We’ve just wrapped up our two-week Health Policy Camp (July 14–25), and we are filled with gratitude. A heartfelt thank you to the members of our Community Health Advisory Panel (CHAP) for sharing your expertise as panelists and workshop facilitators. We’re especially grateful to our Parent Ambassadors in the Community Health Leadership Track for showing up with your full mind, heart, and spirit. This training intensive reaffirmed our belief in the power of parent-led advocacy. 

The timing of our Health Policy Camp couldn’t be more urgent, coinciding with major developments in DC’s political and fiscal landscape. The FY 2026 budget was formally adopted on Monday, July 28th, and the City Council’s first vote for the RFK Stadium deal took place later in the week on Friday, August 1st. The unusual move to have these two separate (major) Council votes during the same week, yet on different days, was criticized by many advocates for splitting the vote and rushing the legislative process without more thorough public deliberation. On one hand, Mayor Bowser, NFL commissioners, and other supporters describe the RFK deal as a transformative opportunity for economic growth and Ward 7 community development. However, many local advocates, council members, and community groups have expressed their concerns, arguing the stadium deal favors corporate interests over local welfare, during an emotionally charged hearing that resulted in a 9-3 City Council vote approving the deal. Council will take a second and final vote on the RFK deal by Sept 17.

The Council’s approved FY2026 reflects sacrifices to local social safety net programs that residents depend on, as well as some potential opportunities for economic growth. The $22 billion budget for 2026 includes:

• $1B+ set aside for the RFK site and surrounding development
• Cuts to Healthcare Alliance, affecting undocumented and low-income residents
• $421K for ranked-choice voting, but not full open primaries
• Elimination of funding for streetcar expansion, redirecting to electric buses
• Tipped wage compromise that slows down wage increases from Initiative 82
• Mixed wins for climate funding and food access programs

The RFK Stadium, once home to the Washington Football Team (now the Commanders), has sat mostly vacant in Southeast D.C. since 2019. Mayor Muriel Bowser is pushing a bold redevelopment plan to build:

• A new NFL stadium to bring the Washington Commanders back to D.C.
• Thousands of housing units, some of them affordable
• New retail, hotel, and community spaces
• Massive transportation and infrastructure upgrades

To do this, Mayor Bowser and the Commanders announced a $3.7 billion redevelopment plan with $2.7 billion private investment by the team and $1.0–1.1 billion from public funds to build a stadium, housing, retail, hotels, sportsplex, and parks on 180 acres. This stadium, expected to open in 2030 with about 65,000 seats, will host events year-round and occupy only 11% of the site, allowing for extensive housing, parks, recreation, hotels, restaurants, retail, and neighborhood amenities. The plan includes 5,000 to 6,000 new housing units, with at least 30% affordable units, alongside green spaces and community-focused developments such as a new sportsplex funded with $89 million in the FY 2026 budget. According to the proposed plan, the development prioritizes local business participation through the District’s RFP process and promotes accessible transportation with ample parking and multiple public transit options. The project is expected to create approximately 14,000 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs while generating about $4 billion in tax revenue and over $15.6 billion in direct spending over 30 years (Mayor’s Office of the District of Columbia, 2025). 

This past week, Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker publicly challenged the deal at a council hearing, raising issues about insufficient union jobs, lack of economic equity for long‑time residents—especially in Ward 7—and distrust that the project benefits are equitably distributed. Other council members, including Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George, Phil Mendelson, Charles Allen, Robert White, and Brianne K. Nadeau, raised concerns over transparency, fiscal review, tax breaks, and community input.

Mayor Bowser pushed back, arguing that it brings jobs, housing, tax revenue, and revitalization to a long-neglected area. However, several advocacy groups have strongly opposed the stadium deal:

• Fair Budget Coalition : argues that $1B+ in public money should instead support housing, schools, grocery stores, and essential services, especially in Ward 7.
• Homes not Stadiums: opposes using taxpayer money to fund a new stadium at the RFK site. Instead, the group advocates for redirecting those funds toward essential housing, infrastructure, and community services in D.C. They emphasize ethical governance, transparency, and investment in local neighborhoods.
• The Committee of 100: a civic oversight group that is “voicing strong opposition to the current stadium agreement, arguing it disproportionately benefits the Commanders while shortchanging D.C. taxpayers,” demanding a better financial return to the District. 

While the stadium agreement offers significant potential benefits, such as increased revenue and redevelopment, ongoing concerns remain about timely project completion and whether these benefits will truly reach DC’s most vulnerable populations, especially Black, Brown, low-income, and immigrant residents. As plans move forward, it’s crucial that community voices from the margins be centered during the legislative process, leading towards the second and final vote for the RFK deal in early September.