Fisher's new article (posted 10/9) is almost word for word the same as the one from the 2nd.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/10/marion_barry_soccer_maven.html

why would the Post allow him to publish nearly the same article a week later?

Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom
Dulles UUUnited ba boom ba boom

I bit, feel like a dummy for responding but someone has to call him out on all this recycled crap. The non-soccer loving residents of the District need all the facts not just Fisher's slanted view on the whole process.

chico - i commented on his article too before i looked up the blog post from last week (forced me to use a different username on there). i'm pretty used to the more of the same coming from him but it seemed a little bit too much the same.

"Until then, he's a fixture at RFK Stadium during D.C. United games. After the team's 4-2 victory over the New England Revolution last month, MacFarlane entered the locker room but seemed out of place among players who did not recognize him."

A smart player might want to acquaint himself with the 6'6" owner.

The Post periodically runs blog posts in its hard copy edition, even if they're a few days old but relevant. Maybe I'm confused, but I think that's all that's happening here. I'm quite sure that if Bush had a change of view and wanted the troops out of Iraq, Fisher would have no problem with that elected official changing his mind. But when Barry does it, it must be pandering, flip flopping, and worthy of these accusations by a dinasour reporter on the Post's diminished use of dead wood. Perhaps the Posts circulation is going down out of its concern for the environment, but my guess is that the public sees through BS like Fishers' and is bored with it.

Yeah Pat, I caught that too. I think a well written letter to Deborah Howell the Post's ombudsman outlining the inconsistencies and fact skewing in Fisher's columns is in order.

God that's annoying.

What's more annoying are the morons who want the team in Dulles.

What part of CENTRAL LOCATION do you not understand?

Check the byline. The Post is not hiding the fact that this is the same text as the earlier blog post.

Not only that, but he got the drum beat wrong. :D

"What part of CENTRAL LOCATION do you not understand?"

Ft. Meade United!

I have no problem with Portland, Oregon United.

I have no problem with Portland, Oregon United.

Posted by: ursula | October 9, 2007 10:51 AM
-----------------------

Does Metro run out there?

Once the metro runs out to dulles it will be easier to get here - j/k.

all kidding aside - I tend to think if dc united gets into talks with VA or MD about a stadium DC will wake up OR pay the penalty for losing yet another team to the burbs.

The nationals couldn't secure my eyesore buildings for their new one - with the best views of the potamac and monuments it's time for MacFarlane to buy it - and build THE World Class Pitch in the District - I hear the New Wembley shaking in fear.

(Rosslyn) DC United.

Potomac

Not Potamac.

Again, really have to wonder why the Post was so for the publicly funded Baseball stadium and so anti a privately financed soccer stadium.

If I thought like Fisher I would say something is going on behind the scenes at the Post.

Wow!zzzzzzzzzz

Will the proposals to the city for Poplar Point, which I think are due Oct. 19, be available for the public to view (i.e. me)?

BTW Steve, how does Will Chang look?

Marion Barry should have shut up on Fenty's appointment of Rhee. For God's sake, doesn't he want kids in Ward 8 to read??!! She has been a revelation - unfortunately, she's up against the jobfare employees in the school system - a legacy of MB himself.

River Place, aka Spelling Police

We went two publik skool.

Re: Getting akwainted with ohner, McFarlane:

http://www.macfarlanepartners.com

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/05/03/focus1.html

The interesting part of Barry's tongue twisting is that he was against the process of the Rhee nomination, not so much Rhee herself. The process was exclusive to the Mayor.

Now he's upset that the mayor is not being exclusive by opening the Poplar Point Proposal (the PPP!!) to everyone.

Ah, politics.

If this soccer stadium is supposed to be so fantastic and revenue generating, it will win out over other proposals. Focus on that and leave baseball out of this for once, has nothing to do with the soccer stadium.

Rhee? As in Joon Rhee? Nobody bothers him!

Baseball has nothing to do with it? The city will need the added revenue the soccer stadium will bring to offset the raping that MLB did to the citizens of the District.

WEST VIRGINIA UNITED

A stadium should be a certainty in any of the proposals.

We need to hear that Fenty will reject any proposal without one.

I never thought I'd support Barry so much . . . . these bedfellows make for strange company.

The nationals couldn't secure my eyesore buildings for their new one...

Posted by: River Place | October 9, 2007 11:20 AM
________________________________________

Why should we expect DCU to be any more successful, esp. in terms of overcoming community opposition and the like?

Goff,

When you see Fisher walking around the offices at the Post (when he's not stalking Nats players) do you ever stop him and just kick him in the junk?

Could you please? And post the picture!

A stadium should be a certainty in any of the proposals.

We need to hear that Fenty will reject any proposal without one.

Posted by: d | October 9, 2007 12:35 PM
________________________________________

He could have specified as much upfront as a requirement for any proposal to be considered responsive, but he didn't. That fact itself is telling.

Poplar Point Stadium. ZZZZZzzzzz
DC City politics. ZZZZZZZZZZ

Last time I checked, the owners of the team didn't give the fans much of a say in where the team plays. All we can do is decide whether to show up or not. I trust them to do what makes the most financial sense for themselves first, and the team and league second. Realistically, if the Poplar Point deal falls through, I think we might be looking at a new group of principal investors, as well as a new search for a stadium that allows the team to be profitable. If it's in the city or suburbs is a decision that depends far more on the individual deals that are on the table than on someone's wishful thinking about an ideal location.

Dulles United does have a nice ring to it for me. It would be Metro accessible, and a heck of a lot shorter of a drive for some of us. However, if I owned the team I'd make my decision on what's going to be most profitable, rather than on being in a specific area. But like I said before, I don't own the team so I don't get to make the decision.

AlecW81, have you done the market research on the DCU fanbase, as well as projections of what various locations have to offer? How do you know that moving to NoVA would hurt the team? They certainly would be able to tap into a large Latino population in Herndon that they may not draw as well from now. Are you willing to take metro or drive a little to the game? The success of the league and a team are based on sound business decisions based on market research and careful evaluation of facts, not what's best for a couple of us individually.

What i posted ther, because he doesn't seem to be interested in journalism:

Three simple questions:

1. where is the mention that AEG, former owners of United aggressively lobbied congress to make this land swap happen, and without that, there is no land swap?

2. Where's the mention that FcFarlane is paying for the stadium and construction by himself, not the city.

3. The stadium is a part of the plans, but the plans are mostly about housing, businesses, hotels, parkland and affordable housing, so why the focus on the 27,ooo seat stadium? By focusing on that angle, as opposed to the community he wnats to build there, you show the bias of this article: anti-soccer/anti-stadium.

I know this means diddly poo now, but I was at the game a few years ago when Anthony Williams trotted out there and said the stadium was going to be built. I don't remember specifically what he said, but it sounded like it was a done deal at the time.

This was Pre-Nats of course.

I fail to see how its MLB's fault that the DC city council voted to pay for the stadium. Blame DC city council, leave baseball alone. I highly doubt that DCU's 16 game schedule and poor revenue source is enough to offset anything the city does.

Building a soccer-only stadium is beyond stupid and woud be a complete waste of space. A football filed is roughly the same exact size so just use them. Soccer will never make it big in the states because it is not what I would call a sport for the wealthy. When teams less civilized can compete well vs American teams, we do not like that.

MLB was the mountain man and the residents of DC were Ned Beatty. MLB held the city hostage and had their every wish and then some granted by those elected officials. Fenty is trying to make himself the knight in shining armor in all of this at the expense of MacFarlane and associates who have negotiated and worked in good faith with the city. Baseballs sins are being paid for by DC United.

I would also like to add that I like to make love to barnyard animals.

Based on your first comment steve, that's probably true

Throw out the Beckham game, which was all about the celebrity of Beckham and not indicative of DCU's actual popularity, and DCU's average attendance this season at RFK is 17,573. The Nationals average, while not good by baseball standards, was still approximately 7,000 more per game. Granted the Nats paid attendance and actual attendance were not the same thing, but even the average actual attendance was in the neighborhood of 21K per game. The Nationals also play 81 home games per year, compared to roughly 20 or so for DCU. In terms of a revenue vehicle for the city, it's no-brainer for the city to be more accomodating to the Nats. That isnt "dissing" soccer, its simple arithmetic.

I say this not as a "soccer hater" but just to point out the raw numbers. DCU is the most storied and successful franchise in MLS history, and yet they really have NEVER drawn on average even 20K fans to their games in their ENTIRE history. Granted they would draw larger crowds at a soccer specific facility, but, guess what, the Nats will also draw substantially larger crowds in their new BASEBALL specific facility next year.

Soccer is what it is. It IS the world's most popular game. It IS also a beautiful game, athough calling it "The Beautiful Game" sounds a bit pretentious coming out of the mouths of overly sensitive and defensive US soccer fans. It is ALSO a MARGINAL sport in terms of interest in a professional domestic league in the US. Part of that has to do with it having too many nuances for your average NBA or NFL fan's patience or intelligence level (a problem baseball suffers from as well, by the way..), part of it is the "boring" aspect of a 1-0 match, especially on TV. Part of it is simply being the "new sport" and maybe that will change someday. However, soccer youth leagues have DOMINTATED little league baseball and football for over 30 years and we havent seen that translate into success for US- based pro leagues. Will we ever? When?

DCU is a great team and soccer is a great sport. Hopefully, they will get their stadium. But, DCU fans, please stop acting like you are ENTITLED to a stadium, or that a majority, or even a large minority, of the people in DC or the metro area "get" soccer or support DCU. They dont, and may never. And therein lies your problem.

Why do we continually have to explain to these troglodytes that soccer is here to stay?

To reitereate for those who been down in the dark cave:

There are billionaires involved in driving this sport forward (Hunt, Kraft, McFarlane, Paul Allen owns a minor league team).

Teams are being sold in the neighborhood of $30-50 million, up from the original $5 million buy-in.

Expansion to San Jose is guaranteed next year and others are interested.

ESPN (FYI owned by Disney/ABC) has contracted for small, but healthy broadcast rights.

MLS is putting out a better product than in the years past.

Don't believe me? THEN GO TO RFK THIS SATURDAY!!!

I for one entirely subscribe to the concept: "United for DC". I don't care about M--- F----- but I do know that DC United is a lot better for the residents of DC than the Washington Nationals. Contraversy and argument is a good way to propel a person's career so I for one suggest that from now on we discuss the potential of a new stadium without mentioning his name.

F----- is using a strategy well worn by the Bush Administration. He wants us to get caught up in the debate, and debate on a 1 v 1 scenario. It reduces the argument to "my opinion versus his". But let's keep up the arguments for DC United remaining in DC and not get caught up in the petty debates of one lousy collumnist.

DC United - DC forever !!!

Who said anything about entitled? This is a business deal that benefits the citizens of Ward 8, the city and DC United soccer fans. If you bother to look up the working model you'll see where MacFarlane's plan takes care of all those interests. Not just those of a self agrandizing politician. And as far as the "Beautiful Game" goes, you'd have to be really shortsighted not to see the future of the game here in America.

DC United is United for DC in a number of ways:

1) which other ball club has incorporated the DC flag into its logo?
2) we got Bad Brains this year writing a a song about Luciano Emilio - hopefully next year we'll rack up the Junk Yard Band
3) we are singlehandedly keeping RFK in business. after the Redskins moved out it's been a constant diet of DC United. The Washington Nationals? - well, it was nice sharing a stadium with you all for three years. Good luck!
4) On a per-game basis we outdraw the Capitals easily. On a cabel tv basis we garner more viewers than the Wizards and the Capitals. Hell, even the DCU fans are trying to bring some of the passion to their ice rink colleagues
5) We are the only team that represents DC. The other teams are called Washington this and Washington that. Now, I loved the Washington Capitals growing up and I was so excited the day that the Washington Bullets traded for Chris Webber, but no other team puts the DC in DC

I apologize for all the comments - this will be my last. For all those who think that DC United will be as succesful if not more so if they relocate to the outer suburbs, I would argue the exact opposite. DC United being a team in the city, with easy access from both subway and bus lines makes this a team to believe in. Let's see the outer suburban kids replace the passion of the Screaming Eagles and Barra Brava in RFK

DCU and NATS hit the nail on the head. Most of the other posts are pretty delusional, which is to be expected from a lot of DCU fans.

That statement about DCU being more representative of the city because it has DC in the name is so stupid that its funny!

I, too, would like to add that I enjoy making love to various barnyard animals, usually with Steve in attendance.

"This is a business deal that benefits the citizens of Ward 8, the city and DC United soccer fans."

But what's to say that a competing proposal might help the citizens of Ward 8 and the city a lot more than McFarlane's proposal, but not help DCU at all?

You folks seem to be conflating your relative size in the tiny pond of MLS (huge) with your significance in the rest of the world (virtually none at all). And the arrogant, entitled tone DCU fans are bringing to this debate-- mocking the Nationals and the 'Skins because United has won a couple MLS Cups (the 14993rd most important soccer trophy in the world) is doing nothing for United except pissing off every other sports fan between Baltimore and Richmond.

Yeah, forgot to mention, count me in as one who also enjoys a good "snuggle" with barnyard animals.

Does a competing proposal include the builder shelling out millions of his own money? So far all I've seen are tree huggers wanting to make a park out of the place that brings no revenue to the city and does absolutely zero for the residents of Ward 8. Maybe if you actually lived there you'd be listening to what Marion Barry has to say and not your own blind bias towards a good deal that benefits more than Fenty's pockets.

What I find laughable is crusaders like Fisher who have the gall to tell the people of Ward 8 what's good for them not having spent one second of time on that side of the river.

MLB was the mountain man and the residents of DC were Ned Beatty...

Posted by: DirtyHarry | October 9, 2007 01:17 PM

-----------------

Um, the residents are not paying for the Nationals' stadium. The city is collecting a special tax on large business in the District (and most of those being taxed were not opposed to such tax) as well as taxes on all sales, including tickets, conducted at the stadium. This tax revenue, in addition to the annual lease payments from the Nationals, will finance the stadium.

Yes, we can get into a discussion about how this is revenue that might have been collected for other city services (though, that is unlikely) or how any tax on a business entity will eventually be passed down to the consumers/residents. But to say that the residents of DC (myself included) are being screwed by MLB is completely ignorant.

That said, I agree that Fenty is now trying to trot out as the white knight...saving the city from another apparent bone job by a professional sports franchise. I would not be surprised that Fenty's office is working with Fisher to put his blog-entries and articles together. Misinformation only benefits those opposed to the proposal - just as in the Nationals stadium saga.

The McFarlane proposal is sound, civic-minded, and smart. It really is disappointing that events have unfolded this way...

I'm not at all against McFarlane's proposal, but-- and I hope I'm not dreaming here-- I think all practical ideas should get a fair and open public hearing.

My suggestion to DCU fans is to invest as little of yourself into the stadium issue as possible because its going to make you very unhappy. Keep your distant from this one.

No quit, no surrender. If Fenty ends up screwing us out of this deal, so be it. But we aren't going down without a fight.

However, soccer youth leagues have DOMINTATED little league baseball and football for over 30 years and we havent seen that translate into success for US- based pro leagues. Will we ever? When?

Posted by: DCU and NATS | October 9, 2007 01:35 PM
--------------------------------------------

I think making it to 5 consecutive world cups and having a domestic league in operation with decent attendance for 10+ years counts as progress.

how about a compromise, the dulles team and the dc team share a stadium in dc like chivas/galaxy

" If Fenty ends up screwing us out of this deal, so be it. But we aren't going down without a fight."

Grow up.

There are a lot of people, like me, with reasonable concerns about McFarlane's Anacostia plan. By fronting with that hard man soccer supporter mentality, DC United against the world, some of you United fans are looking like jerks and alienating people, like me, who could very well be on your side.

Save your fake hooligan nonsense for the Tampa Bay Rowdies or whatever. The Nationals and the Redskins, and their fans, aren't the enemy.

I guess standing up for what you believe in is a foreign concept to you, huh?

The only thing I stand up for the love between a barnyard animal and a full gorwn adult.

I'm really getting sick of the posts from Don K and his barnyard friends. You guys obviously don't know any of the history of this issue. Educate yourselves before you post.

That baseball is more popular than soccer is true but not very relevant. The baseball PROJECT cost so much more and delivered so much less other than a stadium that it cannot possibly do anything but lose the city money, where as the soccer-related PROJECT of which the stadium is such a small part costs so much less and delivers so much more that it could very reasonably be profitable for DC.

The baseball project is a sunk cost and economically irrelevent to the soccer proposal, I admit. However, it only takes an ounce of human sympathy to see why soccer fans resent Mr. Fisher openly cheerleading for baseball while suddenly growing fiscal scruples where soccer is involved.

If baseball owes soccer fans anything, it's probably only formal acknowledgement that DC United is the only reason there was an RFK stadium long enough to lure baseball back to the District. I mean, the $10 Million DCSEC spent lobbying for baseball came directly from us, but in the real world that was going to happen since as our landlord at RFK, they had all the power in that relationship. And we'll also have another way to work that issue in the public, since physically kicking DC United out of the District (which is what they'll have to do in order to move on from RFK if there's no stadium deal) will look really, really bad.

It isn't like Fenty had laid out a policy course in this direction well in advance. Rather, he had expressed support for the project long enough that to the outsider, it looks like he suddenly flip-flopped, and that's what's causing folks to question his motives. But I strongly suspect by his continued quotes in favor of the concept of working with United on a stadium somewhere in the District, that the truth is one of the following, either:

1 - He's still fairly amenable to DCU getting their proposal, as long as nothing clearly better emerged;
2 - He wants to give DCU a site at Poplar Point, but not the whole thing; or
3 - He wants to give DCU a site in the District, but not at Poplar Point.

Either way, I'm not seeing Leesburg/Ft Meade United.

DCU isn't getting a stadium in the city, get used to the idea.

3 - He wants to give DCU a site in the District, but not at Poplar Point.

Posted by: S | October 9, 2007 04:31 PM
_______________________________________

What other potential sites in the District, either publicly or privately owned, are there? (I wouldn't include the RFK site, for reasons that have been discussed before on this blog.)

I'm also a big fat stupid idiot.

I'm really getting sick of the posts from Don K and his barnyard friends. You guys obviously don't know any of the history of this issue. Educate yourselves before you post.

Posted by: Terp | October 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Sorry if I'm forgetting to include my intimate love affairs with turtles into the mix.

If DCU had more than 20k people who gave a damn, the fact that such a large number of people who are commenting here are jackasses wouldn't mean as much.

BTW, why isn't PostOnline following up on this: "Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain 'signatures' by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site."

It all comes down to what is the other plan? I just keep having a really bad feeling that Fenty is preparing to accept a much worse plan for Ward 8 to score points against Barry.

I mean, right now any criticism of development on Poplar Point focusses on the only plan out there which is Macfarlanes. Nakamura does himself no favors by treating the plan as if it begins and ends with the stadium and not mentioning any other part of it when he does talk about it, but it does contain a lot of different mixed use development, affordable housing and other features. In fact the major criticism is that its too dense which sounds nothing like the development that appears in all of Nakamura's articles (if it was only the stadium there would be a whole heck of a lot of open space left.)

So if anyone has an issue with the MacFarlane plan they are comparing it to some sort of perfect deal that they are envisioning. When we have a look at the real alternatives some of the naysayers might be looking more favorably on the Macfarlane. And any plan approved had better be made available to the public before being picked before the Macfarlane plan.

If they pick a different plan I keep seeing it as likely to be all luxury condo's without the benefits to the ward Macfarlane promised funded by a hedge fund that will go bakrupt halfway through construction and abandon the project and still requesting city money for the infrastructure that Macfarlane is requesting. I know that is pessimistic but probably more realistic than some of the protesters 100% green space or 100% affordable housing dreams.

Good luck DC fans. It sounds like you have a fight ahead of you.
Seems a shame that a guy can't spent a couple hundred million dollars making your city better but other can create a network of hidden taxes to fund other projects.
(some mentioned the Nats stadium only taxes the big businesses; you surely don't believe that they won't pass those costs on to you do you? You will feel the hit too my friends)
@Mr. Arithmetic (DCU & Nats Fan) 81 games of a half full baseball stadium vs. 22-26 games of a full soccer stadium isn't as big a disparity as you might think. One is a cash drain on the owner that will require loan restructuring (costing taxpayers more money) the other is a self sustaining venture generating revenue for the city.
There is a reason everyone tries to figure out how clubs like the Cubs are able to pack the house every day because they are one of a scant few who actually make money off their stadium.

What I find annoying is the parroting that pretentious futbol fans are belittling other Washington sports teams. Some footie fans do, it's true, but they are not, by any means, representative of DC United fans. Several of us are fans of one or two of the other teams. Several of us, like me, basically find the other sports irrelevant, i.e., of no interest.

Does an underlying sense of inferiority or guilt underlie the umbrage that other sports' fans take toward what little sniping there is? I dunno.

I found the Skins interesting before the massive free agency (after Riggins) and I used to go to Senators games in DC Stadium. But both are simply uninteresting to me now. Does that mean I am slamming other sports -- I don't think so.

If one's fire is lit by thinking that disinterested fans like me are slamming other sports -- so be it. However, may I suggest that one take a close look in the mirror. :)

80 some games vs. 25 some games... there are positives and negitives to both. Obviously more games strung out over a period of time will make it harder to get a high average attendance, this I understand.

But, it should be noted though that the Nats were able to host 17 saturday games this season That number dwarfs United's amount of 7. It should also be noted that United went nearly four months without a saturday night game due to the inconvience of sharing a park with the Nats. That hurts, I don't care what sport you watch.

Between all of this, the total and obviously permanent removal of the north stands, the goverments shove to the backseat of United's stadium proposal, and the fact that RFK would have been closed long ago had United not been around to keep it open. I'd say yes the Nats do owe a bit to United. Not much but a pat on the back and maybe even some encouraging words for the stadium across the river couldn't hurt. I mean we're gonna be neighbors. The Cap's get this, why is it so hard for the Nats ownership and it's fans to see this?

P.S. It's not fair to nix the LA game out of the discussion. If David "Golden Balls" Beckham played baseball for the Dodgers and their visit to Washington was the only sellout of your regular season youd be touting it too. I personally think it's just a bit tough to swallow when Nats fans realize that DCU's largest draw of the season was about 7,000 larger than theirs. Just one mans opinion though.

Nats could care less what your soccer stadium situation is, its funny you think they do.

We need to step back and take a breath here.

I want to see a new DC United stadium very badly, IN the District. But just because the team or AEG lobbied for the land swap doesn't make it theirs. Same goes for McFarlane swooping in and wooing (some of) the local residents. We as United fans have been taking that land for granted, based on false hope, for years now.

The fact is that due diligence always makes sense with public money. Let the stadium proposals compete with other proposals. This process may also lead to some kind of compromise that pleases more and offends fewer.

In the end, I believe, we'll get our stadium. In the meantime, please don't insult those who are not yet convinced. Instead, convince them. The merits of a new soccer stadium, believe it or not, are not obvious on the face of it.

Actually, I hardly see any posts here that 'belittle' other sports. (too lazy to count, but you can count them on one hand). The conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think this 'Soccer fans whine and belittle other sports' is some sort of propoganda campaign.

And, actually the posts that belittle soccer fans seem to outnumber any posts by 'thinskinned' dcu fans ribbing other sports. Here and there are some attendance comparisions--- and Fisher started THAT by saying that DCU 'struggles' for attendance. As a matter of course, then, some DCU fans pointed to attendance comparisons. How is that belittling, exactly? In any case, the Poplar Point proposal seemed tailor made for the District...not just DCU fans. Ah well, here's hoping.

"Throw out the Beckham game, which was all about the celebrity of Beckham and not indicative of DCU's actual popularity, and DCU's average attendance this season at RFK is 17,573. "

What an asinine comment. Should we throw out the games against San Francisco when Bonds was in town? Or maybe toss out the attendance when the Orioles, Cubs, Mets, Phillies, or other games where the number of visiting fans equal or surpass Nationals fans?

People paid to see Beckham play here, and they'll pay to see him next year, and the year follwing that, etc...

I haven't heard anyone say that they want a 50,000 seat soccer stadium, but it's not beyond reason to assume that we could constantly fill a 25 - 30,000 seat stadium.

On Due Diligence...

It's funny how Mayor Fenty picks this one project to open up the bidding on, when the Radio One deal and countless others have been going out as no-bid contracts. I belive the "inside" man who said in previous blog chats way back when the news of the Poplar Point proposal being opened up came out that NoVA developers got the ear of Fenty and asked for the chance to snap up the rights.

Thx,

Jay!

Jay, you may be right, I have no idea. I'm not an expert in local DC politics. As such, I'm probably naive in that regard. But I still believe due diligence -- if properly transparent -- is always a good idea when dealing with public money.

"What other potential sites in the District, either publicly or privately owned, are there? (I wouldn't include the RFK site, for reasons that have been discussed before on this blog.)"

--

First of all, I don't consider those reasons sufficient to rule out the site. Secondly, there's the corner of Michigan and North Capitol. I don't know if that's the full list, but I suspect that if I looked hard enough I'd find more.