Connect with us

Opinions

Council must approve new Commanders stadium deal

An important catalyst for economic development

Published

on

RFK Stadium (Screen capture via Voice of America/YouTube)

I am a strong supporter of the Commanders stadium deal at the RFK site. The Council members who understand economic development will vote “yes.” 

Chairman Phil Mendelson, and some of the others, are smart. Despite the chair being peeved he wasn’t in on the negotiation, he will have some good ideas to tweak the deal, and will then get the seven members of the Council needed to pass it. While the deadline is July 15, there is a paragraph in the agreement reading it can be extended if both sides agree. Again, Mendelson is a smart guy. He will not pass up this incredible opportunity. Besides that, he recognizes it could happen without the Council if the president and Congress want it. It was NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and Commanders owner Josh Harris, who worked with the mayor, lobbying hard to get us the 180-acre site. Chances are, without their help, we wouldn’t have it. So, the deal will move forward, as it should, based on its merits. 

The domed stadium proposed by the Washington Commanders for the 180-acre RFK site is only one part of the planned incredible economic development opportunity Mayor Muriel Bowser has negotiated. This was a dream of the mayor for 10 years, and she worked with Congress to get the site turned over to the District. This finally happened last year when Congress passed the D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act. The legislation was signed into law by President Biden in January 2025. It gave the District the ability to develop the long-underutilized space for a mix of uses, lifting the restrictions that were in place under the previous lease. The legislation requires 30% of the RFK campus be reserved for parks and open space, not including a 32-acre riparian area along the Anacostia River.

Since the legislation was signed, the mayor worked closely with Josh Harris, principal owner of the Commanders, to negotiate the single largest private investment in the District’s history — a $2.7 billion investment from the Commanders. The mayor understands this investment will be the catalyst to activate 180 acres of what she has called ‘opportunity’ at the RFK campus. It is not only a sparkling new domed stadium. That will complement the transformation of the entire campus to include housing, parks and recreation, hotels, restaurants, retail, and neighborhood amenities. 

The mayor understands the economy of D.C. is changing. Between the pandemic, and now reduction in federal workforce, the city has to change how we generate revenue. As the mayor said, “When we got control of 180 acres of land on the banks of the Anacostia, we knew right away that partnering with the Commanders would be the fastest, and surest, route to bringing the entire RFK campus to life. As we focus on the growth of our economy, we’re not only bringing our team home, but we’re also bringing new jobs and new revenue to our city, and to Ward 7.” We have seen what Nationals’ stadium did as the catalyst for that part of D.C. Remembering the fights over that stadium, and the fact the city, not the team, paid for it, we know it moved forward profitable development of the entire area by a minimum of 10 years. 

Yes, it may be possible to redevelop this 180-acre site without a stadium; but it’s also clear it would take at a minimum at least 10 years longer, if ever, to do it without the Commanders investment. Under the terms of the deal, the Commanders will drive the investment of at least $2.7 billion to build a roofed stadium that can be used year-round, together with related improvements. The District will invest $500 million for stadium horizontal and non-vertical costs, paid for from the Sports Facilities Fee (formerly known as the Ballpark Fee). By leveraging dedicated funds from the Sports Facilities Fee, the District will not need to make cuts to the city’s operating budget. In addition, the District will facilitate parking development using a $175 million revenue bond, which will be funded by in-stadium activity once the stadium is operating. Events DC will contribute up to $181 million for parking garages near the community recreation facilities, which Events DC will own. Additionally, similar to other large development projects such as St. Elizabeths East, the District will invest $202 million for utilities infrastructure, roadways, and a WMATA transit study. The study will determine if at some time there might be new bus routes, or even an additional Metro stop. Let us remember there was a stadium there before and the RFK campus is today readily accessible by many public transit options.

The approximately 65,000-seat stadium, expected to open in 2030, will occupy only 11% of the site. In addition to building the stadium, the Commanders will be responsible for activating and developing multiple parcels of land around the stadium. Those will include restaurants, entertainment venues, hotels, housing, green space, and more. The entire campus is expected to create approximately 5,000-6,000 housing units, of which at least 30% being affordable housing.

Throughout the construction process, the District will seek to preserve and continue to operate the popular Fields at RFK. The District will invest an additional $89 million to build a new sportsplex to host year-round sporting events and tournaments for youth in D.C. The mayor’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal will include $89 million for the sportsplex. Adjacent to the fields, park space, and sportsplex, the District will develop a new Kingman Park District, which will include housing, mixed-use development, open space, and recreational space. To do this, the campus planning effort, will be taking all the development parcels through the D.C. 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. In this way, community members and neighbors will have an opportunity to weigh in on what types of uses would best serve the community. All parcels in the Kingman Park District will go through the District’s RFP process and prioritize local businesses.

As the economy of the District changes, the mayor and Council must be
focused on responding to the shifts. Activation of the RFK campus through this deal is expected to create approximately 14,000 jobs in connection to the stadium construction alone, and 2,000 permanent jobs. The stadium and surrounding development are anticipated to create approximately $4 billion in total tax revenue, and yield more than $15.6 billion in direct spending over 30 years.

The District has a successful history of using catalytic sports investments to transform underutilized spaces into vibrant neighborhoods, including in Chinatown-Gallery Place with Capital One Arena (originally the MCI Center); Capitol Riverfront with Nationals Park; and St. Elizabeths East with the CareFirst Arena (originally the Entertainment and Sports Arena) in the past decade. During her time in elected office, the mayor has worked on successful deals for Audi Field, the CareFirst Arena, the renovation of Capital One Arena, and now this partnership with the Washington Commanders.

Again, Mendelson will have some good ideas that he will want to negotiate into the agreement as it moves through the Council. But the overall positive impact of this deal on the District’s economy will win the day. He, and many Council members, understand major sports are a significant driver of the District’s new economy, generating $5 billion in 2022 and attracting 7.4 million visitors in 2023. The fact is D.C.’s sports teams and their facilities have boosted neighborhood investment, with nearby commercial development outpacing the rest of the city, after each facility opened. 

This is a once-in-a-lifetime deal for D.C. I urge everyone to contact your Council member, and tell them to vote yes.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties

Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues

Published

on

A photo from inside the White House on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously. 

There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting. 

A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.

Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job. 

After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.

On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times. 

Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored. 

So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties. 

Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].  


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Young people should know history of the fight for human rights

Trump is working to erase contributions of marginalized people

Published

on

From left, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y), Frank Kameny and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.). (Photos of Abzug and Chisholm public domain; Washington Blade archive photo of Kameny)

When talking with otherwise really smart young people, I am amazed how little knowledge many of them have about the fight for human rights in the United States. Our country was founded by white men, who didn’t think about giving full rights to Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community (what they knew of it, or called it). They wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that referred to all white men, and intentionally didn’t mention women. For 250 years, the country has been trying to make up for that, and making progress in fits and starts. We have yet to fully succeed. Today the felon, and his fascist aides, in the White House, are working daily to take us backwards. 

For that reason alone, it is important for younger generations to understand the fight for human rights, know who was fighting for those rights, and understand it is an ongoing fight. Often, when listening to some millennials speak, one would think the world began with them. They either forgot, or never learned, about all those who fought for the rights they now have. I realize this was true for previous generations as well. In 2016 I co-hosted a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg during his run for president. He is an undeniably brilliant guy. Yet when he spoke of marriage equality, he just thanked Justice Kennedy for it. I reminded him after he spoke, while it’s nice to thank Kennedy for his vote, it shouldn’t be done without acknowledging the many activists who worked for decades, to get to the point that allowed Kennedy to cast that vote. In the same way it was clear to me during the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, many young women didn’t understand the work many of their own mothers had done, to fight for their right to control their own healthcare, and women’s rights in general. They took for granted the rights they had. Now, after losing some of them, many will realize the fight for their rights is never-ending. 

When I speak to younger members of the LGBTQ community, I am amazed how many don’t know the history of the AIDS epidemic, many thinking it was always a disease you could deal with by taking medication. They don’t understand the work so many activists did to bring attention to this devastating disease, and get the healthcare so many needed. Those like Cleve Jones, Larry Kramer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and so many others. Recently, I realized how many young women don’t know the names of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug — women who fought for their rights. And this is just recent history, no less knowing about the Suffragettes, the strong women who fought for their right to vote. I’ve met young women who don’t know what the ERA is, and others who think it passed. Many don’t know the nation couldn’t get 38 states to approve an amendment to include them in the Constitution. The same for young members of the LGBTQ community who don’t know what the Equality Act is. Others think it passed, and are shocked when told it didn’t and in 27 states, they can be married on Sunday, and kicked out of their home, and fired from their job, on Monday. They don’t know names like Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Barney Frank, or the history of the Mattachine Society, or the Stonewall Riots.

Our current president is trying to wipe out all this history, and reverse any progress that has been made. Knowing this, it makes it even more important for school systems across the nation to fight to educate our children. We should ensure no child can graduate high school, without taking a course called “The 250-year fight for human rights in the United States.” They need to understand the history, and learn about the people who fought for their rights. They need to know how far we have come in 250 years, and understand, as we begin the next 250, how far we still have to go, to ensure real, full equality, for all.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Commentary

What LGBTQ veterans are building after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

DADT repeal took effect on Sept. 20, 2011. Trans servicemember ban reinstated

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

Fifteen years ago this month, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” took effect. At the time, the importance of the change was obvious: gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans would no longer have to hide who they were to wear the uniform. What was harder to see was what would follow: a generation of LGBTQ veterans able to carry their service openly into American civic life.

Earlier this month, Alaska state Rep. Andrew Gray, an Army veteran, stood before the Anchorage Assembly and asked the city to recognize Sept. 20 as LGBTQ Veterans Day.

His former command sergeant major, Mike Grunst, followed him to the microphone. A 35-year veteran who had served in combat, Grunst called troops who had served while hiding who they were “the bravest I have ever served with.”

Then Denise Sudbeck stepped forward. A Vietnam-era Navy veteran, she thanked the country for the privilege of serving and asked that the next generation have the same chance.

The Assembly approved the recognition.

Nothing about the scene required a new vocabulary. A veteran made a request of his community. A commander vouched for those who served beside him. Another veteran asked that younger Americans inherit the opportunity she valued. They entered the civic record simply as veterans.

That identity can do more than win recognition.

When federal policy abruptly ended the careers of transgender servicemembers this year, veterans and servicemembers in California began asking a practical question: What happens when those Americans come home?

Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez, a Marine combat veteran, began one hearing with questions about transgender military service. He listened as veterans explained how the military handles medical care and deployment case by case.

Then the discussion turned to separation.

“I don’t wanna see any veteran homeless,” Gonzalez said. Before the hearing ended, he was asking: “How can I help? How can I understand? How can I be a good advocate?”

The legislation that followed would provide housing, employment and transition assistance to discharged servicemembers. Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove spoke for it. The Senate passed it 32 to 0.

Americans have plainly not settled their disagreements over transgender people. Nor should military service be a prerequisite for rights that belong to every citizen.

But military service creates relationships that are difficult to reduce to the abstractions of the culture war. Before a legislature, “the transgender issue” can become a veteran who deployed, an officer who led troops, or the person who once stood beside you.

The political question changes because the human relationship has already changed.

The pattern is beginning to appear across the country. Kansas is among the states recognizing LGBTQ Veterans Day for the first time this year. New York and Virginia are pursuing broader state-level programs for LGBTQ veterans.

Sept. 20 is deliberate. On that day in 2011, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ended.

We usually remember repeal for what LGBTQ Americans gained: the ability to serve openly. Fifteen years later, we can also see what the country gained.

A gay veteran can stand before his local government beside the commander who once led him. A transgender servicemember can sit before a legislator who begins with doubts and ends by asking how he can help. A veteran from an older generation can ask her neighbors to give those who follow her the same chance to serve.

This is citizenship in practice.

The enduring legacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is not only that Americans were finally allowed to serve openly. It is also what they can now build after coming home.

Continue Reading

Popular