Wilson Building Bulletin: Could there be a timeout for the RFK stadium deal?

Calls for a timeout with the RFK stadium deal

When Mayor Muriel Bowser unveiled the $3.7 billion plan to bring the Washington Commanders back to a brand new stadium at the old RFK site in D.C., she made clear that time was of the essence: The D.C. Council, she said, would have to sign off on the deal by July 15, or risk losing the chance to get the team back after a 30-year absence.

Well, some D.C. councilmembers seem to be pushing for a timeout. This week, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said he is considering delaying approval of the full stadium deal, which includes some $1 billion in public funds, until the fall — largely so the council can better scrutinize and make changes to the proposal. 

“I have said all along that July 15 is virtually impossible for the council to be able to do. This was a date that was negotiated by the mayor without any consultation with the council,” Mendelson told The 51st. “The council has to do its due diligence. I think every citizen wants us to do that.”

Mendelson and some other lawmakers have been quietly complaining since Bowser’s big reveal that they haven’t yet received critical details that might help them better understand the stadium deal, especially any hidden costs that D.C. might incur or lost opportunities for handing over development rights to the team for parcels of land that will be used for housing and retail. 

The council recently commissioned an outside assessment of the proposed deal; a report is expected by the end of the month. Additionally, the deal includes tax breaks that, by law, have to be analyzed by the city’s chief financial officer to determine whether they are actually needed.

There’s also the fact that Bowser integrated the stadium deal into her proposed budget for 2026, which the council only got in late May – and is itself a heavy lift that occupies much of the legislature’s time. (Additionally, by including the stadium deal in the budget, it would limit the council’s ability to hold a stand-alone public hearing on it.)

“She and her team have been working on this for months,” At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson told me this week. “To give us weeks is just unfair, and I think that there can be some changes that are made.”

Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker has backed the idea of delaying approval of the deal until the fall, saying that the “public deserves a transparent, community-centered process – not a rushed decision.” He also pointed out that even as the council considers the deal, the city could move forward with plans to start clearing the RFK site for eventual development. (The stadium is already scheduled to be demolished.) 

Mendelson says his proposed delay isn’t a covert step to kill the deal; he’s pledging to cordon off the public funding Bowser has requested to prepare the RFK site, and hold an up-or-down vote on the stadium deal by September. 

But that still doesn’t sit well with Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder, who in a long statement posted on social media called any possible delay “short-sighted” and “reckless.” Bowser went further, arguing that waiting until the fall to approve the deal would only increase the chances that the Commanders would start considering alternatives to returning to D.C.

“​​If the council wants to approve the Commanders’ deal to come back to RFK, the time to debate the merits of the deal is now. A delay sacrifices our exclusive seat at the table and $2.7 billion in private investment. The Commanders and my team are ready to iron out the details with the Council and respond to any concerns. It should be clear, but let me emphasize – if the council strips the deal terms or budgeted dollars from the budget, it kills our agreement with the Commanders,” she said. 

On Wednesday, Bowser escalated, saying the Commanders are “outraged” and “blindsided” by the possible delay. A Commanders spokesperson didn’t go that far, saying instead in an email that a delay in approving the deal could imperil the planned 2030 opening date for the new stadium.

“Throughout the process, we have been clear: the Commanders need a new home by 2030. Any delay will make us unable to deliver on that timeline as well as prevent us from attracting major concerts, performers, and international events such as the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup to D.C. This is what’s at stake for D.C. and its residents if the project is delayed. We are prepared to work with the council morning and night over the next six weeks to keep this stadium on schedule so we can deliver for D.C.’s future,” said the spokesperson.

Could the Commanders actually walk if the council punts any approval of the deal until the fall? Anything is possible, but such threats have been part and parcel of pretty much every stadium negotiation that D.C. has been involved in over the past two decades. And as we reported last month, it was only a decade ago that Bowser herself – then a Ward 4 councilmember – slow-walked a proposed stadium deal for D.C. United, so the council could better assess it and make changes. (The council eventually approved an amended deal after six months of reviewing it, and Audi Field was built.)

Former councilmember Elissa Silverman opined on X on Tuesday that the council should stay the course and work at their pace, since the Commanders seem to want D.C. as much as many D.C. residents and officials want the Commanders. “[Commanders owner] Josh Harris & [NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell] have made it clear they want to be at RFK. They are not moving to Ashburn either. So instead of playing hardball, compromising on timeline seems reasonable,” she wrote.

Mendelson says Bowser’s warnings that the Commanders will bail on D.C. are “exceedingly melodramatic.” 

This sentiment is shared by Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George. “We want to get it done, but I don't think that it's rooted in the reality that they're going to walk away,” she said. “They've shown a true commitment to wanting to be here in the District, and being located in the District is good for them. That's reality.”

Norton faces a tough question: Is it time to step aside?

This week, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton will be celebrating her 88th birthday. But the milestone would also make her among the oldest members of Congress, sparking renewed conversations about whether the city’s “warrior on the Hill” is still up to the task.

That questioning has grown infinitely louder in recent weeks, with reporting from Washingtonian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times breaking open the once-taboo topic and putting more of the city’s elected officials on the record in saying that — for all of the fighting she’s done for D.C. over three decades in office — it’s time for a new generation to take up the mantle. 

When asked this week about whether Norton should run again next year, Mayor Muriel Bowser opted not to say much at all, which itself sounded like a tacit admission that Norton’s time in Congress may have to come to a close. “I am really focused on making sure our city is strong politically and stable economically, and I think there is time for talking about elections, and I don’t choose to do that right now,” she said.

Norton herself has given conflicting messages about her future. On Tuesday, she insisted to reporters that she would run again in 2026, but only hours later, her office added a critical caveat. “She wants to run again, but she’s in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what’s best,” said a spokesperson.

On Wednesday, Norton fired back at The New York Times’ reporting, adding on X, “D.C., your Warrior on the Hill is fighting.” But for how much longer?

Congress moves to roll back D.C. laws (and ignores the budget hole it caused, again)

For months, D.C. officials have been asking the House of Representatives for one thing: To fix the $1.1 billion budget mess it created earlier this year. This week, Republicans finally turned their attention back to D.C., but not to the budget fix they have yet to pass.

On Tuesday, the House voted to repeal a 2022 D.C. law that allows non-citizens to vote in local elections, the third time in as many years that Republicans have led the push to overturn the measure. Republicans say that voting should be reserved for citizens, while local advocates say that non-citizens pay taxes and are impacted by local policies, so they should have a say in who formulates them. Regardless of what side you take, an exceedingly small number of non-citizens have voted in D.C. since the law took effect. There are 980 non-citizens registered to vote, and during the 2024 general election, just over 300 actually cast ballots. (For context, as of May, there were 492,023 people registered to vote in D.C.)

The House similarly voted to overturn a provision of a D.C. police reform law that removes discipline from contract negotiations between the city and the Police Union, and another that requires the city to make public the dates of disciplinary hearings of officers facing termination for misconduct. The provisions were written into law after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, but have been called unfair and targeted by union officials since.

On Thursday, the House is expected to follow by passing a bill that would require D.C. to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The measure predates a push by Mayor Muriel Bowser to repeal the city’s 2020 sanctuary city law, which limits cooperation on immigration. 

Bowser’s office urged Republicans to make good and fix the budget fiasco they created, instead of focusing on local bills passed by city lawmakers. 

“Mayor Bowser continues to oppose all congressional interference in the lives and affairs of Washingtonians. D.C. will continue to fight to protect our home rule and self-determination. If Congress wants to be helpful, they should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act to fix their damage to DC’s FY25 budget,” said Bowser’s office on Tuesday.

The measures head next to the Senate, which has been less willing to interfere in the city’s local affairs, and acted quickly earlier this year on the budget fix the House continues to ignore.

Is it time to stop saving daylight in D.C.?

Over the past decade, D.C. residents have been asked to vote on all types of issues: legalizing cannabis, phasing out the tipped minimum wage (twice), going easy on magic mushrooms, and bringing ranked-choice voting to the city’s elections. Well, there’s another ballot initiative in-the-making to freeze D.C.’s clocks.

This week, the D.C. Board of Elections gave the go-ahead to a proposed ballot initiative that would repeal Daylight Saving Time in the city, effectively doing away with the annual springtime tradition of moving the clocks up an hour. The proposal is the brainchild of Adams Morgan resident Daniel Bernier, who told me in April that the biannual changing-of-the-clocks is “disruptive to the daily lives, health, and productivity” of D.C. residents. 

Arizona and Hawaii currently are the only two U.S. states that have opted out of the annual clock changes, and a majority of Americans seem to be onboard with taking the idea national. But doing it state by state seems suspect to some on social media, who largely panned Bernier’s proposal as unworkable in a metropolitan area encompassing two states and a city.

“If I have to live in a different time zone than my office and doctors [seven] miles away, I will simply die,” said one commenter on BlueSky. Even Metro’s General Manager Randy Clarke had thoughts: “Would be fun scheduling trains or buses that leave VA @ 7am, arrive @ 6am in DC then arrive after 7am in MD. Just little things like that have to get worked out.”

Crazy? Maybe. But historically consistent, weirdly enough. Back before D.C. had home rule, it was left to Congress to decide on a yearly basis to change the clocks. And Congress being Congress, sometimes it waited until too late – leaving D.C. in a time-zone of its own. One year, D.C. was an hour off of both Maryland and Virginia for almost two weeks.

But for as much fun as it would be to impose scheduling chaos on the rest of the region, Bernier’s ballot initiative still faces some significant procedural hurdles. He’ll have to collect signatures from 5% of the city’s registered voters in a six-month period just to get the measure on the city’s ballot, a threshold that has left many proposed initiatives as little more than ideas on paper. Bernier, for his part, tells Washingtonian that he’s up to the challenge. Time will tell.