Latest news with #PhilMendelson
Axios
08-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
The man who could tank the RFK Stadium deal
Phil Mendelson voted against the Nationals ballpark deal five times. Why it matters: To tell where the RFK Stadium deal is going, you gotta study Mendelson — the chairman of the D.C. Council, who's often at loggerheads with Mayor Muriel Bowser and never a fan of taxpayer-funded stadiums. He opposed paying for Nats Park — a transformative project that barely passed in 2004. And now, Mendelson is dug in against public subsidies for the Washington Commanders. The mayor's deal proposes $1 billion for site infrastructure and parking garages. Without Mendelson, good luck reaching seven "yes" votes, several close observers tell me. Reality check: Mendelson can appeal to both sides — giving stadium supporters and naysayers hope… Last month, he said, "the D.C. treasury should not be paying toward a stadium." And just last week, he told me it'll be "virtually impossible" to get the deal through the council by Bowser's July 15 deadline. But Mendelson — setting aside his "personal view" against taxpayer subsidies — this week opened the door for a compromise: "This deal could be much better," he said. "The end goal should be … not stadium at any price. That would be stadium at a reasonable price." What I'm hearing: Four council members look like a "yes" (Kenyan McDuffie, Brooke Pinto, Anita Bonds, and Wendell Felder). Two have been outspoken against it (Brianne Nadeau and Charles Allen), and progressive Janeese Lewis George is likely hard to persuade. To get three more "yes" votes, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Commanders owner Josh Harris held a reception Monday evening with Mayor Bowser at the Wilson Building. Three toss-ups joined: Christina Henderson, a self-described "pragmatic progressive"; Zachary Parker, whose Ward 5 base may be nostalgic for football's return; and Matt Frumin, a lefty favorite representing Ward 3 in affluent Northwest. (Robert White, who probably wants to run for mayor again, is another "maybe" vote.) Two holdouts could be persuadable if Mendelson comes on board. But activists like John Capozzi, who is working on a ballot initiative against the subsidies, says he's "counting on Phil Mendelson to save us from this financial disaster." So Mendelson has options. He could reengineer the mayor's deal, curtailing the taxpayer subsidy. You could also kill the deal."Mhm," he told me. Do you worry about that being your legacy?"Um, no," he said. "The best deal for the taxpayers is the best legacy one could have." An anti-RFK Stadium tone helps him avoid attacks from the left when he runs for reelection. Do you think about the politics? "Of course I do," he said. "The best deal for taxpayers is the best approach politically." But within three weeks, Mendelson went from no public dollars for a stadium to wanting a "better deal" for taxpayers. What's that mean? He cracked: "It means I have a split personality, and I have to see a therapist this afternoon."
Axios
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
D.C.'s progressive era is over
D.C.'s progressive era is over — derailed by President Trump, federal job cuts, and local economic woes. Why it matters: The biggest fights at city hall are now less over experimental ideas like "social housing," and more about megaprojects like RFK Stadium or municipal concerns like local government efficiency and attracting new companies. The big picture: D.C. is busy playing defense. Local leaders are fighting to preserve every inch of home rule against a GOP-controlled Congress. Making do with less money in an economic slowdown. And dodging Trump threats. Through it all, the Wilson Building is backtracking on government transparency in the name of pragmatism, enabling secret meetings so that lawmakers can strategize about Trump-era uncertainty. Council Chair Phil Mendelson is pulling punches, telling me he's holding back introducing certain bills to avoid poking Congress, which has final say over the District's laws. The city's biggest challenge is next year's budget. The gap could be up to $1 billion. And that's before this current budget mess with Congress that forced Mayor Muriel Bowser to declare an immediate hiring freeze and consider furloughs. What I'm hearing:"There's a shift" among residents, says Council member Christina Henderson. "They don't want the flashy. They want the bread and butter to work." That means making sure trash and leaves are picked up on time, having public agencies answer the phone when a resident calls, and ending million-dollar programs that aren't working. "I hear an increasing level of folks frustrated with just the basic core city services," says Council member Charles Allen. Flashback: In the latter half of the 2010s, progressives began kicking out incumbents, old-school D.C. Council members who were more sympathetic to the concerns of businesses and prided themselves on being a hotline for residents who wanted to report a pothole. Replacing the old ward bosses were council members like Janeese Lewis George, who ran as a Democratic socialist in Ward 4, or Elissa Silverman, a pugnacious leader of the lefty bloc who wound up losing reelection in 2022. The Wilson Building rode a budget boom to check off a big progressive wish list — paid sick leave expansion (2014), $15 minimum wage (2016), paid family leave (2016), Clean Energy D.C. Act (2018), publicly financed elections (2018), George Floyd police reform (2020). "We actually are further than most cities," says Henderson. "Someone might call universal pre-K progressive. We already have it. I don't see a situation where Trump is telling us that we can't continue that." What's next: The upcoming RFK Stadium fight will reveal whether progressives, who wince at taxpayer subsidies for businesses, can take on the city's beloved sports team, the NFL, and a mayor's quest for a legacy achievement. Bowser wants to sink $810 million in taxpayer money for a new Commanders stadium project, per news reports. (The formal announcement is expected soon.) The plan needs D.C. Council approval. And Mendelson is outspoken against the use of public dollars. "The D.C. treasury should not be paying toward a stadium," he told the Washington Post, estimating the true cost could be over $1 billion. The next few months will be full of lobbying, intrigue and media frenzy. The bottom line: It also says something about the era we're in. The nuts and bolts of how to build up a 170-acre site is a throwback to when council members spent more time brokering land deals than fine-tuning wonkish policy. "We do need to build something on that site," says Council member Brianne Nadeau, who's in Mendelson's camp. "We need housing there. We need community amenities there."
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DC council passes emergency legislation allowing more closed-door meetings
WASHINGTON () — The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to amend the Open Meetings Act, allowing for more closed-door meetings. 'There is constantly a complaint that the ability to have a conversation, just a conversation, is impeded. That's what this legislation gets to,' said Chairman Phil Mendelson (D). Under the emergency legislation, the council will be allowed to have private meetings — without the required two business days' notice to the public — if the group is being briefed on a potential terrorist threat, public health threats or having a meeting with the mayor. No votes or official action can be taken. 'It doesn't close the meeting where action is taken. In fact, it preserves most of the existing law,' said Mendelson. The legislation cites 'consequential, large-scale business and economic development…' like the arena deal with Monumental Sports and Entertainment, as an example of when a closed-door meeting may be necessary. Expelled DC Councilmember Trayon White teases re-election campaign on social media It also points to the need for privacy when strategizing on federal issues and interference, after Congress passed a recent spending bill that cut $1 billion from D.C.'s budget. 'This emergency legislation is particularly necessary in the current political climate to allow the council to be briefed as a body in a timely manner and to develop appropriate responses to rapidly unfolding issues,' said the legislation. Still, some advocacy groups have come out in opposition to the changes. 'They work for the public, they work for the people of the District of Columbia,' said Bob Becker. 'And the people of D.C. have the right to know why they're doing things, not only what they're doing but why they're doing it.' Becker is a member of the The group sent a letter to the council criticizing the legislation. Becker worries it'll impact public trust and transparency. '[The public] has a right to be confident that [the council isn't] giving in to special interests,' he said. Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) introduced legislation to narrow the scope of what discussions can happen behind closed doors, limiting it to economic development negotiations or federal government relations. That amendment failed. Because the legislation was passed on emergency, it will go into effect for 90 days without a public hearing. A hearing on the permanent legislation is set for April 22. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
D.C. Council to vote on measure to close some meetings to the public
D.C.'s elected officials would have broader latitude to conduct business in private under a bill the D.C. Council will consider Tuesday, a move that has rankled open government advocates and members of the media. The bill, which D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) is moving on an emergency basis in conjunction with all other council members, would make it easier for legislators to meet with the mayor privately, allow council members to close meetings to the public to discuss negotiations, and exempt from the Open Meetings Act certain 'field trips' and 'retreats' where officials meet outside of the Wilson Building.
Axios
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Axios
D.C. Council wants to hold secret meetings
The D.C. Council wants to make it easier to hold secret meetings, drawing outrage from open-government advocates. Why it matters: Council members say they need to meet confidentially about economic development projects, strategize against a hostile Congress, and have frank conversations with the mayor. Not invited: The public, for discussions about the future of the District and how taxpayer dollars should be used. State of play: All 12 council members support the proposal, which is poised to rapidly pass Tuesday after being introduced as emergency legislation — allowing it to bypass the traditional public hearing process. The big picture: The proposal comes while the White House is pressuring the District, forcing local Democrats to prioritize pragmatism over progressive agenda items. Private meetings would allow space for candid scenario planning and internal disagreements to be aired. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said he wants a monthly breakfast between lawmakers and Bowser. "We no longer have monthly Mayor-Council breakfasts, because neither side wants to publicly air disagreements — for instance, allow the Council to publicly and personally question and argue with the Mayor over something she is or is not doing," Mendelson wrote in an email last week to fellow lawmakers. The current law limits the council's "ability to meet to discuss political strategy to best inform members of Congress" about budget issues, Mendelson added, "because we don't want these conversations to be public." Mendelson says past attempts to have confidential meetings, such as during negotiations over improvements to Capital One Arena, faced legal pushback. Reporters grilled Mendelson on Monday over the proposal to curtail public access and the need to move it without a public hearing. "I would rather clarify the law … then to continue with this uncertainty," Mendelson said Monday. The changes would not authorize lawmakers to vote in secret meetings. The other side: The proposal would "eviscerate" the Open Meetings Act of 2010, said Robert Becker, an attorney with the D.C. Open Government Coalition, in a letter on Monday urging D.C. Council members to vote against the bill.
