http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/letters/article/NAPIERD_20090123-210812/187273/

http://scfoj.tumblr.com/post/67812048/solar-stadium-in-taiwan-close-to-completion

http://scfoj.tumblr.com/post/67123249/spill-estimate-grows-to-1-billion-gallons

http://www.vagreenparty.org/richblog/?p=18

Why do we have to bail the wealthy out and then suffer their recriminations when we want healthcare benefits for our children?

Sounds like welfare for the wealthy.

When I take a risk in a small business, I reap the benefits or suffer the losses -it’s my burden. No one comes in to the rescue.

What are the realestate taxes the big business guys must pay on free land?

I’m not coming down on either side about the ballpark, just suggesting that folks read that article while it’s available- there’s a lot of food for thought in it, and it’s very well thought out.

“Ballpark Would Dig a Financial Black Hole in Shockoe Bottom”
BY RANDOLPH BELL AND JEAN WIGHT

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/op_ed/article/BELL1221_20081226-201012/162645/

Bridg

CAVEs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) Redouble Arguments, Again

Adapting the old truism, “Those that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”, CHPN’s resident CAVEs are working hard to ensure that they, too, get to repeat history.

In addition to their usual interest in conserving the unique historical aspects of our area, the CAVEs have extended themselves to energy conservation.

“It seems to us that its a waste of a precious resource, the ability to think, to deal with this new development proposal. Instead, we’re saving that energy to determine our level of support for The King’s Retreat. Meanwhile, we’ll just reuse our arguments from the Shockoe ballpark proposal”, said Crusty Hamshank.

Typical quotes follow:

It’s a tired old tale we’ve all heard before….

Believe me, its tiring to have to fight the Shockoe stadium battle every two years…

…the same people are working on this project…

We’ve seen this type scenario again and again…

That said, as an environmentalist, I am for a real Stormwater Utility that fairly charges fees and actually works to prevent stormwater runoff. We need to think about ‘daylighting’ Shockoe Creek and restoring its natural function. We need to get the City to change its rainwater philosphy from ‘big pipes’ to move it to ‘treat it where it falls’. We need a residential rainwater barrel program. As I have told Mayor-Elect Jones, this is a place where ‘green jobs’ can be created.

Thank you for giving this matter more attention in relation to the irksome, zombie-like Shockoe stadium proposal and debate.

Will future development be restricted to approved participants in similar quasi- public/private ventures. Will each development require a new CDA and separate bond issue Who will maintain the drainage structures? Who will co-ordinate and control the chaos? What are the relative costs and benefits of doing stormwater control this way as opposed to a city stormwater utility.? Such questions are not for mere mortals like ourselves. Will the lawyers, bankers, and sometimes, engineers get their billed fees? You betcha! Will the taxpayers get their promised benefits?

Don’t Worry. Be Happy. Merry Christmas.

This does remind one of a common thread running through Richmond schemes of the last half-century: The lawyers, the investment bankers and their clients, and sometimes the engineers, always get paid as promised. The bonds are always paid as specified. Money is spent. Returns on investors’ funds have been competitive or better. The public rarely has gotten the benefits promised in the time frame promised. The convention center was going to pay for itself… it hasn’t; Sixth St. Marketplace would be self-supporting…it wasn’t; the Broad St CDA debt was NOT the obligation of the city by the CDA’s own by-laws and Council Ordinance, later amended into nonsense – the taxpayers are bailing out a group which spent several tens of millions to yield a net loss of parking spaces, and on and on and on.

The timeline on the Boulevard / Shockoe plans in the city’s Powerpoint shows a great deal of activity in April of 2008. Something happened in that time frame to cause the Wilder administration to walk away from the city’s Stormwater Utility. Is this a better way to go?

Cadeho-yeah during gaston, the drainage pipes were to small and some pump that was supposed to pump the water got its electricity shorted out, supposedly that was all fixed. I thought Bacons’ ghost would be cool he was a man of the people, but i dont know why he burned down the jamestown church, he was fed up with the govt. funny thing about the floodwall i heard it blocked the water from draining into the river. Our new Rev Mayor said he thinks southside is a good place for a stadium, i kind of agree, REv Mayor won the election in large part to winning southside, his church is located there, southside has been neglected for a long time.

Besides, the flooding issue is not really an issue. Remember I-95 and 195 flooded as well as other places in the area and nothing changed with those. They didn’t decide to stop using the highways because they flooded once, no plans were made to raise them, and no places impacted by overflowing streams and brooks (aside for that trailer park on Brook Rd) were demolished or abandoned.

The Boulevard is going to get a make-over. Why must it involve a stadium? Because the stadium is there? Because there was a stadium before that stadium there? Well that site has not always had a stadium. I find the attitude of many Richmonders is, “Well it’s always been this way, so it must stay this way forever, amen.” Remember how they temporarily moved some bus routes to Broad and then when they moved them back people were screaming racism. That was less than a year or so and people were set in their it-has-to-be-permanent attitude.

You quoted a comment I made and then did not address it at all, but made a statement about something completely different.

Yes, public financing can control what art organizations and individuals do by virtue of who’s at the purse strings at the time. Still, the “edgy” stuff is usually funded outside of venues that are non-profit, not ticket sales/profit driven venues. Commercial art that relies completely on a capitalistic marketplace (not non-profit, but for-profit) usually does not produce “edgy” stuff. Sometimes it does, depending…

Mr. Burger seems to agrees somewhat, but was talking about the funding of a venue that could turn into a black hole, which I get and sort of agree with.

What’s your point exactly that you disagree about? I didn’t see a completed argument in you last comment. Off thread again…

“Commercially driven art is rarely challenging. It caters to the masses. It’s just the nature of the beast.” I couldnt disagree more with this statement, public financing of art dosent respond to what the consumers actually want, the consumers of art are given what the person who controls the public financing of art gives them.

supposedly the city fixed the flooding in shockoe 6 years ago when the cars were all floatin around down there.

PB kelleys ruled!

Didn’t Richmond lose it’s power to annex in the midst of the desegregation busing in the 1970′s?

What other cities in the US cannot annex?

gray- Why should the city be allowed to expand? They haven’t properly managed what they have. We don’t need to expand our geographic territory to grow. We need to properly redevelop and revitalize the city and draw residents back. Only once we do the best with what we have should the city be allowed to expand.

There may be some good argument about the SOB (symphony, opera, and ballet) being good for public education and thus worthy of some government support, but not building and subsidizing a glitzy white elephant downtown opera house in the midst of a depression while school buildings are in bad shape.

Maybe we need better proposals. Believe me, its tiring to have to fight the Shockoe stadium battle every two years. Its almost as bad as VCU’s encroachment into Oregon Hill. Talk about old crap, I thought Richmond was ready to move ahead with the Boulevard rehab. Certainly the new movie theaters, the first new first run movie theaters we have had in the City in decades, is promising.

“Historic demolitions have destroyed much of the city’s unique character.”

Eric

“http://traveler.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/historic-destinations-rated/north-america-text/30″

I have appreciated the thought and logic in each and every one of your comments. Thank you for being so diligent in representing folks who know that dumping cash at any situation is about the most ignorant thing that can be done. It is a short sighted choice that is based on a quick-fix mentality, and is so embarrassing that most of the intelligent people that I know have completely backed out from being involved in their communities past a very local level.

What gets old, to me, is the shutting down of healthy discourse by negative folks who can’t seem to think past insults.

Maybe you should run for office. I think that you’ve laid out your platform really well.

“I want an independent, self-sufficient arts community that challenges its audiences.”

A noble stand, but not very realistic. The arts have almost always relied on public and private funding in order to survive, especially the edgy kind. Commercially driven art is rarely challenging. It caters to the masses. It’s just the nature of the beast. Art galleries may be the exception, though.

Depending on the type of media or venue, each arts organization has it’s own business model. Almost none of our theatres, ballets/dance cos., symphonies or opera companies would be here if it weren’t for public and private funding. Tickets sales rarely pay the rent.

I’m not arguing with you as much as wondering how you see a viable way for that paradigm to change. Off track, I know.

Frankly, a few posters, whether than use their real name or name, can’t seem to make their argument without verbally abusing those who disagree with them. That made for a site that turned a lot of people off. I am glad that there is a higher level of decorum and flat out mean attacks are no longer tolerated.

Shall we at least wait till this is presented to Council in March.

Anyway, my boyfriend worked at PB Kelley’s (now Havana’s) and we took a boat there and entered on the second floor so they could check out the damage. The stadium site is like half a block from there; I guess I just assumed the water would still be high half a block away.

But, I know the proposal address the drainage issues. The developers willing to a fix the drainage issues which if resolved would be a boon to everyone in the area.

Why hasn’t ACORN or others taken the Emily Winfree cottage under their wing years ago and restore it? It was moved to behind the Exxon on Broad in 2003 and nothing ever done to it but to sit and rot away in the elements resting on a transport trailer. Where do they plan to place it to restore in Shockoe? Will that be in the way of this ball park proposal?

Eric

There are better ways for the City to invest $53 million, ways that would actually benefit citizens, instead of “a boatload of new tourists”.

Again, it comes down to responsible public priorities. Tell Salomonsky and the other developers to go ask Congress for a bail-out. Maybe they can bribe someone there, but NO MORE DOWNTOWN CORPORATE WELFARE.

According to the presentation give an a recent Church Hill Association meeting, the breakdown for the Shockoe development is $310 million private investment, $53 million public.

Spending $1.00 to get $6.00, seems like a good investment. In the bargain, we get flood control, new businesses, a stadium and a boatload of new tourists.

Then consider the following sentence,

The public money is described as “Mostly federal and state transit grants to GRTC; minimal City matching funds.”

To dismiss this out of hand just seems irresponsible.

Finally, I’d like to thank John for putting together the initial post. I don’t know how much time you put into this, but it’s the best coverage I’ve seen by any media.

However, not withstanding the confusing information in post 92, the area IS in a federal flood plain. The engineering requirements in a flood plain make developing lot-by-lot impossible for a small investor. Only a comprehensive plan is feasible.

It is an eyesore and mostly vacant BUT they did tear down some old buildings about a year ago to make that area vacant. You do have the old buildings they want to convert to the Slave Museum and walking tour in that area and of course you have the various businesses along 18th already mentioned and not excluding the building at 18th and Franklin.

Eric

First, this is NOT Churchhill we are talking about. This is the Bottom.

Second, this is a largely empty swath of land that is nothing but an eyesore. Old does not = historic.

Any plan to build a ballpark should 100% take into account the excavation site for Lumpkin’s jail. A ballpark and museum with shops, restaurants, etc would work very nice down there together.

I believe that the station worker was referring to the entire train bridge, rather than just the tracks outside the train station. The bridge goes quite a ways, along the canal and such, and there is also another track on the other side of the station. Whatever they want to do to improve the speed of the trains thru the station and thru the Acca trainyards is OK with me – it takes 30 minutes to get from Main Street station to Staples Mill and should only take half that time.