The plans for a new stadium for MLS soccer team D.C. United have been called a "irrational stadium subsidy scheme" by Slate. Uh oh. The issue? The new stadium would benefit from a gift of free land from the city. The site is about 10 blocks and the Slate naysayer thinks the land should be used for housing instead.
If the city's willing to invest in new transportation infrastructure and doesn't think industrial or quasi-industrial uses of this land are important, why not offer up some infrastructure to encourage developers to build some houses?Slate argues that there are only 34 games in a Major League Soccer stadium per year, but the plans have also discussed using the stadium for non-soccer events including college sports and concerts. What's really at stake here seems to be that housing prices are going up and the city isn't doing much to curb that. Is that really soccer's fault? Let us know what you think.