access any of the region's major highways after the game."
Do any of you even look at a map before commenting? South Capitol Street and M Street, SE both take drivers to major hightways. I think the driving discussion is as blown out of proportion as is every other discussion surrounding the stadium.
There's no way in hell the DC Office of Planning will ever approve surface parking. Thank goodness for that because the Lerners insisting that they need 5000 spaces is just asinine.
The stadium is only 2 blocks from a Metro station. It doesn't need any parking at all. The Verizon Center and the new Convention Center have no public parking and they're running swimmingly. We have a great public transportation system, why not take full advantage of it?
Plus JD is right, there's absolutely no reason to be freaking out about these two little blocks of development. There's millions and millions of square feet planned for the remainder of the neighborhood that will be going up no matter what. A lot of it is already under construction, check out her site at www.jdland.com/dc for proof. So DCist please please stop telling everybody that the area around the stadium will be "desolate and under-developed" in 2008 because it won't be.
-Jim
SWester - As far as I can tell, Navy Yard is closer to the new stadium than Stadium/Armory to RFK. Also, I believe there will be modifications made to the station to accomodate the increased ridership. I'm not sure why you think the situation will be any different than it is at Stadium/Armory. The stations appear to be the same design (2 entrances, center island platform).
Fenty will have no time to deal with this nonsense; he will be busy filling potholes and fixing streetlights with his BlackBerry. Perhaps he could dispatch Sinclair Skinner to negotiate a new deal with the Lerners. Maybe he could print up some clever little newsletters to hand out, as well.
Adrian Fenty is a 21st-century Marion Barry, I'm afraid.
I love how any post that mentions Fenty becomes a grand Fenty-poking party. Nothing like a negative presumption to spice up an otherwise adequate discussion!
Using M St or S. Capitol St to get to 295 is not a major highway connection. Not compared to RFK, Camden Yards, Citizen Bank Park (Philly) or even Yankee Stadium. The majority of fans will drive, that is a fact of life and those fans should not have to drive for several blocks on surface streets (each with lights at every intersection) to get to a highway. There should be an entrance/exit on site.
As for the Metro, that station is one of the least utilized in DC proper and can not safely handle any type of large crowd. There is simply not enough room. Now there is a plan to upgrade the station, but it remains to be seen if that can be done in time for opening day. Also, remember, Navy Yard is served by one line, RFK by 2 and RFK's location allows Metro to start and end special trains there. I have not heard if Metro can do the same thing at Navy Yard.
It looks like SWester will be going to Baltimore games from now on.
"DC Statdium = fiasco" is wishful thinking without any basis in fact or reason. As long as the District continues not to take a single dollar from the treasury, and continues not to raise our personal income or property taxes by even one penny, to fund the stadium project (which is the status quo under the financing plan, though most people never seem to grasp this), then the District comes out ahead on literally the first dollar of economic development, created by the stadium, that goes into the general fund.
That means the first tax dollar or business license dollar from, e.g., any new business created by the existence of the stadium, will be a net gain in the DC coffers. And most of those dollars will be coming from VA and MD taxpayers, amounting to the District's first commuter tax.
DCist Martin loves to sprout lies every time he writes a stadium-related post. The most brutal lie this time:
"a prospect that may permanently limit the area's development potential and starve the city of the tax revenue they need to finance the $611 million in construction bonds"
Martin, please identify the portion of the $611 million that is funded by tax revenue from development surrounding the stadium.
It's not being funded by general funds that "should have gone to the schools" -- it's funded by imaginary funds provided by development which has yet to materialize at the projected oversold pace. Most of the development around SW was underway well before the stadium site was even selected (but please, give all the credit to the mighty half-built stadium), largely due to the relocation of thousands of DoD staff to the Navy Yard
STOP THE MADNESS!!
There is another way.
But, unfortunately, we don't have the kind of leadership in this town with guts or brains to do this kind of deal. Don't count on Fenty either!
CHECK OUT THIS OUTSIDE-THE-BOX IDEA:
http://www.mooreforpeople.com/html/dennis_moore_for_dc_mayor.html#EllingtonCenter
For the umpteenth time:
The DC Baseball stadium is being financed through a business tax on businesses in the city and through the continuation of a utility tax on the federal government. The business community, as a whole, supports the construction of the baseball stadium.
And to DC Stadium = fiasco:
The DC baseball stadium is an economic accelerator for the Near Southeast neighborhood in that it is speeding up development in that neighborhood where the developers, if not for the stadium, would have built an office park. The city does not need another generic office park. Now developers, because of the stadium, are and will be building more residential and retail projects which will trigger increased income tax and sales tax that will go directly to the general fund.
The Florida Rock project that is directly south of the stadium has just agreed to add 3 levels of retail to the first phase of its project, and they are also adding a 39,000 sq. ft. public plaxe which will lead from the stadium directly to the Anacostia River. These change of plans are directly related to the stadium and will add to the DC General Fund due to increased sales tax revenue from the increased retail space on the site.
I guess DC residents, generally, cannot fully grasp the concept that they are not funding this stadium. Businesses are funding this stadium - and the federal government through a utility tax. Even if they need to raise the cap on constuction spending (which I believe they need to do), DC residents still will not be funding this stadium. The amount of money that the DC government is taking in through its stadium tax on businesses is more than they expected.
Who on here does not understand this by now? Let me know. I will walk you through it.
So, lets make a wish and believe that businesses won't pass their costs onto DC residents in very creative ways. A long-winded special interest explaination does not hide a simple fact: We will still pay for the stadium one way or another.
P.S. - I read the mooreforpeople link. Looks like I'm not voting for Fenty in November.
FYI:
All DC businesses do not have to pay the special stadium tax. The largest of businesses pay the stadium tax. Most small businesses in the city do not pay the stadium tax. Small businesses make up 99.7% of all US employers. Most businesses in DC are small businesses.
Connect the dots.
Well done, Octavio and A.R.! I think many people on this site (as well as DCist) needed that clear explanation.
Dear SWester,
With comments like this one:
"The majority of fans will drive, that is a fact of life and those fans should not have to drive for several blocks on surface streets (each with lights at every intersection) to get to a highway. There should be an entrance/exit on site."
...I have no choice but to assume that you are a moron. Please move to somewhere in South Dakota or Idaho or some other boring sprawl-ridden wasteland, which is obviously where you belong. that is all.
The considerable majority of large businesses in DC that are subject to the stadium tax are huge law firms, lobbying firms, etc. Somehow I doubt they will be 'passing the cost on' to the average DC taxpayer.
I'm so glad someone so clearly explained the stadium financing.
I was on the fence about the stadium during a lot of the debate (not like anyone asked my opinion).
What swayed me to support the stadium was the outright lying that the stadium opponents did about the funding. They kept insisting that stadium funding was somehow going to result in DC schools and police getting less tax money.
That was simply an outright lie. In the end, DC schools (which we grossly overfund already) and police and such will actually get more tax revenue, as the revenue the ballpark area will bring in over the next few decades stands to be stupendous.
Yes, there would have been some development down there anyway, in particular right next to the Navy Yard. But every developer I've ever heard quoted says they are going in down there because of the stadium, and they are going in with much larger projects (including highly taxable residential and retail) because of the stadium.
That was simply not possible at RFK. Why not? We would have heard CONSTANT complaining about it from my fellow Hill dwellers that live around the stadium. And, the Feds own RFK and all the land around it. Their charter to DC does not allow for development. Period.
The detractors on this thread remind me of Vice President Cheney as he continually insists Iraq helped out with 9/11, causing us to attack. As I read all 42 of the comments on this thread, I cannot help but notice that unlike months back when the stadium deal was being debated, the majority of the comments are now pro-stadium, correcting the detractors lack of correct info, and pointing out how Fenty is completely weak on this issue (which is why he voted the way he did). This makes me almost as happy as the fact that we aren't going to get stuck with a L'Enfant Plaza Part 2 neighborhood... "because that development would happen anyway". Yeah, right, and there would be a bowling alley and a movie theater in Chinatown if Verizon Center wasn't built. And keep in mind all of that happened inspite of the fact that the Wizards and the Capitals are consistently bad teams. I can't afford Wizards tickets, but I can tell you that the Capital games are NEVER sold out, not even close.
The Lerners are envisioning another Tysons Corner in SE DC. Boxy office buildings with minimal ground-floor retail surrounded by parking garages. Sounds exciting. Put in the required 1,225 spaces, flex a little muscle with Ted Lerner, and make sure this area gets developed right. This is the biggest opportunity the city has had in years for re-development and to increase the tax base. There is a blank slate waiting - don't screw it up.
I wish that just once DCist Martin would post within the comments in a stadium-related thread a response to our descriptions of the ACTUAL stadium financing plan, not the one he invented. Hey Martin, why don't you answer my question, or disput what Octavio and A.R. wrote? Because you can't. I guess we'll just have to wait until the next time you post about how the DC taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for a baseball stadium.
While you'll never say it, you are admitting that you don't have an argument when you consistently lie about the funding plan. You type in proper grammar, so you are smart enough to know that the DC residents are paying NOTHING for this stadium. So we know you are lying. The reason you have to lie is because the truth kills your entire argument, that the stadium is a waste of money. If the truth was on your side, you'd use it.
CD - What is "right"? Did you read any of the other comments?
I'm with you Anna and Brooklander. The hype about the cost/benefit ratio is out of whack. Has anyone entertained the thought of what the Nationals Stadium deal is going to cost DC when this loser team doesn't make the real money the owners/politicians are gambling on earning in the next 10+ years? No one in Virginia or elsewhere, only us suckers in DC, could have been bamboozled on such a shaky deal. Remember the hoopla and hype over what RFK Stadium would do for DC? Oh yeahhh!
Nat:
How successful the Nats are or aren't is only a small piece of the pie. Far more important is all the retail, residential, etc. that is going in around the stadium.
That development would never have happened without the stadium. Period.
The entire reason RFK didn't make more money for the city is that it's surrounded by parking lots and low income housing (although the neighborhood is slowly changing). There was no chance for additional tax revenue, additional housing, etc.
Clearly the new stadium has tons of additional revenue associated with it. All you have to do is click on the links JD Land provided.
Even if the Nats lose every game forever and their owners hemmorrhage money, the city still wins because we get all the residential and retail around the stadium. That's hundreds of millions in tax income over the next few decades.