A Stadium Rises

About a month has passed since the city held a groundbreaking for the new stadium and already the site looks completely different. This morning, the D.C. Sports Commission's Board of Directors held its monthly meeting at the Southeast Federal Center, just across the street from the stadium site. And after the meetings, board members and reporters took a brief tour of the site. Construction crews have knocked down 23 buildings and driven 150 pilings (out of the 2,400 that will be needed to secure the structure). About 130 workers and 120 trucks per day are on the site, according to Ronnie Strumpf, the project manager for Clark Construction, which is teamming with Hunt and Smoot companies to build the $611 million stadium project. Here are a few pictures that I took during the tour. Please see tomorrow's Washington Post for much more about this story and some other stadium revelations.

Meantime, here are some pictures I took during today's tour.

This view (above) is looking south toward where home plate would be, with the Frederick Douglass bridge across the Anacostia River in the background. City transportation officials are currently embarking on a major renovation of that bridge which will restore it and lower it to meet the ground just after it crosses the river, rather than have the extended flyover for a few blocks that currently exists. The idea is to make South Capitol Street a "Parisian boulevard," according to city planners. But the work could take at least until 2015.


This view is looking east toward what will be the first base line. You can see the pilings that have been driven into the ground that will serve as foundation support for the structure. Strumpf, the construction manager, said the earth is fairly unstable at the site so the pilings will be critical to stabilizing the sructure.

By David Nakamura |  June 7, 2006; 12:40 PM ET
Previous: Black Republican for Mayor?! | Next: Baseball, Marie Johns and More


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Great progress...I hope they make the April, 2008 deadline. So, my question is, who holds the development rights to the land that will be reclaimed whe the Bridge come to the embankment, as opposed to the skyway which goes for about 1/2 mile?

There coujld be some great new development there, as well as tax coffer generators.

Posted by: Good Stuff | June 7, 2006 01:29 PM

Strike Three: DC's Office of Baseball
By Republican DC Mayoral Candidate Dennis Moore

There is a rush to lay a large load of concrete and steel before Election Day this November -- despite the lack of a truly thorough and public environmental impact study and soil analysis. Has any seen a published report or news story regarding any study or analysis?

But, for now, more of our money will be used for a baseball agency. As a fiscally accountable traditional Republican, I have great concerns, about this new chapter in the taxpayer funded nickel-and-dime deal -- disguised as a revenue generating DC baseball stadium. Is this yet another example of our public officials spending the rent money to buy more lottery tickets?

Beyond hype, happytalk, and flood of Washington Nationals baseball caps, what happened to that "spending cap?"

First, the logic of creating the "Office of Baseball" or de facto DC Baseball Commission is pretentious and costly even at $750,000. How many new up-to-date textbooks or classroom computers will that buy for DC students? How many homeless families can be provided permanent housing, rather than warehousing? How much random violence and crime will not be eliminated? Under which shell in the truly unaccountable District budget shell game did this "magic money" come from?

Thinking that another level of bureaucracy will stabilize and validate a bad deal is like putting a crown and gown on a gorilla, then calling it a beauty queen.

No doubt, I like baseball -- though less so compared to DC basketball, soccer, hockey and live entertainment. But, the deeper truth behind the Washington Nationals baseball stadium project is that it's a nickel-and-dime deal hyped as multimillion-dollar baby.

Having questioned some of the principals at the rarely held public meetings, I am thoroughly convinced that their best financial projections will reap only minimal and seasonal revenue for the District of Columbia. Filtering through the zigzag answers to my direct questions about the stadium's long-term financial benefit, versus the actual cost to DC taxpayers, they admitted their projected benefits are at best "a gamble." Even most risk-taking Wall Street bankers have long ago run away from this type of shaky cost/benefit formula being hyped in this DC stadium deal. Do local public officials think that DC stands for Dumb Citizens? In a related boondoggle, the inside story is the International Olympic Committee took pity, and would not let District public officials 'punk' us on the world stage.

Gambling with other people's money -- DC's hard-earned taxpayer revenue -- is not my idea of genuine fiscal responsibility and true accountability for public priorities. My idea of building an Ellington Center on the same footprint of the stadium is designed to produce exponential economic and social benefits. Ellington Center will be a dynamic year-round entertainment, arts, technology and retail shopping megaplex containing an indoor multimedia family amusement park, a multi-use sports arena, 2 live performance auditoriums, the Capital Life & History Museum, 21st century public library, a hotel, 20 video and film theaters, 3 floors of stores, office space, an onsite medical facility, childcare services, DC police security center, customer service training school, easy Metro bus and train access, as well as multilevel underground parking.

My best financially conservative economic projection reveals that Ellington Center will generate at least 2,000 full time sales, administrative, service and professional support jobs for District residents, and a minimum of $250 million dollars in annual revenue -- all in the same stadium construction space. Yet, it can be built for less than $350 million of the nearly $700 million dollars that taxpayers will be billed for the Washington Nationals stadium. Much of that $350 million for construction will be funded by the major entertainment, amusement and retail companies that will jump at the opportunity to have a high profile presence in "The Nation's Capital." The multiple sources of real revenue generated out of sales, property, business and employment taxes from Ellington Center will have an immediate and long-term economic impact on greater funding for genuine public priorities -- priorities like first class schools, truly affordable housing, effective healthcare services, public safety, including a major reduction in resident and business taxation pressures.

This exponential economic benefit is increased when you include the millions more in tourist dollars, as Ellington Center becomes a priority attraction for millions of year-round visitors to the District. Again, I'm talking about year-round long-term socioeconomic benefit, not the seasonal speculative gamble that the stadium deal will gain for Major League Baseball owners -- and the future fortunes of the public officials who backed their deal.

Ellington Center, named in honor of DC's favorite son and America's national treasure Edward Kennedy 'Duke' Ellington, will have the desired economic benefit that diverse District of Columbia residents know is needed for our many people-oriented priorities. Innovative, fiscally responsible projects create more District jobs and multiple sources of real revenue. Long-term year-round revenue generating projects reduce the growing tax burden on residents and businesses. Moreover, it sustains reliable and effective funding for real public priorities. It also maintains a high bond rating and value for DC. Only new, clear-thinking, leadership can see the big picture benefits and long term advantages.

DC's relationship and history with baseball ventures is not a pretty one. The losing legacy that this team had before and since coming to the District is an economic omen that will generate financial nightmares for years to come. Despite the legendary and able skills of 'Nats' manager Frank Robinson, these nightmares won't be soothed by linking the cost of this bad deal with the trickle-down revenue expected from the vocal minority of DC and non-District suburban baseball boosters. When the reality check of year 2008 and long-term bills for this fiasco come due, I wonder how many fans will be fanatical about their decision.

The news photos of near-empty RFK stadium seats don't lie -- unlike the public officials who approved this over-hyped high profile boondoggle. Even low-panning TV cameras can't hide what the baseball bean counters already know. As my Dad, an avid baseball fan, used to say about used car dealers who want your money: "The louder and faster they talk, the more they lie."

The deep discontent about how paid and elected DC officials have become drunk over spending our taxpayer money will awaken an angry sleeping giant that will vote in this election year and beyond. Their administrative arrogance, ongoing fiscal irresponsibility, socioeconomic insensitivity, and overall operational unaccountability will fuel the blow-back they didn't predict. No wonder there is a rush to lay a large load of concrete and steel before Election Day this November -- and definitely before a new, clear thinking, fiscally responsible, and genuinely accountable mayor takes the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day this January. Again, DC does not mean Dumb Citizens!

All the reasons, among many more, why I am a candidate for District of Columbia mayor.

Dennis Moore -- Mayor For A New Washington

Posted by: Dennis Moore | June 7, 2006 02:58 PM

I get sick of that guy Mendelson using it for political advantage, too.

But good thing that this blog site does not belong to xdc. Sometimes the information is informative and helpful. Your comment was tacky and rude.

Posted by: | June 7, 2006 04:05 PM

It gets tiresome with these holier than thou control freaks that always want to run somebody else's possession and say what should and shouldn't be on a political D.C. site. If you can't handle political stuff on a political blog, you need to get a life and go somewhere else or start your own. There's a long list of candidates that provide a little life to these comment lines. And too bad your candidate doesn't have the good sense to share information with the public on this site. Information is power. Don't be jealous. Just play the game well.

Posted by: | June 7, 2006 04:11 PM

There's a difference between posting a brief comment or statement and posting pre-packaged policy statements. Really, there is.
I'm a Fenty guy, and if he, for example, posted his whole education vision statement (online at fenty06.com), I'd be pretty pissed at the imposition. I will give Moore credit for at least posting on-topic.

Posted by: Mark | June 7, 2006 04:41 PM

Whatever. Read what works for you and ignore the rest. Campaign season will be over September 12th and some the interest level in the blog will die down too. Keep your candidate under control and allow others to read what candidates have to say. Did you ever think that somebody might not like your comments or attitude or attempts at censorship? What is one person's trash is another person's treasure.

Posted by: | June 7, 2006 04:45 PM

Let the record show that few candidates actually post anything on D.C. Wire. Often it is there supporters. And that's a good thing. I hope we continue to get enlightened and this site remains a useful one for the public good. Sometimes if political operatives didn't write anything, there would be nothing said all. Some topics don't attract a lot of meaningful comments. And sometimes the comments in response to the blogs are very entertaining. We get to see different personalities and what matters to some people.

Now that we have digressed and had our say on being told what to do or what to write and think, we can get back to the baseball stadium. Isn't America great!!

Play ball.

Posted by: | June 7, 2006 05:28 PM

Nice Jonathan, but Erik Gaull was on the stage at John Eaton this evening, along with all of the other Ward 3 candidates....except you.

I though you and "ramon" were going to be confronting some of your opponents this evening?

Posted by: ^^^^^ | June 7, 2006 10:05 PM

Rees didn't show up? We're not exactly surprised. The biggest braggarts are usually the biggest cowards.

Posted by: - - - - | June 8, 2006 12:23 AM

I have just a couple questions D.C.

With the construction of the new stadium starting, Who is doing the work?

Was the residents of D.C. hired the do the building, labor, planning and other jobs or are the workers from out of the D.C. area?

Hey unemployed D.C. do you know the answer?

Connect the three "E's" and the answers become obvious.

See the light "Orange 2006"

Posted by: See the light | June 8, 2006 07:00 AM


Website: http://www.dc2006.net

Last night, the Cleveland Park Citizens Association and the Palisades Citizens Association held a joint candidates' debate but the turn out was only 40 people taking away those there working for the candidates when it was announced that Ward 3 candidate Rees was not going to participate! This was the worst turn out in the history of Ward 3 debates ever.

While there are 8 Ward 3 candidates, more voters are looking at the website of candidate Rees than all the others combined, the media write more about Rees than all the others and there may be good reason for it, namely, Rees is the only candidate who is not spitting out the same ole garbage the others do and is the only one who has offered clear and workable plans to lower taxes, improve city services and to attract new businesses and residents to DC that nobody has even disagreed with.

Newspapers like the Washington Times, In Towner and others have spoken well of Rees as being a fair and balanced man who is not in the pocket of special interest groups, who is accessible and just an outright nice guy anybody can talk to.

The only people who dislike Rees are his rivals and their followers who cannot out do him on the issues so they are resorting to mean spirited and dishonest attacks by harassing his employer, the schools he attended and his wife.

Again, when it was announced that Rees was not going to waste his time with the candidates' debate last night, voters overwhelmingly chose to stay home.

Get to know a good man! Judge him on what he says not the lies other say.

Posted by: Jose Luna | June 8, 2006 11:05 AM

No, thanks "Jose". I judge Rees based on his own words here and elsewhere. He's painted a picture of himself as a loose cannon, vulgar, juvenile and unstable. He's proven he'll say or do anything to hurt people he dislikes, and will stoop to manufacturing "facts" to suit whatever sorry inner narrative he's trying to support that day.

It's been a VERY long time since any journalist wrote anything even vaguely kind about you.

Finally, call it what you will. But you chickend out of the debate. We understand though..if I'd behaved the way you have, i'd be too scared to participate in a public forum, too.

Posted by: ^ ^ ^ ^ | June 8, 2006 11:15 AM

"a good man?" Oh please. I don't know what planet "Abe" live on, but here on Earth, people who lie, cheat, libel, threaten, and use speach offensive to minorities and women (and that's just his -on line- behavior) are not generally described as being "good."


Posted by: xdc | June 8, 2006 11:31 AM

Is that Jose Luna, the MPD Officer, or an impersonation of same? It is either an impersonation of an officer of the law, or a violation of the Hatch Act. Which is it?

Where do you get 40 undecided voters in attendance? There were at least 300-350 people there.

How do you know the Rees website has more hits? The counter? That site has been up for a year now. most of the others have only been up a matter of weeks to a few months.

Lauging that the concept that voters stayed home because Rees wasn't attending the event. I went because I thought Ramon Rivera was going to be doing a shout out.

Oh well, I guess he chickened out too.

Posted by: A Questioner | June 8, 2006 12:27 PM

I called to the office of Mark Plotkins of WTOP and Julia Donahue, a reporter for the Northwest Current as both attended. Both Mr. Plotkin and Ms. Donahue said that there were about 90-110 people at the forum but half of them were clearly campaign workers or family of the candidates.

Ms. Donahue said the NW Current will be doing a story in the next week but the turn out was very poor for a ward 3 forum.

So the claim by Mr. Luna is correct and everybody else posting otherwise is being untruthful or did not in fact attend.

Posted by: Caught in a lie | June 8, 2006 02:40 PM

I was very unimpressed with Eric Goulet last night. He chimed in a few times about a legislative agenda, but it became a one-trick pony, similar to Rice's "bird-dogging" every issue with special committees. Rice might be a friend of Plotkin's and might have a lot of money, but he is not bringing any new ideas to the table. I thought his claiming responsibility for successes at DDOT were disingenuous, to say the least.

Cathy Wiss was also very uninspiring. I am not understanding why she has so much support. I was also taken aback by the Wiss supporters who actually booed some of the other candidates. That was very low-class. if that is the kind of support she has, she won't be getting mine, and I came into the evening wanting to support her.

Neither Gordon or Gaull provided any distinction, or separation from the pack. Indeed, Gaull took a step backward when he flip-flopped on the peldge not to post signs in public spaces. He also squndered opportunities with his slow manner of delivery.

Brooks was ok, and provided good ideas, and tried to capitalize on substance. His delivery was rushed at times, and in his closing remarks, tried to defend his age, which sadly for him, didn't come out the right way, and didn't play to those in attendance.

In my opinion, Mary Cheh came away from the forum as the most viable Councilmember of this very undistingusihed bunch. She was smart, articulate and understood a lot of the issues facing residents in Ward 3. She is not so presumptuous as to have an answer for everything and was wise enough to point out that there may be issues that emerge in the future, and that having a trusted, experienced person in office is the best path for citizens of ward 3 and for the city.

I hope there are another 1 or 2 of these debates to help cyrtalize my thoughts.

Posted by: Ward 3 Voter | June 8, 2006 03:47 PM

I see that the pest, Rees, is back. Sheesh.

Posted by: | June 8, 2006 03:53 PM

Dear Lord, will we never be rid of the Rees contagion?

Posted by: | June 8, 2006 09:40 PM

Dear Lord we will never be rid of Sam Brooks blaming Jonathan Rees for everybody else who disagrees with him as this is getting boring and Sam Needs to find a new sorry argument to justify himself.

Posted by: | June 9, 2006 06:43 AM

The difference is that Rees has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, where online impersonations and otherwise incongruous behavior is concerned.

Check any of the Yahoo Groups where the moderators have banned Rees to see the source IP addresses. This behavior goes back to at least 2001.

Get some help Rees.

Posted by: A Questioner | June 9, 2006 09:38 AM

I think this guy Rees is smarter than all of the other candidates running for the ward 3 seat because he does not bother with these dumb candidate forums.

The candidate forum held the other night by the Cleveland Park/Palisades Citizen Associations was an utter disaster.

First off: It was poorly structured; Second, all the candidates were unimpressive; 3 The turn out was utterly pathetic and 4. It was obvious that some of the candidates stuffed the audience with their people with the sole purpose to harass the other candidates like Paul Strauss, Eric Gaull and Cathy Wiss.

So while the other seven candidates were making complete jackasses of themselves, Rees was wise enough to stay away and now I better understand why he is so down on debates as he has said.

I sure in the Hell will not attend another forum if this is what we will see as what I witnessed was utterly shameful for people of such high caliber.

As for these petty attacks on Rees, I doubt any of these allegations are true because nobody has yet to come forward and prove that Rees was the actual owner of any accounts attributed to him as it is way too easy for me to open an account in your name and post things to make others believe it is you. This non-sense is just one more example how I disagree with recent reports that we live in the best educated city but fails to add with the least amount of common sense or that we have the highest number of college grads in the USA with alcohol and drug addictions and mental illnesses now being treated.

The point here is, I cannot believe how childish, petty and stupid the people of my ward really are.

Posted by: KG | June 9, 2006 09:46 AM

I also agree that these personalized attacks asserting somebody was caught with their hands in a cookie jar is outright dishonest since the internet is so structures to allow anyone to be anyone they chose and then go on a malicious binge.

Please stop these character assinations as I will vote based on what they candidates say and offer and not what a bunch of ill willed jerks her on DC Wire or elsewhere have to say.

In other words, please cut the crap as we know the ones posting here are the different political camps attacking the others.

Posted by: Nan | June 9, 2006 10:12 AM


You can keep posting here under different names, and keep denying the truth, but anyone with eyes and a brain can see for themselves the alias posting you did in 2001 and again from 2005 on Yahoo.

If you think there is some sort of conspiracy dating back to 2001 as an attack on your "political" career, then go for it.

In the meantime, no one is drinking the Kool-Aid you are offering.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | June 9, 2006 10:25 AM

Amen, ^^^^^.

I'm so sick of this guy and his ridiculous posts. It's obvious to me that he's as devious as he is unwell. It's painful to witness.

Posted by: xdc | June 9, 2006 11:03 AM

Sadly I am incline to agree with others that the only one here trying to convince us that Rees is doing all of this is Sam Brooks and nobody else as he sees Rees as the only obstacle to win but Sam your performance the other night sucked like Hell and you made a fool of yourself trying to explain why you are so stupid.

Rees is no more posting her under alias than that homophobe Sam Brooks in my book.

I use to work with your mother Sydney also as an accountant and I know Sam how much of a liar you are.

Posted by: B | June 9, 2006 11:12 AM

Rees again.

Please go away.

Posted by: ^ ^ ^ ^ | June 9, 2006 11:27 AM

The only reason that I will not vote for Sam Brooks and I did laugh at him at the forum is because he knows he is posting her on alias names and he is not fooling people otherwise.

Posted by: G. Lemus | June 9, 2006 12:24 PM

That is why you posted as Eric Gaull DURING the forum?

You are pathetic.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | June 9, 2006 12:36 PM

Why is one person, Jonathan Rees, being allowed to terrorize so many on the Internet?

Posted by: | June 9, 2006 01:08 PM

Come on people you have no proof Jonathan Rees is doing any of this but rather you are accusing him of things just to make people believe he is, and I am one reader who believes you need to put up some solid proof or finally end this act of terrorizing Rees as that is how I see it.

Better yet, just admit you fear he might win and that is why you feel a need to lie about him.

I guess that maybe the 5 people who read this blog can turn an election.

Grow up before I throw up.

Posted by: | June 9, 2006 01:28 PM

If I was unemployed like Sam Brooks is and spend most of my day at home, I too would have plenty of time to be here on the internet posting lies about my rivals as he does and does so under alias or blank postings.

People like Rees are too busy with real jobs that do not afford them to play these childish games.

If you would walk over to Brooks home at 2959 Tilden Street NW right now, you would find Brooks there in front of his computer.

I like many would like to see any proof that Brooks has any consultant work as he still has not filed anything with the DC OTR or the IRS to indicate that he is self employed but I have written both agencies about him and his claim of self-employment so they can ask him to explain why he has not filed with them although he says publicly he is self-employed.

Posted by: | June 9, 2006 01:34 PM

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:45 PM
To: TaxFraudHotline@dc.gov
Subject: Complaint against a Samuel A.C. Brooks for tax fraud

Friday, June 09, 2006

Government of the District of Columbia
Office of Tax and Revenue
Attn: Tax Fraud Hotline
941 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 840
Washington, DC 20002

Samuel A.C. Brooks of 2959 Tilden Street, NW

Mr. Brooks is running for city council and he has represented publicly to
almost every newspaper that he has been self-employed since September 2005,
as a political consultant, but he has not filed with the IRS as being
self-employed and I suspect that he has not done such with the DC OTR.

I believe that Mr. Brooks has been generating income since last fall like
$3,500.00 paid him in consultant fees by Adrian Fenty a mayoral candidate as
outlined in Mr. Fenty's OCF filings and not reporting such but nonetheless,
he lives a somewhat lavish life-style.

I believe that Mr. Brooks is engaging in income tax evasion both on the District and federal levels.

Posted by: People Who Hate Brooks Alias Postings Here | June 9, 2006 01:52 PM

And tax records of private citizens are made available to any Roy, Ramon or Jonathan that asks for them?

Get a life, dude.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | June 9, 2006 02:29 PM


Regardless of the "Posted by" name you hide behind, your sentence structure and word choice is well known to those who read these blogs. You're writing exhibits a peculiar syntax unique to you, and it is easy as pie to spot. Also, your choice of topics and views are pretty consistent. Taken together your posts are like a fingerprint unique to you, and no one is fooled.

You can try to second-guess every word you choose, or alter your sentence structure, or even post messages you disagree with or on topics seemingly unimportant to you, but you won't succeed in hiding. Go ahead, though. It's amusing to watch. And, since you're obviously too clueless to realize how hopeless your cause is and therefore will continue to be a pest, you might as well continue to provide us with some entertainment. Just do me a favor and limit it to a few posts per blog per day, okay? That way you won't continue to ruin these forums for the other 99.95% of the population.


Posted by: | June 9, 2006 06:22 PM

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

*clap clap clap*


Posted by: applauding | June 9, 2006 09:06 PM


Yet the same holds true for all of your alias postings which resembles that as appears on Sam Brooks website. How do you explain that homophobe?

Posted by: Ramon Rivera | June 9, 2006 11:54 PM

That is assume that Rees actually created anything.

Can you present clear evidence from any ISP that Rees actually held an account with them or that you did not open an account in his name, post things in his name or..... Can you?

If you cannot submit proof that Rees ever owned any account you say he did then it is your word and there is no proof.

Posted by: | June 10, 2006 12:03 AM

Oh baloney, Rees. Everyone's aware of the Eight Ways To Spot A Rees Alias Post. While the people who respond to you have totally different authorial styles, usage patterns and idioms.

Posted by: - - - - | June 10, 2006 12:04 AM


I use an alias because both my position and your MO require I be circumspect, but I am not Brooks.

You are obviously an angry person. I think you would be happier and more successful if you accepted ownership of and worked through your own problems, rather than attributing your difficulties and frustrations to someone else, and then acting out in a way that is irrational and counter-productive.

Really, I've said my piece, and I'm being very forthright and genuine. It's abundantly clear that you would benefit from introspection and temperance. I think you should strongly consider therapy.

I won't write to you again, goodbye.


Posted by: | June 10, 2006 01:41 AM

I thought this thread was about the baseball stadium? Kudos to Dennis Moore for thinking outside the box.

Posted by: K Hammond | June 11, 2006 11:15 PM


How many times do I need to tell you that I am not Rees but you will not accept that.

Rees is not on here and when he is, he is not afraid to affix his name to what he posts.

You seem to accuse anyone who says anything you do not like of being Rees which only a rival would do in an effort to bad mouth someone they cannot deal with.

Posted by: Ramon Rivera | June 14, 2006 09:55 AM

Every time you have accused Rees of something and I challenge you to produce proof you go away but never do.

Every time tell you it is me not Rees and offer you a chance to verify that fact, you go away but you never do.

You are the sick one who needs help for posting all these lies about Rees.

All I am doing is defending a friend from malicious liars like you.

Only LIARS post anonymously and your excuse is just part of the big lie you are telling.

Posted by: Ramon Rivera | June 14, 2006 10:03 AM

I am one who believes that either Sam Brooks or Martib Austermuhle are the real faces behind the anonymous postings attacking Rees as nobody else has a reason to.

Posted by: J. Crockett | June 14, 2006 10:05 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company