clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

D.C. Stadium deal wrapup: Upfront costs, long-term benefits

New, 3 comments

With a day to digest the contents of the D.C. United stadium plan report, the deal is balanced between upfront costs and long-term benefits.

Ben Olsen at a stadium press event last summer
Ben Olsen at a stadium press event last summer
Cavan Wilk

By this point, you've read the earlier post about the agreed upon land swap that is the key part of the D.C. United stadium plan undervalues the Reeves Center and overvalues the Buzzard Point land. And, I'm sure, you have read our summary of the roundtable held this afternoon to discuss that very deal. However, I want to leave you with some of the benefits that report specifies the deal would give the District if they do invest the money into the D.C. United stadium.

  • Even with the tax abatements, D.C. United's property tax bill would be the highest for a team in MLS.
  • Throughout as 32 year lifespan, the stadium would add about $2.6 billion in direct and indirect spending to the area and would create over 1600 jobs. It would give the District over $100 million in net fiscal benefit, even after spending the money on the project.
  • If the District and United do not develop Buzzard Point now, there is no projected development for the next 8-10 years.

These details, and more, are in blazindw's full report from the roundtable, which he expertly tweeted. I have put together all of his tweets from the event for your perusal, because it is really worth your time to read the whole thing.