A new round of signs (previously) commenting on the proposed Shockoe redevelopment plan appeared sometime Saturday night. These were pasted to the outside of at least 2 buildings in the area (including the window of Captain Buzzy’s) and onto other objects around the city.
City Council will be voting tonight on a resolution relating to the proposal which calls for “further negotiations” to hammer out a series of details regarding the project.
81 comments
RT @chpn: DWIGHT JONES IS SELLING OUR CITY http://t.co/Dc00g4ejxx
I hope he gets a good price!
Oh yeah that’s the sign I want to spit on everyday. Jones rules.
This is way out of hand. Its sickening to see this happen to this great city. These people are total scum.
If these are pasted on buildings with the owner’s approval?
Jason Barker liked this on Facebook.
Ickie Ones liked this on Facebook.
Andrew Linscott liked this on Facebook.
Andy Barton liked this on Facebook.
Eva Tiner liked this on Facebook.
Joshua Cooley liked this on Facebook.
This is vandelism and has been filed with the RPD as such. I suspect the people behind stealing the signs supporting the baseball stadium are the same ones responsible for this newest tactic.
Unfortunately, some of ” these people that are total scum” feel like they can get away with such behavior—-because they have gotten away with it in the past.
http://mokarnage.com/2014/02/24/the-resistance/ Join the Resistance, start the resistance. Stormclouds on the horizon
The opposition has no shame. Look at the tone of their conversation. No problems stating outright lies. Keep at it, you are going to win the argument for the support.
Cynthia Tobin liked this on Facebook.
I’m a homeowner in Church Hill and I’m for the baseball stadium and believe most of my neighbors think the same.
When Mr. Wilder was governor a similar situation happened in Alexandria, NOVA. The late Jack Kent Cook, owner or the Redskins at the time wanted to build his stadium in a former railroad yard, but a vociferous group opposed to it under the pretenses that horrific traffic will come with the new stadium. Now the stadium is in Prince George County, MD and the Alexandria site with a giant shopping center, many, many midrise apartments and with a super horrific traffic. I can only think that the “concerned citizens” that opposed were part of the developers interested in making money due its proximity to Washington DC or the least: manipulated. I do not want it to happen to my new neighborhood.
“Take whatever number the sports promoter says and move the decimal one place to the left. Divide it by ten. That’s a pretty good estimate of the actual economic impact.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/
Please Richmond do not do this.
To anyone who supposes the stadium, please google: “do stadiums help local economy”
I doubt the ghetto gas station and bums that exist in that location now do great things for the economy. It will create many jobs and raise property value thus raising property taxes that will go into the school system, which let’s face it needs serious help in the city, mostly churchhill
HAHA! I love it!
I think when you compare the latest debacle surrounding this proposal- a parking study that does not include stadium traffic, uses 7 year old demographic numbers, and doesn’t even include the highway, to people putting up paper signs…
It’s obvious whats more degrading and hurtful to our City.
“Ghetto gas station”?
Jeez, what century are you from?
@Mo is the resistance being funded by Daddy?
“Karn’s father, Tim, who helped her buy the house by taking out a loan that she and her roommates are paying back, said he doesn’t agree with all her beliefs and is concerned about the lawsuit.”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/the-wingnut-collective-well-liked-in-community/article_bd17572f-ef96-5a8f-b876-9ec1c2e8049a.html
Ahh, privilege.
Frank. Grocery, Apartments and Hotel are signed up. This thing has already PROVEN – P R O V E N – that it attracts economic development. Are you being intentionally dense here?
Kirsten Gray liked this on Facebook.
So Three Strikes….where were you on the night of the 23rd? Haha
i am for the entire project – the fact that there is a stadium as part of the plan is not my focus
Oh great, the crazies are coming out of the woodwork now. At least we’re seeing the true faces behind this anti-stadium push now.
Pretty much every nutjob and two-bit poverty profiteer in Richmond has come out against the stadium which tells me all I need to know. This must be a good plan given the cast of idiots lining up against it!
The city could do a lot without handing millions of dollars to a private developer. Time and again the evidence has shown that these projects don’t work for the city or the taxpayers. Even in Richmond they don’t work – ever been to 6th street market place? Do you have any evidence that they do work?
Ken Knehr liked this on Facebook.
I will be for or against baseball based on one thing and one thing only:
Will enacting the plan or killing the plan make it more likely that the city will provide decent services from schools to road repair. If the end result of having the stadium means that it is somehow more likely I can get the City to finally fix my alley and sidewalk after repeated complaints, I support the stadium. If the end result of killing the stadium means the City can focus on fixing things and properly managing them, then I am for killing the stadium.
Right now, the City cannot get the basics done. Is the stadium going to provide additional resources and other reforms to get basic services where they should be? Then let’s do it. If the stadium will drain resources, and is causing the City to take its eye off the ball and not do the basics, let’s end it. But damn it, we need to spend our time improving schools, fixing roads, upgrading sewers and the other day-in and day-out things we need City government to do. That should be consuming the debate and time at City Hall and in City Council. Baseball stadia should be pretty cut and dried relative to the big picture items of everyday life in Richmond. Either it moves the ball forward on making this a more livable, prosperous city for the residents or it does not.
#16- Downton Abbey all the way!!
😉
@9 Frank, excellent article, thank you for posting the link. @20, you might get some answers by reading the article posted in @9.
@ Frank – Minor league ballparks work great in downtown areas that already have some things going for them, as demostrated by the same source you cited: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/05/downtown-toledos-minor-league-mojo/2028/
Everyone was leaving the core city when 6th Street Marketplace was built – white, black, everyone was leaving. Only the people who couldn’t afford to leave stayed. The tsunami of economic development was against city retail back then. This current project, however, is in a totally different environment fueled by young people moving back in. This project would be going in the same direction as other favorable national city-centered economic trends. People want to live in the City again and they want the basic goods-and-services amenities that people in the suburbs take for granted. And their neighbors would only benefit from the availablilty of low cost nearby goods-and-services.
And as to your comment “millions for private developers” is either a gross minunderstanding or deliberately misleading. Even the regular naysayers on this site know that. Using your rhetoric and logic, how about we turn off the billions of dollars in highway subsidies that prop up suburban County subdivisions that exist solely – SOLELY – because people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s didn’t want to go to integrated City public schools?
OMG…why are these nutjobs fixated on the stadium as the sole revenue generator for this project? They can’t seem to drill down further than the top layer. #9,10 and 19’s comments defy logic. The city has acknowledged that the stadium alone is NOT a big revenue generator. However, all of the other components will produce revenue for the city. The stadium is simply a centerpiece for other development around it. If anyone wants ANYTHING to happen in the Bottom (stadium or not) the sewage issue will have to be addressed. It’s pay me now or pay me later. Otherwise, these properties will not be suitable for development and the current wasteland will remain as is. There will have to be public dollars spent to fix this issue. Freeing up the Boulevard for 1st Class retail development could not make more sense for the city coffers– then the city will have money for schools, roads, sidewalks, etc.)
I expected something maybe partially constructive from the annals of Mo…instead, there’s threats being made to the existence of Richmond as we know it!! Thanks for the nice rant…
Now eagerly awaiting Frank’s rebuttal to the sourced article describing a successful minor league project – from the same magazine he trumpeted.
Most of all, I’d like the naysayers to provide a plan that will fix the bottom drainage issues, address our historical past, develop the Shockoe wasteland, free up Boulevard for income generating development and provide millions of dollars in tax revenue – to fix the schools and roads!!!
We inherited an 1865 map that shows all the defenses of Richmond during the Civil War.
It also, and more importantly shows the VAST natural springs, gullies, swamps, and creeks then existing in this area. Many were filled in, paved over or diverted, but they are STILL THERE !
Whatever is built on this piece of land will have to deal with this issue and it will not be cheap.
We should be thanking the developers for investing their money in the city. This land has sat vacant for 40 years. The neighborhood was destroyed so fat suburbanites could park their suvs. Its just rebuilding what has been destroyed why is that so hard to understand?
It’s hard to believe an adult would engage in that kind of behavior. Whoever is responsible for it should take a good long look in a mirror. They are in serious need of professional help.
I keep going back to the stadium in this respect–what does the existing Diamond contribute outside of the baseball season? It’s a seasonal endeavor, and a Diamond isn’t likely to be one of those places people can argue will bring year ’round opportunities. That’s the argument used for the Redskins’ field, although HAR HAR, that hasn’t been used year ’round either in the way most anticipated.
I think about the fireworks noise, the bright lights of the stadium, the parking nightmare that awaits–it’s not that I don’t want Shockoe redeveloped, it’s just that I don’t want it redeveloped as a stadium. That would seal the deal–if this doesn’t work out or the team leaves, nothing else will fit in that spot without having to tear down the darn thing.
And for those of you who keep saying, ‘most of the neighbors support this,’ please stop. Unless you’ve conducted some sort of study that indicates this, you have nothing concrete to base such statements on. Heck, I don’t even know if it’s a completely false statement, but don’t throw around personal opinions or general observations as facts. There are plenty who don’t support it. Who knows, it might even be a majority of the neighborhood!
@29 – so it’s going to be vacant most of the time but still create parking nightmares? Are you this whiny when the 4th of July fireworks happen? Take a deep breath, calm down and listen to your arguments. This is not going to be the end of life as we know it if this stadium gets built.
We’ll have a nice entertainment option to walk to, we’ll get a couple extra fireworks shows some weekends. Having something interesting down the hill will bring in more apartments and new shops that we can walk to. Basically, the bottom won’t be a vacant mess of dirt lots and dirtier clubs. More importantly, the city frees up a highly desirable parcel that can fund all kinds of stuff.
Yes there are kinks that can be worked out but it’s small-minded to think that we can’t a.) figure out other ways to use the field, b.) improve traffic, and c.) have adequate parking. Offhand, concerts, an additional exit from 95 and this crazy thing called multi-level parking decks seem good first steps that I’m sure any reasonably intelligent person will figure out at some point.
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that last night Council President Samuels proposed amendments to the plan which would require “an updated traffic study of the Bottom.” ( http://www.timesdispatch.com/special-section/sports/baseball-in-richmond/shockoe-baseball-stadium-plan-wins-initial-backing/article_c57145c4-9dd2-11e3-8bf7-001a4bcf6878.html ). Unfortunately, it appears that our Councilwoman Newbille voted against this amendment. Does anyone know why?
I believe I read that the last traffic study performed is over 6 years old and before the Bottom apartment density occurred.
Can someone explain why there is so much anxiety around traffic associated with games that will draw 6000 people (many of whom will be families sharing rides or nearby walkers) when these same streets carry many times more than this every day for work?
There’s little overlap between rush hour and this and even if there is, the flow will be in opposite directions. If there’s a traffic issue, it’s a pre-existing condition.
@JessOfRVA – I don’t know about the majority of the neighborhood supporting this proposal from the Mayor. However, as I drive around and hand out yard signs in support of the referendum I perceive the neighborhood is split about 50/50. Remarkably, there’s no geographic division – at least not that I can tell. Supporters and opponents live in Union Hill, Church Hill Central, Oakwood, Chimborazo, St. John’s, Church Hill North, etc. So, to say “we’re for it” or “we’re against it” are both factual statements. Maybe one day Church Hill won’t live in the hub of controversy…
Jess of RVA – you are uninformed about the Redskins stadium. The schools use it year round. Kids from the inner city get to play where professional players play. What a great story of hope for kids.
Also, the support neighbors are responding to the opposition’s false claims of unanimity of opposition. They are absolutely free to respond to the words being put in their mouths, too.
Best line of last night’s meeting came from Mosby: ““Your signs don’t put up nothing, money is what is going to put the heritage site up.” For all those folks who think that we can cherry pick a cohesive plan and just take the parts we like, you’d be wise to listen to the Councilwoman.
@JessOfRVA – I don’t know about the majority of the neighborhood supporting this proposal from the Mayor. However, as I drive around and hand out yard signs in support of the referendum I perceive the neighborhood is split about 50/50. Remarkably, there’s no geographic division – at least not that I can tell. Supporters and opponents live in Union Hill, Church Hill Ce… https://chpn.net/news/?p=32202#comment-757681
@31 — This was Mr. Samuels way of in fact voting against the ‘paper’ without having to cast a No vote. David Napier (Rep. of Shockoe Bottom N.A.) said as much during his two minute commentary. The traffic and archaeological studies alone would likely require many months and perhaps years to complete, effectively killing momentum. If you live in the 2nd (and I do), this is certainly a familiar Samuels tactic.
@Alex – I can tell you why I’m concerned about the traffic, although I can’t speak for others. Baseball games start at around 6:30 pm on weekdays. Which means our county families will begin arriving in the bottleneck that is the Bottom around 5 p.m. Precisely the time when I’m trying to get back into the Hill from working in the county.
I’ve already been rear-ended once on the Powhite/64W/64E/Broad Street merge ramp (by the train station tower) due to all the stop and go rush hour fun. I think throwing more cars into the mix is a nightmare without some amendments made to the roads to accommodate the larger numbers (which appears to be around 6,500 additional people. Squirrels’ Attendance Records: http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=113&sid=t3410 ).
I think that the more information we have about traffic patterns today is necessary to make educated decisions about the ball park. Right now we don’t know much. Which is why I don’t understand why council members (including the Hill’s own), voted against learning more.
With all of that said, I won’t be adding to the problem when I walk down the Hill for a game. : )
@Gene – Thank you for your insight – I hadn’t thought of the chilling effect.
Beg to differ on the ‘best quote of the night’, from the same RTD story:
“We’re here voting for something that could have been a $25 million mistake,” Agelasto said.
An amendment from the administration fixed a numerical error by changing the minimum taxable value of the proposed apartments from $51.3 million to $76.9 million, an apparent oversight that Agelasto highlighted in his remarks.
The gasping for breath heard across the Bottom today (from developers) is due to the passage of the Balilies amendment. From same RTD story:
Baliles introduced an amendment to strike a line saying the city would commit its moral obligation in support of the debt that would be incurred by the Richmond Economic Development Authority. His amendment also spelled out the developers’ financial obligations with securities such as performance bonds and personal guarantees, which he said would ensure that the developers have “skin in the game.”
@38 – Virtually nobody shows up until 30 minutes before on a typical weeknight. Furthermore, the rush hour traffic will be heading in the opposite direction.
That said, you raised a point that I wasn’t aware of – for some idiotic reason the squirrels do seem to have a lot of 6:35 starts this season. Historically 7:05 has been the weeknight start time and the new time seems like it has the potential to be a mess. It’s probably even a worse mess at the Boulevard location since it will cut off folks leaving downtown.
Start times are fairly arbitrary and I believe the team has the discretion to change as needed. I think the city would be well served to ask that games start no earlier than 7:05, preferably 7:35 so we can avoid even the slightest chance of overlap.
Even with that, a couple thousand extra cars at the tail end of rush hour is minimal when you consider the volume that already goes downtown every day.
@Alex It is possible for there to be a traffic nightmare during games and vacant otherwise. No need to be condescending though. I do not “whine” during July 4th fireworks. No sane person would. But this isn’t just going be on July 4th. It’s a lot of the Friday home games. And as for figuring out what we can do with the stadium during other times–so the fact that the current Diamond is old is the reason why there aren’t concerts and lots of other things going on there? Infrastructure is what limits the ability to keep it busy year ’round? Not sure I’m with you on that. The parking deck is a great start. The grocery store and hotel and cultural center are great starts. But I’m just not board for the stadium as the plan exists right now.
@Next Friend–I am thrilled to hear this, thank you for correcting me (seriously!) That is great news!
@Jon I definitely agree with you on most of your points–opinions are varied and not isolated to one particular area. I don’t think there’s a majority at all. I would love for Church Hill to not have the cloud of controversy hanging over it some day.
Related: I had not noticed these signs were pasted onto buildings. How awful! I don’t care how you feel about the stadium proposal, you don’t serve your purpose of protecting the neighborhood by damaging it through vandalism. How disappointing and rude!
@42 – why is it that fireworks are good thing only on the 4th? I’d love them every Friday night personally. Are they less fun on other days?
And you’re basically admitting the point I was making – the traffic “nightmare” is going to be a few minutes of delay on selected days. It’s not going to instantly turn Richmond into NoVA despite what some would have you believe.
To your credit, you sound like one of the more reasonable “anti-stadium” people and I respect your opinion a lot more for being sane enough to realize that vandalism is never ok.
There’s too many nuts on the anti-side right now making it hard for me to take that position seriously. Sorry if I assumed you were one of them earlier.
@43 Agreed. I don’t want anti or pro signs in this manner. Don’t expect the vandalism to stop though. According to Mo Karn (who posted above), vandalism is a part of their anti-stadium “toolkit”. I’m not going to paste a link to their website, but this is what she said:
“We think the posters are awesome. We think we need more messages calling out the situation. And vandalism and civil disobedience are valid tactics in our tool kits. But please be careful who ever is doing this. It looks like the City wants to spend money to take em down and then catch someone to pin it on to charge them.”
I suppose we all need to keep an eye out, whether you are for or against the stadium, for anyone tagging private property – regardless of the message.
I agree with Alex in that the ‘activist extremists’ on the anti-stadium camp are really casting a poor light on their side. F.T Rea, Scott Burger, Farid Alan Schintzius and of course the great Mo Karn agitate and oppose…well just about anything and everything, mainly becasuse they can and it’s their thing. Some of the folks over at Style are very much in lock step with these activists as well.
So where do these “activists” live? Perhaps they would like a few signs pasted to their private property since this is the type of “awesome” behavior that they applaud.
I am still very opposed to the entire project. I am not an “idiot” or a “nut.”
what do you do with an outdoor baseball stadium in the winter?
i’m a big sports fan, and i love attending games, but to me it doesn’t make sense to put the money into a stadium that will host around 70 games a year.
i’m sure that other events will be planned for the stadium, but with richmond’s weather, an outdoor baseball stadium is not a good place to plan a large concert or festival that could get rained out. and it’s too cold here in the winter to use it for much.
i would be more in favor of a new indoor coliseum. this can house hockey, basketball, arena football, and many other events totaling much more weatherproof events.
@49 why couldn’t we put the ice-skating rink in the stadium during the winter – might make a better location than broad st?
Yes, this is vandalism and should be dealt with as such!
I am in support of the stadium. It will mostly sit below street level so is not an eyesore. It will generate the construction of a hotel, grocery, etc… as well which will generate other revenue in the area. As for traffic, it doesn’t bother me since I drive from downtown to Church Hill via Dock Street. When games happen it will be normally outside the normal hours of work downtown and other than a few bars and restaurants, it is closed for business after 5pm anyway. So I just don’t get all the flack fixing up an empty space that can be utilized which can be a springboard for more downtown development which the city has reneged on in the past?
Given how many folks are crying about parking for a 6000 seat stadium, I’d hate to hear the outcries over an arena. Most indoor arenas these days are in the 15000 seat range.
You also haven’t answered the most important question – how do we free up the revenue if we don’t move the Diamond off the lucrative spot it currently occupies? I mean I’d love the King’s Retreat down there but the funding doesn’t work. There’s more to this than the ballpark people…
@ #8 (et all)
I have said this before, and will dutifully ***repeat*** it again. >No One< has ever been elected, designated, &/or Hand Picked by a Higher Power to SPEAK FOR EVERYONE IN CHURCH HILL. When you lead off with: "I’m a homeowner in Church Hill…and believe most of my neighbors think the same." you sound about as plausable as David Duke stumping for Civil Rights.
I have watched the comments here, and held my tongue until my German/Irish/Seminole Indian blood began to bubble over. Haters may now commence firing; I'll stand still but no (verbal) head shots please.
Good point Thornley1. Let’s hand over the neighborhood to people like you, urbngrilla and that lot over in the CHA who hate everything and dare to use race as a reason for opposing things like baseball and a grocery store when in fact the true fruits of your opposition will be the perpetuation of the current segregated zoning system. I’m glad there are finally some neighbors around here who will stand up to you all.
I don’t disagree with anything Thornley said there. I’m assuming he’s intending it to cut both ways – neither side speaks for all of Church Hill. It’s pretty clear that the whole city is divided on this.
You’d need to go out to the counties to get anywhere near a clear consensus and they’re not footing the bill.
@ Next Friend:
Your stupidity has outdone itself. My mention of (my) “German/Irish/Seminole Indian blood” was A POKE IN JEST AT MY TEMPERMENT you idiot. I’ll leave you with this and the hope our paths never cross. I was raised by an incredible woman who grew up in Jacksonville, Florida. She witnessed REAL racism that would make your presumtious little ego whimper. As a result, I am blessed to have more sense than to hold myself above ANYONE because of thier color or etc. Say what you will, but you should really take great care when deciding to label strangers as racists.
Lastly, and to even further illustrate the point I was making, you’ve lumped me in with the CHA folks. I share about as much opinion with them as with your clueless soul. Good luck to you, and be careful not to walk into walls &/or over cliffs.
I am not sure I understand why not being pro-stadium makes one a lunatic, an activist or a racist? I think there are some people who are just not sure that a stadium is the best idea there and I know there are some who are questioning the financing of this endeavor. I think we all have a right to our own opinion, whether for or against. Should there be vandalism? no, of course not. Should insults be flung at those who oppose the stadium? no, of course not. Why doesn’t everyone try to see where agreement is and try to find a solution for where there is opposition? A novel idea in this community perhaps?
@ prairiegirl
I want to personally Thank You for saying so simply and eloquently what my anger had not allowed me to. No one who opposes The Stadium (or anything) deserves to be “lumped in” with “lunatics”, chastised &/or slandered as a Racist. They simply have an opinion which is derived from the passionate feelings
they have for thier neighborhood. I admit to responding to posts here in a way that may be beneath a higher, more productive dialogue. That said, I will never abide self-appointed delegates who recklessly claim to speak for myself &/or my neighborhood. They can join a Civic organization actually in that neighborhood (like UHCA) show up at a meeting, and voice their thoughts & opinions in “the light of day”.
Again, I humbly Thank You & admire your poise.
Thornley1, oh font of moderation, please tell your cohort urbngrilla and his/her vandals to stop calling the supporters racists. Hyperbole begets hyperbole.
Hold up y’all. I never ‘cused anybody of be’n racist.
But, I can certainly do ‘cuse folks of b-n slaves to to tha man.
Lotsa folk suport’n the stadium work for The Lovin-RVA-massas (developers/property owners n their lawyas n architects.)
Massa Rao of Plantation VCU up in this too, tho it’s git’n kinda hot ’cause plenty of his undergrad n grad students oppose this 30-years-a-slave-stadium. Won’t see no lynchin’ out in public; Massa Rao gonna take care of that team-build’n-session behind close doors. Meanwhile, Massa Jones jus keep on selling the rest of Richmond down the rivah.
To address Thornley’s point, UHCA has already endorsed a similar plan, neary unanimously in its largest meeting in history, and I venture would do so again. That is an inconvenient truth to both the reasonable and whack job antis.
@urbngrilla I’m going to “go out on a limb” and guess that you are not writing in your own miraculously self aware caricature dialect. My guess is you are an awkward, white, middle aged, failed business person who has failed to consider that “developers/property owners n their lawyers n architects” are the only ones who’ve left behind anything worth saving in this town.
@ Houdon
I have taken the bait of your thinly veiled misinformation. At what meeting did the UHCA so unanimously endorse a “similar plan”? If you can’t recall, I’ll ask the UHCA Pres., and then respond for you. Hint: you’ll hate being caught in a lie.
@Thornley1 do your homework: /2009/03/18/union-hill-civic-association-votes-overwhelmingly-in-favor-of-shockoe-center_4840/
@urbangrilla you are actively causing great and lasting harm to the people you claim to defend and “help” stand tall.
I believe that RVA’s best architects, urban planners, engineers, and historians should be involved in–and profit from–the development of a comprehensive plan that is built on public involvement and trust.
Instead, the current Shockoe Stadium plan was cooked up by the City Econ Dev Office with a handful of developers and land-owners who stand to profit immensely. All the while we city taxpayers get left holding the bag for something we didn’t get to help design. I’d be ok with going into debt if the project was worthy, but it’s not.
We seem to all agree that The Bottom needs to be developed. Certainly the Boulevard area/Scotts Addition/Acca Rail Yards are under-utilized, and deserve attention, too.
But, while so many aspects of the City’s plan are flawed, the most alarming issue (and there are many,) is the utter lack of public involvement in the development of the plan.
The democratic process was circumvented and fortunately, blogs like this are one of the ways people like us (rank and file city taxpayers) can remind city officials that what they are doing is wrong.
Let’s start over and do this right. Plan the Bottom with public input (heck, simply taking the results from the most recent downtown master-planning sessions shows how off the mark the current plan is.)
The reason the Bottom Stadium plans failed twice before is that they too, were deeply flawed. They deserved to fail. And in 2014, the current plan from the City is even flimsier.
Next Friend- It was the Mayor that first threw out the race card in describing those opposed to this plan as racist. Read the paper (or Free Press) and the Mayor’s refusal to deny the charge.
Why would I lie about something so easily verifiable? What’s more interesting is that the meeting place was packed, but only paid up members were allowed to vote. The crowd was overwhelmingly in favor of the development, and under the current president’s new rules, all of them would have been allowed to vote!
@ HOUDON & NEXT FRIEND
Nice try, but unfortunately you have failed. EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE that the article NEXT FRIEND cites in #64 is FROM MARCH, >>>2009<<<. So, to be clear: NO Meeting has taken place where the current UHCA members and/or President voted in favor of THIS plan which includes a stadium.
Wrong Thornley1, Houdon @61 is 100% accurate to say “the UHCA previously endorsed a nearly identical plan.” That statement is true. The last nearly identical proposal was in 2009, so of course it was in that year. No one is trying to hide the ball from you, buddy. The only people hiding anything are those who say there is a viable alternate plan for the Shockoe Bottom parking lot acreage that could be implemented in the next 10 to 15 years.
Hmmm…
A “Building Year” or a cautionary tale with regards to the “Stadium” project?:
http://m.timesdispatch.com/local/city-of-richmond/after-fanfare-of-redskins-deal-city-struggles-with-details/article_9982bd91-2a96-537f-90d4-fa2ad8b66788.html?mode=jqm
@70 thanks for posting that, I take it as a cautionary tale but others will differ, I’m sure. Had not seen it before so appreciate your posting it.