Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen and more than 2,400 others are saying “Hail No” to the idea of a new football stadium at the RFK campus.

Allen’s office launched a petition on Friday that reads, in part, “As a D.C. resident, I am against a deal that gives away a single square foot of land or a single District tax dollar to build a new stadium for billionaire NFL owner Dan Snyder.” The number of signatories so far has led them to keep upping their goal after quickly surpassing their target, according to Allen.

This comes after news that the office of Mayor Muriel Bowser has been working behind the scenes with Republicans to include a provision in a must-pass congressional spending bill that would extend the city’s lease on the National Park Service land, allowing the 190 acres to be developed for commercial use and a 60,000-seat stadium for Snyder’s team.

Bowser has made no secret of her desire to bring Washington’s football team back within city limits, though the governors from both Maryland and Virginia are also competing to be the team’s home. The team used to play at RFK Stadium, before decamping to Landover, Md. after the 1996 season (that lease expires in 2027). Other D.C. squads, like the Nationals and D.C. United, similarly made a home at RFK before heading on to new facilities.

In late August, the city broke ground on its first phase of RFK redevelopment, which will include multipurpose playing fields, park space, pedestrian/bike paths, and connectors to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail. But the broader question of how to use the full site, and the fate of the stadium itself, is still up in the air.  Currently, the National Park Service leases the land to the quasi-private sports and convention authority Events DC, under terms that mandate its use as a stadium, “recreational facilities, open spaces, or public outdoor recreation opportunities,” or similar public uses.

Allen, who represents the neighborhoods abutting RFK, says that a football stadium is not the best use of the land. “Housing with affordable housing, retail and commercial spaces, parks and public spaces—there’s so much more opportunity for what I think is a better vision for that land,” he tells DCist. “When you look at NFL stadium deals around the country, you see largely very large tax breaks going to very wealthy people to build stadiums and luxury suites. I don’t think that’s a great way for us to use our money.” He adds that NFL stadiums aren’t a good economic catalyst because there are so few games each season, unlike sports like baseball or basketball.

When surveyed in early September, three other councilmembers stood with Allen in opposing a new NFL stadium in D.C., while two came out in favor, and the rest declined to comment or give a yes/no answer.

Many councilmembers have opposed the team’s name, which activists point out is a dictionary-defined slur. Indeed, when Bowser was a councilmember in Ward 4, she co-introduced legislation that called on the team to change its name. Since her ascent to mayor, she began using the official name with more regularity.

For Allen, though, the name isn’t the sticking point. “I think the name is offensive, I think the name is a slur, but even if it changed, I don’t think the football stadium should be built there,” he says.

But Allen is completely on board with the notion that D.C. should have control of the RFK campus, ideally by having the National Park Service transfer its ownership to the city, or otherwise through a long-term lease that allows for different kinds of development. “Whether you support or don’t support a stadium—we should have that land,” he says.