Category: Testimony & Letters

Recommendations to ensure an RFK stadium deal benefits DC, provides affordable housing and sustainable transportation options

Our organization advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.

We have been working in the District of Columbia for over 28 years. We have been reviewing the proposal and were drafting this letter highlighting our concerns and recommendations when the news came out today that Chair Mendelson has the outlines of an improved deal. Without having the details of Chair Mendelson’s proposal before us, we will share the following in the hope that we can achieve the best deal possible for the District and its residents.

Prioritize an inclusive, vibrant community at RFK – with or without a stadium

CSG urges the District to prioritize the creation of an inclusive, vibrant community on the RFK Stadium site, including housing options for all, sustainable transportation choices, and community amenities – whether or not there is a professional sports stadium incorporated into the development. 

The administration’s proposal gives away too much, exaggerates economic benefits

Mayor Bowser’s proposed stadium and site development agreement with the Washington Commanders would give unprecedented public subsidies, control of development rights, and tax revenues away to the team. We appreciate the work of Chair Mendelson to reach agreement on an amended deal that directs some revenues and development control back to DC. CSG agrees that a regional sports stadium should be located in an accessible site with good public transit, walking and biking access and that the RFK site can fulfill those prerequisites; however, local and state governments also need to be good stewards of public land and funds. 

Incorporate these critical elements as a modified stadium agreement is considered: 

We ask the DC Council to incorporate these elements to ensure that a deal benefits DC residents and supports adopted District housing, planning and transportation goals:

  1. Ensure housing is built without delay in the Riverfront and Plaza Districts where the team has development rights
    • Establish controls, milestones, and clawbacks to ensure housing, affordable housing and supportive neighborhood retail and services are built in a timely manner.
    • We are glad to see that the amended agreement by Chair Mendelson includes deadlines for completion of nonstadium uses with penalties. We look forward to seeing more details on this and hope that it ensures timely housing and mixed-use development.
    • The Mayor’s deal did not provide any guarantees that the sports team will develop the adjacent sites for mixed-use development that supports city goals. Under that agreement, the Commanders could indefinitely use these as “temporary” surface parking.
  2. Require all residential development at the site follow the affordable housing requirements of DC’s public land disposition law
    • These include a 30% set aside of affordable housing at 30% and 50% median family income (MFI) for rental, and 80% MFI for ownership units in perpetuity (Code of the District of Columbia § 10–801), leveraging the land value as the first source of subsidy.
    • Land should be leased with covenants for affordability requirements.
  3. Replace parking subsidies with expanded public transit, walking and biking
    • The District of Columbia would spend over $350 million to build the largest parking garages in the city under the current deal, structures that would loom over the Kingman Park neighborhood.
    • Most of these funds should instead be used to improve transit, walking and biking access to and within the new neighborhood and stadium.
    • Specific improvements should include:
      • Metrorail station and service improvements. 
      • Bus priority lanes on H Street NE.
      • Improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the Benning and East Capital Street bridges to improve access from areas east of the river. 
    • We appreciate the redirection of $600M from the sports facility fee to upgrading the Stadium-Armory Station – and we believe that the District could gain greater savings – and needed investment in its public transportation system – by not subsidizing parking garages that will largely sit empty most of the year.
  4. Redirect more public revenues back to the District through revenue sharing agreement
    • We appreciate Chair Mendelson’s negotiation for some shares of revenues to come back to DC. But we think that the District can do better than receiving $779M spread out over 30 years given the large total subsidy. More revenue should be shared with the District beginning right after the first $500 million in debt is paid off.
  5. Require a strong performance-based Transportation Demand Management Plan
    • The TDM plan should include performance-based metrics to shift more trips to transit, walking, and biking, consistent with the targets of the District’s adopted MoveDC plan.
  1. Protect and improve public recreation access and community amenities 
    • Protect and ensure the continuation of existing community recreational and other uses on the RFK site, both during construction and after. These include parks, recreation, and sports facilities as well as uses such as the farmers market.
    • Expand The Fields recreation facilities, building on their high demand. 
    • Per the Comprehensive Plan, improvements should include the creation and maintenance of a pedestrian and cyclist shoreline access path and well-designed public spaces.

We urge the Council to ensure that DC residents will benefit from an RFK development plan and commitments that include housing options for all, sustainable transportation choices, and community amenities – whether or not there is a professional sports stadium incorporated into the development. 

In-Person Testimony: 495 Southside Study

In-Person Testimony: 495 Southside Study

From the beginning the VDOT study has been fatally flawed by a conclusions-first approach – defining their purpose and need as “extending express toll lanes” which forecloses other alternatives. Moreover, they have not provided all the information necessary for an informed decision – particularly the traffic impact on connecting roads. Given the missing information and strong concerns expressed by Fairfax, Prince George’s, Alexandria, Charles, WMATA, and state legislators in Virginia and Maryland, this project is not ready for inclusion in the regional plan.

Testimony: Support for Z.C. Case No. 13-14E, modification to Parcels 2 and 4 (Reservoir District formerly known as McMillan)  (DC)

Testimony: Support for Z.C. Case No. 13-14E, modification to Parcels 2 and 4 (Reservoir District formerly known as McMillan) (DC)

We wish to express our support for the proposed modifications to this PUD (13-14E) for the Reservoir District to allow for greater flexibility given changing conditions over the decade that this proposal has been waiting to move forward.

Testimony: Remove M-83 from County Plans (MoCo Council, July 2025)

Testimony: Remove M-83 from County Plans (MoCo Council, July 2025)

We urge you to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Board and remove the unbuilt northern portion of M-83 from the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways.

M-83 is not the right path forward to provide better transportation options upcounty. The ways of thinking that informed plans for this road decades ago are fundamentally out of step with what we know today about best practices to address transportation needs, and about the vital connections between environmental health, climate resilience, and human health.

Written Recommendations: MoCo’s More Housing N.O.W. Package

Written Recommendations: MoCo’s More Housing N.O.W. Package

Montgomery County has a strong record of supporting subsidized affordable housing, including making historic commitments to funding for affordable housing these past few years.

We have not been innovators in the same way in making sure our county has homes that are affordable to our middle class, young people, older adults looking to downsize, and others who do not qualify for affordable housing—yet are increasingly unable to find market-rate homes they can afford amongst our limited housing options.

In-Person Testimony: MoCo More Housing N.O.W. Package

In-Person Testimony: MoCo More Housing N.O.W. Package

It is a plain and simple fact that our county needs more housing. People want housing that they can afford, and they do not want to have to spend their lives sitting in traffic just to get to work. 

Nothing demonstrates the strong support for these simple ideas more than the broad, diverse coalition that showed up in support of the announcement of the More Housing N.O.W. package.

Testimony: Support for the Flats at Glenridge Station, DSP-23008 & DDS-24002 (Prince George’s)

Testimony: Support for the Flats at Glenridge Station, DSP-23008 & DDS-24002 (Prince George’s)

March 10, 2025

Mr. Peter Shapiro, Chair

Prince George’s County Planning Board, M-NCPPC

1616 McCormick Drive, Largo MD

Via: pgcpb@mncppc.org

RE: Support for the Flats at Glenridge Station, DSP-23008 & DDS-24002

Dear Chair Shapiro and members of the Board:

Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG). CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We work extensively in suburban Maryland, focused on Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. 

We would like to express our support for the Flats at Glenridge, DSP-23008 & DDS-24002. The proposed 245-apartment building, with a small amount of office space, offers families affordable homes right next to the Glenridge Purple Line station, along with close proximity to retail, including a supermarket. The site is less than a quarter mile from the station and MD 450, and by direct connection would be about 300 feet from the station.

This proposal is the first major step towards implementing the vision for a walkable Glenridge Transit Village outlined in the Annapolis Road Sector Plan. The apartment building offers amenities like a playground and a plaza with landscaping. Most importantly, these 245 homes give moderate and low income families the opportunity to live next to a rail transit station, and local-serving retail. 

This affordable transit-oriented development helps more people rely on sustainable transportation options and reduce the need to drive or own a car. We appreciate the unit mix offering a variety of unit sizes, including many 3-bedroom apartments. 

The project provides important contributions to county and community goals, including:

  • Affordability – the proposal will provide homes affordable at and below 60% of median family income. These are quality, new 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom homes to address residents’ need for low-cost housing. Transit-accessible housing also reduces household transportation costs;
  • Environmentally-friendly location – allowing more families to live here in a compact, walkable environment reduces traffic, pollution and crashes by giving households options to walk and ride transit more, and drive less;
  • Better communities with transit-oriented development – more homes in this location, inside the Beltway and next to rail transit and existing retail, helps to transition this area to the envisioned Glendridge Transit Village where more homes and businesses can be focused in a walkable, transit-oriented environment. A vibrant, walkable Glenridge Transit Village will benefit nearby neighbors who can enjoy better retail options, a more human-scaled environment, and transportation choices.

We recognize that the site is currently wooded, but it is a fragment surrounded by development. Allowing more people to live here, steps away from frequent rail transit at this inside the Beltway location means less driving, traffic and pollution for households who otherwise might have to live elsewhere. Additionally, the project will fund offsite forest conservation to offset trees removed from the site, while providing modern stormwater management onsite to control runoff and water quality. 

We have two recommendations for improving this project:

  1. Securing a direct walk pathway from the building to the Purple Line station entrance. 
  2. Reducing parking and allocating that space and cost savings to other benefits for residents. The large amount of parking — 337 spaces for 245 units is a 1.37 ratio. Development standards reduce by half the required amount due to the site’s proximity to transit.

Conclusion

We urge the Planning Board to approve this application as a major step forward for the Glenridge Transit Village and the benefits it will provide to the larger community and county.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort

Policy Director