Submitted For Your Approval

From today's Fisher chat:

Marc Fisher: That's certainly one view, and likely the majority view in most of the country, though not necessarily here in the District. But the focus now turns to the D.C. Council, a body of 13 elected officials every one of whom supports very strict gun regulations. Somehow, they are going to have to create a regulatory scheme that allows handgun possession--and most likely, sales as well--in a city where even the addition of a new wing to a school brings out loud and paralyzing neighborhood protests.

I mean, these people! They'll protest against anything, even a new school wing! Can you believe it? Who are these people who just complain about anything new?!?

Marc Fisher Takes the Bait

Someone should have seen this coming. Wait, someone did. The key graf:

It might be a tempting move to cut a stadium as a gesture to the anti-development side. It wouldn't really change anything, but it allows the city to remove the trojan horse argument of "Don't give away our land to evil sports owners!" that we're seeing employed. In reality, nothing changes, but the city might think it's an expedient PR move

And suddenly, on cue, comes Marc Fisher on his blog. Remember that we wrote that the goal of the anti-development forces is "No development of any sort." And frankly, they were at least refreshingly honest in their stated objectives. But we cautioned then that the stadium would always be the trojan horse in which the objections would be framed, and Marc Fisher decides to enter that horse through the predictable route. See how his article is framed:

"The battle over whether to build a soccer stadium for D.C. United at Poplar Point will today move beyond the rhetorical..."

"That does not bode well for a soccer stadium, at least not in the timeframe that D.C. United has been talking about."

Marc frames the entire issue in terms of the stadium, not in terms of the development as a whole. Marc then cynically insults his new environmental allies "Environmental claims are a developer's worst nightmare. Whether or not the most dire claims of the greens are correct, the process of finding out can take many years and many millions of dollars." In other words, it doesn't matter if the claims are true or not. Marc doesn't care. What Marc delights in is the political move of stalling and waging a social war of attrition. Marc's proposed solution "for the District to reconsider the privately held land immediately adjacent to the park" is a nice one that is, however, not on the table. That land is already privately held, and there's no guarantee that anyone can get at it to develop it. It's not on the table, it's merely the slight of hand distraction needed to allow Marc to deal all four aces to the bottom of his rhetorical deck.

I'd say this is shockingly cynical on Marc's part, but I would be lying. It is expected. Marc likes to deal in the faux-populism of Pat Buchanan circa 1991 in New Hampshire. He claims, disingenuously, that while he doesn't care for soccer, this isn't about his admitted antipathy, but instead about his love for the city. But when choosing between writing an honest column about the motives of the proposed lawsuit (that it is against all Poplar Point development) he instead chooses to clothe it once again as an anti-stadium screed.

American letters is full of curmudgeonly old men who are worth reading (H.L. Mencken, P.J. O'Rourke, and others come to mind). However, one thing those men couldn't stand was inauthentic representations of objection. Mr. Fisher embodies the worst posing, posturing, and demogoging tendencies of his profession as an opinion columnist. It's sad, pathetic, and disgusting simultaneously. The truth, which should be the most fixed point of navigation for anyone in the media, is simply a lesser constellation to that of Mr. Fisher's own agendas.

At least now we can dispense with the pretense that Mr. Fisher is a reasonable man championing the poor against evil judges with dry cleaning bills. We see him now as the mirror image of Roy Pearson, willing to use and misuse any platform he can find to advance his own opinions. And for that, perhaps, we can thank him.

False Objections Lead to Insincere Compromises

The Washington Business Journal runs a piece on Poplar Point development, which is worth reading by itself, though I am about to quote long pieces of it. The article is a remarkably one-sided story which is still useful for thinking about what's really going on. Let's take a look:

"The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could take a back seat to whether Poplar Point should be developed at all."

This is one of those disingenously objective sentences that reporters like to use when they can't really do any fact checking. Sure, the debate could take a back seat, but this point is really argued anywhere else in the article, other than being a lede for anti-development forces to have their say. If I wanted to rewrite this with a pro-development slant, I could say "The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could be over, with all remaining the question of resolving environmental concerns." Or "The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could take a back seat to whether or not it was right for the Guardians to rewrite the Book of Oa to allow for lethal force against the Sinestro Corps." I mean, these things could happen, so there's no overt bias in saying any of them, right?

"A coalition of environmental groups wants to stop a $2.5 billion, 40-acre mixed-use project by Clark Realty Capital LLC and transform the 110 acres along the Anacostia River into an urban public park -- 'a Rock Creek Park for residents of Southeast,' one of the coalition's leaders calls it."

So the people saying that the soccer stadium debate is taking a back seat is... the people opposed to the development in the first place. Well, sure, it's a good thing this group has been so successful this far in moving the debate over the stadium to the back burner.

"The coalition plans a June 24 announcement to kick off its campaign to derail the development."

Except for the fact they haven't really tried to do this yet.

"The effort comes on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report that raises questions about how quickly the site, owned by the federal government, can be transferred to D.C. and how much environmental cleanup will be required. The June 13 report estimates it could take three years before the transfer, which was established by a 2006 law."

Yes, this is a problem. Poplar Point will need clean-up, and that may take time. And if we leave it as parkland, then the city would not clean it up? And if they did, they'd really see no new tax base as a return on that investment?

Agreements still must be reached on the scope and cost of the cleanup, who will pay for it and how and where facilities for the U.S. Park Police -- including a helicopter pad and a shooting range -- will be relocated. D.C. officials have cautioned that completing an environmental impact statement for Poplar Point, required by federal law before the property can be transferred to D.C., will take at least 18 months, but the GAO report says senior officials from the National Park Service and park police cautioned that the process will be complicated and "might affect the timeliness of the conveyance of Poplar Point which in turn will affect when development on the site begins."

Again, the turnover process is going to take time and planning! Screw that! DC never should do anything that involves those two processes. Let's just turn it into a park!

"That gives environmental groups a window to argue that the open space should be preserved. An alliance led by Our Park Coalition and Earth Conservation Corps has started an online petition to stop development, surveyed residents who live east of the Anacostia about their interest in preserving the land park, erected a 'Save Anacostia Park' billboard and submitted anti-development columns in newspapers, including a June 15 piece in The Washington Post."

So their effort consists of a billboard (which you've probably seen if you've ever gone from S295 to S395), a letter to the editor published in the esteemed Free for All section of the Post, and a petition which has signatures. More than the petition supporting D.C. United? Hard to say, since the petition site that the anti-development people have won't let you see who else has signed it.

"'To think that in our nation's capital we could lose precious parkland so people could make a dollar -- it's really obscene,' said Glen O'Gilvie, president of Earth Conservation Corps, an 18-year-old organization that has both Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ethel Kennedy as board members."

Mr. O'Gilvie is no doubt sincere in his message here. But is it more obscene to lose parkland, or tell Ward 8 residents to be happy for what small economic development comes their way? Is it obscene ever to make a dollar? I am not exactly someone who believes Big Business is the greatest thing to happen to humanity or the environment. But the idea that parkland is always preferable to making a dollar is an oversimplification of the first rank. If you're like me, a renter, then I suppose I should want my apartment building rezoned into parkland so that those evil landlord developers don't make a dollar and we have more parkland, right? Except for that entire me not having a home thing...

"Although Clark Realty's plans must include 70 acres of parkland, that space is not required to be contiguous, he said. O'Gilvie acknowledged that Anacostia residents want new housing and amenities but said they should not come at the expense of an area where 35 species of birds had been counted."

Okay, this at least is an argument. I dig the idea of preserving environments for wildlife. Really. But until an environmental study is complete, do we have any evidence that the 35 species of birds would be endangered by the development? I'm sure the article would tell us if there was, right?

"The environmentalists face an uphill battle in part because Congress established the land transfer with the express purpose of increasing the District's tax base and shoring up its finances."

And here, quite simply, is where the entire article falls apart. Either DC Develops the land, or they never needed it in the first place. If they can't develop it, do you believe there will be any effort made at all to preserving it as decent parkland?

Clark's proposal for a large central park and 1.5 million square feet of office space to draw environmentally focused companies and jobs is of little solace, O'Gilvie said.

"I think we want all 110 acres to be national parkland," O'Gilvie said. "We want no commercial development on the park."

Keep this in mind. This is the true objection to development of any sort. They want nothing done. Now, in the next paragraph:

Earth Conservation Corps and four other nonprofits are getting pro bono legal help from the Institute for Public Representation at the Georgetown University Law Center. Erik Bluemel, an attorney at the institute who filed lawsuit to stop the Intercounty Connector in Maryland, said pollutants on Poplar Point include pesticides, metals, oil, PCBs and other toxins from its previous use for naval laundry facilities, greenhouses and a land mine research laboratory. He also represents the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Potomac River Keeper and D.C. Acorn.

"It is remarkable how many different types of pollutants are on the site that endanger human health and the environment, and it's incredibly depressing that they've been allowed to remain there for so long," Bluemel said.

Right. Why might pollutants be allowed to remain there for so long? Why? Because, quite simply, there was no reason for anyone to care enough to make the investment to clean it up. Setting aside parkland probably won't do it either, it will remain in the same state as the chemicals slowly march to through their half-lives.

On the other hand, if there is a development initiative, there's suddenly a very strong interest in cleaning this material up. If I wanted to engage in the same sort of faux objectivity, I might say "In fact, one could argue that developing the area is better for the environment and the health of the Anacostia." But the fact is that I really don't know. I'd want to see the evidence. But simply objecting to any development at all before we know these things is not an answer.

Now, the danger here is not really from the anti-development side, but from Clark and the City. It might be a tempting move to cut a stadium as a gesture to the anti-development side. It wouldn't really change anything, but it allows the city to remove the trojan horse argument of "Don't give away our land to evil sports owners!" that we're seeing employed. In reality, nothing changes, but the city might think it's an expedient PR move.

One that has no basis in reality. But this is, after all, DC.

Stadium Announcement coming soon?

The intertubes have been leaking rumors of a proposed announcement soon and today's edition of the post states D.C. Council Crafting Plan to Pay $150 Million for Soccer Stadium.

The city would finance construction bonds with excess tax revenue being collected by the District to pay for the baseball stadium. D.C. United would be responsible for paying for any costs above $150 million, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is still being finalized.

I'm hopeful that the deal can get done given the tight timetable it is now under. But, I'm also wondering if its the best deal that the team can get. How important is it to be in the city, as opposed to say, MD, if Maryland will give the team a better financial deal in the long run (chip in more money for construction, more favorable lease terms, etc).
David Nakamura covers Fenty's visit to the Anacostia Coordinating Council as well.

Fenty has reportedly been reluctant to take the lead on the project, considering he voted against the baseball stadium as a council member. He answered somewhat cryptically, saying he hoped a deal would be done soon, but adding: "We're not there yet, as of"-- he looked at his watch -- "7:15 p.m. tonight."

Checked-Off: Number Six on the Seven Deadly Sins

Over the weekend, I caught the Caps playing the Panthers. The Caps final playoff push (2 points behind Carolina) is being well covered on Comcast (tape delaying our season opener) but I have to give Comcast credit for some solid PR adverts for United. Still, the Caps finish the season with three home games. At the lovely Verizon Center.

And last night, the Nationals opened the baseball season against the Braves, and there were so many nice little touches. The color coordinated seats, the ubiquitous curly Ws, the stone work behind home-plate, it felt like a truly wonderful locale for a baseball game.

And now I'm thinking of RFK, and the lack of a true home for United. The orange seats, the banners hung awkwardly on the walls... It just doesn't feel like our house. Yes, the grass is better, but I long, I yearn for a true home. And I am angry. Not at the other teams, whose success I wish with all my heart, but it really is past time for our own home. This is our house rings a little more false. Listen David, home is where I want to be, but I don't feel like I'm already there. I know, that's a bit naive.

Stayed. Eee! Aaahhh!

The Washington Times has recently run two excellent pieces on the D.C. United Stadium situation. One is on the new stadium development, or lack thereof, but the other is a Tim Lemke blog entry on the lease negotiations regarding RFK. Now, we're all familiar with the stadium situation, so while that's arguable more important, I want to let that pass for now. Instead, a few key points from Lemke's blog:

The issue is this: The team really wants its own facility, where it can bring in all the money from naming rights, advertising, concessions, etc. But in the absence of that, it would at least like to get a bigger share of revenue, particularly since it is now the only tenant there.

The sports commission understands D.C. United's point view but is not about to give money away, especially since it recently had to turn to the D.C. Council for assistance in balancing its budget this last fiscal year.

And later:

"It is frustrating for us. We understand the [Nationals] stadium is a big deal, but that doesn't help us. We're getting a little tired of being told, 'We're too busy.' But Greg O'Dell has been responsive and has done his best to get us answers in a timely manner, and we're optimistic we can get to the finish line shortly."

What's interesting is that the city and DCSEC may have managed to get at cross-purposes with themselves. If United felt confident that the new stadium would be coming soon, perhaps they would be willing to accept a little less in terms of the lease since they knew what a limited time deal it would be. But with the uncertainty over the stadium situation, it makes all the sense in the world for United to try and dig in now and take what you can see.

While this is all likely to be resolved, the interesting thing is that we're also approaching the point where the City's good faith may start to come into question. They've messed around with Poplar Point. They're messing around with RFK. While the leaders consistently say "Yes, we want United to stay in the District" they seem unwilling to make concessions to that goal. Given their unwillingness to make any sort of positive action as far as I can see, I am almost ready to start checking the Metro fares to PG County. Which I will pay. Gladly.

Let's Make a Deal

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post comes out with a tentative first discussion of the United Stadium Deal, and on balance I think this should be read encouragingly:

...The costs will have to be carefully analyzed, particularly since there is economic uncertainty. What will be harder to judge are the intangibles. Such as civic pride in retaining a popular and successful sports team. Or the spinoffs that soccer could provide to the boys and girls of the city. And what could perhaps be the most appealing argument for the stadium -- its potential to spark a revitalization of long-neglected communities east of the river. If soccer can help transform Ward 8 and Ward 7 the way basketball helped to change downtown, city dollars would be well spent.

Much of the discussion about these issues has, regrettably, been behind closed doors, as the mayor and council want to avoid the kind of debilitating battle that occurred over baseball. That desire must not rob the public of full and open discussion of the issues. Or of an answer to the question of what best serves the District of Columbia.

Perhaps some of these arguments sound familiar? Well, they should, as I'd say the Post is in agreement with this very blog from six months ago on many of these points. Now, I feel encouraged by this editorial, cautious as it is, for a number of reasons:

1. No false, but temptingly easy, comparison of the popularity and cash flows between baseball and soccer.
2. The willingness to consider, as the Post says, "intangibles." That's something we don't discuss, not because we don't feel it, but because I think they are so difficult to quantify. And the intangibles of keeping United in D.C. are, if considered at all, in our favor. We don't argue that because they are, as the post says, "harder to judge." And any deal that is bad will not be made better by intangibles. But a fair deal looks even better with them.
3. The openness to the idea of transformation of the Southeast neighborhoods.
4. The fact that using any public monies at all, even as part of the so-called "public-private" partnership,is not summarily dismissed by the Post, as they could all too easily take a position of "No money for greedy sports owners! Spend it on schools and libraries!" and then pat themselves on the back for their populist integrity.
   

The one place where I will critique the Post is its argument for transparency. Any deal must be openly vetted, we agree with that. Once, or if, a deal is reached all the details should be put out for view. But the discussions that lead to that deal should be handled in a mature, responsible, and quiet manner. Privacy can aid in that. The process of negotiation should not be unduly influenced by any outside agencies who might be all too quick to demagogue the issue, either for or against. This outside groups certainly include a few of the Post's own commentators.

No, I am content to let the negotiations be handled quietly, and then at that point, let's announce the proposed deal and have people take a look at it. I think this is the most likely way that an equitable, to all sides, deal can be formed.

The Fenty Stadium Initiative: Does This Make Any Sense To Anyone?

The number one topic of conversation today must be the Washington Post's A1 article on Mayor Fenty's pending public support for development of a soccer stadium at Poplar Point. This development is, naturally, being hailed a huge one, even with everyone acknowledging that we are still years away from playing in a home of our own. Certainly there are reasons to hope, but also reasons to be concerned.

Let's start with the key grafs...

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has proposed using public funds to build a professional soccer stadium in Southeast Washington that would cost as much as $190 million, a drastic departure from his stance against public financing of the Nationals baseball stadium...Even if the council agreed to use public money for a soccer stadium, the larger Poplar Point development project is likely to cost much more in public funds. The Clark proposal could cost $200 million to $350 million for infrastructure, including roads, sewers, lights and the park. Some of those costs almost certainly would fall on the city.

There is one unambiguous fact: Mayor Fenty is sincere in his desire for a new stadium. How can we be sure? Because Fenty's plan manages to maximize his vulnerability to any charge of hypocrisy a political opponent would make. The original United initiative did not call for public funds to be used for the construction of the stadium, just infrastructure improvements (which Nakamura puts a $350 million tag on.) In a way, MacFarlane had provided Fenty perfect political cover for supporting a stadium, since public funds would not be used for the construction. Now Fenty has gone further -- the original infrastructure costs are still there, but we're adding $190 million on top of it. Fenty's opposition to the Nats stadium was well documented, and this represents a choice that seems to be in direct opposition with his earlier views. It represents a huge political move that Fenty, had he taken the original United deal, didn't have to necessarily take.

So let's be thankful for Mayor Fenty's support, even if I have no understanding of how he came to this decision. And, admittedly, even I am a little nervous about using public funds to finance the construction of a stadium. I enjoyed the idea that United would build it and that subsidies would be used for infrastructure which would not just benefit the stadium, but the entire development and area.

Which brings us to the following causes for concern: Why did Fenty abandon a way of pursuing the stadium that would have given him cover for a more politically risky (to him, at least) method? Who will own the stadium? How many people who were okay with infrastructure improvements suddenly rebel against public financing for the stadium itself, and will soccer prove an easier target to kick (hah!) than baseball? I don't know. This is not the development (in any sense of the word) that I expected a year ago. And while I'm happy to have Mayor Fenty on board, I'm more nervous than ever about how the city will respond to the stadium.

Bisnow on Victor and Poplar Point

I recently received two e-mails from Bisnow on Business that may be of interest to DC United fans. Bisnow is in its own words, a "People's Magazine for various professional sets in the area." Its commercial real estate e-newsletter recently profiled Victor MacFarlane and his DC real estate ventures. The newsletter had a bunch of interesting factoids about Mr. MacFarlane and if anyone has keener eyes than I they might find the last picture very interesting. The next day Bisnow followed up with an overview of the four Poplar Point proposals. Nothing shockingly new, but it is good overview of the current Poplar Point situation for anyone not paying too much attention to DC United's stadium woes, and extra fodder for those of us following every move.

Premature

Two items. Item the First, Logan's Revenge breaks three weeks of radio silence to report that D.C. United is to blame for the Veron deal falling through. Key graf:

According to sources close to Veron, he felt a little smothered by DCU and was not pleased that they had jumped the gun on certain aspects of the proceedings. DCU had leaked that Veron had gotten a visa. That was true, but it wasn't to come stateside to announce his signing, but rather to first come check out the scene, the city, and the facilitates.*

Am I going to say that this isn't true? Nope, but I will say this - I don't see any real fault for DC here. United has carefully said nothing publicly about Veron. If the NDL story is true, then Veron has remarkably thin skin. I mean, seriously, leaks about rumors of a transfer? In the soccer world? Unthinkable! How could he possibly be asked to handle the pressure?! Interrobangs?!?!?!

More likely, this is a half true, half false situation which has managed to be spun in a way to make the DCU front office look bad. And while there are things to be upset with the Front Office with from time to time (such as the way Esky was notified of his trade to Toronto) this one doesn't make the list.

Item the Second. Commenter Adam notes today's Marc Fisher piece on Victor MacFarlane, and wonders about the kicker:

Might the team still end up with a stadium near Poplar Point, I asked. "Absolutely," MacFarlane replied. Stay tuned.

Am I ecstatic? No. If there is a plan, we're a long way from seeing it documented. And I would really, really like to see something. Until then, it the mirage of an illusion.

*Yes, I know. It's a blog post, though, and I'm not about to cast stones about spelling. "Definitely" still gives me problems some days. That's not the problem UPDATE: It now reads "facilities" See, just your average blog typo. Why didn't I correct it? Well, I'm not about that entire situational ethics and not wanting to misquote people thing. So I left it as is, even though I was sure it was a typo. Just so you know, this is the kind of thing I agonize over. For about two minutes.

From DC: Goodbye. To DC: Goodbye? For DC: Goodies.

CROWE, MUPIER, NORTH, AND WILLIS OUT: United waives four reservists. All of these were something of longshots to make the team, but this does represent another year in which many draft picks did not pan out for United. To recap: First draft pick Bryan Arguez is Generation Adidas, so there's no downside to keeping him. Second round pick Brad North is out now. Third round pick Jay Needham elected to play in USL. Third round pick Ricky Schramm was cut before the start of the season. Fourth round pick Luis Robles also failed to stay with the team.

The good news was the the dice rolled well in the supplemental draft. While Shawn Crowe will not be staying with DC, Kpene came from the supplemental round and at least has shown enough to earn continued looks as a potential first team contributor (In fact, his 626 minutes played mean that our third round supplemental pick had more minutes than the top 5 supplemental picks combined).

To those now leaving DC United, we wish them well in all geographical areas except New York City.

SOCCER SPECIFIC STADIUMS IN LOCALES STARTING WITH "P": It's not Poplar Point, but it's Prince George's County. Metro accessible would make this more palatable, but not having United in DC is saddening. Still, the financial future of the team may make this the only option available (although part of me hopes that this is simply a Plan B bargaining position, it is starting to feel like leaving DC may become inevitable.) [NOTE: I'd simultaneously posted on the stadium while D was preparing this morning's round up - Oscar]

DO GOOD, GET STUFF: The legendary equipment sale made the Post today. Proceeds to United for DC. Good stuff.

Dodges

My apologies to everyone out there. Right now I'm on business travel, and out of the loop (and the beltway). But, let me address a few things. First, BigKris asks:

Hey, D, you planning to go back and address that redicuolous "this is a rebuilding year" statement you made in the spring?

Yes, yes I am. A lesser blogger would try and weasel his way out of it. He would say things like "remember where we were at the time" or some such. I could say that I was actually right, and that we were rebuilding, it just happened a lot faster than I expected.

But those are dodges, and transparently so. The fact is, I was wrong. WRONG. W-R-O-N-G. This was not a rebuilding year. It was a modify the tools and take a shot year. Where I erred was in thinking that a determination as to what kind of year this was had to be made by game 10 or 15 or so. The fact is, once we saw how the season was shaping up (and we didn't really know until about game 18-20), then United had to make a choice. Once you start paying bonuses to SIs and the like, you're committed to a course. There was no Steve Guppy type player released at midseason this year. And there didn't need to be. United knew what they were about. I didn't. And... I'm glad.

Now, a quick word on stadium and relocations. If D.C. United moves to Maryland, then they move to Maryland. Would I feel squeamish about them continuing to be known as "D.C." United? Yes. Would I still support the team? Yup. Would I go to as many games? Provided they are Metro accessible, then yes. United must do what makes fiscal sense, and while I long for geographical purity, I long for a team more. Let them do what they must.

Again, my apologies for being slightly out of it. Hopefully once I get back, I can put my nose to the grindstone for everyone once again.

Poplar Pointless?

Yesterday, United released a letter to Mayor Fenty stating that they've begun talking with other jurisdictions for alternative stadium sites. They maintain they still prefer Poplar Point, but it seems the District's foot dragging, and opening up the land for competitive development has forced the team to consider all options as well.

“However, given the uncertainty around the [request for expressions of interest], the unhurried pace of the negotiations with the federal government on the land transfer, and the fact that our current situation is not financially feasible, we have begun discussions with surrounding jurisdictions about alternative stadium sites,” MacFarlane and Payne wrote.

The Sports Curmudgeon, not coincidentally I imagine, wonders why its so hard for United to get a stadium given its success relative to other local teams. He offers a very succinct explanation.

Meanwhile, there is a team in DC that averages over 20,000 fans per game and who plays in the same fetid sewer of a stadium that the Nationals play in and who wants to build its own stadium in the city and is willing to pay the lion's share of the construction costs. That would be DC United in MLS in case you don't know who plays where in the DC area. And somehow those same politicians who found a way to spend $600-700M of the public's money on a stadium for the Nats cannot find a way to dedicate the parcel of land that would accommodate this soccer-only facility for DC United.

For many, many fans, the team leaving the District for the suburbs would be disastrous. Given the rent, and minimal, if any, revenue from tickets and concession, staying at RFK is not a viable long term option. If a local stadium can't get done, the team's owners would have to seriously consider moving to another city altogether. Personally, I'd like them to stay nearby than leave altogether.

Thursday Coffee Pours Some Sugar On You

A SPECIAL THANK YOU: I read each and every comment we get at this site. I may not always respond, simply because I'm really more interested in what you have to say than what I have to say (I've usually already said what I had to). Still, I want to say thanks to each and every comment we've had recently. Your thoughts on what it feels like to fall from the Copa Sudamericana, the excuses we might use, and the debate on the USWNT, have been conducted with intelligence and decorum not usually associated with TEH INTERNETS. You may disagree with me, or with each other, but you're pretty good about keeping things civil. My thanks. And for those of you that took issue with me saying "United bunkered" -- you're probably right. It was more of an emotional sense I had of the tactics then a reflection of the field. You are correct: United didn't bunker by choice, they bunkered because they couldn't pass the ball through the middle third.

POPLAR POINT AND POWER: Four, count 'em, four Poplar Point related articles in the Post. First, Marc Fisher notes Marion Barry's support of the plan, and if anything is slightly bemused. Second, Marc Fisher notes that some soccer team is still at RFK. And, for the life of him, he can't understand some of the venom he sees. Now, we can't be accused of any such thing, as we have consistently preached co-existance with our red and white RFKin. I like baseball. No, I think Fisher confuses attacks against him with attacks against other sports. Marc writes " I don't think it is disrespectful of United or its fans to note that RFK has not worked out as a venue." No Marc, and in fact, we agree with you. We want a different venue. In case you're wondering, it's comments like this one that are disrespectful of United and its fans: "...a soccer stadium is used far less frequently than a baseball stadium and draws much smaller crowds, so it might make more sense for it to be further away from the center." Used less frequently? Sure. Much smaller crowds? You're having a laugh. We draw crowds that are comparable to, if not exceeding Nats crowds, most nights. I could even defend you if you had said "smaller on aggregate" or "slight smaller on average" or something like that, but you had to go for the trivial and insulting column. That's why we're annoyed with you.

PRAISES FOR V-MAC: However, read these two articles. One is on a separate development that Mr. MacFarlane is developing, and the optimism that comes with it. The second article, despite a somewhat disappointing lede, turns into a glowing article on Victor himself. Key graf:

...MacFarlane has set himself apart from his rivals because he has built winning projects in challenging urban areas that others never thought to enter. As one of the few African Americans to control such a large amount of institutional capital, MacFarlane made his reputation and fortune by helping to revitalize poor, long-neglected black neighborhoods.

Surely this kind of track record is exactly what is needed for Poplar Point and the Anacostia neighborhood. This is a man who has results, who has done it. Is the District willing to sacrifice success in this project simply because they might want $20-$30M in additional development on a bid? Is it worth that kind of risk? I ask you, Mayor Fenty.

MARCO GETS A ROCKET, YEAH, FOR HIS OPPONENT (BUT IT'S NOT ROY LASSITER): I'm not sure what this means at all. Other than he'll play ball after ball, but they'll all look the same. And DeRoux spends some quality time on PG. Oh, and congrats to Looocheee, who gets Player of the Month and takes it from Troy Perkins.

The Raw Fisher Comments: Thematic Variations

Comments on the Raw Fisher blogs throughout the ages...

27 November 1858:

Mr. Fisher, you are most correct disparage the trivial demands of the supporters of this so-called Republican Party. America has had a chance to hear their demands from Mr. Fremont; and America, in Her wisdom, has rejected them. They are not a major political party, nor shall they ever become one. We already have a model political party in the Democrats, who needs more?
-FlippedMyWhig, 6:19PM

13 January 1947:

Marc, I'm so tired of these folks from India and their constant whining and disparaging of colonial rule. Why do they insist on putting other forms of government down? I was predisposed to like India, but now I will never, ever go there because of their attitude.
-WhatHoIndia?, 8:42 AM

28 September 1958:

Marc, these Buddy Holly fans are incredible! Do they really think all their yelling about their rock and their roll means anything??? I like all forms of music, but their attitude and behavior at concerts is disgraceful. They seem to think that their music is the be all and end all, and can't understand why we don't want it shoved down our throats. Give me wholesome, family entertainment like the concert I saw three years ago with Charles Mingus and Max Roach.
-RavingOut, 6:12 PM

28 August 1968:

Marc, I understand some of the objections that these young people have to our political process, but nominating a pig for president is simply ridiculous. It shows a lot of disrespect to fans of other political parties, and it isn't that clever. In fact, it's boring. And their constant complaining about Vietnam is just annoying. I have no sympathy for them anymore, and if they're so tired of the political process, then we don't need them. I hope they have fun voting in Canada.
-DInouye, 12:14 PM

1 November 1971:

Marc: Some people are just ungrateful. For Washingtonians to swarm the baseball field and commit acts of vandalism is disgraceful to our community. I used to like baseball, but seeing these hooligans put up obscene signs and commit acts of theft is horrible. I guess I'll just stick to football. At least head coach George Allen knows how to treat people with respect.
-TheShortAndLongOfIt, 9:00 AM

Poplar Point Positions

A few reader emails that I'd like to get to. First, James emailed us to let us know of a grass-roots group has an online petition supporting Poplar Point. Now, the more cynical among us will ask "what good will that do?" Forget that, ask yourself instead "Can do this any harm, and could it possibly do good?" If just one person looks at this and realizes that Poplar Point is not something wanted only by money-craving, poor-people-hating, baby-eating developers, then that's good enough for me. Consider me signed on board.

However, while I tend to support Poplar Point, reader Larry Leister emailed us these thoughts towards an argument that perhaps renovating RFK ain't a bad idea, and he's given the okay to reproduce his thoughts in-full here:

DCenters Folks,

Since you seem willing to take on topics of some length, I'll offer the following for consideration. I've not seen this discussed, but if it has been just delete this note.

I realize that the following idea will most likely not be to the liking of the owners of DC United since the profit potential would seem to be much less than a new stadium at Poplar Point (I'm sure creative developers can figure out how to work with this idea). However, if the issue at hand is limited to providing a suitable stadium for DC United, I would think this idea would have some merit. My guess is that part of the foot dragging on the part of the DC city government related to the building of a stadium at Poplar Point is due to the fact that the city would be left with a decaying RFK stadium with no tenants and no prospects.

So the proposal is for the city to sell RFK stadium, parking lots and all to DC United for some token amount.

• The cost to the city should be less than what would be required for the Poplar Point stadium.
• The revenue from game related events available to DC United should be the same as it would be at Poplar Point. Granted the ancillary revenue from other buildings/development would be much less or non-existent.
• The money that would have been spent on the Poplar Point stadium could be spent on refurbishing RFK. I have no idea what the underlying infrastructure of RFK is like, but if Yankee Stadium can be refurbished, I would assume that RFK could be also. As the refurbishing costs could be significant, funding from the city might be part of the deal since a city landmark would be retained and improved.

This seems to be a win-win (again not considering the loss of development profit).

• The city gets rid of a stadium for which there are no tenants nor little apparent future
• DC United gets the additional revenue from owning the stadium and concessions.
• MLS gets to keep one of it's landmark stadiums

One of the benefits of soccer specific stadiums is the seating capacity that is sized closer to the expected attendance.

Staying in RFK would seem to defeat that, although this does not seem to be as much of an issue for DC United as it is for many clubs. However, I have a suggestion for that as well.

Part of the refurbishment, in addition to aligning the seats so that they actually face the pitch, would be installing a retractable roof, actually more like two awnings made of waterproof and sound-reflecting material. These would cover the seats in the lower bowl. This would have the following advantages:

• The field would be uncovered but the seats would be at least partially covered
• The crowd noise would be reflected down on the field and would be absolutely incredible
• The seats in the upper deck would be largely removed from view, thus giving the feel of a smaller stadium
• For big events, MLS Cup, national team games, foreign club friendlies, dramatic increase in MLS regular game attendance, the awnings could be retracted and the upper deck could be used.

Just some thoughts.

Larry Leister

Now, put aside our natural desires for a home of our own, special for us, and consider this idea. I think Larry recognizes the biggest problem with his scenario: It's not what MacFarlane and company signed up for. They want the team, yes, but they also want a piece of the ancillary development, and that ain't happened with RFK. However, since Larry asks us to set that aside, let's do so. Would this work for you?

It's tough. I want to say "No, no, a thousand times no" but perhaps that's just being spoiled. I personally think that rehabbing RFK as Larry describes would be almost as costly as building a new stadium (I mean, look at the state of the concrete...) and then throwing on a roof would just sky-rocket the price. So financially, I'm not sure it is viable. But perhaps part of me is just done with RFK. I want to move on. And that's not a rational reason for opposing Larry's idea. What say you?

C'mon... Extend that logic just a little farther... you can do it...

Keith W last night sent in a comment alerting us to a new Marc Fisher column. At first, I expected this column would utterly destroy whatever buzz I had from last night's lovely and satisfying win. Something about how Poplar Point should not be developed, and that DC United should find some existing part of town near MLK Ave and Howard Road. Instead, I find him meditating on the DC baseball stadium, and on whether it will create true economic growth for the city. Some choice quotes:

...there is nothing automatic about sparking the economic development that stadium proponents cite as the justification for public investment in a ballpark...Sports stadiums can't solve social ills. But they can serve as anchors for retail, entertainment, office and residential development that boosts a city's tax base, enlivens its streets and thereby lifts all, or at least many, boats...Other cities plopped stadiums downtown and hoped for the best. For Washington to do better, it must make certain that developers provide amenities to make the new neighborhood worth visiting and that team owners do their part to make going to a game an experience worth repeating.

Wow... if only someone would offer the city exactly such a plan as the one Fisher is describing, I bet he'd leap at the chance to endorse it.

Early Adapters

Over the weekend, my wife brought a Poplar Point-related letter in the Outlook section of the Post to my attention, and it's a great one. From a Ward 8 resident, the last two paragraphs are incredibly powerful, so I want to quote them here:

Support by the mayor's office for a soccer-specific stadium at Poplar Point would not jeopardize the expansive site's developmental emphasis on residential, retail and parkland. Instead, it would secure a major partner as an early catalyst for success. It also would preserve the relationship between the District and D.C. United, as thousands of Washingtonians who follow the team would prefer that games were not played in Virginia or suburban Baltimore.

Ward 8 residents who have supported D.C. United's interests in the area are rightfully concerned that the opportunity for a jointly funded, large-scale project, arguably the tipping point for neighborhood revitalization efforts, has been mismanaged by a freshman mayor.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that I know somehow that this letter is emblematic of the Ward 8 feelings toward DC United. But from what I know of the newspaper biz, they like to find letters that are representative of the opinions they get from their readers. So reading this letter indicates to me that they received others like it, and found that this was the most representative. Could they have gotten letters opposed to the stadium deal? Almost certainly, but probably if there were significant numbers of them we'd be reading those letters instead.

That we're reading this letter is a tribute to two things: the passion of the United supporters in Ward 8, and the success DC United has had in reaching out to the community. A positive development, even as we're dealing in uncertain times. Keep the faith all.

Criteria for Evaluating the Proposals at Poplar Point

Yes, we're taking a lot of time to discuss the stadium debate. The reason is two-fold: First, a soccer specific stadium is the most important outstanding issue relating to DC United's longterm viability, and the second is that the entire issue of stadiums and pro-sports is an area which has recently become poisonous in civic debate.

It has always been my hope that the stadium proposal and deal would address both concerns. Sites like Field of Schemes are important reading because you can easily see the legalized blackmail that many owners use to line their wallets while billing the city. And it always tempting to adopt an attitude of "Sure, they're owners are a bunch of crooks, but ours are different!" So even while we revel in the newfound support some of the city council, let's take another fresh look at the stadium debate, and some ways of evaluating it.

Basic Premise: Poplar Point will be developed in some manner.

There are those who oppose the stadium plan simply because they oppose any development that doesn't reserve the Poplar Point area to 100% parkland. You can put Marc Fisher in that group, since he believes all development should be in the Howard Road area (never mind that Howard Road development isn't as viable without development at Poplar Point as well). Also add in the folks at Save Anacostia Park.

In a related bin are those that oppose anything other than their concept of development. You can put most of the people from DC Indymedia in that group, since they believe that anything other than either parkland or 100% low income housing units would be gentrification and therefore an extension of the racist war on the poor being led by oil executives who desire a war with Iran.

Neither of these sides will win. While their objections seem to be against the soccer stadium, and the convenient "Billionaires who crush the poor," the fact is that Fenty is not reconsidering developing Poplar Point, he's only reconsidering the form that development will take. The stadium plan was the most visible form of that development, but if another plan takes precedence that has no stadium component, you can imagine that these same forces will exchange the epithets of "Billionaire Stadium Developers" for "Billionaire Big Box Retailers" or "Billionaire Condo Land Barons" or some other argument. This argument is lost no matter what direction the city chooses.

The most recent Nakamura article notes that Fenty wants development, and wants the tax base that comes with it:

the emphasis will be on housing and retail, the sources said. Administration officials will consider proposals over the next two months and probably will choose a developer by the end of the year, sources said.

Housing plus Retail equals a prospect which will likely be unacceptable to any of the organizations and people linked to above.

So what are the qualifying criteria?

Any proposed development plan is going to have to meet a certain set of criteria in order to qualify for the award from the city. These criteria include:

• Preservation of Parkland: No matter who is selected for development, a minimum set aside for parkland is going to be established, probably around the 50 70 (see comments) acre mark. United's plan will meet this minimum, but probably not exceed it. The only advantage that United would gain is the manner in which the parkland would be integrated into the development. Any developer who could reach 100acres might see an advantage in the consideration of their plans.
• Affordable Housing: I don't have good statistics for the overall affordable housing situation in DC, but the numbers I can find indicate that the DC Housing Authority has at least 9,000 low-rent housing units and 12,000 Housing Choice Voucher Units (formerly the Section 8 program). Using that as a proxy for the affordable housing inventory of DC, I think the city would be looking for at least a 3% increase in the affordable housing stock, which is just over 600 units. The MacFarlane plan probably does benefit in comparison here, since it offers at least 1,200 units (and maybe more, though I don't think I can say that for certain.)
  
• Revenue Generation through Retail: All sides of the development debate are looking for increased revenue from businesses and retail development. Any plan with a hope of winning will have to show that it can generate this revenue.
  
• Revenue Generation through Employment: Any plan will have to show that it can create permanent jobs in the area, at least 1,000. Furthermore, at least some portion of these jobs will need to be targeted to Ward 8 residents.

Differentiating Criteria.

The items identified above are just the minimums to get in the door and be considered as a reasonable proposal for the area. You can reasonably expect that pretty much every plan will meet these minimums. What will get one plan selected will be on the other stuff it offers, the ability to surpass the minimums. Let's look at these:

• Housing: The MacFarlane plan, as we indicated, shows an ability to go beyond the minimums for affordable rental and ownership. I would think that any plan with at least 1,000 units of affordable, low-income housing would earn a certain degree of preference. If a plan doesn't have this, it may be more revenue generating from the point of view of a developer, but is almost certainly the kind of gentrification that Ward 8 residents have a right to fear.
  
• Minority Ownership: Again, not required, but certainly a step in the right direction. The MacFarlane plan has minority ownership, which should earn it some consideration.
• Subsidy and Infrastructure Investment: One of the major issues is the "$200 million" in subsidies that the MacFarlane plan calls for. Now, certain infrastructure costs are going to be made regardless of which plan is chosen. Sewer system upgrades, especially environmentally sensitive drainage plans, will cost money to the city. However, the issue of tax benefits is one where the MacFarlane plan will likely find itself needing to negotiate with the city. I get the sense that a total package of $200 million is too high, but haven't yet seen a breakdown of how that number was determined. I've asked for it from multiple sources, but no one seems to be able to determine it. We need to understand that breakdown in order to understand what is likely to be required no matter which plan is selected, and to understand where potential points of negotiation are likely to be found.
• Risk in Development: Anyone can generate a plan to create development, but if that development fails due to under capitalization or poor planning and execution, then neither the city, nor the developer, nor Ward 8 will benefit. The MacFarlane plan excels in this area, since it offers excellent history and previous development experience combined with strong financial analysis on how to make the development succeed. Note that this might not have been true with the previous ownership group.
• Opportunity to Ward 8: We know that United has made this a focus of their planning, in terms of identifying housing and employment opportunities solely for the existing Ward 8 residents. It's not clear that any other proposals would show such fidelity other than pure tokenism. If the mayor elects to ignore this facet, he would engender additional opposition on the city council, since council members would have to wonder if the concerns of their constituents would be taken seriously in future development or if they would be subordinate to the desires of the Mayor's office. I imagine this is a concern that other city council representatives have to look at. If the Mayor feels that the concerns of Ward 8 aren't as valid as his own personal concerns, one wonders if the concerns of any particular resident would be taken seriously.
  

I still am not opposed to the city looking at other proposals, and I think United needs to make the case that their proposal is the best. If the city is looking for a bare minimum deal, based solely on the first set of criteria, then I doubt that the United plan would be selected. However, I believe that choice would be short sighted, and be a missed opportunity for the city. I want United to make a proposal that shows they are the best deal for everyone, and I think they are truly looking to make that case.

Stadium Political Fight: Fenty vs. Barry, Brown, and Gray

Did I see this coming? No. From WUSA Channel 9's Bruce Johnson's Blog:

Former four term DC Mayor Marion Barry is taking on the new popular (he won every precinct) Mayor Adrian Fenty in the fight to develop Poplar Point in Southeast. Barry backs new DC United owner Victor McFarland, the San Francisco developer who thought he had a deal with the previous Tony Williams administration...

Barry told me by phone today "He's (Fenty) going to lose this one because any developer he chooses will have to come before the DC Council for approval". The Ward Eight Councilman who represents the Poplar point area added that "McFarland held 30 to 40 community meetings on this and he (Fenty)didn't attend a single one".

At large DC Councilman Kwame Brown heads the powerful economic development committee and he is siding with Barry. Word is Chairman Vincent Gray is also lining up against Fenty.

Now, we've long been talking about the importance of doing the right things in Ward 8, and the fact that MacFarlane is getting some support from the local politicians helps matters. And they have been doing the legwork for a long time (see this post from 2005). I don't think a public fight is going to help the situation though. The stadium will have to go through a competitive bidding process. However, there's nothing to say that the recommendations of local representatives shouldn't be considered as part of that process.

ADDENDUM: Usually the problem in NIMBYism. This seems to be just the opposite. The local representatives want the deal, and the central government does not. What do you call that?

SECOND ADDENDUM: While I don't see much good coming out of a fight between the City Council and the Mayor's office, it is possible that this is just a shot across the bow. Now there may be behind-the-scenes meetings with Gray, Barry, Brown and Fenty. If nothing else, it will help define how bids for Poplar Point could be judged. And the terms of that debate are important. This also shows how important the work Kevin Payne and associated were doing two years ago was. You must be part of the community. The community needs to know it can trust you, and you need to sometimes trust the community. Heartwarming, in a strange way.

THIRD ADDENDUM: This is Kinney. I am just popping in to say that it looks like Brown might not be completely on board after all. Marion Barry and he "have some more talking to do."