Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

Don't Mess With RFK

I am all for D.C. voting rights, but this is ridiculous. Just another reason for United to speed up its new stadium plans.

By Steve Goff  |  May 21, 2007; 10:12 AM ET
Categories:  D.C. United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MLS Wrap
Next: Gold Cup Approach

Comments

That is ridiculous, how about Taxation Without Representation Field at RFK Stadium?

Posted by: Kim | May 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

What I want to know is happens when Congress (eventually) gives DC one seat in the House? Does everyone change their license plate from "Taxation without Represenation" to just "Taxation." It would probably still work for DC. :)

Posted by: TCompton | May 21, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

in the spirit of Piza Hut Park, does anyone else kinda want the new stadium to be Five Guys Field? By the time it is built, five Guys should have somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million locations in the region, right?

and if RFK already carried a corporate sponsor, or was named for someone less luminary that RFK, I would be tempted to go for the name change, but leave FRK alone. I say it's a good thing that the Nats weren't here in 1999, it would probably be Ronald Reagan Stadium then.

Posted by: northzax | May 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

More importantly, if they DO change the name, will Goff start calling it Estadio Impuestos Sin la Representación?

Posted by: asfoolasiam | May 21, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan Memorial Stadium...that's the best idea I've heard in a while. I say we then go with calling the gaping hole at the border the "GW Bush Virtual Fence".

Posted by: Duke Cuneo | May 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Duke- I was going to refer to United's D as the "George Bush National Security Plan" myself.

Posted by: northzax | May 21, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Stadium?

ZZZZZZZ....

Posted by: I-66 | May 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I heard that while listening to WTOP for a minute yesterday and immediately asked "WTF?" Of course I was a little more mad that Estadio RFK was being referred to as the Nationals Stadium even though they won't be there when the idea actually could happen.

Posted by: sitruc | May 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

--- begin NOT SOCCER RELATED ---
Since DC has a higher percentage of residents who actually pay nothing in taxes but get "refundable" tax credits, I don't see why they complain so much. On top of that DC gets $6.64 FROM the Federal government for every $1 in taxes that someone in Georgetown actually pays. (The closest state is New Mexico at $2.00 per dollar tax collected).

TCompton: As to representation, regardless of what the Democratic Party leadership thinks, DC won't have voting representation in the House or Senate in any form without an Amendment to the Constitution (which will never happen) because someone will sue and the Supreme Court will agree. They could have added representation to the 23rd Amendment, but chose not to. Additionally, the states could have ratified the 1978 DC representation Amendment before it died in 1985.

--- end NOT soccer related ---

As to the stadium... see I-66's comments.

Posted by: witheld | May 21, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

This is pure political grandstanding (pun intended). No decent politician would throw away any possible goodwill that the powerful and ubiquitous Kennedy family may have towards DC by striking Bobby's name from the stadium.

If they did this, the Kennedys will reconsider supporting the DC seat in the House.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | May 21, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

--- begin NOT SOCCER RELATED ---
Since DC has a higher percentage of residents who actually pay nothing in taxes but get "refundable" tax credits, I don't see why they complain so much. On top of that DC gets $6.64 FROM the Federal government for every $1 in taxes that someone in Georgetown actually pays. (The closest state is New Mexico at $2.00 per dollar tax collected).

TCompton: As to representation, regardless of what the Democratic Party leadership thinks, DC won't have voting representation in the House or Senate in any form without an Amendment to the Constitution (which will never happen) because someone will sue and the Supreme Court will agree. They could have added representation to the 23rd Amendment, but chose not to. Additionally, the states could have ratified the 1978 DC representation Amendment before it died in 1985.

--- end NOT soccer related ---

As to the stadium... see I-66's comments.

Posted by: witheld | May 21, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Since DC has a higher percentage of residents who actually pay nothing in taxes but get "refundable" tax credits, I don't see why they complain so much. On top of that DC gets $6.64 FROM the Federal government for every $1 in taxes that someone in Georgetown actually pays. (The closest state is New Mexico at $2.00 per dollar tax collected)."

Fot those of us who are paying taxes we are paying some of the highest taxes in the country and we still CAN'T VOTE! It's the most backwards situation in any developed nation with a democratic gov't. When the constitution was written NOVA and MD were fields, now they are full of lobbyists working on Cap Hill. The threat of political influence and "DC" representation died long long ago even before Ford built his first Model T and suburbs came to life.

You don't understand why we complain?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The song, "Always Look on the Bright Side," from Monty Python's Life of Brian comes to mind.

At least its not known as, "DHL Field at Robert F. Kennedy Prudent Financial Stadium."

Posted by: James | May 21, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I agree it's unfortunate that those paying taxes in DC aren't represented, but didn't you know that when you moved there? Caveat Emptor. I complain about having to cross the 14th Street Bridge to get to DCU games at RFK, but that's a price I was willing to pay. If you don't like it, they have all price levels of housing in MD or VA that come with political representation. THink of it on the bright side, by not having representation, you at least aren't being lied to by swine claiming to have your best interest at heart while taking K street kickbacks.

Posted by: witheld | May 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

With the price-to-quality ratio of food at RFK this year, I'd say I'm paying a pretty penny to have my intestines taxed pretty severely, while Maalox and Tums are clearly overrepresented.

Posted by: LeesburgSoccerFan | May 21, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, It's a tough situation. So amend the Constitution.

Posted by: Dave | May 21, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I say DC shold go corporate for any new name for RFK. Maybe "Pollo Campero Stadium," or "Goya Stadium," or "Sierra Mist Stadium," or if they want to use another name, may I suggest "The Coca-Cola Memorial Marion 'Mayor for Life' Barry Stadium." oy . ..

Posted by: Vic | May 21, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for DC United to build its own Taxation Without Representation Stadium.

Posted by: Terp | May 21, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Non Soccer Related----
I live in Virginia and never plan on moving to DC. However, I completely support the movement to give voting rights to District's tax paying citizens. I would be very interested in the Supreme Courts debate on the subject, since it is the PEOPLE who are suppose to control the government... not the other way around as many have come to believe. I doubt the arguement that because the Constitution says to, means it is. It's difficult for opponents to continue to deny the citizens rights when at the very basis of their power comes from those people. At least that's all my opinion... but I'm neither a politician nor atorney, so what do I know about law?
--end non soccer related

I've always throught the new stadium (zzzzzz) should be named after a famous DC citizen... I have no clue who that would be... but add a statue out in front of the stadium and you've got yourself a nice little homage to the city. Of course, with naming rights bringing in millions of dollars, I'd be shocked if we see anything like that... an SSS is just a piece of the business of soccer.

Posted by: TCompton | May 21, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Looking forward to the Marco "El Diablo" Etcheverry Stadium, known to fans as El Diablo or The Devil's Home.

Posted by: SSMD | May 21, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

If you want the vote
the Constitution must be rewrote

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

el diablo....sounds like we have the nickname ready, now just need the stadium...zzzz ad nauseum

Posted by: l st | May 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

SSMD - El Casa del Diablo

Posted by: grotus | May 21, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

El Pollo Companero Estadio -- Casa del Diablo has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: Senor Leesburg | May 21, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Non Socer related--

"Taxation without Representation" has two ways it could be solved. One could bring representation up to level with taxation, i.e. make it exist...or one could bring taxation down to the level of representation, i.e. get rid of it.

As a resident of DC, I would be perfectly happy not having that moron Holmes-Norton, or anyone, represent me in congress so long as DC could tax commuters and residents of DC didn't have to pay federal taxes.

...by the by, if DC could tax the Federal Government for the land it uses in DC (huge If and entirely without prescident i know) DC would get much more money than is given it by the federal government.

End non soccer---


The stadium should be called, RFK and referred to as the stadium of whichever team that uses it has a better record over the history of the organization. that is, the Nats must win four titles before anyone should consider calling RFK the Nats stadium.

Posted by: bribri | May 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"If you want the vote
the Constitution must be rewrote"

Johnny? I thought you were dead!

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | May 21, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

First, Section 8 of Article I gives Congress exclusive legislative power over the District -- it is thus arguably within the power of Congress to pass legislation granting residents of the District equal voting representation, without amending the Constitution.

Second, it is immoral and unethical for any government to take tax money from and pass laws regulating the lives of people who are denied any representation in the government based on where they live. Residents of D.C. would be as justified taking up arms against the government as our forefathers were in taking up arms against the crown in 1776.

Third, when the Nationals were trying to sell naming rights for their inaugural season (to be something like "Such-and-such Field at RFK Stadium"), the only people who put in a bid were a group of D.C. activists, who collected pledges exceeding $50,000. I don't see why it's any worse to sell the rights to a group of people with a point to make than it is to sell it to a corporation with a product to sell.

Posted by: JonboyDC | May 21, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"On top of that DC gets $6.64 FROM the Federal government for every $1 in taxes that someone in Georgetown actually pays."

This stat is misleading. The citizens of DC aren't getting nearly that much money per tax dollar. That money is spent supporting the federal infrastructure, by and large. Furthermore, the city government provides security for federal events like the inauguration without being reimbursed by the federal government.

Posted by: Roger | May 21, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I really enjoy reading this blog. No other sports forum provides such wonderful debate on the Constitution.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | May 21, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

--- begin non soccer related rant ---
"Taxation Without Representation Field at RFK Stadium"? Yeah, that IS ridiculous...kinda like the reality of non-representation for a half-million citizens.

Bottom line: It's politics, pure and simple. I don't believe anyone who says that they oppose voting rights because of the "constitution". If DC were 95% Republican voters this would have been a done deal years ago.

Change the damn name. And the Kennedy Center and Convention Center while we're at it.
--- end non soccer related rant ---

Stadium? ZZZZZZZZZ...

Posted by: KR in DC | May 21, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Dig the new name!

Posted by: jj | May 21, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

---NSRR (Non-soccer Related Rant)---

for anyone who points out that 'it is in the Constitution' and 'you should have known that before moving there' I have to things to point out. 1: you may have noticed that slavery was 'in the Constitution' as well. so there is a wee bit of precedent for changing it up. 2: what about the 20,000 people born here every year?

the Federal Payment to the District is hardly free money. it compensates the City for all the untaxable Federal land in the City, as well as all the untaxable embassies and residences that accompany it. How about that nice World Bank building downtown? generates a whopping zero in revenue for the city (foreign employees don't pay income taxes or even sales taxes) yet they still get city police and fire protection services.

and for those who don't like the quality of the people DC elects, well, we have long since stopped giving votes to people who don't elect the 'right people' but I am willing to discuss it. How about simply saying that any jurisdiction that has a federal official indicted and convicted or a crime (or even impeached from office) shall lose that seat for a set period of time. I don't really trust San Diego to elect a congressman after Cunningham, so let's say, no congressman until the next redistricting. and if you lose a senator? well, no senator until the next census. only fair, right?

--end NSRR--

so, uh, how's about them Red Bulls?

Posted by: northzax | May 21, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

--non Soccer related ---

northzax: I'm not making the rules, I'm just pointing them out. Slavery was repealed by Amendment, so what's your argument there? I have no problem with an Amendment granting voting right to DC residents, I'm just stating that there is ZERO chance of it happening without an Amendment. (And little chance of the states ratifying such an Amendment). "What is" and "What should be" are two different things in this case, no matter how hard we wish it were different.

JonboyDC: This one is an open and shut case in front of the Supreme Court. Article I Section 2 states "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, 26th, and particularly the 23rd Amendment could have provided DC suffrage, but did not. Also, the 1978 Amendment that failed was not long ago in legal history. Congress can do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean that it passes muster with the robe-wearing arbiters of the Constitution.


--end non soccer related ---

Can you believe KC this year? Where are all the fans?

Posted by: witheld | May 21, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

replace suffrage with representation.

Posted by: witheld | May 21, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

That's just silly!!!

Posted by: Dave the Wave | May 21, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

NSRR
Hell, why their at it, DC residents should demand a senate representative too. Ever since states (for whatever reason) gave up the rights to elect the Senate (to the people of their respective states), they no longer have a connection to an actual State government bodies. Why shouldn't DC get one senator and one congressman?
ENSRR

SRR (soccer related rant)
You know, Kansas City's attendance shouldn't come as a surprise. That's really nothing new, plus it's not like Kansas City is the biggest market in the world.

Now, Red Bull New York is a total disgrace. They finally appear to have their act together, have good management, and have been playing some pretty nice soccer... not to mention have a fairly nice roster. Why they can't draw any fans is beyond me. Red Bull is not AEG and look to be much more interested in making New York work. At this point, I doubt that they'd draw fans even if they somehow manage not to fall appart and make a legitimate run for MLS Cup...

Who knows, maybe the fans that go to one or two games a year are all saving their money to see Beckham this year.

ESRR

Posted by: TCompton | May 21, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I just finished my first year of law school, and would like to thank Goff for ruining the one safe haven I thought I had from that world in the form of this blog.

With that said, the person above who cited Art. I S 8 is correct; DC can be given voting rights by an Act of Congress. For those who argue Art I S 1 says otherwise, look to the Commerce Clause, one of the many examples throughout the document where the phrase "state" has been interpreted to include DC. Thus, just b/c "states" are given representation does not mean DC is necessarily excluded.

Even Scalia would be for this, according to his recent opinions. And if my nino Antonin can get behind it, everyone should.

Posted by: Falls Church | May 22, 2007 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company