August 23, 2007
Will the Stadium Succeed? Maybe, Maybe Not
Coming in on the closing days for the Nats at RFK, everyone seems to be bracing for what the new stadium in Southeast and the surrounding area will have to offer. As the Post detailed earlier this week, huge chunks of land in Southeast and Southwest are slated for development, creating the potential of a new and vibrant Anacostia River waterfront in the coming years -- much of it centered around the $611 million stadium. But will the stadium serve that purpose? Marc Fisher has his doubts.
Fisher, a long-time stadium booster, writes today that visits to Cleveland, Detroit and Cincinnati -- all cities that looked to new stadiums as anchors for developing abandoned areas -- proved to him that the $611 million the District is shelling out isn't a surefire way to turn an otherwise blighted area into an urban success. He writes:
In Cleveland, it doesn't seem to have worked. Jacobs Field is a terrific place to watch a ballgame. It's inviting, seems smaller than it really is, fits well into the city's grid, opens onto the city and has sparked development of a few big and crowded bars that capture some of the pre- and post-game crowd. The Indians do their part, hosting post-game rock concerts on an inviting plaza that looks out onto the surrounding streets. But walk even two blocks away from the stadium and there is precious little evidence of any improvements that can be attributed to the stadium's presence.Of course, we all hope that the area around the stadium at least follows the trend of the Verizon Center -- even if that means a whole lot of chain restaurants and stores to suck tax dollars out of visitors' pockets. After all, the debt financing alone is going to need that influx. But will the District follow the examples Fisher cites, or will the sheer number of development projects in the area work to bring and keep people and their money?
|
Having grown up in Cleveland and attended college outside Detroit, I'm familiar with both Jacobs Field and Comerica Park. I think the new Nationals stadium will produce slightly different results, although I wouldn't bank the future of the city on it as former Mayor Williams did.
In Cleveland and Detroit, most fans arrive by private automobile, which cuts down on all-important pedestrian traffic. In Cleveland, even those who arrive by transit are encouraged to walk through an underground tunnel to travel between the rail station and the stadium. Comerica Park is completely surrounded by parking lots and garages, making it more suburban in character.
Since roughly half the Nationals fans will be arriving via Metro and walking to the stadium, I think there is great potential, and a DC version of Wrigleyville would not be out of the question. I think a major factor, however, will be any housing that gets built in Southeast--a virtual non-entity around the aforementioned ballparks.
Given that unlike Cleveland, Detroit, and Cincinnati, where the fans are primarily suburban (and beyond), there are plenty of DC residents with disposable income who are likely to patronize nearby establishments, since they won't have to schlep all the way back out to the burbs. I'm cautiously optimistic.
There is one significant flaw to Fisher’s reasoning for this one post. The cities that he cited as examples where stadiums failed to turn around neighborhoods, Detroit... Cleveland... Cincinnati... all suffer from shrinking economies. The cities that he has cited as success stories are ones that have growing economies. D.C., of course, falls into the latter category. Stadiums in cities with growing economies are like defibrillators. It is a jump start to an area when other factors are lined up to help make it happen. That doesn’t mean that they’re miracle machines.
I, for one, will no doubt do my part in supporting the local establishments at the aforementioned area in the activity of drinking one's face off.
Will the stadium succeed?
That depends on your definition of success.
If you're the owner of the Nationals, then all indications are that, yes, the stadium will succeed. It's a brand new stadium for a relatively new team and should should be packed to the gills for the first few years.
If success is defined as a worthwhile $611 million investment, that may never be known for certain. Any revitalization of the SW Waterfront/Navy Yard area cannot be attributed exclusively to the new stadium. As many have noted, the Navy relocation to SE predates the Nationals by a number of years, and the office building boom along M St. is a direct descendant of that move. It's possible that the stadium effort focused developers' attention to the waterfront, but the march of development was proceeding that way already.
As of now, the most positive statement that can be made about the stadium is that it shouldn't actively detract from the area. The field and parking footprint isn't too obnoxious, unlike FedEx Field and RFK. Since stadiums are only active for a few hours on at most, 100 days of the year, they can act as black holes during the other 265. Hopefully the businesses that spring up around the stadium can attract a more diverse crowd than just baseball game attendees. Otherwise, there would be little incentive for people to visit this area during most of the year.
In the end, I doubt that the Nats stadium will be an abject failure, but I can think of much better investments for $600+ million.
I think it's important to note, as Fisher does in his piece, that DC is making a more concerted effort to include retail, entertainment and residential development than Cleveland or Detroit. That doesn't guarantee success, but I think it improves the odds. I've been to Jacob's Field in Cleveland and think it's a great ballpark. But as Fisher points out, there's not much else going on around there aside from a few bars that are mostly empty during non-game hours.
And, as #1 points out, the mode of transportation is probably a significant factor. I don't think I saw many people, aside from myself as my hotel was fairly close, walking to the Indians game I attended.
Marc Fisher can fucking bite me. I adore his writing, but now he realizes that the stadium isn't a surefire success? Now!?
I guess I should note that Cleveleand and Detroit's new parks cost over $100,000,000 less COMBINED than Washington's new money pit.
Jesus Christ. I've been shouting this from the rooftops when they said the stadium would cost $400M. There is no guarantee for success and Washington's prior stabs at being a baseball city failed miserably.
But let's all enjoy our blind faith in Anthony Williams and Jack Evans and spin fantasies about a revitalized Navy Yard. It'll help us sleep better at night.
There's also this little area next to the Stadium called the Navy Yard, where you have a couple THOUSAND people show up every day with disposable income. Unfortunately, there isn't much for them to spend it on in the neighborhood besides Five Guys and Sizzling Express. There's also plenty of support contractors in neighboring highrises, as well as a few condos going up as well. A little decent retail is sorely missed along M Street SE, and not just hotdog stands and oversized foam novelty hands. Otherwise, that cash drives out of town every day at 5pm. 8th Street is getting some of that spillover traffic, but M Street is yet basically yet another underutilized business corridor, like New York Avenue from Bladensburg Road to Florida Avenue.
Before the new baseball stadium in SE entered the picture, developers were gearing up to build out yet another sterile office park. I watched as developers refined plans for their sites to include more retail, more housing, and more entertainment aspects. There are thousands of housing units being built at the stadium's doorstep. The customers will be there. And, yes about half of the stadium goers will get there by Metro, bus, bike, or walking. Yes, half.
And, here is the kicker. The Capitol Riverfront/Near Southeast area alone will rival the downtowns of mid-sized cities across the US once it is built out around 2015 or so. $13 billion worth of development. 10,000 housing units, 12 to 15 million square feet of office space, and almost 1 million square feet of retail. And, then there are all the parks that will be built.
People forget that DC's downtown and othe city amenities match that of a very large city, although DC, by population, is a mid-sized city. The development dynamic of Washington, DC is totally different than that of Detroit, Cleveland, and Cincinatti. I am skeptical of the comparison.
Well all you have to do is go here JD Land and you'll see that the stadium is basically being surrounded by development. Sure not all of that is because of the stadium because the Navy Yard and DOT developing well before, but it's not like the area is going to be an empty field.
Studies by the Brookings Institution, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, dozens of independent researchers – and studies of those studies - agree: sports complexes are a bad investment of public money. Period. No exceptions.
Check for yourself at www.planning.unc.edu/courses/261/gessner/mnreview.htm#10
Although I agree with Fisher's conclusion (and like #6, have long been saying the same thing), his citation to Cincinnati feels a little glib -- as if his editor said "please put another example in, because Cleveland and Detroit aren't enough."
His only evidence about Cincinnati is that Great American Ballpark and the Underground Railroad Museum are separated from downtown by the freeway. That's certainly true. And it's also true that their opening hasn't turned the city into Chicago or even Gallery Place. But downtown Cincy is a far cry from the dead zone of Cleveland or Detroit -- although it can be quiet on event-free weekends, people do linger in the downtown after work on weekdays and after weekend events. Moreover, the attractions of the riverfront have helped the city survive the anti-urban reaction to the 2001 riots, which threatened to cause a new cycle of exurban flight similar to that which deadened DC and Detroit in past decades. Indeed, numerous downtown businesses continue to thrive, several residential projects are underway, and a number new bars and restaurants have opened this year.
It's also worth noting that the city has had a decade-long project underway, "The Banks," to better connect the waterfront with the downtown and to add residences, entertainment, and retail into the area adjacent to the ballpark. It has been political squabbling and obstacles that have so far prevented the project's success. *That* may be Cincinnati's real warning to Navy Yard planners.
inloganO - Great site. The problem I see is the same one I saw downtown in the 1980s: all the development is vertical. No ground floor retail. Without it, M Street and North Cap will be dead zones after dark and that isn't a good thing for revitalization. It is, however, a great thing for crime.
Anybody remember Gallery Place before the MCI Center?
#6,
Skydome (1989) $500m
Jacobs Field (1994) $175m
Comerica park (2000) $300m
Phillies (2004) $458M
Petco Park (2004) $450m
Nationals (2008) $600m
Yankee Stadium 2 (2009) $800m
Mets (2009) $615m
Twins Ballpark (2010) $480m
Seems like the Nationals are getting a market rate stadium.
monkeyrotica,
check out this website:
www.halfstreetdc.com
Do you see some retail there. This is literally at the baseball stadium's front door. Construction is already underway.
awesome! now i can finally flip these shitty condos i've been sitting on down there. i stand to make thousands...no wait...hundreds... no wait...tens of dollars!
Fisher is right. Here's a letter I had in Wapo a couple a years ago with some additional statistics. It was in response to a sports column.
>>
Tuesday, September 28, 2004; Page A26
In his Sept. 23 Sports column, Michael Wilbon argued that a baseball stadium in the District would fuel an economic renaissance. It will do no such thing.
Cleveland built a downtown stadium in 1993, and the Census Bureau recently ranked that city as the poorest in the nation, with 31.3 percent of its population below the poverty level.
Detroit, which Mr. Wilbon cited as a stadium success story, ranked third-poorest in this survey.
Mr. Wilbon also argued that MCI Center is evidence of the power of sports and entertainment venues to revitalize an area. Again, untrue. The main driver of this region's prosperity is its abundance of well-paying jobs. In a Sept. 1 report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the Washington area has the lowest unemployment rate among the nation's large urban areas.
Stadium proponents say that businesses, not homeowners, will pay for a stadium. But a stadium tax on business will be used by businesses as an argument against new levies, which will hurt schools and other essential services. There is no question that a baseball stadium would provide many popcorn-selling jobs, but only by mortgaging the District's future.
PATRICK THIBODEAU
Washington
cherry picking a few cities and saying "aha! this is our future!" is pretty lame... honestly, I'm not sure how many similarities/differences the various cities might have, but why not use philadelphia, baltimore and seattle as comparisons?
speaking of cherry picking examples, why not expand upon the list of ballpark costs since the latest boom started?
camden yards (1992) $100m
rangers ballpark (1994) $191m
safeco park (1999) $517.6m
us cellular (1991) $167m
at&t (2000) $357m
busch (2006) $365m
chase (1998) $349m
coors (1995) $215m
great american (2003) $325m
miller (2001) $400m
minute maid (2001) $250m
petco (2004) $456.8m
pnc (2001) $262m
turner (1997) $235m
otavio - Those are some nice Photoshopped artist renderings. Pity they don't say who the "nationally known brands" and "popular clubs and restaurants" are. Kudos on the prominent display of professional-looking, non-scary minorities.
Seriously, I do hope it comes to pass. And if it does, I promise to buy you a Bubblegum Mug-arita at the TGI McPickleshitters they're putting in the boutique hotel lobby.
RJ, most expensive baseball stadium ever does not equate into a market investment. And your inclusion of the future NYC stadiums doesn't really relate since the land is worth way more than DC land and those stadiums are guranteed successes.
I was rebutting your claim of "no retail".
Here is your quote:
"The problem I see is the same one I saw downtown in the 1980s: all the development is vertical. No ground floor retail."
The development dynamic of Capitol Riverfront/Near Southeast is NOT the same as downtown in the 1980's. ok?
That is what you said, right? Whether it is nationally known brands or not, there will be retail. And, most of the development is indeed mixed-use.
In fact, over 800,000 square feet of retail is on the boards for this area.
@17,
It not cherry picking, past stadium cost are just that… the past. Cost of construction over the past 5 years has gone bonkers (thank you China). So I included every stadium that is under construction, since their cost are based on today’s market. If we bunch your stats plus mine it shows that the cost of a stadium almost doubles in every 5 to 6 years. NY stadiums are the most comparable since the they will be higher end like that the Nationals wanted. The Twins will have a lower quality stadium and cheaper one, however I don't think they have included the cost of personal heaters they will need for an open air baseball game in April. My stats and yours show that cost of the Nats stadium has follows historical increases and is comparable to similar quality stadiums…hence Market Rate.
monkeyrotica, you are absolutely right. I work for a Navy contractor on M Street and live a block from the new stadium, and the area is sorely lacking in retail establishments.
Besides the Navy Yard and its contractors that work nearby, the new DoT building is HUGE and there are tons of people going to it every day. So someone will surely jump on the opportunity to build some restaurants/stores/bars/etc. in that area to feed off that traffic, if the stadium traffic isn't enough of an incenitve.
Well, if the any of us are still around in 2009 when the Half Street development comes to pass, I'll buy the first round of Bubblegum Mug-aritas. That artist rendering looks like outtakes from Lost in Translation.
@19,
Mets are building in their parking lot, so no new land acquisition. Yanks, will build on city owned land and the city will retain title.
I should also mention, as proof that the Navy Yard area needs more restaurants, that at lunch time the Subway and Five Guys are completely packed with people. Even the DoT Farmer's Market on Tuesday afternoons is always mobbed. The few businesses that are in the area must make a killing off us.
comparing the baseball stadium to MCI makes little sense. The nice thing about a basketball stadium is that you can plop it down right in the middle of a downtown business district and things can grow around it. You don't just throw down a ball park in the middle of nowhere and create wrigley field. sorry. ball parks are so big that they end up in these strange areas of town and it's much harder to build up around them than one block of downtown like the MCI/Verizon.
yes, 2009 is so far away, a mere 1.5 years from now!
monkeyrotica, you are funny......sometimes.
Cheers!
P.S. to Guest #22. There is one all-retail development getting set to go directly beside the new DOT headquarters. The old Boilermaker Shop at 4th and Tingey Streets will be renovated and construction should commence in a matter of months. Completion in mid-2009. This should be an interesting (retail) addition to "The Yards".
http://www.dcyards.com/retail.php
A LOT can happen in 18 months. Fortunately, the condo market downtown is still strong and what isn't selling is being rolled over to rentals. I'm really interested in the commercial mix off M Street. Will it be more $3k leather sofa stores and Starbucks or will it be something to that will get commuters to leave their money in DC, like Hooters?
I wouldn't have a problem with a mix of both types of retail, just like in Penn Quarter. And, yes Penn Quarter DOES have independent retail. I've got a list.
Many of the buildings in "The Yards" will indeed be organic - renovation and restoration of old warehouses, torpedo factories, etc adapted for housing and retail use.
I am really looking forward to the renovation of the Old Boilermakers Shop.
Yes, a lot can happen in 18 months, but when shovels are already in the ground for many of these new projects, it will be a little bit hard to change course. Whether the housing is condos or apartments, they still will be residences. The apartment market in DC is very strong.
I have patience, and I've seen and researched the vision. I've watched developers, one-by-one, change and alter their mix of uses for their projects since the baseball stadium was announced. It has had some impact.
From Guest #19,
"And your inclusion of the future NYC stadiums doesn't really relate since the land is worth way more than DC land and those stadiums are guranteed successes."
And to extend your line of thinking on this, DC land is worth way more than land in many of those other cities with baseball stadiums. It doesn't really relate.
"Fortunately, the condo market downtown is still strong"
Yes, fortunately for those among us looking to buy, we get the occasional bit of comic relief in the form of the 2 BR condo on New Jersey Ave. NE with an asking price of $550K.
Were it not for this booming condo market, by days would certainly be a bit darker.
#31 - Three words: Prince William County.
Particularly if you enjoy banjo music and Deliverance.
"I'm really interested in the commercial mix off M Street. Will it be more $3k leather sofa stores and Starbucks or will it be something to that will get commuters to leave their money in DC, like Hooters?"
Hooters? You have got to be kidding me. The "new" M Street SE is not the place I'd want to see a Hooters.
The new high-rise at Half and M will house a franchise of their new, upscale venture, known as Titties. The chicken wings will be replaced by Spanish tapas.
The stadium makes the neighborhood. Yes, the SE Federal Center was getting NAVSEA. But that's only because the Feds forced them. Ask anyone that works at the Navy Yard now and they'll tell you that for decades the area was a wasteland of crime, homlessness, and hell. Adding a few crappy commercial buildings wouldn't have changed that.
Without the baseball stadium no one would have dreamed of making this area into a livable area, with new housing, retail, etc. It just wouldn't have happened.
But, as others have pointed out, to make it work we must have GROUND FLOOR RETAIL. In every single new building. And a good mix of residential and commercial.
In fact, ground floor retail should be an absolute requirement in all new buildings in DC unless the developer can show a very good reason why it can't be done.
We keep claiming we want to be a walkable city. Walking past darkened commercial buildings at night ain't the way to do it.
The other thing that we must have is real security. Nobody likes to talk about it, but all that public housing that was there ain't going away. It's just being rebuilt as mid-level highrises. I believe they are to be just north and East of the new Marriott, essentially making up 2 sides of the new Canal Park.
Yes, there is some mixed income in there, which is good. But I think there are also entire buildings of Section 8 housing. Others may have more detail on this than I do, but from what I've been told there are entire 8 to 10 stories of Section 8 being put up. Yes, just when the rest of the entire nation is tearing all their failed poverty high rises down - DC builds more.
And that means crime.
If DC doesn't address this proactively the lovely new Canal Park will soon be Needle Park, and you'll see the area get a nasty reputation that it may never escape.
Hillman,
I've got some numbers for you for the apartment buildings to front the new Canal Park.
Here goes:
There were 707 public housing units in the old public housing complex before it was demolished.
About 300 of the public housing units are in the new senior Capper buildings.
Another 111 subsidized units will be mixed in with the market rate townhouses in the Capitol Quarter complex by EYA.
The remaining 296 public housing units will be mixed into the 3 apartment buildings proposed in front of the Canal Park. There will be 549 total units in the 3 apartment buildings. 549 total units - 296 public housing = 253 market-rate and workforce housing.
So, the 3 apartment buildings will indeed be mixed-income. They definitely will NOT be entirely Section 8! Not at all!
I hope this explanation helps.
My sources:
jdland.com
eya.com
http://www.dchousing.org/hope6/arthur_capper_hope6.html
And, a little adding and subtracting.
:-)
As a resident of nearby Southwest, all I want is a flippin' Starbucks!!
Guest 36:
Thank you for the clarification. I knew someone out there would have more information.
But 700 public housing units in a few block radius - that's an awful lot. Some of the impact MAY be mitigated by including some workforce and market rate.
And that doesn't even apparently include the huge site directly North of the Marriott, which the DC government owns (again, someone else may have better info on this). Knowing DC's politics, does anyone really expect them not to include public housing here?
But I wouldn't bet, say, my Grandmother's safety on it.
Unless DC gets serious about security then expect Canal Park to be crime-infested within a year of the public housing component being built.
That of course is the real reason the DC police headquarters was slated to go directly north of Canal Park. But being the wussies that we are, we can't ever actually say that out loud.
If the police headquarters goes there that'd be a big help.
But ask those that already live close to police facilities - like the one at 6th and NY NW (due East of the Convention Center). You were fine on their property. But literally half a block a way you were back in high crime country. And you could buy every kind of drug you wanted literally yards from the station house. It's a bit better now, but only because of the changing neighborhood, apparently not because of the large police station right there.
Hillman,
I can understand your concern about having a high concentration of public housing units in one area, but I will attempt to explain this again to you.
Originally, there were 707 public housing units on what was known as Capper/Carrolsburg. A plan was put in place to redevelop this area and the units were demolished.
The plan is to replace all 707 public housing units and also add another 855 market-rate and worforce rate housing on the same land. In essence, we will see a more dense neighborhood of 1,562 mixed-income units on land where 707 public housing units once stood. There will be more market-rate and workforce rate housing than public housing units in this development. All of the public housing units will be MIXED-IN with the market-rate and workforce rate housing.
It is important to note that of the 707 total public housing units, 300 of them are for seniors. I am not not sure how many poor 70 year old seniors are committing rampant crime and robbing 25 years on the streets of DC, but the number is sure to be on the low side. 160 units in Capper Seniors #1 and 140 units in Capper Seniors #2.
Yes, this development is replacing the public housing units 1-for-1 and this is higher than other mixed-income developments in this city, but it is still going to be a mixed-income neighborhood. And, the number of market-rate and workforce rate units will outnumber the public housing. Finally, the public housing is not just going into the mid-rise apartment buildings fronting Canal Park. It is being spread out over a 14-block area, and amongt the market-rate and workforce housing.
Call me an elitist, but I wouldn't want to live in a building that was over 50% section 8. I give those residences very little chance for success. Anyone willing to pay "market rate" and knowing of the circumstances of the building would opt to go elsewhere. So maybe their "market rate" will actually be closer to section 8 rates.
It's not the Seniors. It's their kids and grandkids that 'visit', staying for years. Happens all the time in DC.
Isn't Potomac Gardens on the Hill seniors housing? And isn't it very high crime?
And I agree that mixing in other forms of housing may have a positive impact.
But 700 units is 700 units. That's a lot. And again that's not counting what DC puts in where the old trash transfer station is.
And by your own figures that's essentially a 1 to 1 ration, of public housing to workforce or market rate.
So what you've got is a sprawling area where at least half the residents will be public housing. And let's not forget that's just the actual legal residents. So often in DC the public housing apartment is home to the legal resident and then a constant stream of boyfriends, his friends, etc. That's where the charming term 'stayin at' comes from. They don't actually live there, technically. They are just 'staying at' there.
I just don't think that ratio will work. Maybe a 3 to 1 ratio, with public housing making up 1/4, would work. That's assuming we have an actual working police force.
In any event, making it work would require a lot more policing than DC is willing to do.
If we aren't careful we'll end up with a huge area where DC cops just won't go. And do we really think DC Housing Authority cops can control such an enterprise? Really? Sortof like the control Sursum Corda and all the others?
please make guest comments legible by making the font darker
I can see your point, Hillman. I believe this is the first Hope VI redevelopment where the ratio is almost 1:1 for market-rate and workforce rate to subsidized housing
I think they've even made one of the Capper Senior buildings where non-senior workforce level renters can reside there also.
There is no set timeline for when the 3 apartment buildings fronting Canal Park would be built - and we probably won't see these before 2012 at the earliest.
The ratios of market-rate housing to public housing look ok in the rest of the project - something like 3:1. It is really these 3 apartment buildings that would see a higher mix of low income housing with the market-rate housing.
Maybe a group can be formed to advocate for a change since these parts of the project will likely not be built before 2012. I just know that they were set on replacing the public housing 1-for-1 on the same site instead of scattering them across other sites.
Mike Licht:
One of the differences between the cities/stadia cited and DC is that DC is drawing on dollars from outside the city. Thus entertainment monies from MD and VA will be funnled into DC. This is a very different model than Pikeville, OH money being shifted to Cleveland.
Hillman - Maybe I'm stroking out (is that copper I taste?), but didn't HUD make Hope VI developments conditional on strengthening tenant regulations? Previous subsidized projects were pretty sloppy in regards to allowing repeat narcotics offenders to continue to occupy residences. I'm pretty sure that with Hope VI, it's one strike and you're on the street. There's plenty of people on the wait list to take that efficiency over.
Then again, all that's contingent on enforcement and they don't really have a primo track record in that department.
I was very impressed with the Detroit stadium area. Like Baltimore they have the baseball and football stadiums in close proximity to one another and take advantage of their waterfront. Unlike Baltimore, Detroit has legalized gambling so their ball area area includes hotels with gambling. A tram snakes through the area to provide local transportation. They also have a broad plaza which opens up after a game to a restaurant area. It was all inclusive and wonderful.
I can only hope DC will be so progressive.
Monkey:
The less I visualize you and stroking the better off we'll all be.
But I digress.
You may be right about strengthened tenant regulations. I've always been a bit confused on that issue. In my book if somebody is giving you free shit (in this case, a free apartment and free utilities for years without end), then you really don't have many 'rights'. You are there on whatever conditions are imposed. If you don't like it, leave and start paying your own way elsewhere. That's what happens when you take free shit. But from what I understand the Supreme Court has weighed in on what can and can't be enforced in public housing?
It'll make for a very interesting experiment. It'll be interesting to see how those paying workforce or market rate for the same apartments/townhouses as those that are getting them for free right next door will feel about the drug use, the crime, etc., that some of their neighbors inflict on them, and watching their neighbors get for free what they are paying for.
Before anyone complains, I know I'm generalizing about public housing residents. Not all are thugs. Many are decent people. And some work very hard. But anyone that thinks there isn't crime and a culture of crime and entitlement in public housing is an idiot.
But as you say, the key will be enforcement. And DC has a pathetic track record on these types of things.
I completely disagree with the assessment by Marc and this board that Detroit's stadium was a failure (not familiar with the rest of the cities but I grew up in Michigan). Detroit has been a wasteland since I was born. It has been losing population since the 60s and no one from the state would spend time in it. You honestly were scared for your life inside the Detroit Art Museum - the one thing that schools would visit. The city was dead. Stadiums were being built in the suburbs (Lions played in Pontiac and the Pistons in Auburn Hills). The Tigers were looking to head that way. How the city was going to pay for its welfare programs was beyond most of us.
Funny thing happened, the state said we'll roll the dice and put some money into building the new stadium in Detroit. Then the Lions put money up for their football stadium. Before long some night life has opened and some condos. Is the area around Comerica Park a panacea? NO. But the fact that people with jobs would travel into Detroit is an amazing feat. It has changed the ethos of the city. That alone is worth billions of dollars of investment. To be able to do it for only a baseball stadium was a wise and cheap investment.
DC is different, there is not an existential crisis going on in the city. The city economy is really good. People are already moving back. We may not need to have a new stadium. And so a debate is good. But bringing up completely different situations to prove your point is meaningless. I tend to believe that a new Nats stadium will be good for the city and that it will bring 30,000 additional people into the city 81 nights a year. That's a good thing. But I can definitely see why people are worried about the use of funds and in the end that pressure should help to keep this project on track and on budget. And then we shall see what happens to SE.