Opinion: Here's how to improve the RFK deal

It’s the debate raging across D.C. – how much money should D.C. taxpayers give the Washington Commanders to move back to RFK? Even the team’s biggest boosters should be seriously concerned about the mayor’s proposed deal. It gives too much away, gets too little back, and lacks an ambitious vision for how our city needs to grow.

D.C. taxpayers would pay at least $1.1 billion for the stadium over the next few years – the second-largest taxpayer subsidy for a stadium in American history. Taxpayers would spend millions to overbuild parking lots and garages, and the original deal didn’t have a dime for Metro. Thankfully, after negotiations between Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and the Commanders, the council has embraced redirecting money to expand Metro – a major change I've pushed for. But the renegotiated deal also includes the following, which isn’t a fair split between the team and D.C. residents:

• The Commanders’ billionaire investment team would get development rights for more than half of the 180 acres of the site for $4 per year, pay zero property taxes and no rent on stadium or parking;
• The team keeps all revenue from parking on game days and major events from garages built by taxpayers;
• The team will generate enormous profit from the sale of Personal Seat Licenses, exempt from sales tax;
• The team won’t build more than the minimum affordable housing D.C. law requires;

We can’t be blinded by the burgundy and gold glitz of a new stadium. Every decision we make for this site should deliver a vision for the next 50 years that’s fair to taxpayers today. Here’s how the deal needs to change:

Invest in Metro, not parking lots

The redevelopment of the RFK site must be about the future, not the past. We need to reduce car congestion and increase transit, whether for major events or to support thousands of new residents. Under the proposal, D.C. foots the $352 million bill to build 8,000 parking spaces, but the team keeps all the money you pay to park on game day. Thankfully the council’s latest deal dedicates funding to expanding Metro, which would serve the stadium and the community. Just look at how well it works at the 42,000-seat Nationals Park, which has 1,250 parking spaces, splits the parking revenue for major events with D.C., and takes advantage of the Metro station one block away. In a better deal, most of the public funds for parking need to be redirected into a new or vastly improved Metro station to serve a 65,000-seat stadium and also 20,000 new area residents. Let’s bet big on Metro, like we did with Nats Park and newly built neighborhoods like NoMa. 

Build more housing (affordable, family, and senior)

An estimated 6,000 new homes could be created for more than 20,000 residents. This is an exciting proposition and the true economic engine of the deal. This new development must also be mixed-use, transit-oriented, and provide a diversity of housing options for everyone from young families to empty nesters. The price of land is the single biggest expense when building new housing, and here, D.C. is providing it at no cost. Not only must a fair deal include more affordable homes, but the city must also establish specific benchmarks for delivery of the new homes and claw back public subsidies if the team fails to live up to its promises – something else reportedly included in the council’s negotiated deal, but remains light on the details. One need only look across the Potomac to the smart provisions in Amazon’s HQ2 deal that protected taxpayers when development commitments didn’t pan out. 

Lead in sustainable, net-zero development to lower costs

The transformation of such a large area must be planned for sustainable development and built for our future. With a record public taxpayer subsidy, the stadium must be constructed as a model of net-zero energy use. The District should mandate green space, river rehabilitation, and solar and geothermal energy requirements on the team as the master developer of this large site. An improved deal should also include innovative provisions that solar energy credits generated at the stadium be distributed to new affordable housing residents to lower energy and utility costs.

Everyone should be prepared for negotiations to continue, because the proposed deal isn’t fair to D.C. residents, and it doesn’t deliver a strong vision for our city’s future. Significant changes still are needed before any council vote. 

Charles Allen is the Ward 6 Councilmember.