WP: D.C. Seizes 16 Owners' Property for Stadium

[Predicto]

God forbid you have a stadium in the middle of a parking lot? the horror!

The point is if you put a stadium in the middle of a huge parking lot, everynoe will drive there and the neighborhood gets no benefit except lousy traffic.

If you put a baseball stadium in a neighborhood near people and with public transportation, the whole neighborhood has an economic revitalization from the incredible amount of foot traffic. You should see the difference in San Francisco from before and after the ballpark went in. It's like night and day. Businesses, restaurants, new housing and jobs in abundance all around the park. It has been awesome.

[Thiebear]

The point is if you put a stadium in the middle of a huge parking lot, everynoe will drive there and the neighborhood gets no benefit except lousy traffic.

If you put a baseball stadium in a neighborhood near people and with public transportation, the whole neighborhood has an economic revitalization from the incredible amount of foot traffic. You should see the difference in San Francisco from before and after the ballpark went in. It's like night and day. Businesses, restaurants, new housing and jobs in abundance all around the park. It has been awesome.

Easy fix.. remove some parking lot as RFK has metro... There, people get to keep THEIR land and you can build parks around the limited parking for foot traffic.

[luckydevil]

If you put a baseball stadium in a neighborhood near people and with public transportation, the whole neighborhood has an economic revitalization from the incredible amount of foot traffic. You should see the difference in San Francisco from before and after the ballpark went in. It's like night and day. Businesses, restaurants, new housing and jobs in abundance all around the park. It has been awesome.

You leave out one important thing.

SBC Park, for the most part, was privately funded.

[NavyDave]

Well my thing is those tracts of land being taken for the stadium site would not be worht what they are right now if not for the stadium. If this stadium and team did not exist and these buisnesses wanted to sell, i doubt they would be able to make what they will if they sold them with an impending stadium coming to the area.

I understand they have worked hard to make these businesses successful and that this might be thier life. But these businesses, or should i say land that the busiensses are located on, would not be worth what they are right now if not for the stadium.

So true

[NavyDave]

Some of you virginnians need to shut up with the touchy feely stuff.

Raised in South east and on trips to the old neighborhoods its amazing how its been transformed.

The old gangland strong holds like "Valley Green" off of wheeler Road and Mississppi Avenue is impressive.

The people renting or leasing can move into a better neighborhood with even better access to public transportation and stores and still pocket money after buying single family homes.

The clubs like Follies wont be missed just as the 25 cent peeps shows across from the FBI building and where MCI center now stands aren't

[Predicto]

You leave out one important thing.

SBC Park, for the most part, was privately funded.

That is true, but not really relevant to what I was saying. I was only talking about why the ballpark should be in a neighborhood instead of in a big parking lot of you want to realize collateral economic benefit.

[NavyDave]

After this is done hopefully they can fast track building the other stadium across the river for the sport that is as fun as watching the grass grow but will also revitalize that part of South East DC and attract those soccer fans green cards or not and their dollars to that area too.

Hopefully Adu is still here by the time its built.

[luckydevil]

That is true, but not really relevant to what I was saying. I was only talking about why the ballpark should be in a neighborhood instead of in a big parking lot of you want to realize collateral economic benefit.

It's clearly relevant

SBC is successful, because it is led by the private sector.

[Prosperity]

Some of you virginnians need to shut up with the touchy feely stuff.

Raised in South east and on trips to the old neighborhoods its amazing how its been transformed.

The old gangland strong holds like "Valley Green" off of wheeler Road and Mississppi Avenue is impressive.

The people renting or leasing can move into a better neighborhood with even better access to public transportation and stores and still pocket money after buying single family homes.

The clubs like Follies wont be missed just as the 25 cent peeps shows across from the FBI building and where MCI center now stands aren't

I thought conservatives were against eminent domain in general... I guess hate for the "touchy feely" takes precedence.

[Larry]

Thanks SCOTUS

Unfortunately for right-wing talking points, SCOTUS had nothing to do with it. (At least, this SCOTUS didn't.)

All this one did was fail to overturn something that's been going on for 100 years, and was already challenged, and upheld.

[Predicto]

It's clearly relevant

SBC is successful, because it is led by the private sector.

No, SBC is successful because it created economic activity in a bleak corner of town. I agree that it is much much much better to use private funds to build any stadium, and it is one of the things that I most proud about my favorite sports teams - the Skins and the SF Giants. Neither screwed over the taxpayer to build their parks.

Nevertheless, the economic activity around a baseball park comes from the foot traffic, which has nothing to do with whether or not the park was publically or privately financed. Denver and Cleveland built parks with public money, and they have had a similar effect in their towns as SBC has had in San Francisco.

SBC's effect on the overall neighborhood comes from its location near downtown, and its access to five different kinds of mass transit, and its lack of parking.

[Larry]

Some conflicted feelings on this one.

To me, one big argument against forcing people out is that it isn't necessary. They're not being forced out because they won't sell, they're being forced out because they won't sell cheap. To pick an example, if I own some land that's in the middle of the stadium site, I'd bet it would be real easy to convince me to give my land to the stadium. In exchange for a comparable property across the street from the stadium. (But that can't happen because the folks with influence are grabbing the nearby land, and they're going to make huge bucks off of my land being siezed.)

As to spinoff money: One big reason for a neighborhood over a parking lot is, it creates a lot of potential customers for restaurants and convenience stores. (You can make a lot of money selling beer and soda across the street from a baseball stadium.)

(Although, I agree: Fixing RFK has GOT to be cheaper than building a new structure. I'm pretty convinced that the reason they're not doing that is that a lot of people are going to make a lot more money under the table off of THIS method. If the big problem with RFK is too much parking, then how about auctioning off the parking lots?)

[Predicto]

Some conflicted feelings on this one.

To me, one big argument against forcing people out is that it isn't necessary. They're not being forced out because they won't sell, they're being forced out because they won't sell cheap. To pick an example, if I own some land that's in the middle of the stadium site, I'd bet it would be real easy to convince me to give my land to the stadium. In exchange for a comparable property across the street from the stadium. (But that can't happen because the folks with influence are grabbing the nearby land, and they're going to make huge bucks off of my land being siezed.)

As to spinoff money: One big reason for a neighborhood over a parking lot is, it creates a lot of potential customers for restaurants and convenience stores. (You can make a lot of money selling beer and soda across the street from a baseball stadium.)

(Although, I agree: Fixing RFK has GOT to be cheaper than building a new structure. I'm pretty convinced that the reason they're not doing that is that a lot of people are going to make a lot more money under the table off of THIS method. If the big problem with RFK is too much parking, then how about auctioning off the parking lots?)

Another problem with RFK is that it is not near enough to downtown. And no, it does not have to be cheaper - that stadium would need to be torn down and rebuilt, probably.

[luckydevil]

Nevertheless, the economic activity around a baseball park comes from the foot traffic, which has nothing to do with whether or not the park was publically or privately financed. Denver and Cleveland built parks with public money, and they have had a similar effect in their towns as SBC has had in San Francisco.

SBC's effect on the overall neighborhood comes from its location near downtown, and its access to five different kinds of mass transit, and its lack of parking.

Study after study shows( from conservative, liberal, and libertarian economists) that publicly financed stadiums are not losses, not net gains. If you want me too I can link some studies.

Do yourself a favor and google the phrase, opportunity cost.

[Predicto]

Study after study shows( from conservative, liberal, and libertarian economists) that publicly financed stadiums are not losses, not net gains. If you want me too I can link some studies.

Do yourself a favor and google the phrase, opportunity cost.

My brother is a PhD economist. I was an econ major for a while too. He and I have discussed this at great length. You are entirely correct about football stadiums, but baseball parks are different because of the huge number of home games. 81 home games plus possible playoffs plus preseason plus other events at the park means that a ballpark can generate huge foot traffic and economic activity in an area, as long as they are planned and located properly near mass transit that brings people in from outside the immediate neighborhood. None of the studies that I have seen have discussed the recent handful of successful ballparks in Denver, Cleveland and San Francisco, which operate on a very different model than, say, the parks of the 1970s build in suburbs inside huge parking lots.

The opportunity cost argument assumes that people who spend their money at the ballpark or nearby businesses would have spent the same money in the area bowling, or going to movies or something. This is a false assumption in the case of SW Washington. If you are getting people from the burbs to stay in town and go to a game rather than go home to Herndon and rent a video from Blockbuster, then there is a net gain for DC, and in particular for this blighted neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I do understand your point, and I am not in favor of taxpayer gifts to rich sports owners. But my original point had to do with parking, and it is one I stick by. Whatever the financing, a ballpark should have minimal parking, lots of mass transit, and walking access to downtown.

[Thiebear]

Another problem with RFK is that it is not near enough to downtown. And no, it does not have to be cheaper - that stadium would need to be torn down and rebuilt, probably.

RFK has a metro stop right outside and 2 close by.... so its good enough for DC United fans.. it was BASEBALL owners not architects that said they didnt want RFK.. Not enough money to be made there.....

Lets keep it real...

[Predicto]

RFK has a metro stop right outside and 2 close by.... so its good enough for DC United fans.. it was BASEBALL owners not architects that said they didnt want RFK.. Not enough money to be made there.....

Lets keep it real...

I am keeping it real. The difference between a good baseball only park near downtown and an old generic stadium that is equally good for football and soccer on the other side of town is like night and day.

[CrazyJoe92]

Some of you virginnians need to shut up with the touchy feely stuff.

Raised in South east and on trips to the old neighborhoods its amazing how its been transformed.

The old gangland strong holds like "Valley Green" off of wheeler Road and Mississppi Avenue is impressive.

The people renting or leasing can move into a better neighborhood with even better access to public transportation and stores and still pocket money after buying single family homes.

The clubs like Follies wont be missed just as the 25 cent peeps shows across from the FBI building and where MCI center now stands aren't

raised SW right by that 203 and Island creek some of the land thats goingto be taken. it's a big deal

where these ppl going to move with the money the said to be getting? the other side of town lol you know that cant happen and you know they dont want to move to MD cant get a place in VA and most parts of MD anyway because they not getting that much money. plus, why would they take the money anyway, if they know the land will be 20 times more after the put baseball there and at the same time telling them they have to move no matter what.

[DjTj]

raised SW right by that 203 and Island creek some of the land thats goingto be taken. it's a big deal

where these ppl going to move with the money the said to be getting? the other side of town lol you know that cant happen and you know they dont want to move to MD cant get a place in VA and most parts of MD anyway because they not getting that much money. plus, why would they take the money anyway, if they know the land will be 20 times more after the put baseball there and at the same time telling them they have to move no matter what.

Do you actually know people that own their own houses there? Are they really being seriously lowballed? The Constitution guarantees "just compensation," and I'm sure that there are many law firms in DC that would be willing to do this kind of work pro bono.

Also, the land won't be worth 20 times more if they don't give it up. They can't have their cake and eat it too. The city could easily go to another site and give them just compensation. You either keep your property or you get a baseball stadium, you can't have both.

[skinzfan4life]

Do you actually know people that own their own houses there? Are they really being seriously lowballed? The Constitution guarantees "just compensation," and I'm sure that there are many law firms in DC that would be willing to do this kind of work pro bono.

Also, the land won't be worth 20 times more if they don't give it up. They can't have their cake and eat it too. The city could easily go to another site and give them just compensation. You either keep your property or you get a baseball stadium, you can't have both.

Agreed! And if the city went to another location those people would do the same thing. These people are getting more money then they would from any other method or sale. But seeing as people are greedy. The money being given to them is not enough. I have a feeling most of these people are not seeling more because they want more money then just for the fact of principal. Like i said earlier. I highly highly doubt these people would get close to what the city is offering if there was no stadium.

[ccsl2]

So then why hasn't it been cleaned up yet since you know everything. That area is a complete dump, and the dc government has turned a blind eye to it for the longest time. I have been in this area a little longer and remember when they had the same issue for where they were going to build MCI Center, not much outrage there now is there.

Easy Answer..there is no $$$ in the cure...it is all about how much money you can make off of the cure...now that a baseball team is here, they will be willing to clean it up becasue the end benefit is mo money mo money mo money!!!

[CrazyJoe92]

Do you actually know people that own their own houses there? Are they really being seriously lowballed? The Constitution guarantees "just compensation," and I'm sure that there are many law firms in DC that would be willing to do this kind of work pro bono.

Also, the land won't be worth 20 times more if they don't give it up. They can't have their cake and eat it too. The city could easily go to another site and give them just compensation. You either keep your property or you get a baseball stadium, you can't have both.

Actually I do have someone that lives there my grandmother has property there and she has been living there longer than anyone in her neighborhood and I have other family that live there as well.

And when I said 20 times more “that was just a Ballpark figure” a lot of the baseball fans should have know that. But the fact is that they are going to move the stadium there and the homes will be worth a lot more money than the people are trying to pay. If they wanted to move the stadium somewhere else they would have done it already.

We have a lawyer right now that we are working with. My people have owned that land from day one and put a lot of work into the house. We are not going to give up that easy.

[CrazyJoe92]

Agreed! And if the city went to another location those people would do the same thing. These people are getting more money then they would from any other method or sale. But seeing as people are greedy. The money being given to them is not enough. I have a feeling most of these people are not seeling more because they want more money then just for the fact of principal. Like i said earlier. I highly highly doubt these people would get close to what the city is offering if there was no stadium.

They would be able to get more money from somewhere else. The waterfront is right down the street from where they want to have baseball. they have had many projections of what they are going to do with that part of town without the baseball stadium. They wanted it to look a lot like G town. On the other side of SW and main where the Metro is (the Navy Base) they have started the work.. On The waterfront there are clubs boat rides ($200 plus sometimes) and not to far from that is Big gov buildings like GSA and the dept of Transportation.. So in a few years that will be a “ Money area” its funny how they fix up places where the money is at and where ppl buy stuff. But they will not fix the places where ppl live.

[skinzfan4life]

They would be able to get more money from somewhere else. The waterfront is right down the street from where they want to have baseball. they have had many projections of what they are going to do with that part of town without the baseball stadium. They wanted it to look a lot like G town. On the other side of SW and main where the Metro is (the Navy Base) they have started the work.. On The waterfront there are clubs boat rides ($200 plus sometimes) and not to far from that is Big gov buildings like GSA and the dept of Transportation.. So in a few years that will be a “ Money area” its funny how they fix up places where the money is at and where ppl buy stuff. But they will not fix the places where ppl live.

I highly doubt that if there was no baseball stadium proposal, and this land was for sale they would get the dollar amount they will now. If the baseball deal falls apart tomorrow and any of these people tried to sell thier land they would not get this much. The area was not that desierable before this proposal.

Maybe at some point in the future it would have become a more expensive area, but it is not currently. And it might be a money area in the future, but right now it is not.

I understand that its not easy to give up a business you have built from the ground up, but i would guess its more greed and the desire for more money driving this then anything else. For the people that say they dont want to leave, if the government was giving them twice what they claim they are worth im sure no one would compain, But they are giving them just compensation and these people think just compensation is too little but they claim its the principle of the thing not the money. I disagree.

[Predicto]

I remember in the 1970s people saying that the south waterfront was just about to boom. 30 years later it looks much the same.