How not to do news coverage of a new Commanders stadium at the RFK site (2024)

Look, I get it. It’s tough enough to report on often-convoluted stadium deal finances when the details are known; when it’s a proposal still in the works, like Washington, D.C.’s long-discussed plan to build a new Commanders stadium on the former RFK Stadium site, it’s like trying to nail mud to the wall. Any news coverage is going to require a lot of digging into what internal conversations local elected officials are having and what other cities are doing, plus a healthy dollop of speculation. It takes time and effort and is likely to obsolete as soon as more specifics are released.

Or, you can just do like WUSA did, and just go with one number that is irrefutable, whether or not it’s relevant:

According to data obtained from DC’s chief financial officer, by 2030 the District is predicted to be more than $1.7 billion in debt, including the $520 million the city just shelled out for renovations at Capitol One, as part of a deal to keep the Wizards and Capitals from leaving D.C. That puts the District smack up against the city’s limit on debt based on D.C. law. Essentially, the D.C. government is out of borrowing power.

“Out of borrowing power” sounds pretty definitive, but the WUSA segment then undercuts its own conclusion by noting that some types of bonds — including those based on tax increment financing, where future property tax payments are kicked back to pay for stadium construction — are exempt from the bond cap. And the guy who they choose to explain this, remarkably, is former district councilmember Jack Evans, who spearheaded almost every D.C. stadium subsidy plan until being forced to resign after taking money from companies who would benefit from legislation he was pushing.

What makes WTOP consider Evans an expert in this case rather than an unindicted co-conspirator is presumably that he, equally remarkably, was hired by the district to conduct a study of how to fund an NFL stadium. And Evans has much to say about that, it turns out:

Evans said the study, which focused on successful stadium funding models locally and nationally, was completed in mid March. But months later, the DC government still hasn’t released the results.

“I would say the overall conclusion is that sports stadiums actually produce enormous revenue for the cities,” Evans said. “You’ll have economists say it never does anything, and in some cities it doesn’t.”

But Evans says D.C. is different. Nationals Park, which revitalized Navy Yard, is paying off its debt far faster than planned.

Okay, so: The results of Evans’ study aren’t available, and Evans isn’t going to make them available. But WUSA is going to let Evans characterize the conclusion as that “sports stadiums actually produce enormous revenue for the cities,” without either asking Evans to show his work or checking in with actual economists to see if D.C. really can be different. Or even whether the Nationals stadium paying off its debt faster than planned is really a good thing. (Spoiler: It’s not really, since it just means that the various tax revenues that are funding it are coming in faster than expected — and being kicked back to the team owners faster, but it’s still the same total outlay by taxpayers.)

Evans specifically recommends a TIF to raise money for a Commanders stadium, which is kind of hilarious if you remember that Evans was last seen writing an op-ed about how a Virginia arena for the Capitals and Wizards was a terrible idea because it relied on TIFs. Though not nearly as hilarious as where WUSA chose to stage its interview with Evans, which was apparently in the room where he keeps his personal vibrating football stadium:

Truly, how could anyone who has one of these be anything but unbiased about NFL stadium funding? Cut, no need for more interviews, everybody knock off for the day.