Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZProgressive

(29,631 posts)
2. Usually a sports stadium deal is a bad one for the city/county/state
Sun Apr 27, 2025, 11:35 PM
Apr 27

It is because the NFL and other sports leagues have so much leverage that they can make relocation threats and they can find other cities to fund their stadiums if the home city doesn't.

I trust FieldofSchemes.com when it comes to their reporting on sports stadiums deals but this all I can find for now.

-----

WAMU-FM reports that “a source familiar with [Washington Commanders stadium] talks” says funding “will likely involve the city borrowing against new tax revenues expected to be generated by any new development,” i.e., tax increment financing. The station cites a 2020 study claiming that D.C. has turned a profit on average on TIF districts — on first look it appears that the study’s authors guesstimated that development would still happen in the districts without the TIF but would take longer, which is probably a reasonable assumption but could create huge swings in the revenue numbers depending on what you mean by “longer.” I have emails out to a couple of TIF experts, I’ll update here if they have anything instructive to add.*

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

Not sure if that means it is good deal for the city or not but they may have more in the coming days.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»🏈 Washington will...»Reply #2