Hey more informed DC United fans than me, why is tearing down RFK and building a new soccer-specific stadium in it's place not an option on the table? DC United is RFK's only "real" tenant, so it would really only affect DC United (oh and the Military Bowl). But seriously DC United could play somewhere else for a year or two while a new stadium is built in RFK's place. That seems like the best option for keeping DC United in DC and at the same time not have to try and get new land-use permits, etc... Really, please tell me why this is not an option.