RFK Stadium deal would not pass if vote was held today, says DC Council Chairman

Mendelson says RFK stadium deal would not pass if vote held today

D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said the multi-billion-dollar RFK stadium deal would likely not pass if the Council vote was held today. Listen to the full interview.

WASHINGTON - D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said the multi-billion-dollar RFK stadium deal that would bring the Washington Commanders back to D.C. would not pass if the Council vote was held today. 

READ MORE: RFK Stadium Plan: Washington Commanders, DC agree on deal to return to nation's capital

RFK stadium deal details

What they're saying:

In an interview with FOX 5 on Tuesday, Mendelson said council members are concerned about the cost of the plan.

"If it was today, given the information we know, I would say no. I don't think the votes are there," Mendelson told FOX 5.

"The research shows, over and over again, that sports stadiums are net losers for the jurisdiction.  That is not to say that we shouldn't have one, but let's see what the numbers are – and we haven't seen those numbers."

Public funding concerns raised

The Commanders are set to return to the nation's capital under a nearly $4 billion agreement between the franchise and the District of Columbia government, announced Monday by Mayor Muriel Bowser and team owner Josh Harris. The new stadium will be built at the site of the old RFK Stadium, which served as the team's home for over three decades.

Plans for the covered stadium include a 65,000-seat capacity and year-round usability. The facility is scheduled to open in 2030, with groundbreaking expected next year. However, the project is contingent upon approval from the Council of the District of Columbia, a critical step that requires majority support from its members. The city has proposed investing $1.1 billion, raising questions from some officials about the use of public funds.

Despite the challenges, Harris expressed optimism about securing Council approval and moving forward with the development.

READ MORE: RFK Stadium deal raises questions about Northwest Stadium's future

Are you against a new stadium in DC or just against the public funding for the stadium? [Paraphrased]

DC COUNCIL CHAIRMAN PHIL MENDELSON (PM): "Against the public funding. The issue for me is not whether there's a stadium. Everybody's excited about the Commanders coming back to D.C. and getting a stadium back at the RFK site. But the issue is the financing. And I have to say I was shocked when I found out that the price tag that the mayor has been negotiating is over a billion dollars. Now that's when you factor in everything, which conveniently has been left out of a lot of the headlines, but it's about a billion dollars."

What could potentially change your mind? [Paraphrased]

PM: "Well, I think, we have to understand first and foremost, what is the return on investment? Putting a billion dollars in and not getting back more than that is not a good deal for the public. You know, I have to add the context of all this is that we are facing budget cuts this year of about a billion dollars. I'm hopeful that we get that down. And next year, hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't have money and yet the financing which we have not seen is going to be -- you know, it's gonna just take away from other programs. We don't have the details."  

What's the difference between putting money to maintain Nationals Park and putting money to bring a new stadium to DC? [Paraphrased]

PM: "Well, again, I want to emphasize we have not seen a budget from the mayor for the current year, revised budget, or for next year. We have not seen how she plans on financing the stadium. I can tell you with regard to Nationals Park that what the council worked out with the Nationals was that the revenues that come in, the tax revenues from the sale of hot dogs and the sale of tickets, that that tax revenue is going to pay for the renovation. So it is pretty much for the Nationals, the stadium renovations are going to pay for themselves."

Is it just a question of not seeing the financial plan that's in place to fund this stadium? [Paraphrased]

PM: "I think the short answer is it absolutely would assuage my thinking. But we haven't seen that. You know, I think people think that the council has been a partner in the discussions all along. Yesterday was the first time I saw that, the terms of the term sheet, including the fact that the mayor negotiated a deadline for the council's action. I find that a bit ironic. Not only did she not consult with us on the deadline. But we have not received a budget for next year, and that is going to take up all of our time. I don't know. I just don't understand what her thinking was there."

Is your concern more based on the economics and the taxpayer funded issues of city residents, or is it being left out of the process to this point? [Paraphrased]

PM: "The bottom line is that the mayor has proposed what appears to be about a billion dollars of D.C. taxpayer money from different sources that's going to fund a stadium for which we have not seen what the details are with regard to what the return on investment is for the city. The research shows over and over again that sports stadiums are net losers for the jurisdiction. That is not to say that we shouldn't have one, but let's see what the numbers are. And we haven't seen those numbers."

"If in fact the financing is paid for out of the revenues from the site, that could be okay. I am suspicious whether that is in fact, the case. The mayor's promised $500 million for horizontal construction, $181 million from the convention center taxes to pay for a parking garage. Another $175 million in about six years to pay for another parking garage, and then there is the cost of the borrowing. There is whatever the deal is you worked out with the Senate that we don't have the details on, to pay investment in federal parkland in return for getting the RFK site."

If there was a council vote today, would the stadium deal pass? [Paraphrased]

PM: "If it was today, given the information we know, I would say no, I don't think the votes are there. Members are concerned about the cost."