Image default

Church Hill Association votes NO on Shockoe Center proposal

Two hundred or so residents turned out for the Church Hill Association meeting on Tuesday evening. The membership voted 62-44, with a handful of abstentions, against the Shockoe Center proposal. The main concern seemed to be the finances of the project, though mention was also made of the historic nature of the area of the development.

The meeting kicked off with typical but important community concerns. Newly appointed City Council 7th District representative Betty Squire stood and introduced herself. There was a discussion of proposed zoning changes across Church Hill and Union Hill. Information was shared about a proposed fee for security alarms (ordinance 2008-305), and there was a presentation from the Friends of Chimborazo Playground concerning their plans and a request for money. A representative from the 1st Precinct gave a short brief on crime in the area.

An update was given on the proposed Oakwood Heights condo development. The project, declined by CAR, recently passed the City Council’s land-use committee 3-0, and will be heading to City Council on February 23rd. The presenter said anyone opposed to the project should raise their voice and contact city council. She said that former City Council 7th District representative Delores McQuinn has apparently been working in support of the project, and has submitted several hundred signatures in favor of the project.

The meeting then moved onto the big draw for the evening: yay or nay on Shockoe Center, with much discussion about how to get there. A proposal to Not Vote at this meeting was voted down, and then there was a short discussion on whether or not to support Shockoe Center based on the information at hand. The membership voted 62-44, with a handful of abstentations against the Shockoe Center proposal. The main concern seemed to be the finances of the project, though mention was also made of the historic nature of the area of the development.

While the discussion was more civilized than much of the recent online dialogue, the evening did generate a hint of scandal: there were allegations that some of the evening’s new members had their dues paid by the developer or another interested party and had pledged to vote in favor of the development.

Though skewing older, wealthier, and whiter than the more broad “Church Hill”, the Church Hill Association has traditionally been taken as a bellwether for the opinion of area. It will be interesting to see if the other civic associations in the area reflect similar divisions. The Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Association has voted in favor of the development, other special interest groups have come out both in favor and against the issue, and a recent poll on this site indicated strong support in area.

283 comments

gray 02/17/2009 at 10:33 PM

“there were allegations that some of the evening’s new members had their dues paid by the developer or another interested party and had pledged to vote in favor of the development.”

Actually there were several folk standing outside paying for people’s memberships. I was told Mr Thweat is the one funding the free dues. I know this is true because they paid for my membership tonight. Allegedly Mr. Thweat is for the stadium, however, he doesn’t live in the area. The folk outside made a point of saying that we’re going to vote the way we want. Several friends obtained the free memberships because they wanted to vote on the North of Broad mixed use issue and when they found out it was postponed they bailed before the meeting even started. Paying for my membership certainly didn’t buy my vote.

Reply
John M 02/17/2009 at 10:38 PM

I wish that I’d known beforehand, I re-upped my membership tonight on my own dime.

Reply
in awe 02/17/2009 at 10:40 PM

I wonder if the historic church in which we held our meeting tonight would have been “developed” if the CHA had reviewed the developer’s plans way back when.

Reply
gray 02/17/2009 at 10:42 PM

Someone was passing out vouchers for free CHA memberships today, either dowtown or in Shockoe like in a salon or something.

Reply
FanGuy 02/17/2009 at 11:02 PM

Wow, I’m surprised it was that close, actually. Interesting that the focus was on funding … not history, not noise, night light. I wonder how many of those in attendance actually understand the funding and how it differs from prior plans.

As for the membership scandal, one must ask, just how legitimate is a body that purports to speak for a community when that body will only allow those who can afford to join to have their voice heard? Not very. “Old” and “white” is not the only Church Hill that matters.

Reply
JJ 02/17/2009 at 11:13 PM

Isn’t it kind of surprising that the vote was that close?

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 12:40 AM

Why would you accept a free membership from someone when you knew the intentions behind it? Seems to me that you are condoning that kind of unethical behavior whether they “buy” your vote or not.

I don’t think that the “bought” votes had much influence over the end result. I know for a fact that there were many legitimate members (meaning members who are long standing and paid for their own votes) who are in favor of the stadium. Just outnumbered by the opponents, that’s all – and not by as much as I had thought. 60/40 is pretty close really. No surprise with the results considering that the CHA tends to be development phobic most of the time.

I, for one, would sure like to see folks under 40 get involved with that group. It could use an influx of fresh thinking and different perspectives. The CHA has always been older, but the past five years or so, CHA meetings feel like an AARP meeting at the local retirement community. Definitely NOT representative of our community as a whole.

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 12:50 AM

“Several friends obtained the free memberships because they wanted to vote on the North of Broad mixed use issue and when they found out it was postponed they bailed before the meeting even started.”

The pimping and the whoring in CH is alive and well!

Reply
jake stew 02/18/2009 at 1:54 AM

In 3 years, the Washington Nationals AA farm team will be playing in Shockoe Bottom. Give me baseball in the bottom, or give me death!!!

Reply
jake stew 02/18/2009 at 2:06 AM

In the picture above, why are there only snooty old white people pictured?

Church Hill extends way beyond just south of broad st. I would like to know what the folks in North Church Hill, Union Hill, South Mosby, all the way over to Oakwood think?

Oh thats right, they can’t afford the community associations dues and they are getting priced out of their neighborhood, so more snooty white folks who vote against anything that progresses Richmond foward, can move in.
The Church Hill Association is a joke. Shockoe Center in the long run is only going to help this city. Everybody in the picture above has a great life, and are well off even in these troubled times. However, they feel the need to whine about anything. Here, They seem to be whining about how much they love vacant lots, and do not want them destroyed by progress, and trees. My god, what if a Ukrops moved to the bottom. The vote would be in favor 100-0.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/18/2009 at 6:32 AM

Style Magazine now Church Hill sounds like the only people drinking Kool Aid is Shockoe Bottom Association and he wants this so he can open a Brewery

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/18/2009 at 6:32 AM

Should have added the word President there

Reply
Jeff E. 02/18/2009 at 7:30 AM

While I’m not surprised, I hope they realize the development is in Shockoe Bottom and not Church Hill and their opinion should count for little. It’s time Church Hill residents realize they don’t control everything in their viewshed.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 7:52 AM

It is time that the tired old politicians of Church Hill realize that they don’t control everything. Henry Marsh is bought and paid for by the developers. Interesting the high moral tone against those who were willing to let their membership dues be paid — but the lack of awareness that Sen. Marsh is on the payroll of the development company.

Reply
gray 02/18/2009 at 8:06 AM

“Why would you accept a free membership from someone when you knew the intentions behind it?” They claimed the intention was to have a more representive body at the CHA meeting. But you’re right “pimping and whoring is alive and well” And add cheap to that list. I took the free membership with my own intention. Good to hear from you hillkid.

Reply
Juliellen 02/18/2009 at 8:13 AM

#10: You make a couple of interesting points. What if the development included a Whole Foods? How many in CH would support it then, discreetly, of course?

I’m all for developing the Bottom since it’s really quite sad and has so much potential to be a vibrant urban environment.

Reply
Guilty Mom 02/18/2009 at 8:51 AM

Someone actually knocked on my front door Sunday night to offer me free membership to CHA. She then proceeded to go into a speech about the why the ballpark would be the greatest thing since sliced bread…she claimed it was the 2600 or so jobs that would be brought to the area. Does the Bottom really need 2600 more minimum wage jobs?
I was the rude lady who pretty much slammed the door in her face!

Reply
ray 02/18/2009 at 9:10 AM

There will be no Whole Foods…no Fresh Market…no Trader Joes….no Ukrops.

Hell, even in good economy, this area just can’t support another supermarket –we simply do not have the population base for it. Even double the number of people living in this market area and stores like these still won’t make it.

Let’s get real here.

Reply
Justin 02/18/2009 at 9:19 AM

That’s right: the last thing Richmond needs is more jobs and higher property values.

We must respect the historic nature of Shockoe Bottom with cracked, decaying parking lots and strip clubs!

Reply
Keith West 02/18/2009 at 9:22 AM

FanGuy, Jake Stew;

Wow, what a really clever couple of anonymous guys you are. Snooty old white people. What a zinger! You been reading “The Community Organizer’s Guide to Race Baiting” by Al Sharpton?

It’s interesting your sudden concern for the downtrodden, under-represented of Church Hill. Of course you would have to come over here to find out what such people think, because there are no downtrodden and precious few black people in the Fan and the other white enclaves you carpetbaggers are preaching from.

Funny, other than minions of those receiving money from the developers, I’ve never heard the lack of a baseball stadium among the many complaints of the neglected citizens of the East End.

Your claims are cowardly and despicable. Anonymous is fine if you’re adding reason and information to the debate. It is not acceptable if your purpose is to divide and stir racial animosities for your personal gains or the personal gains of those you identify with.

You have not helped your cause. Even if you don’t represent the people behind this project, they’re tarnished by this display. If we don’t understand the financing of this deal, it’s because of the information supporters have provided.

Your real problem is we understand it too well. Tax money will be diverted to support a project that has the implicit backing of the city and developers will profit.

The Church Hill Association is flawed, as any organization is flawed. But by conscious decision it is open to all without qualification. That openness was abused last night.

Decisions are made by those who bother to show up. If the neighborhood doesn’t agree with the stance of the Association, it would be easy enough to change. Any opinion not represented is due to lack of effort, not conspiracy.

I suggest that if this is the best you can do, keep it to yourself.

Reply
mike 02/18/2009 at 9:24 AM

#10 (jake) – I’m sorry to dissapoint you, but not all people pictured above are “snooty, old and white.” Look more carefully and you’ll see diversity – although not even close to the make-up of our community – in the picture. And I can tell you that I have first-hand knowledge that at least two people in the picture are not snooty or old (as we both voted for the development proposal and if you think that early 40ish is old, we’ll I’m sorry you feel that way). Guess what? If most of the folks that are in favor of the project as they claim on this vaunted website had *bothered* to show up to this “joke” as you put it, the headlines would’ve read much different this morning and a lot of those “snooty” folks would’ve walked away with their heads between their tails. But those folks did not show up – and the old guard did. And that’s democracy and community activisim – representative or not – in action. So why don’t you quit whining and get yourself and others involved in your community. And, could I have a loan please?

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 9:40 AM

Keith (#23), sorry, but I am just reporting the facts. The CHA is mostly white, mostly older. You can’t vote unless you pay to join. That’s hardly a good recipe for a representative body if you are talking about Church Hill, don’t you think? There is nothing race baiting about that.

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 9:48 AM

Keith, re: financing, if you don’t understand the financing, rather than blaming the developers for not explaining it to your satisfaction don’t you think it would be better to table the issue and do some homework instead of voting against something you don’t understand and potentially harming the chances of allowing $300 million dollars of private investment to the Bottom that would make the entire area safer and more vibrant (not to mention increase your property values)? If people are believing the mischaractizations of the financing that are being put forth by Style Magazine and others opposed to the project, they are voting with bad information.

Reply
Lisa 02/18/2009 at 9:48 AM

There were not 200 people at the meeting. It was about 100 as the number of votes show. I hope’younger’ and more “fresh thinking’ and non white folks choose to be more active, come to meetings and have their opinions count. It’s easy to not take part and complain about the results. Join CHA and change it. I’m an unashamed member of AARP!

Reply
shockoe 02/18/2009 at 9:52 AM

Fanguy isn’t anonymous.

Reply
shockoe 02/18/2009 at 9:54 AM

# 21 Ray– according to the developers there is a major national chain that is not yet in Richmond that wants to move into Shockoe Center. Of course, you can’t go public with something like that until there is actually a Shockoe Center in the works.

Reply
John M 02/18/2009 at 10:02 AM

@Lisa – I counted, quickly, to about 200 people. Not everyone ended up officially voting, for whatever reasons. The man next to me had ticket #137, and people continued to come in after he did.

Reply
Guilty Mom 02/18/2009 at 10:44 AM

No Fanguy…you totally can go vote without paying…they had people there paying FOR you to vote, as long as you promised you would vote their way…

Reply
Paul 02/18/2009 at 10:59 AM

I hate snooty old white people… Uh wait scratch that last comment.

So the CHA voted against this and they are entitled to whether they charge dues or not. I disagree and hope this proposal moves forward to get a fair hearing and that legitimate concerns are address.

Maybe CHA will want to review it again at that time. It’s a semi-private organization. They can do what they want.

Reply
ray 02/18/2009 at 10:59 AM

#29 shockoe – Yea, I heard the guy say that too but he said a lot of things that just don’t fly in the real world.

For instance, he said there would be 175,000 sf of retail/restaurant space in phase 1 of the project. 175,000 square feet! Do you have any idea what the size of the typical restaurant is in the Fan? Answer – 2500 to 3000 square feet!

But lets be generous and say the average size is 5000 square feet. That means their proposal would antiscipate having about 35 (175,000/5000) new resturants!

Oh, but I forgot about this un-named supermarket the Highwoods guy, who is, after all, trying to put the best face on his project, talked about. So let’s say some cash rich (got to have cash to build since there is no credit available these days), risk taking food reatiler that is willing to A) Ignore the fact there are at least 6 major supermarkets within a 10 minute drive, B) Ignore our relatively small population base which barely supports the one larger store that can be considered within walking distance of the Bottom (the Market at Tobacco Row which almost shut down 4 years ago due to lack of business), and C)Ignore an economy that has been especially brutal to any retail enterprise , decides to plop a 25,000 square supermarket in the project. Still leaves about 150,000 square feet — enough for 30 new restaurants. Great, let’s eat!

Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of having a stadium in the Bottom. But, the proposal has got to be realistic and not ultimaetly be a burden to the taxpayers.

Reply
edg 02/18/2009 at 11:13 AM

I was once a member of CHA, but I found my opinions and priorities were quite different from those of its members. I decided not to renew my membership based on these differences and still am not a member to this day.

I used to think that all it took to make the CHA more diverse and inclusive was to sign up and encourage others to to the same. However, I found I really had a different stance about nearly every issue than the ones taken by this organization and simply could not remain a member is good faith anymore.

I think we need another organization in the Hill that will speak for others like me who feel that their views are often in opposition with the CHA.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 11:18 AM

You want different reporting? Try having different facts? Don’t blame Style for simply holding up a mirror.

I say “Hallelujah!” that Scott Bass actually sought out independent research. I thought he was actually kind given that Highwoods doesn’t even have this project listed on the website.

Highwoods Properties has previously announced major new projects in Richmond that it later walked away from. Here is an image of the planned Canal Landing project that would have been downtown:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/mod

In this March 2003 article, Paul Kreckman “anticipates the building will be 75 percent leased by the time it is tenant-ready in 2005”:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magazine/yr2003/mar03/river.shtml

In this February 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “finding the tenants shouldn’t be a problem”:
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C

Style Weekly article, he says “right now, there doesn’t appear to be enough tenants to build a large office building.”
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3C

This website page confirms that the office project was canceled in 2005:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id158401

This web page describes its replacement, a residential project named Vistas On The James:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/bd_item.php?building_nameVistas+On+The+James

Reply
Queen Mum 02/18/2009 at 11:32 AM

Remember all the jobs that McDonald’s was going to bring to Church Hill? Remember how they weren’t going to have a left turn into McDonald’s from Broad St.? It is fortunate that there are people who care and stay on top of issues. I feel bad that many of you are name calling the CHA when really they are just a group of people who haven’t fled to the suburbs, but have given their lives to living in the city, in Church Hill and really care. If you have an opinion that you feel really counts, why don’t you go to a meeting and share. You don’t have to be a member to input. Hey, you might like some of us!

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 11:37 AM

Keith West:

Thanks you for your comment #23 to “FanGuy” and “jake stew.” I would extend that response to “JoeRichmond” who’s comment “Interesting the high moral tone against those who were willing to let their membership dues be paid — but the lack of awareness that Sen. Marsh is on the payroll of the development company.” is equally as despicable.

As a long time resident of CH, I can tell you that many of the people at last night’s meeting are hard working, middle class folks who are not rich. Many of us moved up here years and years ago when NO ONE would put their foot in this neighbohood including FanGuy, JoeRichmond and jake stew. Housing was cheap then and us working folks could afford to buy here then. Since then, we have worked and saved and hopefully will be able to retire with some semblance of an adequate fixed income. Some of us are already there, some of us have some time to go, if we can ever retire.

Yes, CH has seen an influx of the NOVA rich retirees over the past 5 years now that CH is cool to live in. But most of them are South of Broad and in the minority. The entire city including the Fan (FanGuy), Northside (JoeRichmond) and Shochoe (jake stew?) has seen an influx of same into your hoods, so cut the crap.

As for the whores and hypocrites that took the bribe last night to join the CHA – shame on you!!!

Gray:

If you ever had any credibility on this site it is now gone. Do you teach your kids to take bribes? And don’t ask john_m to remove this personal info since you come on here all the time and talk about better schools and better lives for all of us demanding transparency, at City Hall and with Developers,etc.

You say cheap? Cheap of character more like. Everybody in this hood can afford a $25 membership to the CHA if they so choose. They do not have to be bought. Where there is a will there is a way.

Gray, you review restaurants all the time on this blog. You can afford to take your family to Mama Zu’s and Patrick Henry’s, etc, but can’t afford a CHA membership? And then you and your cohorts leave in the middle of the meeting because your pet project was not voted on?

Keith West is right, for all of you who think that the CHA is bad organization – screw you. The organization is made up of folks who are trying to take an active part in our community whether we agree or not with each other. It’s $25 well spent, in my opinion, even when the vote doesn’t always go my way.

Are any of you CHA bashers active in a community organization without being bribed into joining? No, I didn’t think so.

Reply
edg 02/18/2009 at 11:57 AM

I am not bashing the CHA. I have quite a few friends who are members. However, I simply have a very different viewpoint on most issues than the stances taken by CHA. There is no need for me to be the “squeaky wheel” in an organization that does not represent my views. This is why I am no longer a member.

Reply
mike 02/18/2009 at 12:07 PM

#36 – Well said, hillkid, well said.

Reply
Union Hiller 02/18/2009 at 12:10 PM

The CHA has nay-sayed and NIMBYed its way into irrelevance to the larger East End community and to City leaders. There is an old-gaurd core of the membership who would love to turn south of Broad into their own private retirement community: no noise, no light, no cars, no dad-blamed kids on their “lawns.” They have cloaked their resistance to the ball park in arguments about financing and preservation, but if pieces of silver rained down from heaven and every historic site were resurrected, they would still oppose this project. Is it any coincidence that the leading opponents of the Highwoods development are also the ones leading the charge against the Italian Festival?? They actually have made the argument (with a straight face) that they are opposed to the Italian Festival because the Italians have no historical connection to Church Hill. I’m not making this up. Surely the real reason they dislike the Italian Festival so much is because it disrupts their Wheel-of-Fortune-before-bedtime schedules.

I assure you that a majority of the East End will be in favor of this project. For some it means jobs and activities for idle youth, for others it represents the epitome of the mixed-use urban community we signed up for when we moved to the Hill. I hope we don’t squander this opportunity.

Reply
gray 02/18/2009 at 12:27 PM

#36, I voted no to the stadium. The people outside St. John’s did not in anyway tell us their views on the ballpark or how we should vote. If they had done so, I would have stood up in the middle of the meeting and announced it myself. Accusing me of something I didn’t do -accepting bribes -is libel thus a crime. You also stated another untruth, “And then you and your cohorts leave in the middle of the meeting because your pet project was not voted on?” I stayed for the stadium vote.

Guilty mom, what happened to you should be reported.

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 12:28 PM

Hillkid, look again. “White” and “old” were not my words, they were from the original article above.

Yes, I live in the Fan, and I would certainly argue that the Fan District Association is NOT representative of Fan residents.

Reply
Mary 02/18/2009 at 12:44 PM

No surprise that the vote was somewhat close if people were paid to vote for the
project. Somehow that seems illegal, at
least unethical. Were these salesmen for
memberships directly connected to the de-
velopers or just residents of Church Hill
who wanted to put some money behind the way
they wanted their vote to go? Haven’t we
seen enough fraud on the national scale
without sinking this low locally? See
House of Cards on CSNBC.

Reply
gray 02/18/2009 at 12:48 PM

Re CHA: I like the organization and believe what they do has preserved the historic fabric of Church Hill. If it wasn’t for organizations like the CHA, important landmarks would have been destroyed -the Main St. Station, old City Hall, the old warehouses, etc.

Reply
Omelette 02/18/2009 at 12:49 PM

I think the Onion already covered this meeting:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39453

Reply
mike 02/18/2009 at 1:06 PM

#39 – I’m a member of the CHA and you are exactly correct, we say NO to everything. What scares me is your statement that “The CHA has nay-sayed and NIMBYed its way into irrelevance to the larger East End community and to City leaders” which I think is correct. And the reason that’s scary will become evident soon enough when Echo Harbor, a project directly influencing CH (unlike the stadium development), comes to fruition. And, it will. When the CHA shoots BB’s at everything instead of saving up for cannon balls – it loses relevance.

Though the Italian festival issues were hopefully put to bed awhile ago, again you are correct that one of the reasons (a few) folks had against it was a claimed non-historical Italian connection to CH. The last time I looked, none of us have a connection to CH unless we’re decendants of the peoples living here before John Smith arrived.

I really hope that the majority of East End-ers make their voices heard, otherwise we’ll be looking at parking lots forever (or until the nay-sayers, uh, have left the building).

Reply
Stephen W 02/18/2009 at 1:07 PM

The response by the CHA is dissapointing, especially becuase financing was the main concern.

There are some other valid concerns (quality of life, changing demographics and population dynamics, all of which I think could be successfully addressed) but it sounds like the finance argument is just lack of understanding. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve yet to see an intelligent discussion of pros and cons by folks who understand how the financing would work. Until we have that discussion, a “no” based on financing seems short-sighted.

Next, I’m concerned the ballpark will be built in Short Pump (or somewhere else) and the city will be even more abandoned by the counties.

Last, its ok to compare the demographics of the CHA to Church Hill itself to see if its truly representative. And clearly its not. However, folks in the “CHA Demographic” are clearly much more likely to engage and give civic input… whatever the answer is, its not easy.

As a under 40 Church Hill dweller, I’m dissapointed about the “no” vote and hope it can be overcome. I wasn’t at the meeting because I was doing other community work (I know that sounds like a lame excuse, perhaps it is)

Reply
g 02/18/2009 at 1:12 PM

i am a member of CHA and went to the meeting last night. i was disappointed in the leadership i saw last night. what was the point of formulating a list of what i think are valid questions for the developers, city, and state and then voting to support/not support the project without attempting to have those questions answered. there seemed to be this big rush to bring this to a vote last night and get this in the RTD today, when for some of us there, myself included, would have liked to table this vote until we get more information.

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 1:13 PM

edg:

It’s certainly your right to not want to participate in the CHA, however, you rationale for staying away is lame.

Squeeky wheels is exactly what the CHA or any community organization needs! I don’t agree with everything the CHA votes on either, nor do I like how the meetings are run as of late, but I stick with it because my community is important to me and my voice counts no matter how little.

I think that you would be surprised that there are quite of few of us that don’t toe the traditional CHA line, we’re just outnumbered on occasion – so what?

Don’t be a baby and take your ball and go home! Come back. Get involved. Bitch. Or are you afraid that your neighbors won’t like you anymore? This isn’t high school. It’s our civic right and responsibility to take a stand and be involved in our local and national affairs.

The $25 membership fee goes to taking care of our community. It also helps to pay for a membership meeting with free foods and drink as well as picnic beverages three times a year. The free stuff is worth it alone.

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 1:19 PM

gray:

“Accusing me of something I didn’t do -accepting bribes -is libel thus a crime.”

I will say this one more time. You allowed a group of people that you knew were coercing the public on the stadium issue to “pay” for your membership to the CHA.

Tell that to your kids. Should make a good bedtime story.

Reply
elaine odell 02/18/2009 at 1:29 PM

Stephen W/Post #46. You’re right the financing for this project (as currently proposed) is a conundrum.

Fortunately, there are some folks/taxpayers in our community who do understand it, and I refer you to posts by John Gerner (disclosure: my husband and a veteran in the leisure/mixed use development industry) on this site.

Specifically Post #319 within the thread “Poll shows increasing support…” https://chpn.net/news/2009/02/09/poll-shows-increasing-support-for-baseball-in-shockoe

Reply
neighbor 02/18/2009 at 1:39 PM

Based on a comment above, it appears that the person who quoted the Style weekly article and the article itself misquoted the numbers. While the developers do need to do a better job of presenting their information in a digestable way to the public, Style Weekly and the folks who quote them clearly do not understand the finance proposal. Style Weekly has already had to correct its math a number of times on this project.

Reply
jake stew 02/18/2009 at 1:49 PM

Al Sharpton is for a stadium in the bottom.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 2:10 PM

I wish you would stop attacking Style with a blanket generality.

I ask you — point to a math fact that is wrong in this recent article.

I think those who are attacking should stick to facts just as Style has. If you can point to an error, do so.

If not, stop whining because you don’t happen to like the fact that Style is announcing that the “Umpire Has No Clothes.”

Reply
edg 02/18/2009 at 2:13 PM

Maybe I should join the CHA, but I’d rather be a member of another organization that more fairly represents the viewpoints of the Church Hill/East End folks I know. I am glad of the preservation work that CHA has accomplished, but I feel it is a bit out of touch with our issues that touch our neighborhood.

Reply
Scott Burger 02/18/2009 at 2:17 PM

What? Developers and developer’s shills trying to unduly influence a civic association? In Richmond? Yeah, that’s never happened before. Don’t forget Salomonsky, a previous Shockoe stadium supporter, tried to bribe City Councilpeople and tried to intimidate Shockoe stadium opponents.

These people are shameless. They really want their corporate welfare and they don’t care who they have to step over to get it.

Congratulations, Church Hill for sending a strong message! Richmond citizens salute you.

Let’s get some real developers going who want to build communities instead of paving over them. Let’s see some good, green proposals for the Boulevard AND Shockoe Bottom sites.

Reply
23rd and diverse 02/18/2009 at 2:19 PM

Is the more relevant issue not ” the pimping and whoreing” but wether these new members will continue to show up. Won’t the proof of sincere interest be in the participating. Members of CHA will be working along side the City in Libbey Hill Park this Saturday planting and mulching.

Reply
Bob 02/18/2009 at 2:32 PM

hillkid, Bashing Gray isn’t really the issue at hand. (though you have shown you obvious dislike for her in other threads as well, and it can be said, that you also lose credibility by doing so. There are obvious moles planted out there, as post 20 and 31 alluded to, by the stadium people. Shouldn’t this be a concern; if this project is so wonderful, why go through all that? This issue is a lot bigger than CHA, or any one of us. There are ligitimate concerns for us NaSayers, and a little respect of them would be appreciated. And, it seems to me that the “new guard” has an awful lot of “snootiness” as well.

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 2:34 PM

23rd and diverse, that is exactly right. If these folks were headed over to the meeting anyway, I don’t see the harm in paying for their memberships. $$$ is just an impediment to participation, and CHA does want participation from a broad spectrum of the Church Hill community, doesn’t it???

Reply
Forward Thinker 02/18/2009 at 2:47 PM

Go FanGuy! Go Jake Stew! Play Ball in Shockoe Center!!!!!!! Give the people something to do who aren’t interested in hanging out at Club Velvet. If you don’t want urban growth, move to the country.

Reply
loz2hi 02/18/2009 at 3:29 PM

I joined the CHA last night for the 2nd time since I have lived on the hill. I was approached walking into the meeting last night with $25 dollars cash. I refused even though I support the development. Not all new members last night took the dough offered. Last night I heard many people making blanket statements that all new members were bought, people should have to present their drivers license to prove they live where they say the do and that CHA should consider a 30 day awaiting period for new members before they should be allowed to vote. Please understand that issues such as this are going to bring neighbors out that you may have not seen before or that are not as active in your organization. If these new members presented the required fee even if you suspect they have been “bought” then their vote counts regardless if you deem it proper or not. Please stop trying to create more barriers to divide our neighborhood and let’s just all agree to disagree in a civilized manner.

The big disappointment of the evening was that the “discussion” was cut short after 5 people spoke against the proposal while others in favor had their hands raised to speak. Granted the individual who Called the Question, was someone in support of the development, who just wanted the voting to happen because it was getting “late” though I hope that person understands in hind sight they did no justice for their cause. CHA spent more time discussing and debating how the matter was going to be handled and how discussion time would be allotted then actual discussion on the matter at hand.

Having lived here in this neighborhood for sometime I still see a location in the city that is letting the voices of a few dominate the discussion. I don’t see this tied to just one issue of race, rather as an issue of many components that make up our landscape – socio-economic, race, ageism, etc. As a thirty year old I see the same people that welcomed me into this neighborhood back a few years ago now stating that I don’t understand the “real” history of this neighborhood. I may not in your eyes but what I do see is a group fighting for the status quo, to “protect” the historical integrity of the neighborhood and to keep progress at bay. If you want people that are not sixty years older and over to stay in the neighborhood then you have to understand that schools, roads, services, property values, high speed rail, blight, etc. are not going to improve or be delivered if the neighborhood does not develop a more progressive outlook. The city is in trouble for many reasons; however, this city and its residents have an opportunity to at least work with the people proposing this development to reach a compromise that I believe could be acceptable to all!

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 4:35 PM

loz2hi, your statement about driver’s license requirements for memberships (which raises a number of issues), got me to wondering about the qualifications for membership. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but based on this clause from the Church Hill Association Bylaws, it looks like ANYONE can join (my emphasis added:

ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP

1. Membership shall be open to everyone living in and/or working in the St. John’s Church Old and Historic District, other residents living and/or working in the East District, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS. MEMBERSHIP SHALL IN NO WAY BE EXCLUSIVE.

Too bad I didn’t know that before last night. I would have voted.

Reply
tiny 02/18/2009 at 4:51 PM

“Having lived here in this neighborhood for sometime I still see a location in the city that is letting the voices of a few dominate the discussion.”

This is what I have been saying all along. Everyone does have a right to their opinion, but it really does feel like these vocal few think they speak for everyone in the neighborhood. And, they do not. Every thread about this ballpark gets spammed with numerous and lengthy comments from the same few people who do not support the development, and they drown out the voices of the people who do support the project.

Reply
Richmond 1st 02/18/2009 at 5:11 PM

I live in the Fan and found this debate rather narrow. I’m a new property owner in Richmond and under the age of 35. What I frankly can’t fathom about this city is the lack of coordination and follow through that enslaves the City’s residents and tax payers. The city is large and very diverse. There are pet projects everywhere and more waste than can fill up the largest of Virginia’s landfills. What happened to the vetted Master Plan and the agreement that the best location for the ballpark is the Boulevard? Seems to me that 10 years and $100,000s is being wasted by even discussing a ballpark in Shockoe Bottom.

Reply
Stephen W 02/18/2009 at 5:16 PM

For better or for worse… the city, the neighborhood, the Church Hill Association, (and indeed the whole world) is run by people who show up to meetings (a friend told me that, who might read this).

So, as much as I don’t like the CHA overly quick decision, I wasn’t there to disagree. And it now appears like they speak for all of Church Hill.

Reply
Liberty 02/18/2009 at 6:02 PM

after hearing the developer and that fat dude bostic on the radio, in my opinion theye both hold the CHA in contempt. I say no way to these dopes

Reply
Jeff E. 02/18/2009 at 6:08 PM

Scott, please don’t speak for the citizens of Richmond in thanking the CHA. I think you’d find the majority of us support this project and those that don’t often don’t understand the financing. Also please explain how building a mixed-use project where cracked surface lots now sit empty is “paving over” a community? I think the opponents of this project have lost touch with reality and are simply grasping at straws. The details of this project have been well thought out and presented to the community in a very open fashion. It’s time Richmond moved forward wit this project. As another poster stated, the longer we push this off, the more we risk losing.

Reply
hillkid 02/18/2009 at 6:09 PM

#60/loz2hi:

Can you get more of your friends to join the CHA? You’re the kind of fresh air that I’m talking about.

I agree that the discussion was bad last night. No one in favor of the development had a chance to talk because the discussion was cut off before they had a chance.

Also, the “committee” that was formed to study the issue was clearly biased against the development. Rather than report to the membership what their findings were on the Stadium project they drafted a page or two of questions to the developers and to the city.

When asked why they didn’t research and prepare findings such as various studies that have been done, cost analysis, financing,etc. (By the way, all of these things are out there in one form or another) one committee member stated that they decided to “morph” into something other than what the CHA Board had asked them to be. What?

I know for a fact that the committee did not contact the board to inform them that they were going to take a different tack. Actually, it was not in their power to “morph” into something other than what the board requested. They should have received approval from the board to change direction, but did not. I was also told that this committee did not contact any of the involved parties in preparing their “report.”

So, the membership was given a couple of pages of questions to ask about the stadium and a “resolution” that no one took credit for. What a kangaroo court!

A lot of people felt railroaded by last night’s proceedings and I hope that the CHA and it’s leadership can steer this mess from the meeting into some clear skies.

It is possible to be pissed at the CHA from time to time and still be involved in spite of it all.

#57/Bob: No, I don’t have respect for people who take money from obvious coercive groups that want to buy votes regardless of how they ended up voting. Quit defending the indefensible!

FanGuy: Anyone can join the CHA. It is not bound by geography in that sense, but the efforts of the organization and the funding does have geography. I believe that those boundaries are roughly laid out in the by-laws, or were at one time. If you didn’t know that before last night it’s because you didn’t care. It’s now convenient for you for the sake of argument to bring it up. If you really cared that much you would have come and observed at the very least.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/18/2009 at 6:09 PM

Well The more the Developers talk the more people see this for what it is. Funny how a little reality can make people consider saying NO to the deal

Reply
jordancity 02/18/2009 at 6:31 PM

To #10 – Jake Stew:
I was at the meeting Tuesday night, and although I admit to being white, I am certainly not old and do not live South of Broad. My wife and I moved to Church Hill 2 years ago, and love this community.

I take exception to your remark that “Everybody in the picture above has a great life, and are well off even in these troubled times. However, they feel the need to whine about anything.” My wife and I both worked at Circuit City, and we are both unemployed along with many of our friends and neighbors. But if you consider having each other, our family, our health, and our sense of humor, then yes, we do have a great life. <br?

I, and I’m sure the majority of people there on Tuesday, came to the meeting and voted our conscience in the tradition of our forefathers. We care about our community, and whichever way we voted, at least we were there. If you choose not to be involved, it’s your right. But it is way out of line to insult and slander your neighbors in the process.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:37 PM

Don’t you think it is important to check out the company that is purporting to do everyone a favor by coming to the bottom with this project?

Highwoods Properties has previously announced major new projects in Richmond that it later walked away from.

Here is an image of the planned Canal Landing project that would have been downtown:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/modules.php?namegallery2&g2_itemId333

In this March 2003 article, Paul Kreckman “anticipates the building will be 75 percent leased by the time it is tenant-ready in 2005”:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magazine/yr2003/mar03/river.shtml

In this February 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “finding the tenants shouldn’t be a problem”:
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3CCE4

However, in this November 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “right now, there doesn’t appear to be enough tenants to build a large office building.”
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA

This website page confirms that the office project was canceled in 2005:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id158401

This web page describes its replacement, a residential project named Vistas On The James:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/bd_item.php?building_nameVistas+On+The+James

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:40 PM

Before everyone jumps in bed with this company, don’t you think it is important to check out some of the promises they have made in the past?

Highwoods Properties has previously announced major new projects in Richmond that it later walked away from.

Here is an image of the planned Canal Landing project that would have been downtown:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/modules.php?namegallery2&g2_itemId333

In this March 2003 article, Paul Kreckman “anticipates the building will be 75 percent leased by the time it is tenant-ready in 2005”:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magazine/yr2003/mar03/river.shtml

In this February 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “finding the tenants shouldn’t be a problem”:
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3CCE4943&nm

However, in this November 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “right now, there doesn’t appear to be enough tenants to build a large office building.”

http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3CCE4943&a

This website page confirms that the office project was canceled in 2005:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id158401

This web page describes its replacement, a residential project named Vistas On The James:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/bd_item.php?building_nameVistas+On+The+James

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:41 PM

Before everyone jumps in bed with this company, don’t you think it is important to check out some of the promises they have made in the past?

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:43 PM

Like how Highwoods Properties has previously announced major new projects in Richmond that it later walked away from.

Here is an image of the planned Canal Landing project that would have been downtown:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/modules.php?namegallery2&g2_itemId333

In this March 2003 article, Paul Kreckman “anticipates the building will be 75 percent leased by the time it is tenant-ready in 2005”:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magazine/yr2003/mar03/river.shtml

In this February 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “finding the tenants shouldn’t be a problem”:
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3C
However, in this November 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “right now, there doesn’t appear to be enough tenants to build a large office building.”

http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C3CCE494

This website page confirms that the office project was canceled in 2005:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id158401

This web page describes its replacement, a residential project named Vistas On The James:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/bd_item.php?building_nameVistas+On+The+James

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:43 PM

Highwoods Properties has previously announced major new projects in Richmond that it later walked away from.

Here is an image of the planned Canal Landing project that would have been downtown:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/modules.php?namegallery2&g2_itemId333

In this March 2003 article, Paul Kreckman “anticipates the building will be 75 percent leased by the time it is tenant-ready in 2005”:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magaz

In this February 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “finding the tenants shouldn’t be a problem”:
http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF7486981EA3C0C

However, in this November 2004 Style Weekly article, he says “right now, there doesn’t appear to be enough tenants to build a large office building.”

http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid9B6FFC446FF748

This website page confirms that the office project was canceled in 2005:

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:44 PM

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id158401

This web page describes its replacement, a residential project named Vistas On The James:

http://www.richmondcitywatch.com/bd_item.php?building_nameVistas+On+The+James

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/18/2009 at 6:54 PM

I know this may be more “homework” than anyone cares to do — but I am a staunch believer in giving people information upon which to base their decisions.

I also believe that people can connect the dots and understand what is happening if given some critical facts.

There are other interesting information sources. Market reports on the Richmond metro area are not encouraging.

http://www.thalhimer.com/market-reports/by_market/C6/

The latest office report —

http://www.thalhimer.com/reports/2008/4Q08%20Richmond%20Office%20Report.pdf

The latest retail report —

http://www.thalhimer.com/reports/2008/4Q08%20Richmond%20Retail%20Report.pdf

Elsewhere, developers are canceling and postponing new development projects. Below are examples:

“Simon Puts Brakes on Development”
http://www.globest.com/news/1337_1337/indianapolis/176636-1.html

“Few new shopping centers while economy’s dropping”
http://www.miamiherald.com/602/story/882587.html

Colonial’s Lowder Sets ’09 Priorities
http://www.globest.com/news/1340_1340/other/176699-1.html

Reply
Bullwinkle 02/18/2009 at 8:18 PM

Esp. during these tough economic times, when you have an opportuinty to have millions of dollars invested into your community, you take it.

Don’t we want a vibrant Downtown / Shockhoe Bottom? If we gun down this plan – what different kind of project do you expect to see come along that will be better than this?

Reply
Ry 02/18/2009 at 8:18 PM

FYI – Bostic and Kreckman were on Doc Thompson’s radio show (and it didn’t sound like Doc was all that sold on it) today answering questions for callers (both for and against). They mentioned a website with the development information will be up shortly.

They have also asked each of the community groups to form a committee they can meet with to bring information to the community group and questions to the developers from the community groups.

Hopefully, with these we can get some of the questions answered and improvements we would like to see made.

Reply
Bullwinkle 02/18/2009 at 8:23 PM

I mean, REALLY?

Reply
crd 02/18/2009 at 8:26 PM

FanGuy, If you’re so certain that a stadium is the right thing for the bottom, why don’t you move out of the fan and into the bottom? Then you can really be walking the walk and talking the talk. I would not presume to join the Fan District Association, since I don’t live there. Why don’t you move to the area, Shockoe Bottom, and join THEIR association?!

And hey, CHA is so diverse, they’ll even let you join when you don’t live here. But I’m sure they’d appreciate it, if you are a member, if you show up for all meetings, and volunteer for committees….instead of joining to sway a vote on a single issue.

JoeRichmond, please keep it up. I for one appreciate your posts.

Queen Mum, #35 – and weren’t the hours supposed to be restricted? Sure, I remember all those promises, and more!

Reply
Keith West 02/18/2009 at 8:32 PM

CHA voted on three land use issues last night. Two passed without a dissenting vote, yet you say CHA says no to everything? The neighborhood is studded with projects that CHA has, yes, argued over, but most all were eventually approved.

Personally, I think the area in question is in sore need of development. The view from 95 through there is awful. If someone wants to bring their checkbook and build offices, retail, condos, or even a ballpark, I’m all for it.

Asking for public support is a different matter. The bottom is full of projects financed privately, and I don’t see why this one should be an exception.

And FanGuy, what I don’t understand is your insistence that we don’t understand. Two of the people whose opinion I respect most in these matters, Paul Goldman and John Gerner, both have reservations about the financing. Even without them, I can add up enough factors to have my own reservations, including: 1) A glut of office space downtown 2) A glut of condos downtown 3) A regional glut of retail space 4) The lack of a population base to support more retail downtown. Add that to 1) A public authority issuing bonds with the implicit backing of the city and 2) Tax revenues diverted to the sole support of the development- and I think there is plenty of information to make a decision.

Besides, the supposed benefits of this project are mostly imaginary. Real estate projects are not real economic development. You can build all of the offices you want, but without businesses to fill them, it’s lost money. We have plenty of office space, finding businesses is the problem. Retail is the same. Unless you have a strong tourism base, retail trade is just shuffling money around.

Who has the biggest gripe, the developers who can’t get a project past the CHA, or the people who have to keep fighting off these harebrained ideas of how to raid the public coffers?

Reply
Paul Hammond 02/18/2009 at 9:12 PM

It certainly is true that a few very anonymous and aggressive opponents of this project have spammed this sight to death. Baiting those that disagree with you is a tried and true tactic which quickly degenerates into name calling and slander. It’s very easy to do and very difficult not to strike back in kind.

The CHA is entitled to it’s opinion. It’s clear from this website not everyone agrees.

Reply
Heather 02/18/2009 at 10:38 PM

I would just like to express that back a few years ago when I first joined the CHA I quickly learned that my area did not rate. In fact after several meetings I was “welcomed” by fellow members and was told that since I lived outside of the “historic district” really the CHA only dealt with issues focused on this [important] area. I now live in a new “historic area” and discovered that the CHA was still my neighborhood association. I decided that I wanted to get involved, to have my voice heard – not to sway a vote or on this one issue or others such as this one. I hope other living in the neighborhood will consider doing the same. One cannot make a difference without getting involved!

Reply
Visions 02/18/2009 at 10:56 PM

The vote is in and the membership (old, new or paid for), has made known it positon. Discussions and debate will continue until the next big issue. Warnng, warning!, that next issue is not Oakwood Heights my friends … it is Echo Harbour which lurks in the shadows. Beware the Jabberwock and don’t dissapate all your energy, time and efforts on this any longer. What is done is done and what will be will in months and months more of discussions on the stadium etc. Save your vitality and don’t fritter it away fussing and fighting. Because EH is slowly, silently, secretely, spinning its morbid web. Clearly when it comes to size, impact on history, enviornment, the neighborhood, the community, City and Commonwealth – Echo Harbour absolutvery ely dwarfts the stadium in eall aspect of enormity of its negativity for ALL.
Beware the Jabberwock –

Reply
FanGuy 02/18/2009 at 11:52 PM

Hillkid and CRD, relax, I was just making an observation about the bylaws. Have we all lost our sense of humor? I found it surprising, that’s all. I wouldn’t really have voted. They should tidy up that loophole somehow though.

But since you mentioned it CRD, I would love one of those new condos lining the ballpark. I can’t wait to see the floorplans!

And Keith West, I’ve never claimed that everyone who opposes the ballpark doesn’t understand the financing. There are many valid reasons why one could choose to oppose the ballpark. BUT, I have heard some of the most vocal opponents describe the financing, and they clearly don’t understand it. Not all, but many are lumbering under incorrect assumptions.

Reply
Carolyn Paulette, Forest Hill 02/19/2009 at 12:18 AM

john, it’s interesting that this site on
Churchill votes no, has had 78 comments,
but it has been pushed out of sight by
5 other articles which have received few
comments. This article has been up only
about 24 hours.

How long was the site “Poll shows 75% in
favor of ballpark” posted as the first
article? Just curious.

Thanks for allowing this discussion to
be aired.

Reply
Anna 02/19/2009 at 12:23 AM

While I certainly don’t pretend to understand all that comes along with the issuance of bonds, what I do understand is the reasoning behind diverting PART of the tax revenues.

Those revenue streams don’t currently exist, aside from a piddly amount (in comparison to the projected streams) that the area provides currently. With the proposed bill, 2.5% of those tax revenues STILL go to the city; that’s more than half the 4.5% sales tax and this project is expected to bring in millions. Those revenues the city will still get is MORE than what it currently gets from the property. Therefore claiming that its diverting tax revenues is at LEAST oversimplifying, if not outright misleading.

I was not at the meeting, and since I am not a resident of that area (regardless of the bylaws), I don’t think it’s my right to be a part of that association. Honestly, I care about the development in the bottom and how it relates to the city – not necessarily how it relates solely to Church Hill. I post and read here because this seems to be a pretty thought-provoking debate (and apparently more open that the CHA itself from accounts of the meeting). I hope that we can put aside the snide remarks and assumptions, and focus on just that.

Reply
John M 02/19/2009 at 5:56 AM

Sign-ups preceded ballpark vote (RTD 2/19)

A woman in a red knit cap offered to pay the membership dues of strangers as they arrived at St. John’s Episcopal Church for a neighborhood vote on a ballpark for Shockoe Bottom.

Nearly 40 people joined the Church Hill Association at the door Tuesday night, with the dues of 24 paid by Church Hill resident Debra Clarke.

[…]

Clarke said she had been knocking on doors and presenting a letter supporting the development and encouraging people to join the Church Hill Association. She said Richmond attorney Albert W. Thweatt II contacted her and offered to provide money for the membership fees on the condition she not ask them to vote one way or the other.

But Thweatt was emphatic yesterday he was not involved in Clarke’s efforts and did not know about the vote until reading about it.

Yesterday, Clarke maintained Thweatt’s involvement. “All I know is that one of his assistants brought the money to me . . . and his business card,” Clarke said.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/19/2009 at 6:23 AM

Bullwinkle in this case as your name sake is fond of saying ” Let me Pull a Rabbit out of my Hat.. Nothing up this Sleeve Presto” and some nasty creature comes out and if you did some research you will find this is not the deal you think it is

Reply
ptaylor 02/19/2009 at 8:04 AM

Anna(83)”With the proposed bill, 2.5% of those tax revenues STILL go to the city;”

What state do you live in? In Virginia the 5% sales tax is a state tax; 4% goes to the state, 1% is rebated to the locality. The state is allowing the diversion of 2.5% of their 4%. 2.5% NEVER went to the city – and certainly won’t as a result of this. I could have sworn that I’ve read that the financing plan envisions the RSFA getting the city’s 1% of the sales tax, the city’s 6% meals tax, and incremental increases in the city’s real estate taxes. And this morning, the T-D reports that the corporate side of Shockoe Slip’s hospitality industry has objected to our legislators asking that this tax break be re-considered.

Reply
Curmudgeon 02/19/2009 at 9:29 AM

I agree with Visions, move on, the vote is cast. The majority voice of the membership, at that meeting, has been recorded.

Let’s hope all that have written here are as active and involved when it comes to beating back the Jabberwock (Echo Harbour).

Reply
Shannon 02/19/2009 at 9:29 AM

Wow. And I mean WOW!

Buying votes, or attempting to buy votes? Nasty business. Really, really unreal. Just does not bode well, and I think this warrants deeper investigation.

I’m not a lawyer or a cop, but isn’t this illegal? Can we be absolutely positive who is paying that person in the knit cap? Seems like there would be some kind of criminal charge that would apply.

I wasn’t there, but I couldn’t help envisioning the scenario, the insult of the offer, and a response that might sound something like, “No thanks. But I’ll give you $50 to get the hell out of my face, jackass!”

But that’s just me.

Reply
tiny 02/19/2009 at 10:31 AM

Let’s take a moment to remember that the CHA is a neighborhood organization – not the legislature! Yes, it has influence, but it does not have the power to stop this development. “Buying” votes in a civic organization probably does not constitute a prosecutable crime, even if it is distasteful.

Reply
Keith West 02/19/2009 at 10:32 AM

Have you been south on 95 lately as far as Roanoke Rapids? If you have you couldn’t have missed the Roanoke Rapids (Randy Parton) Theater looming over the interstate. Interesting parallels between it and the ballpark- use of TIF’s for financing, local developers in complicated relationships with politicians trying to secure public funds, unrealistic expectations papered over with boosterism. Read all the gory details here and see if they don’t sound familiar:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/series.html?id=31

a shorter version is here:
http://www.capitol-monitor.org/its-your-money/the-randy-parton-theater-a-com.php

If you just want the punchline: The project has failed miserably, resulting in a discredited mayor, lawsuits, and a sellout to a third party with a huge loss to taxpayers.

Reply
shockoe 02/19/2009 at 10:43 AM

Roanoke cannot be compared to Richmond

Reply
Ramzi 02/19/2009 at 11:21 AM

Why not?

Reply
hillkid 02/19/2009 at 11:28 AM

Is Al Thweatt II the guy who ran for council up here about 5-6 years ago, or is it is father?

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this boneheaded scheme of trying to buy votes to the CHA – so lame! Even more lame are the folks that actually took the money!

Listen people, anyone, and I mean anyone can afford to join the CHA, including Debra Clarke (O.K. the dude that calls the park bench in Jefferson Park home – maybe not). Even if you put away a $1 a week for 25 weeks, etc, etc. If someone want to join, it is not cost prohibitive. It is a matter of priorities like any other expense.

The point is, the 24 people that showed up at the CHA meeting could afford the membership, they just sold-out and took the freebee.

How patronizing is it to come into a community and solicit someone like Ms. Clarke to do your dirty works, misrepresenting yourself as a steward to the “less fortunate” just to buy votes? From the article in the RTD, Ms. Clarke came of like she was truly unaware of the scheme or just a good con-artist.

She said that Thweatt’s assistant came over to her place with a roll of cash to help the poor unfortunates in our community be heard and represented. She paid $600 for 24 votes. How much of that cash did she pocket for her efforts?

If folks wanted to be represented they would and will find a way on their own. If you don’t like the CHA, there are other avenues to be heard including the Union Hill Civic Association and the New Visions Civic League.

This whole business stinks!

Reply
resist 02/19/2009 at 11:34 AM

not roanoke. it’s roanoke rapids. which is even harder to be compared to richmond.

i think what we all want to know is: who gets to play the randy parton roll on the lifetime made-for-tv movie?

Reply
Paul 02/19/2009 at 11:46 AM

Re: 91 Well it can, but the devil is in the details

Re: 90
Per the Parton Theater. That’s an ugly story with some important differences.

The City of Roanoke Rapids promised to provide 100-percent of the start-up funds for the venture with no investment by Watson or Parton.

Highwood is asking for 8 mil in infrastructure, 60 mil in bonds and putting up 300 mil of their own

The agreement also allowed for a $1.5 million “artist’s fee” for Parton, a $500,000 cash “advance,” and a free home and cars for both Parton and his wife for a period of three years

I haven’t seen this proposed./b>

the City(Ronoake Rapids) would be solely responsible for the bond debt if the theater venture failed.

Highwoods states specifically this is not true in our case.

Either the claims of the developer are or are not true. These provisions should be written into any related legislation and enforced.

Reply
g 02/19/2009 at 11:53 AM

i don’t get the big deal. these are interested individuals from the community who wanted to have a say. whether they paid their dues or had someone else pay them seems immaterial. i paid my dues that night as well, and if someone had offered to pay for mine i would have taken them up on it.

Reply
Bob 02/19/2009 at 12:11 PM

as I stated before,and post #35 and crd’s posts validate that the big boys put a nice package together to sell their product, and once that’s done, they will always come up with reasons why they have to change. They may even run out of money once they have demolished the bottom, leaving it in worse shape than it is now. So the ” old guard” has been seasoned by this and other projects throughout the years. And it’s because of them that Church Hill is as unique as it is, especially when no one wanted to live up here. It’s kinda like your parents giving you advise, but you think you know it all. Then as we grow, a light bulb flashes== “Gee ,maybe they know what they’re talking about.”
It’s all speculative. Rome wasn’t built overnight; one stone at a time. It’s just too big of a risk.
Hillkid, I am not defending Gray, just saying that this isn’t about her. It’s a much bigger picture. And I am not condoning her actions, or others, but I respectfully disagree with you that the people taking the money are more lame that the ones trying to buy votes.

Reply
John_w 02/19/2009 at 12:11 PM

There have been a couple of comments here that suggests the CHA always apposes anything which could “adversly impact” the Church Hill community. I am a member of the CHA and I believe the following would suggest CHA members do not always reject new ideas. Here there was apparent concern about a significant increase in Church Hill traffic. The open discussions with the Developer and the reasoning it was approved is illuminating.

Reverend Delores L. McQuinn, The Church Hill Association,
Vice President, Richmond City Council, P.O. Box 8031,
City Hall, Suite 305, Richmond, VA 23223.
900 East Broad Street,
Richmond, VA 23219. October 17th 2007.

Reference: The Rocketts Landing Re-Zoning Proposal.

Dear Reverend McQuinn,

The Rocketts Landing Developer met with our members on September 18th and fully outlined their proposals for the site. As you were present at the meeting I hope you will concur that the presentation was very informative, and they responded very openly to the many questions raised by our members. Of particular concern was the impact the additional traffic would have on Church Hill and other areas of the City due to both the future development of Rocketts Landing and the additional developments in Henrico County. We urge both the City and Henrico County to start working together to minimize this challenge to our community.
Clarification was also sought, and obtained, that there were no flood problems, that all the safety services would have acceptable access and that the proposal fully met all the other requirements of the River Front zoning ordinances.

Their representative, Mr. Bill Axselle, also met the Board on October 4th to respond to our further questions. He provided us with additional information and at that meeting it was agreed the Board would place a strong recommendation at the next monthly meeting of our Association that we should support the rezoning proposal.

At our meeting yesterday evening our members unanimously voted to accept the Board’s recommendation.

The investment to be made into our local economy is a vote of confidence in our City, and esthetically we believe it’s an appropriate use of that section of the James River.

Please would you convey our endorsement of this investment to your council colleagues when you come to review this re-zoning proposal.

For and on behalf of the Church Hill Association,

Reply
Ron 02/19/2009 at 12:44 PM

It’s too bad that Shockoe Center has subsumed life in Church Hill. Virtually no comments about tax releif for the elderly, the CAR appeals, etc. Is there really nothing else? or has the noise drowned out the conversation of other voices?

Reply
Amy N-B 02/19/2009 at 1:15 PM

I might have come to the meeting if I had known that they were handing out free memberships. We stopped paying to be members several years ago when we realized that the CHA (as it currently stands) will never support the sorts of projects that we support. Namely, my household supports 1) Neighborbood Businesses — CHA endorses parking and hours restrictions that make it impossible for restaurants to survive; 2)Mixed use/Mixed income projects — CHA is unwilling to be flexible in its understanding of scale and (historical) appropriateness; and 3) Enterprise Zones — CHA is resistant to the corner commercial model proposed by Flynn and the planning department.

Reply
Winston 02/19/2009 at 1:39 PM

As a member of the CHA I want thank Albert Thweet for the donation of $600.00 to the cause of betterment of the neighborhood. Albert was a former resident of the neighborhood (two houses) and I hope he has enough love of the area to come back and participate in our activities. The CHA benefited from this stupid move, not the developers!

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/19/2009 at 1:45 PM

Gordon Godfrey Resist Gordon Godfrey

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/19/2009 at 2:35 PM

When Arch Moore was running against West Virginia’s Democratic governor Jay Rockefeller in 1980, a popular bumper sticker said: “Make him spend it all, Arch.”

Clearly, Brian Bostic & His Boyz have money to burn– let them.

This bonehead move is indicative of the thinking that says it is a smart move to build a stadium in the middle of the flood plain. What more do you need to know about them?

Reply
Liberty 02/19/2009 at 3:08 PM

the only reason lard-ass bostic and developers want citizen input is so they can draft a strategy to bamboozle the public, i dont trust them one bit, as soon as the opportunity arises they will trick and stick it to the taxpayers

Reply
Shannon 02/19/2009 at 3:58 PM

I was thinking about this today, and it seems to me that trying to buy votes, no matter where or when, (especially for a measley $25,) is kind of like taking a date for a happy meal and expecting her to marry you. Individual choice and perspective is the main guarantee of our Constitution – and for $25 bucks? Sad.

It’s a really, really big deal to throw away your say, in any arena. And the folks that would solicit that are super-weasely for attempting to take advantage of others that might not realize this fact.

What a gigantic insult to a community.

Reply
Curmudgeon 02/19/2009 at 4:49 PM

OK gang its time to move on.
Some writers are right and we are spending too much time on this in light of our economy, the needs of the poor, education in our City and Commonwealth and other community issues.
107 comments are nearing enough for community venting, basic catharsis and group therapy.

Reply
Chris 02/19/2009 at 5:12 PM

For what it is worth, not all 24 of the new members the other night took the free memberships. My wife and I are new residents to Church Hill and wanted to join so we coughed up our own my money for our memberships. It just happened that this was the first meeting we attended.

Reply
hillkid 02/19/2009 at 5:26 PM

Chris:
24 out of 40 new memberships were bought.

Reply
Brian 02/19/2009 at 6:01 PM

hillkid, honestly, so what? The people who had their memberships paid for were already going to the meeting anyway. You don’t go to a meeting like that on a whim – you go because you are very interested in the topic. So the chances that a free membership to the CHA somehow incentivized them to vote against their beliefs is at best unlikely, and honestly, laughable. I can appreciate that it might “look” bad at first blush, but if you really stop to think about it the whole issue is just stupid.

Besides, has anyone come forward to say they changed their vote and voted for the ballpark because of the free membership? Is there even ANY evidence from a credible source that the person who paid for memberships was asking the people they were giving money to to vote for the ballpark?

Stop and think people!

Reply
loz2hi 02/19/2009 at 6:42 PM

#107 – First, this issue is not dead; in fact the wording offered by Mr. West will allow it to be revisited should CHA’s membership wish to do so. Please consider joining if you have not done so already.

As far as your comments and other comments similar regarding “spending too much time on this in light of our economy, the needs of the poor, education in our City and other community issues” the City is facing tough time as we all are. The only the way the City will be able to focus on the issues referenced above is by generating revenue; which our City does lack in comparison to others of similar make up prior to these uncertain times.

Based on the information I have researched, the proposed site is 22 acres of undeveloped land that currently generates $95K in tax revenue. According to the articles and meetings I have attended, this proposal is offering $318MM in investment that generates $3.7MM annually in City revenues on top of the bond debt service. Also it has been communicated that after the bonds are paid, all revenue goes to the City and State.

It has also been communicated that the City will not make any expenditure if private money doesn’t materialize then the project won’t happen.

The project is asking for $8MM from the City for public infrastructure to serve Ball Park and area surrounding. Any development in that location would require that type of money to that to improve the area’s infrastructure.
The other battle cry from those opposed is the issue regarding the bonds. The bonds absolutely are no obligation to the City. The City creates the Authority; which owns the Ball Park. The bonds from private investors fund the construction. Those bonds are repaid, among other things, by tax revenue generated by new development within the project. The City does NOT guarantee the bonds. Upon a failure, the bonds are secured by the revenue and the Ball Park itself. Upon payment of the bonds, the Authority will own the Ball Park free and clear, with a lease to the ball team.
#103 regarding the flood plain matter – The City is not doing anything about this issue now! I would suppose they don’t have the funds to do so or they would have. The proposed plan offers a concourse around Ball Park that provides FEMA-required emergency access to buildings within the flood plain development; provides almost 4 acres of green space – 4 more acres than exists now!
I agree that there are still questions to be answered and further detail to be provided. Get involved so the issues important to each of you can be brought to the table and addressed.
Folks all of this information was obtained simply by reading articles, attending meetings and listening to all the information with an open mind. I did not really have an opinion on way or the other until I realized that this could be a wonderful opportunity for the City to obtain some much needed revenue to do the things we all want them to do – better schools, roads, services, tax breaks for those in need, the list goes on. The City cannot provide better services until more money comes in – kitchen table economics!

Reply
Chris 02/19/2009 at 7:09 PM

hillkid – Thanks for the clarification on the count.

loz2hi – Your info about the financing matches everything that I have learned from meetings, articles, etc. The one other piece (and it may be implied in your statement) is that if the bonds the bonds go into default. The bondholders could take possession of the park or choose to refinance. The City is under no obligation to pay them and not paying would not negatively affect the credit rating of the City.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/19/2009 at 7:31 PM

You can’t kill something that is too stubborn to die they feel they have too much in this to care about anyone but the people they know they can sell. They could just wait another 3 years. Face it as long as that property is there they will try personally I would love to see VCU get the property and build there and then they might consider someplace else to try to sell the pixie dust and baseball

Reply
Paul Hammond 02/19/2009 at 8:00 PM

Re: 113

SBD
Just ask around the Fan, Downtown, Oregon Hill. VCU makes a wonderful neighbor.

Geesh, talk about pixie dust.

Reply
ron 02/19/2009 at 8:20 PM

And if VCU gets it, there will be no review by city planning, no adherence to the downtown master plan by VCU, and no tax revenues. Good deal, huh?

Reply
hillkid 02/19/2009 at 8:35 PM

110/Brian:

“You don’t go to a meeting like that on a whim – you go because you are very interested in the topic.”

I imagine that the folks that took the freebee will probably not show up again as you suggest, or at least not get involved in the CHA in any significant way. So the good part about that as Winston has stated in a earlier post is that the CHA has $600 to spend on good works in the community.

Hot topics like the Stadium draw fair weather participants in community organizations. They show up once or twice every two years or so, but don’t really care about the day to day stuff that the orgs. work hard at.

For you to not see the impropriety of this situation is laughable. This type of thing is the handmaiden to corrupt politics and manipulation by outside forces. You know, like “dead people” voting in general elections.

Yes, your right, most folks probably voted their conscience. It’s just not the point, and the fact that you condone it and don’t see this as a problem is plain scary.

BTW, according to your blog, you’re supposed to be taking a break from all of this. Why don’t you start now.

Reply
hillkid 02/19/2009 at 8:40 PM

Brian:

Forgot to mention post #20. Ms. Clarke went door to door on Sunday offering free memberships and trying to “sell” folks on the stadium. I know others that got the knock on the door also.

So, yes people were encouraged to vote in favor of the stadium.

Reply
hillkid 02/19/2009 at 8:44 PM

Brain:

I just realized, why are you going back and forth from the name FanGuy to Brian?

Got that folks, Brian is FanGuy.

Geez.

Reply
crd 02/19/2009 at 9:04 PM

#113 – “personally I would love to see VCU get the property and build there and then they might consider someplace else to try to sell the pixie dust and baseball”

Now THAT’S an idea, do you know anyone at VCU who is involved in real estate, could you approach them about it?! That would cure this problem once and for all! LOL! Hope it doesn’t sound like I’m making fun, – I actually agree with you. Unfortunately, I think Trani’s departure has taken the wind out of their sails for awhile but you never know.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/19/2009 at 9:05 PM

Hillkid — and just when I was thinking that you and FanGuy must be brothers …whose mother named after where she met your respective Daddies.

I have talked to several people today who all said that they accepted the free memberships much the way you accept door prizes when you attend certain functions.
Nada a one voted in favor of the stadium. I see their acceptance the free memberhip as example of “Urban Guerilla Warfare.”

Ever heard of the Guerilla Girls? Check this out:

http://www.guerillagirls.com

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/19/2009 at 9:07 PM

forgive the wordoes above …. my keyboard is acting up tonight.

I repeat: Hillkid — and just when I was thinking that you and FanGuy must be brothers …whose mother named you after where she met your respective Daddies.

I have talked to several people today who all said that they accepted the free memberships much the way you accept door prizes when you attend certain functions.
Nada a one voted in favor of the stadium. I see their acceptance of the free memberhip as example of “Urban Guerilla Warfare.”

Ever heard of the Guerilla Girls? Check this out:

http://www.guerillagirls.com

Reply
Ry 02/19/2009 at 9:40 PM

Nice summary loz2hi. I agree with your perspective.

Reply
Patrick Henry 02/20/2009 at 1:17 AM

Reading all of this what really stands out is the unwelcome return of Hillkid and her bullying. It was embarrassing at the meeting when Mr.Hillkid stood and tried to make ass of himself after being MIA for months and here we go with more of the same from the louder one. Stop calling people out when you can’t post under your real name either.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/20/2009 at 6:13 AM

Better than a Ballpark that we don’t need and seems that most of you want to force feed everyone

Reply
loz2hi 02/20/2009 at 10:40 AM

I am not trying to force feed anything – just supplying relevant information to this discussion instead of throwing around statements lacking factual substance.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Though I wonder how #124 knows what is needed and not needed in our City?! I wish that individual would provide reasons to their position. If you are against this proposed development then please offer up factual reasons for your position and not just invoke the “because I said so or I know more than the rest of you” statements.

I also find it interesting that Shockoe Bottom Association the closest to the proposed site voted in favor of the development and they would be more inconvenienced then residents of Church Hill residents.

Several forums offered by the Highwoods, Timmons, Richmond Baseball Club and at times, individuals who work for the City have addressed this proposal; they provided some detailed answers to most of the issues and questions batted around this topic. Have those opposed to this development gone to any of these meetings to at a minimum truly learn what they are proposing and to ask your questions? If you have not done so then maybe you should reserve your comments until you hear both sides.

My fear is this development is going to happen and Church Hill “leadership” will be stubborn by digging their heels in and this area will not be involved in ensuring are concerns and positions are not represented. Leaving those perched on the Hill to complain that “we” did not have a say or were not included, etc. Hope I am wrong and that all will work for a common purpose of developing our City responsibly while still moving in a more progressive direction.

Reply
Scott Burger 02/20/2009 at 10:55 AM

“The proposed plan offers a concourse around Ball Park that provides FEMA-required emergency access to buildings within the flood plain development; provides almost 4 acres of green space – 4 more acres than exists now!”

I have said it on RiverDistrictNews site and I will say it here: I strongly challenge this ‘green concourse’ contention. Let’s see the engineering details. Why settle for just 4 acres of supposed green space?

The Sierra Club has made its environmental concerns known and stands in opposition. What is Highwood doing to address those concerns?

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/20/2009 at 11:52 AM

As I have said before the Shockoe Bottom’s Association’s head is hoping to build a Brewery in the wake of all of this seems a tad self serving but hey just ask him about it. My deal loz2hi is that we can develop without a Ballpark and do alot better but no one wants to see that or do any research they take the words of people who are selling this Boondoggle and taking it all for gospel.

Your Forums are not for ideas because they already have nearly the exact same plan that they had when we said no the last time some years ago.They added a few more bells and whisles and have some people convinced because they look to profit but at the expence of everything else.

Hey you think you have the answer and I suggest you have not done enough research but I am betting that is not stopping you from discounting anything I have to say. Funny Being behind the scenes watching these things play out you do get a much different understanding of what is said in public and what is actually arranged but since I lack “factual substance” but can quote all the attempts by other cities who have tried this deal and failed and you seem to discount it you will have to learn from your own mistakes I guess I have to watch it happen all again and watch as you get to complain when it all goes south.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/20/2009 at 12:00 PM

Oh and I have given examples left and right but since you don’t want to listen and do actual research it really does not matter.

Waterside Norfolk
Colisum Mall Hampton ( current status)
Raddison Hotel Hampton
Norfolk Convention Center and the Marriot

I have plenty more but hey since you expect me to spoon feed you or it is not fact I don’t tend to feel like bothering with it anymore. Don’t mask you laziness to do research yourself to discount my claims. My facts are still true and your still discounting thing with no understanding

Reply
neighborhood1st 02/20/2009 at 12:32 PM

The human behind the hillkid persona has talent in character development and writing. He should become an actor or playwrite. What a waste to use such talent as a weapon against neighbors.

The CHA welcomes ALL NEW MEMBERS.

Reply
hillkid 02/20/2009 at 1:10 PM

#123/Patrick Henry:

“Stop calling people out when you can’t post under your real name either.”

I know who you think I am, but I am not. Funny about the real name advice…classy.

Reply
hillkid 02/20/2009 at 1:58 PM

129/hood1st:

Thanks for the backhanded compliment, I think.

Who are you to speak for the CHA, even if your statement is hard to refute?

The question is, does the CHA welcome and condone the shenanigans that took place regarding the purchasing of memberships the other night? I think if you took a vote on that, the answer would be “no.”

Reply
neighborhood1st 02/20/2009 at 2:39 PM

#131:

As a CHA member I welcome all new members including those who received free memberships. I do not approve of the actions of a very small group of stadium supporters who thought they could purchase votes.

I do not condone your attempts at hurting neighbors. You know them but they don’t know you, therefore your attacks are personal and threatening while your neighbors unarmed.

Reply
hillkid 02/20/2009 at 3:14 PM

#132:

Neighbors who accepts funny money only hurt themselves.

Reply
loz2hi 02/20/2009 at 3:14 PM

#127 please note – I am not taking anything they say as gospel! Though I did research this by no means am I “in the know” so to speak. I do not think the proposal is perfect and hope parts of it will improve. That being said I don’t think the entire plan is BS or completely flawed. BTW – if I were not open to listening I would not be posting here or engaging others to respectfully and responsibly debate this project.

Maybe I missed some thing but prior to your most recent post I did not see you reference these other projects to research and unlike to your remark – I will research these because maybe there is something I am missing. I do appreciate you providing these projects and more fact based opposition to the proposal.

As far as the statement “we can develop without a Ballpark and do alot better but no one wants to see that” I would like to point out that two representatives from the City addressed this statement. They stated the City went through an RFP process and received limited responses. After the City vetted those who went through the RFP, this development was selected by the City. Unless I am more naïve then I think; why would the City pick the worst deal for then and in turn the residents of the City?

In regards to the statement, “Your Forums are not for ideas because they already have nearly the exact same plan that they had when we said no the last time some years ago”. Firstly, these are not MY forums. I only attended to learn more and ask MY questions (similar to those I have seen on this site regarding this particular topic). Only one of those forums was not a true open forum though they did take questions at the end – it was limited. I hope you will, if you have not already, attend a forum to offer your insight and obtain answers (if you have questions).

I have stated in each of my posts or at least implied that I don’t think this is perfect. I certainly do not have ALL the answers since this is not MY proposal. Though I have offered the answers to the same questions I have asked of those responsible for the development. I do think with some community involvement this proposal can reach a resolution that will leave all parties satisfied. However, I will do the research you mention and reserve the right to change my opinion.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/20/2009 at 3:37 PM

Far be it from me smacking someone who is try to converse versus the usual name calling and dismissive additude most have used. loz2hi the idea for ballpark in Shockoe Bottom is far from a new concept and this new plan may add a few more features and insentives but it is the same basic plan. The only thing that changed was we don’t have a Team to move and they have burned bridges with the AAA association and now the AA association for trying to recuit without permission.
The Ballparks location covers property they don’t own nor does the City the owners the Lovings have not done anything with the property since they left after the last Warehouse fire and I doubt they will do stuff considering they changed their base of operations.
But there is more info out and about I really don’t feel like going through mostly stats figures and the idea that they have to attach Baseball and Apple pie to sell Improving an area they just want to reap.

Good luck on the research I think if you read more posts you will see why there is frustration with opposing opinions. If your still for the Ballpark in Shockoe Bottom after you find everything out then your welcome to your opinion but I am sure you will find where most of us have issues.

Reply
hillkid 02/20/2009 at 4:43 PM

To those of you who accepted a free membership to the CHA the other night:

As “JoeRichmond” has relayed in post #120, some of you apparently thought that your free membership was a door prize. It was not. I would hope that many of you would realize that the right thing to do would be to send your own funds to cover the $25 membership back to:

Ms. Debra Clarke
c/o Church Hill House
2400 Burton Street
Richmond, VA 23223

or to Mr. Thweatt’s office at:

Albert Thweatt II, Esq.
119 North Sycamore Street
Richmond, VA 23219

Reply
hillkid 02/20/2009 at 4:54 PM

Sorry, here’s the correct address for Thweatt:

106 North Eighth Street, Suite 1
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 644-1964

Reply
Bob 02/20/2009 at 6:40 PM

you can’t blame people for questioning or being suspicious of moles, especially after the membership shenanigan’s. Who knows what else they have pulled? Look at the dirty dealings re: the Oakwood project? It’s sad, but it’s pretty hard to know what the real truth is. And whether you are connected or not, it’s your side that got caught doing less than admirable deeds.

Reply
Ramzi 02/20/2009 at 7:06 PM

Hillkid – In case it hasn’t occurred to you, you can’t buy votes when there’s a secret ballot, it’s better known as campaigning. No one outside the meeting instructed anyone how to vote, they simply paid for the memberships. Not the brightest of campaigns but still nothing more than that. Ms Clarke was working independently prior to the night of the meeting, and it was her choice to use her money and time as she pleased. And receiving money from the opposing side can only serve to help your own cause. Why list Ms. Clarke’s address? How would you feel if I listed yours? It’s simply inappropriate to the discussion and it only serves to stab at the individual, just like you did in previous threads when you were using your real name. There are plenty of reasons not to build the ballpark, my favorite is that we already have one. Pick one of those reasons and let’s have a real debate, not just petty and vicious bickering.

Reply
Anna 02/20/2009 at 11:21 PM

Loz2hi, before you are frightened off by SBD’s rebuttals of your logic, let me point out a couple of things:

1) Minor League Baseball’s AAA International League (not an association, by the way, and the IL is only one league at the AAA level) would most likely be happy to come back to Richmond if a) we built a new stadium and b) if there were a team available to be bought.

As for the AA “association” (read: Eastern League) being turned off to Richmond? They’re upset the name of the team got leaked, mainly because it may affect the attendance of the named team THIS season. Most teams that are sold are struggling attendance-wise, new stadiums typically solve those issues, especially when a metro area of 1.2 million people is involved.

Please don’t substitute your guesses for facts, especially when your knowledge is limited to calling it an “association” as if there is one body that rules each level instead of individual league presidents located in various parts of the continent (i.e. the International League, Pacific Coast League, Mexican League).

2) I’d like more examples of projects that include BALLPARKS that have failed. The Norfolk Waterside project is kinda close, but even if you lump in the ballpark, its still a marginal opposing example at best. The ballpark down there draws quite well, but to expect it to usher people over to Waterside by foot is like asking families to walk their kids from the Diamond to Broad Street (oh wait, I think that’s an idea some people have).

We, the proponents, have given lots of examples of how AA and AAA ballparks have helped out the surrounding area’s economy. Its not that we don’t see your examples, or even disagree with them (they’d be great, if say, private investors were proposing a huge shopping center in the Bottom), its that they don’t have the same ties to the project because of the baseball aspect. You may make jokes about the apple pie aspect, but having a stadium within *comfortable* walking distance of Richmond’s historical sites will help the community and local businesses. It will bring them back into the spotlight; something the status quo (like “Club Velvet”) work against.

Again, the examples proponents have provided are Durham, Toledo, Memphis,

Reply
Ramzi 02/20/2009 at 11:47 PM

Anna, you seem well-informed about the developers take on things, so let me ask you this question, why it is that a ballpark next to the huge proposed development on the Boulevard would fare less well than one in Shockoe Bottom? I’ve asked this several times and have yet to hear an explanation.

Reply
ptaylor 02/21/2009 at 8:26 AM

Anna, here’s another question. The RFP for Shockoe Center was received in late ’07. The R-Braves were still here; the City was allegedly still negotiating with them. Why was this wonderful plan never pitched to the Braves?

Reply
ptaylor 02/21/2009 at 8:33 AM

According to the developer’s PowerPoint the stadium/ballpark has not been designed yet. How do they know what the cost will be? Especially considering the amount of excavation and the cost of groundwater mitigation and stormwater control.

Reply
ptaylor 02/21/2009 at 8:39 AM

Oh boy, oh boy!

shockoecenter.com is on-line!

Actually it’s just the Highwoods corporate home page. There’s no mention of Shockoe Center, Boulevard, or baseball.

Reply
Bob 02/21/2009 at 10:03 AM

#143. excellent, exactly my point. Oh, and let’s not forget the issue with Newbille.

Reply
hillkid 02/21/2009 at 1:17 PM

Ramzi/#140:

“In case it hasn’t occurred to you, you can’t buy votes when there’s a secret ballot, it’s better known as campaigning.”

Excuse me? Of course you can buy votes with or without a secret ballot. You are naive to think that this funny money was not meant to buy votes.

I believe it is you who is bickering. If you haven’t noticed, I’m not the only one who sees this funny money as a huge problem (see Williams article today in the RTD.)

Ms. Clarke’s address is public record (RTD) and fair game in this thread. Sending her money back is the right thing to do whether you or gray or anyone else thinks so or not.

This thread is about the CHA meeting the other night and the vote taken there along with a discussion about the free memberships. There are other threads to discuss the stadium, and in my opinion it has been exhausted. My comments are relevant to this thread like it or not.

As for your statement, “She was using her own money” You are wrong! She was, by her own admission, using money given to her, allegedly, by a representative of Al Thweatt.

Trying to “pad” the vote of any organization, by whatever means, is wrong, People who accepted money for membership, are encouraging that practice, no matter how they voted. I understand someone being offered the money and thinking, “oh great, a freebee.” But as we all know, very few things are actually free. And by encouraging these behind the scenes dealings and machinations, we will create a political environment for which we will all pay dearly, down the road.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/21/2009 at 2:07 PM

Would it be possible for people to cease and desist fighting one another long enough to remember that the issue here is whether this stadium is a good thing or not for Shockoe Bottom and for the rest of the city?

Many thanks to ptaylor and John Gerner for noting that this project isn’t even mentioned on the Highwoods website. A little additional checking reveals that:

The Memphis stadium operation is struggling. one of the three examples used on page 16 of the developers’ “Shockoe Center – 40 Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.” The Memphis article is at:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/Apr/24/new-redbird-has-tough-goal-fill-the-park/

The Q&A is at:

http://pharrout.com/~hillsand/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/shockoe-ctr1.pdf

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/21/2009 at 2:37 PM

By all means, e-mail Betty Squire at Bett1705@aol.com and make your concerns known.

Other citizens need to let everyone on Council know that this whole matter is becoming an embarassment for the City.

How dare some people try so blatantly to treat people as if we are mere pawns to be moved about a chess board? How dare they manipulate neighbor against neighbor?

Why can’t they put the stadium on the Boulevard? What is the problem with that? What a waste of space and good will.

McQuinn, Marsh and minions need to understand that the poor people in the 7th district are not theirs for the manipulation. Maybe back in the day, these politicoes could get away with this, but even “poor” people are a whole lot more sophisticated today than they were 30-40 years ago.

If this nonsense doesn’t stop, someone needs to figure out who will run against McQuinn this fall when she actually has to run for House of Delegate’s seat as opposed to having Mayor Jones place the crown on her head like some rhinestone tiara.

And, someone needs to get ready to challenge Marsh as well. Enough is enough.

First things first: Make McQuinn work for the vote. This stinks and she needs to be held accountable. Perhaps there is an explanation, if so, the voters of the 7th District deserve to hear the answer from McQuinn herself.

And, King Henry has been strangely low-profile and silent through here. He is, afterall, representing this ball club in the bottom business. Is it with his blessing and at his behest that these shenanigans are going down?

He needs to be held accountable by the people of the 7th District. How dare he allow anyone to treat people as if their vote is so cheap?! How dare he allow this to happen. He represents these baseball people, he needs to tell them to stop.

We need to remind him that he is SUPPOSED to represent the citizens before he represents the businessmen on this one.

Reply
Anna 02/21/2009 at 6:31 PM

Re: the question about why baseball doesn’t work on the Boulevard…I have actually spoken about my feelings as to why baseball would not work *as well* (keyword here) in this location many times on other threads. Other threads being here, and on one of FT Rea’s blogs, and probably somewhere else.

I especially have a problem with people from the Sierra Club supporting the Boulevard site for environmental reasons when this option supports surface lots and encourages more people to drive as opposed to using public transportation or carpooling (among other not so strong reasons – such as talking about how Fenway park has added ‘green’ aspects to the stadium that already exists…how that applies to opposing a stadium that has yet to be built is beyond me).

To highlight the main reason: the Shockoe location allows for more of a positive affect on the surrounding businesses than the ballpark does for the Boulevard. By this I mean that if people are already parked down in the Bottom area, they are more likely to walk to say a restaurant, bar, museum, or the Canal Walk(before or after) because these streets are typical pedestrian streets. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many families willing to tote their children down the Boulevard, across some train tracks or an interstate to grab a bite or visit the Children’s Museum almost a mile away. The atmosphere is already in the Bottom, the makeover has already begun down there…its the heart of the city.

Ptaylor – I’m sure the stadium was pitched to the Braves, but the Braves had also been through this with Richmond before and they wanted a more immediate plan. Not one that they *knew* (from the last time around) would be debated for months because of the people in Richmond that are resistant to change. The Braves have been here forever, they knew what they were dealing with, and they were tired of it. Add that to the fact that they weren’t run by a local group, making them have VERY little reason to put up with it when they had fans and a location outside Atlanta screaming YES.

Furthermore, you’ve seen the very hushed way the MiLB likes franchise moves to be handled with the attempted purchase of the Defenders. Not to mention, they typically need to start happening (and getting approvals) a season in advance. I’m not going to go back and rehash the timeline, but I suspect the application to move the team was going through during the offseason after the 2007 season – meaning a somewhat firm decision had already been reached.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/21/2009 at 9:41 PM

Bryan Bostic’s previous group (Richmond Ballpark initiative) optioned the purchase of Shockoe Bottom buildings in 2004, as noted in the middle of the right column in this Thalhimer MarketBeat Snapshot:

http://www.thalhimer.com/old/reports/2004/1stQTR2004.pdf

If he or his current group still has these options, or has similar options, this would be quite interesting. Since his new group (Richmond Baseball Club LC) is proposing to be the developer of the new stadium, he could essentially be negotiating with himself for the purchase of property in Shockoe Bottom using public money generated by the bonds.

Reply
ptaylor 02/21/2009 at 11:11 PM

Anna(150) “I’m sure the stadium was pitched to the Braves” I say, Anna, you’re a liar. How are you, a simple fan, ‘sure’ whast was pitched to the Braves? Prove me wrong.At the time the Braves left, they categorically stated that there had been no contact with the Wilder administration for several months. But , Anna, you know better than Bruce Baldwin, and ,Anna, you know better than Doug Wilder. But of course you, self-proclaimed 23 year old, spend your weekends pimping for Peter Boisseau.

Reply
ptaylor 02/21/2009 at 11:26 PM

150Anna said “Add that to the fact that they weren’t run by a local group”

Let’s see, the R- Braves were here for 42 years but they’re not a “local” group. Highwoods Properties is a Raleigh based firm with a local branch office for +/- 10 years – and they are a “local” group. And Bostic’s fantasy investors? “Local” of course – because they say so.

Reply
Liberty 02/22/2009 at 10:56 AM

so our home team has been downgraded to AA baseball, yet were gonna build a better stadium than we had for our departed AAA baseball team. So maybe we can shoot for a single A team and build an even more expensive entertainment sports complex.

for those who say theres nothing to do besides baseball on the boulevard, i guess the new movie theatre is nothing, and the recent poular restaurants that opened on the boulevard are nothing also. Only development in shoke bottom is development, if we develop the boulevard site its just not development, just ask anyone from the development company, they’ll tell ya, they know they are smart.

Reply
Anna 02/22/2009 at 11:54 AM

ptaylor – you, sir, have made your last rude comment to me. You can say you disagree with me, you can say you think I’m wrong, but calling me a liar and using such strong language as “pimping”…I’m not ok with it.

I say “I’m sure” because it doesn’t make sense that they didn’t pitch it. I’m sorry for my semantical error – I didn’t expect you to take it so literally, after all I’m just a fan.

By “not a local group” I mean that the Braves were owned by the big league team and not a local group of investors. Minor League Baseball has pointed out that local ownership works better in communities (I read that in an article on milb.com, can’t remember which one; I read lots of things on there). Highwoods is not the group buying the team, Bryan Bostic is, and he’s very active in his community. Also, if you look up Peter Kreckman, you’ll find that he has had a long history of experience here including owning a local development company that he started up in 1984. He merged his comapany with Highwoods 11 years later. Go read his company profile before you accuse me of lying about my identity again.

Liberty – the new movie theater is not something that will help baseball. First of all – you’re not going to walk from a baseball game to go see a movie. Second – you’re not going to want to walk down the boulevard across the train tracks with your family. Aside from kitchen 64, what other restaurants are there? I’ve avoided that area once the R-Braves left…fill me in.

As for the AA stadium comment – if we were to get a AAA team, the stadium plans would have to be upgraded. In order to have a AAA team, your stadium must seat a minimum of 10,000 people. The current plans call for a max of 8,500 (I think) and is no more extravagant than the current stadiums that have been built as far as the ballpark itself goes (meaning seats, suites, party decks, picnic areas, 360 concourse, etc.). My ***guess*** would be the price tag is to accomodate the drainage issue and the buildings that will surround the stadium.

Again, I must stress that this discussion needs to remain more civil than it has. I don’t appreciate being called names and I don’t think anybody else does either. You can get your opinion across without being so aggressive that you offend your own neighbors (and by neighbors I mean everyone in Richmond is in this together, not just Church Hill or the fan or the Northside). Seriously, we all need to act like adults.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/22/2009 at 12:51 PM

To say that this thing just doesn’t make sense, is an understatement.

The following are some of the better questions (and answers) I have heard from friends, neighbors and concerned citizens since this whole mess started.

1. Why can’t we fix up the Diamond for far less and still manage to bring in a decent team?

Does it needs some repair? Yes.

Should it have some entertainment venues/activities around it? Yes, again. A movie theater is nice, yes. Do people go to dinner before or after movies? Yes.

Might it include a new (or nearly new) stadium on the Boulevard? Yes.

All of this was part of the prior plan that the Braves and the Counties agreed to before Doug “The Wild Man” Wilder scared the hell out of everyone and forced them to run for cover.

Steee-rike One! Proponents claim this stadium will generate new tax money — but their own so-called plan shows this to be false.

ALL of the tax growth will go to Bostic & Boisseau — not a nickel to the taxpayers.

STEEEE-RIKE Two! As has been said before — and bears repeating (often): This is bad business, bad public policy and bad news.

As one blogger recently put it: “From a bottom line point of view, this whole proposal depends upon nearly 200,000 square feet of retail, mostly restaurants to get the meals tax money.

“If, say, 60% is restaurant, that means around THIRTY national chain restaurants in a couple of blocks. THIRTY!! THIRTY!! That is THREE TIMES the number in Stony Point! Has ANYONE told the Shockoe Bottom businesses that?”

Steeeee-rike Three! The revenue that goes from restaurants into the baseball district will come off the tax rolls, which means the taxpayers get hit.

Again.
And, again.
And, again.
Do the math.
This thing won’t work.

Has Highwoods Properties ever agreed IN WRITING to guarantee the tax revenues that underlie this scheme? No, Sir!

They are merely the “master developer” and “will find other developers.” Right. ;(

I also hear they have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Just the thing for a sleepy Southern town filled with rubes who will agree with anybody in a suit & tie and a slick patter. Especially, if they hire 23-year-old somethings to work the blogs on their behalf and throw in some batter batter batter chatter about what a good CIVIC thing this is …..

Steee-rike One! Let’s have a little reality therapy here, gang. Plain and simple: Brian Bostic wants a team in a brand-damn-new stadium and a minimal rent to him.

Steee-rike Two! If you dare to disagree, you are just plain too stupid to get it, or, more politely — you lack vision and you need 23-year-old “Anna” to tell you what is what.

Steeee-rike Three! For those who are keeping score –the so-called “rent” that Bostic’s new team will pay will be far less than the Braves paid on what he says is a bad facility.

Reply
Bob 02/22/2009 at 1:13 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is: Remember all the buzz when riverboat gambling was “hip”, and it was going to bring in mega dollars, and employment? Just like in Atlantic City? Did it help fix up the town, or was it sent out of town into certain persons open pockets?

Reply
Sideshow 02/22/2009 at 1:19 PM

You are saying that we shouldn’t build this because riverboat gambling didn’t do good things for Atlantic City?

Reply
Bob 02/22/2009 at 1:32 PM

No, what I am saying is at one time, Riverboat gambling was going to be the savior for many Cities and Towns, with all the empty promises of employment, and monies coming back into the Cities. It turned out to not benefit the Cities, only a certain few. They even tried it here serveral times, but people learned by example of other places, including MS, IA. Now we are getting fed the same thing, but this time it’s baseball.

Reply
bill7 02/22/2009 at 2:09 PM

are the lovings getting cold feet? and ready to talk to vcu? i expect that everyone that is not in the bottom with love the new parking deck development with tax revenue way less than zero.

Reply
Liberty 02/22/2009 at 2:25 PM

Anna-how do you know people wont go to a movie and a ball game? oh yeah i forgot youre a know it all. bostic sure has you brain washed. your logic is twisted, you say we get a ballpark plus all this other entertainment stuff if we develop the bottom, then you say people who go to ball parks only go to see a game, nothing else. With only a portion of the money for the new stadium I’m sure the boulevard could have more entertainment venues, sell some bonds Ptaylor puts you in your place every time so quit cryin about it. i dont trust bostic as far as i could throw that whale.

Reply
crd 02/22/2009 at 2:26 PM

Check out the headline at the top of the left column here – “A wire post about vacancy rates in different cities currently making the rounds ([1] [2]) calls Richmond one of the country’s “Top 15 Emptiest Cities” and says that “Richmond, Va.’s rental vacancy rate of 23.7% is the worst in America” higher even than Detroit’s 19.9% or Las Vegas’ 16% residential rental vacancy rates.”

So, this development would add yet more vacant condos? Plus, there is an article in today’s Times Dispatch about the huge glut of vacant commercial space – with the downtown “central business district” leading the way. So, this development would add yet more empty offices?

How does that make any economic sense at all?

Joe, as always, thanks for your posts, particularly #156.

Bill I can’t understand your post – are you saying that there’s going to be a parking deck there “with love”?

And others, please don’t start with riverboat gambling. No, it does not bring economic development, it sucks it out of the surrounding communities. Period, end of story.

Anna – you posted way back on one of these threads that you believed the 6th St. Market was a “build it and they will come” prior to the convention center. You’re too young to remember it, but there already WAS a convention center down there when they built 6th St., and while supporting the convention center was a small part of the retail, it was more a shopping destination. It failed because of many reasons, which we don’t need to rehash here – but 6th St. DID cost the city a lot of money, and Henry Marsh was behind it all the way. ‘Nuff said.

Reply
Anna 02/22/2009 at 11:17 PM

Ptaylor far from puts me in my place – he falsely calls me a liar and accuses me of being in the back pocket of the developers. Given that both those statements are wrong, I’d say he throws around some personal insults which sound pretty good, but do little to advance the substance of his argument.

Baseball and movies are not complimentary activities. I doubt many people would sit through a 3 hour baseball game that starts at 7ish, and still even be able to make it to a movie. Even if they could, would they want to sit around for another 2 hours? And spend at least $10 on a movie ticket after the relatively cheap alternative of a baseball game?

MAYBE there are some people who would make a 6 hour activity of it on a rare day-game, but I think common sense, or even time management would steer people away from that option. Its not me “knowing it all”, its actually thinking through that scenario.

The point I make with baseball working BETTER in the bottom is that the pedestrian culture is already there; the more people friendly streets, as opposed to 4 lane nearly highways.

I NEVER said people will only go to a ballgame no matter what, I said that people will only go to a ballgame if its on the Boulevard because you drive there, park in the easily available surface lot, and drive home because you don’t want to walk down the Boulevard with your kids. On top of that, unless this movie theater does *really* well, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to get substantial traffic on the Boulevard in the offseason to patronize restaurants and other retail, whereas the Bottom supports such business year-round already.

As for the Convention Center that existed, this is the article I read tat gave me the impression that the 6th Street Marketplace was meant to be supported by the “to be built” GRCC:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/edit/magazine/yr2002/mar02/broadst.shtml

I particularly liked the quote that says the 6th Street Marketplace and other city center things failed because they were trying to force the market where they did not want to go(as opposed to all the renovations being done at the time on the Canal Walk)…I think this statement could apply to trying to transform the Boulevard into something it is not instead of developing the naturally pedestrian Bottom.

Finally – how do none of the taxes generated go to the taxpayers? The bill calls for only part of the tax revenues generated to go towards paying off the bonds. Not all of them.

And, for the third time, will somebody answer this question: If you destroy the Diamond to build a new stadium, where will the team they’re buying this year play? Where will VCU play?

Again, I don’t think (notice this is an opinion, I certainly don’t profess to know everything that goes into building or remodeling a stadium) renovations will work as far as keeping costs low…check out the newer ballparks seating charts and you’ll see why there is much in the way of structural differences. Also, given the wording of the comments from MiLB, I don’t think they’ll settle for anything less than a new stadium deal…not just renovations.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/23/2009 at 9:19 AM

Anna,

Gee, Anna, nobody told “Bostic & His Boyz” to buy a team for $15 freakin’ million dollars!

I do not recall this city ever “voting” that we wanted to issue bonds in order to bring this thing into being. Why haven’t the counties stepped up? The local universities?

Maybe VCU might have to put some money on the table if they want to play.

Why is it appropriate for taxpayer money go to funding a private enterprise?

What if the restaurants in Shockoe Bottom decided they wanted to renovate their buildings? Should the taxpayers allow them to “keep” 2 percent of the meals tax in order to do that?

Why should we favor one enterprise over another? ‘Cause they’re big dogs? Don’t think so — not with my nickel.

If they want to play ball in this town, they will need to understand who is the boss and who isn’t. Since when does someone selling something get to dictate the terms to the buyer?

If they want to close a deal — then they need to compromise and cooperate. If they don’t — fine. But, vendors in this market are not exactly in the driver’s seat.

We are the “customers” so to speak and if they want our business, best that they not get too busy dictating that we MUST build them a stadium.

And, if we don’t?

We don’t.

Will they convince Chesterfield County to do this? Henrico? Hanover?

Not likely.

Reply
Shannon 02/23/2009 at 11:17 AM

RE #162: yes, yes and yes. great points.

RE #148: “People who accepted money for membership, are encouraging that practice, no matter how they voted.”

Nope. I know that I have stated that I, personally, would not be able to do it – just my achilles heel, people attempting to control me. But in concept it’s kind of a great way to stick it to the attempted manipulators.

Reply
Liberty 02/23/2009 at 11:45 AM

from a simple business perspective my issue with the plan is the developers, i dont like their attitude. What i would like to see is some competition for the development instead of ONE organization controling. competition is good for the consumer. I have a feeling the developers are scared of the competition because then all we have to choose from is bostic’s idea and i just aint impressed with him and his NC company

Reply
Anna 02/23/2009 at 1:02 PM

Not sure, but I’m pretty sure VCU does pay to use the Diamond.

Also, and again, Peter Kreckman’s company may have merged into a NC company, but he has managed either his or a branch of Highwood’s development company in Richmond for at least 24 years. Apparently he did consulting before that, though the information on what that entails is limited. Stop acting like they’re outsiders just because the firm Kreckman merged into is based in NC.

Furthermore, there WAS competition for the plan the city chose. Its called a RFP – request for proposal, meaning the city requested proposals for a ballpark and anybody who wants to draw up a plan may do so (there could be restrictions on what type of companies are able to respond, I really don’t know, my knowledge of RFPs is limited to the definition). The city board (I think) chose the proposal by Highwoods.

Reply
neighbor 02/23/2009 at 1:57 PM

Liberty (@166):

Highwoods became lead developer after a massive City-led request for proposals to hundreds (if not thousands) of developers nationwide for the bottom and the blvd. There was a HUGE nationwide search/”competition”. So there has already been a competition.

Even if the government wasn’t involved in the search, having a lead developer on a major project is the industry standard. There is usually a lead developer and then a few junior partner developoers on any given big development anywhere.

Reply
Curmudgeon 02/23/2009 at 3:33 PM

Have we yet reached the law of diminishing return re: the utility of these conversations on the stadium? Let us not get target-fixed on one issue and forget the others. Tonight big-doings and votes at City Counsel on Oakwood Heights and James River Park Conservatory Plans. Will such concerned citizens be there to speak up and make an inpact or sitting at their computers yet writing more notes to each other on the stadium?
Remember Echo Harbour and the amendments to the Downtown Master Plan?
Will these actions let the fox into the hen house.

Reply
crd 02/23/2009 at 3:45 PM

#165, “But in concept it’s kind of a great way to stick it to the attempted manipulators.”

I agree completely! And I bet Gray does too!

#166, good point about competition – but hey, “WE” aren’t really choosing this, our city council is supposedly going to do it. Wouldn’t it be nice if we not only had competition to choose from, but an actual vote, toO!

Reply
Liberty 02/23/2009 at 4:23 PM

According to the developers propoganda about the shockoe site theres gonna be no extra cost to the taxpayers…EXCEPT- the money to upgrade the utilities, lol, im sure this is gonna be a real good deal for the taxpayers. Of course this figure is elastic and IM sure its gonna be more expensive than less expensive, when isnt it when the govt. gets to work. So instead of spending all this money upgrading utilities and whatnot for the shockoe site, which i havent even heard any quotes of how much this is gonna cost the taxpayers, Why not just spend this money upgrading the diamond and using a lil capital to assist more private development around the diamond? Do you suppose someone who owns alot of property around the shockoe site is pulling in political favors from their little political friends.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/23/2009 at 6:03 PM

A *MUST READ* for those trying to make sense of the Boondoggle in the Bottom.

“Field of Schemes” is a play-by-play account of how the drive for new sports stadiums and arenas drains $2 billion a year from public treasuries for the sake of private profit.

While the millionaires who own sports franchises have seen the value of their assets soar under this scheme, taxpayers, urban residents, and sports fans have all come out losers, forced to pay both higher taxes and higher ticket prices for seats that, thanks to the layers of luxury seating that typify new stadiums, usually offer a worse view of the action.

The stories in “Field of Schemes” — from Baltimore to Cleveland and Minneapolis to Seattle and dozens of places in between, tell of the sports-team owners who use their money and their political muscle to get their way, and of the stories of spirited local groups—like Detroit’s Tiger Stadium Fan Club and Boston’s Save Fenway Park!—that have fought to save the games we love and the public dollars our cities need.

This revised and expanded edition features the first comprehensive reporting on the recent stadium battles in Washington DC, New York City, and Boston as well as updates on how cities have fared with the first wave of new stadiums built in recent years.

Neil deMause is a Brooklyn-based journalist who writes regularly for the Village Voice, Extra!, and Baseball Prospectus and runs the stadium-watch Web site fieldofschemes.com.

Joanna Cagan is a teacher and writer in New York City. She has written for numerous publications, including the Village Voice, the New York Times Magazine, and Interview.

“Field of Schemes is a superb work of investigative reporting and righteous indignation. The fan pays twice: once for the stadium and again for the ticket to get into the stadium. If enough fans read it, we could break this cycle.”—Allen Barra, sports columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of The Last Coach: A Life of Paul “Bear” Bryant

“This is as crystal clear as it gets. Field of Schemes shows exactly how your tax dollars end up in the pockets of sports team owners and players in our fake democracy.”—Jim Bouton, author of Ball Four and Foul Ball

“A thoughtful and comprehensive examination of the curious issue of love and money in sport.”—Frank Deford, Senior Contributing Writer at Sports Illustrated and author of The Entitled

“A well-written and poignant analysis of America’s stadium mess.”—Andrew Zimbalist, Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics, Smith College, and author of In the Best Interests of Baseball? The Revolutionary Reign of Bud Selig

“If this book had been around for the Greeks to read, they would have learned that they should’ve billed Troy for the horse.”—Molly Ivins, newspaper columnist, political commentator, and best-selling author

“The authoritative book on stadium boondoggles across the country.”—Minneapolis City Pages

Click here: Field of Schemes – University of Nebraska Press http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Field-of-Schemes,673388.aspx

Author Web Page
Read an Excerpt (pdf)

Reply
Jim 02/23/2009 at 10:31 PM

Joe,

Have you even read the book “Field of Schemes”? Googling a topic does not make you an expert in that field. I really don’t know how you can compare the new Yankee Stadium to the project in the Bottom. Many of the proponents of the project have actually lived or at least spent significant time in a city with a downtown ballpark. If you were to spend time in a minor league city with the same population as Richmond you would see the reality of the situation; and if you are looking for equivalent cities or ballparks to compare this to, look at cities like Memphis, Durham, and Louisville – not New York.

Reply
tiny 02/24/2009 at 6:53 AM

Besides that, Joe could have just provided the link instead of pasting the back jacket information for the book. Joe has a habit of pasting whole articles or reviews that support his point instead of just providing a link. Why is that?

Reply
Shannon 02/24/2009 at 7:27 AM

I love when folks try to check each other on blog etiquette. It makes me smile.

I wonder if someone could provide a link to a comprehensive set of rules for participating in a local-based online community forum…

Reply
Lurker 02/24/2009 at 7:50 AM

Like this?

http://www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com/2008/08/ten-golden-rules-of-online.html

…eh best I could find via my google-fu *shrug*

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/24/2009 at 7:54 AM

Jim,

Reading a book doesn’t make one an expert. Never has. But, I now have this book and am half-way through it. Do you want to borrow it?

There are examples in it of stadium boondoggles “from Baltimore to Cleveland and Minneapolis to Seattle and dozens of places in between.”

Tiny,

I do that because some people do not trust links to unknown sites and I know you have very little free time to read anything. Therefore, I try to make it as easy as possible for you.

Reply
crd 02/24/2009 at 9:44 AM

Hey, I personally liked all the extra information instead of a simple link. It made me more interested in actually going to the site. Thanks, Joe.

Joe, what does the book say about some of the stadiums mentioned by fans of the one here – Durham comes to mind as something Anna has mentioned. Also didn’t Toledo or Columbus, some town in Ohio, do a new urban stadium in the last few years?

Reply
tiny 02/24/2009 at 9:54 AM

Actually, the longer the post, the least likely it is the other readers will read all of it. This is basic journalism / technical writing. The only ones that are going to read that whole thing are those on your side. It’s much better to make your point in smaller slices.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/24/2009 at 12:03 PM

From Style Weekly —

City Funds for Ballpark Drainage Could Top $15 million

by Scott Bass

The costs for city improvements to pave the way for a new ballpark in Shockoe Bottom appears to be much more than originally projected, a City Hall official tells Style Weekly.

Developers proposing the $363 million ballpark development have said that only $8 million in city infrastructure improvements would be needed to upgrade water and sewer lines and improve streets in the Bottom.

Initial city estimates, however, peg the cost at $15 million, and it could be much more, says the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Just the storm-water portion,” the source says — “the developers made an assumption based on very preliminary or incomplete data.”

To prepare the area for development, the source says, the area would need two large inlets with major pipes that would connect to the main culvert underground. The system, coupled with the ballpark — which would act as a retention basin — would help ensure proper drainage in the area during a major flood, such as the one that engulfed the Bottom in 2004 during Tropical Storm Gaston.

The improvements, key to the overall ballpark plan, are expected to help open up more than 20 acres in the neighborhood for development.

Tammy Hawley, the mayor’s press secretary, declines to comment on the potential costs. Hawley says city officials are still studying the proposal.

http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dir

Reply
Anna 02/24/2009 at 1:06 PM

Its Toledo, from the images I’ve seen on their website, and from an article I’ve read (I would link it, but it was a while ago and I’m not sure where it was posted) its been a great success in the area. Also, using google maps streetview I’ve been able to view the area its in…it looks really nice.

Reply
Shannon 02/24/2009 at 2:46 PM

RE #179 – Personally, I think that folks interested in educating themselves appreciate information. There is a difference between soundbite, hit-em-and-quit-em, and taking the time to comprehend a topic at hand in a well rounded way in order to form a valid opinion that is based on facts.

I guess it really depends on what level of learnedness a person chooses to aspire to.

Reply
Liberty 02/24/2009 at 4:05 PM

“the developers made an assumption based on very preliminary or incomplete data.”
keep up the great work geniuses

Reply
Liberty 02/25/2009 at 2:48 PM

just trying to help us citizens not get ripped off. I think no ones talikng about the resolution the govt. passed regarding the devlopment. Our former Richmond council Prez Assemblyperson Loupasi. is a big player a sponsor, i think, of the resolution. Someone with more time and skills than me needs to look at this resolution and boil it down in laymans terms, it seems pretty relevant to this issue.

Reply
Liz 02/25/2009 at 4:32 PM

After hearing what was said at the Feb. 10 meeting at Holton Elementary, I have to ask at least 2 questions of the Highwoods Development team and Mr. Bostic: 1- Is a baseball stadium the only structure known to all of mankind that can be built in the Shockoe area flood plain (you talk as if it is); and 2- Does the mystery team Mr. Bostic is bringing to Richmond HAVE to play in a stadium built in Shockoe, or can we build a new stadium on the Boulevard and they’ll be just as happy there? Those 65 acres on Boulevard are already paid for and don’t require any leases or purchases to build on it. Sounds like a little less overhead to me!

Reply
Anna 02/25/2009 at 7:37 PM

1 – its not the only structure that can be built there, but due to the floodplain there are green space restrictions that a ballpark addresses (with its large outfield). As far as my understanding goes, other developments would have to be just as large, and incorporate just as much greenspace since this area can only be developed in large pieces, not piecemeal.

2 – First of all, its not a mystery team, its the Connecticut Defenders. A team of a very respectable and fun level (AA) to watch.

I agree that at first glance it seems more practical to built on the Boulevard. But factor in that the team is meant to play in the Diamond NEXT season…where would they play if they start building at the Boulevard site? Or if you propose they build next to the Diamond while the season is being played, where do the fans park?

Also, the developers (aka – the ones investing $300-some million in the project) envision a pedestrian culture surrounding the new ballpark that the Bottom already has. Its a little more risky to try to change the Boulevard into that kind of culture and *hope* that people start walkin’ about.

Reply
Paul Hammond 02/25/2009 at 8:05 PM

Anna, thank you for your contributions and rational, factual responses. I’ve grown just a little be tired of this, which I think is the design of the full time anonymous spammers on this thread.

Reply
gray 02/25/2009 at 8:13 PM

Green space? What if the bottom could boast having the largest community gardens on the east coast? Food is very expensive now and organic is beyond most folk’s budget.

What about a green space like the Washington Mall but smaller? Would go well with the National Slavery Museum.

What about a sculpture garden park?

Someone has mentioned on previous threads, a skateboard park. This would be used year round.

A public soccer field is green space.

A grove of fruit bearing trees would be lovely.

All of these ideas and many more could go as well with a development of stores, apartments, etc.

Reply
FanGuy 02/25/2009 at 11:15 PM

C’mon Gray, why stop there? Why not plant a grove of money trees???? I know, we could build a rainbow that spans interstate 95, and on one end of it we could have a giant pot of gold! That would be swell!

Anna, your points are well stated. I think you are wasting your efforts in this thread though. Maybe you should write a letter to Style in favor of the ballpark and see if they will actually publish it.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/26/2009 at 8:03 AM

Anna the AA association has to approve of the trade and so far they have said Hell no. Considering the Defenders are in a park that went south and they have very real finacial problems does not mean they will get the team to move. They are fun team with some underling finacial issues.

This park is going to be like Harbor Park where they go for the game,eat and drink then leave. Considering the reputation of Shockoe Bottom they will drive off a little faster.

Reply
gray 02/26/2009 at 8:05 AM

Paul Hammond, who are the anonymous spammers? I actually know many of the folk on this thread, except for Anna. Anna hasn’t even stated where she lives. For all we know she lives in NC. The state and city tax rates she mentioned in post #83 aren’t Richmond’s or Virginia’s. She should submit a piece to style but she’ll have to give a real name for them to publish it.

Fanguy, aren’t the developers the ones promising money trees and a pot of gold?

Reply
Shannon 02/26/2009 at 8:55 AM

Why would the stadium on the Boulevard need to be torn down completely? Does anyone here know exactly what is wrong with it? I’d genuinely like to understand that better, please, and would appreciate any information that could be shared about those specifics.

RE: #189 – Ever been to DC to check out the cherry blossoms in bloom? Astoundingly gorgeous. Killer suggestion.

Once in a while someone makes a post that gives me an immense amount of gratitude, and 189 was one of those. On this beautiful morning, I am so glad that I grew out of the mindset that cutting, and deliberately hurtful attempts at cynicism are the best route to coolness. I think that happened around 8th grade, and I am really appreciating that reminder! YAY!

Reply
neighbor 02/26/2009 at 10:53 AM

Boulevard is not feasible for the following reasons:

The diamond was outdated when it was built. It was the last of the large major-league-style monolithic stadiums built for the minor leagues. It is steep, dark in the corridors, cramped, yet too big (so it always looks empty, even with a crowd – exception was perhaps the 4th), uncomfortable, stark (huge monolith in middle of parking lots), pedestrian unfriendly, poorly designed boxes, inconvenient concession areas, no room for family areas, etc. No ball team wants to play there. Just like no department store wants to go to Clover Leaf no matter how much you clean it up, no team wants to go to the Diamond, even if it is renovated.

Also, there isn’t enough room at the Boulevard for a critical mass of private development to sustain a TIF plan like the one in the bottom. You can’t move the Ashe Center from the site politically, you can’t afford to move the public works lot, the soccer field is staying, and VCU wants a tennis center there. So all that means no room for any supporting mixed-use development. Taxpayers would have to pay for every cent of a Boulevard rebuild or renovated stadium straight from their pockets.

Reply
neighbor 02/26/2009 at 10:58 AM

Gray’s #188 ideas are nice, but none of them economically sustainable. Also in those cases the City would have to pay for the flood infrastucture to the stores, etc – that the developers are paying for up front here for the private development.

Reply
Scott Burger 02/26/2009 at 12:00 PM

“Just like no department store wants to go to Clover Leaf no matter how much you clean it up, no team wants to go to the Diamond, even if it is renovated.”

So VCU baseball would turn the Boulevard ballpark down if offered? I think you are full of it.

“that the developers are paying for up front here for the private development.”

If this is true why aren’t developers already paying for the infrastructure needed to abate possible flooding?

You guys are just twisting in the wind.

Allow Shockoe Bottom to develop a multimodal transportation center and a slavery museum. Allow Boulevard to develop baseball and recreation. Both with greeness and shopping/restarants galore. This is what the people who LIVE here want.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/26/2009 at 12:15 PM

Yo! $15 million for infrastructure in the bottom versus moving the Ashe Center — a building that is a huge waste of taxpayer money and HAS NO TENNIS COURTS — makes no sense at all!

That is a political fight that in this economy can be won …. why not “partner” with VCU or the Seminary to find a better location for a tennis center?

That area is ripe for mixed-use development and has been for years. The developers on this deal have purchased LAND in Shockoe Botoom and it is ALL ABOUT MAKING THEM RICHER and the taxpayer poorer.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/26/2009 at 12:40 PM

I wonder how many times I have to say this If the City still needs to fix the flooding issues in Shockoe Bottom what did they do with the over 2 million they spent on fixing the cisterns and drainage they did already?

And once again I ask if they use the outfield for drainage where does it go to? Sounds like we would do better to put a water polo field you supply the horse with water waders and Shockoe Bottom will provide the water. When the Diamond had those flooding issues the team did not play so you want to cut a season down further during the rainy months?

Reply
Shannon 02/26/2009 at 1:03 PM

Neighbor – Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. I appreciate that.

Reply
Anna 02/26/2009 at 1:31 PM

SBD, again with the AA “association”…you really have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to MiLB. Its the EASTERN LEAGUE. JUST the eastern league. There’s no “AA” president. And its a sale to Bostic’s group Richmond Baseball Club…not a trade.

I believe its the sale that actually has been approved, or is in the process of being approved, while the application to MOVE the team from Connecticut is pending the analysis of the plans to build a new stadium since they’ve stated that there’s no way they will be ok with staying in the Diamond. In fact, I’m pretty sure MiLB has made it abundantly clear they want to be in Richmond so long as the stadium issue is settled.

The reason the Defenders are struggling is because they don’t have the population OR the weather to support a full-season minor league team. Its not the Sawx (yes, thats bostonian for Red Sox) that draws no matter how cold. The mayor of Norwich even said (in the article that either you or JoeRichmond posted in here) that they would love a short-season team.

While I may assume some things about the psychology of consumers (and trust that I hold those as opinions, and not fact), I do understand the structure of the minor leagues.

Gray, those greenspace ideas would be great, but I’m pretty sure the tax payers would have to foot the bill for them since greenspace typically doesn’t generate ROI (unless, of course, its the outfield of a ballpark). Now are cherry blossoms more important than schools?

Also, regarding the necessary changes that need to be made to the Diamond make it a “modern” ballpark, I’ve posted numerous links on numerous threads of what a successful minor league park looks like – again, try the Greensboro, Toledo, or Durham seating charts. Notice how none of those stadiums have the bulky upper bowl that the Diamond does, and instead they have numerous suites, party decks, and picnic areas. Is it possible to somehow disconnect the upperbowl and airlift it out?? 🙂

And yes, I’m from NC, too. Awesome. Instead of arguing my points, just discredit my opinion based on where I live.

My unawareness of the tax rate has nothing to do with where I live, I mispoke, I just didn’t feel the need to waste space with a rebuttal when you already corrected it – I had meant that the state tax portion that goes to transportation and schools would not be touched.

Reply
gray 02/26/2009 at 1:32 PM

#194, I was throwing out some green space ideas to show that the stadium is not the only green idea around.

Now to economics:

If the stadium in the bottom is economically sustainable, then why do the developers need our money? Our votes? Our support? If it were truely a private enterprise, the developers would buy the land and pay for everything themselves and hope for the best. Read FTRea’s article “Will Taxpayers Buy a Bridge to Bankruptcy?” http://slantblog.blogspot.com/

Reply
neighbor 02/26/2009 at 2:16 PM

Gray #197, I think we see the TIF style finance in different lights – not sure where the bridge between our views is.

I like your style and your comments. I’m just trying to throw it out there that those other green ideas would probably cost taxpayers a lot more than they would seem. The unfortunate (or fortunate?) reality is that a simple park isn’t going to attract development to pay for it or provide the needed infrastructure (everything in the flood plain needs a bridge to it, to belabor the bridge reference).

So while your (good) ideas are technically possible, they are not feasible.

Reply
neighbor 02/26/2009 at 2:22 PM

Scott, has it occured to you that the tenant might not want to be on Boulevard? What if the tenant doesn’t want to be there? Your positions totally disregard that factor.

Reply
Ron 02/26/2009 at 2:39 PM

Scott,
Who is stopping “Shockloe Bottom from developing a multimodal center and a slavery museum?” More to the point, who is paying for it? It’s been 4 years since Paul Goldman said we needed no public participationn in development in the Bottom, that the private sector would handle it. Lovely new shopping, offices and residential developed in the Bottom in the past four years. I was just driving down E. Broad Street today marvelling at all the new development along that stretch.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/26/2009 at 2:53 PM

When did the citizens ever get a vote on whether we want to be “bossed” around by this tenant? Frankly, I am weary of them already and the pushiness of the whole Bottom proposal.

$15 million-PLUS just for infrastructure? This is a huge boondoggle, people ….. and they are not wanted in the Bottom!

Reply
gray 02/26/2009 at 3:07 PM

Thanks neighbor for the kind words, however, I believe the ballpark will cost Richmonders millions and will require yearly subsidies like the art center. So what would provide jobs year round and attract tourists from other states?

http://riverdistrictnews.com/2009/02/26/slavery-museum-for-shockoe-bottom/

Reply
Scott Burger 02/26/2009 at 3:18 PM

Ron, this stupid Shockoe stadium proposal has been floating around for at least nine years. Citizens say no, then the developers dress it up and trot it out again. Enough.

Reply
Ron 02/26/2009 at 3:25 PM

So we don’t spend public dollars for infrastructure because that would aid this development. Do we spend public dollars on infrastructure that would aid the ACORN proposal? Do we spend the infrastructure dollars without any development plan, simply because we ought to do a better job in SB in handling stormwater, even if the area stays undeveloped?

Reply
Shannon 02/26/2009 at 4:15 PM

RE #199, Anna – “And yes, I’m from NC, too. Awesome. Instead of arguing my points, just discredit my opinion based on where I live.”

If you don’t live here, why are you interested in what happens here? If you don’t live here, please explain your connection and interest. It’s confusing, and may speak hot to hidden agenda. Disclose, Anna.

I love Portland, where my sister lives. I also love Montana, where my dad lives, (and I also own property.) I still do not spend the time following the details of local politics and debate. Maybe I would if I had a vested financial interest, though. Yeah, I definitely would.

So please explain what your motivation is with your posts on this little blog, if you are not even a local. How are you affected enough to feel the need to participate? I am not saying that I don’t think you are welcome, and I would be the last to ever try to censor someone for any reason – but please tell us why you care so gosh darn much, if you would be so kind.

Thanks.

Reply
Scott Burger 02/26/2009 at 4:46 PM

I have always questioned how the millions and millions have been spent on stormwater in Shockoe Bottom.
Its a valley basin that empties to the river. Its natural stormwater system, namely Shockoe Creek, has been forced underground, while all the surrounding forest that used to soak up much of the rain is gone. Now maybe daylighting the Creek is not possible now, and maybe we can’t bring back all the woods, but I would suggest that any serious attempt to deal with stormwater in Shockoe Bottom needs to consider the original problem, and not just slap on more concrete, pipe, and man-made configurations.
The proposed baseball stadium is not a solution. I would still like to see Highwood’s detailed engineering plans posted here. The Style article suggests they do not exist and would be extraordinarily costly if they did.

Reply
Jim 02/26/2009 at 5:58 PM

Joe and Scott,

You continually say that the people of Richmond do not want this development in the Bottom. However, any poll that I have seen has shown that “the people” actually do want this development in the Bottom. The Shockoe Association (you know…the area where the actual development will hopefully take place) approved it. The only Association that has not approved it is the CHA.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/26/2009 at 7:13 PM

Pardon me if I do not place a great deal of credence in a poll that includes maybe a hundred people. And since this deal is involving MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer money from across the city, I am stunned that anyone would have the nerve to suggest in these economic times that this oughta be a project that Richmonders embrace. The reasons against this far outweigh even the best reasons presented by its proponents — including those who live in North Carolina.

Reply
Anna 02/26/2009 at 7:55 PM

Re: Where I live.

I was being facetious about the carolina comment (somebody threw it out there), please call back the attack hounds. I’ve disclosed I have lived in the Richmond area for 21 years – I grew up with the Braves (back when Chipper and Javy Lopez were around). I have not disclosed where because I believe it to be irrelevant. I’ve stated that if I said I lived in the fan (or any other neighborhood), I’d be called a liar, and that if I said I lived in the suburbs my opinion would be irrelevant. Therefore to protest the prejudice of some of the posters on this board, I won’t specify which it is. It’s irrelevant, this affects everyone in one way or another.

Reply
gray 02/26/2009 at 9:28 PM

Anna, cut the bull. Fanguy lives in the fan and supports the stadium…has anybody called him a liar? If my friend who lives in Chesterfield and supports the stadium came online, no one would call him a liar. I can’t help but think you won’t disclose your state because you live so far away that it would be absurd for anyone to believe you’re blogging about the stadium in the bottom because you love baseball so much.

Reply
tvnewsbadge 02/26/2009 at 9:50 PM

I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I just wish, for once, that folk would study a local history before they make up their minds.

It would well to remember the five stages of a River City project.

1 Wild Enthusiasm
2 Disullusionment
3 Search for the Guilty
4 Punishment of the Innocent
5 Promotion of the Uninvolved

Reply
Jim 02/26/2009 at 10:39 PM

Joe,

You won’t accept poll results that show hundreds of people want the stadium in the Bottom (including the neighborhood association that would be directly affected by the development); but you are willing to state that Richmond “would go crazy” for an NBA team because certain members of your family like basketball?

Reply
Anna 02/26/2009 at 11:14 PM

I didn’t say you’d call your Chesterfield friend a liar, I said some of the detractors would tell him his opinion doesn’t matter because he’s from the ‘burbs. Kind of like me not telling you where I live makes you not believe what I say. Stop making my identity the issue.

Richmond is not so small that you know everybody, and its not so big that this issue attracts outside attention – get over it and argue with me over the facts and opinions I present.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/27/2009 at 8:03 AM

Jim —

Don’t you tell me what I will or won’t do — aren’t you being awfully high-handed here?

You are ignoring my point that this will effect the entire city and you want us to place credence on a poll that involves maybe 100 people.

Do you think that a poll has no scientific basis whatsoever involving maybe 100 or so people should drive a decision that involves MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars?

Are you nuts?

And, just because some low-rent basketball team with a stupid name didn’t take off in Richmond more than a decade ago, you think that if there were to be an announcement that this city were to be the home of a SERIOUS NBA team, that this town would not go CRAZY?

Tell Vanna you need to buy a clue, Jim!

This idea is being driven by a bunch of rich people who want to get even richer — what they don’t realize is that we are living in tough economic times. Please read the newspaper, people. The “stimulus” is not restoring jobs …..

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 02/27/2009 at 9:01 AM

tvnewsbadge we are still busy trying to Rebury this zombie but folks like Anna and FanGuy want to have a ballteam and a Ballfield where they don’t live. and Jim the Head of the association is for the ballpark because he has plans of his own as if you need a ballpark to build a brewery.

Reply
Shannon 02/27/2009 at 9:16 AM

RE: #214 – Well said.

I wish that folks would understand that Government is a business, and our way of doing things here in Richmond has historically been bad business. We have seen it proven time and time again.

Even if we take out of the equation the abusiveness of the condition of our school system, the joke of the condition of our roads, and the other money spent masterbatorily used by our small-town bigwigs to pat each other on the back – this is still a poor business model. The ROI doesn’t work, and to allow any, and I mean ANY room for the attitude that we will “work out the niggling details later,” is begging for trouble. Anyone who has been involved with any type of construction or building will tell you that there are enough details and surprises that pop up, even in the most well-formed model. Those would need to be addressed along the way, even in a plan that made sense from the get-go. Which this one doesn’t.

I have said this before, but I don’t mind repeating it: Informed citizens have a responsibility to stand up and speak out against the thoughtless waste of our money – it is the antidote for the us-and-them, victim mentality that keeps people, and localities, down.

So while some may think that the vocal folks on this forum are nothing but a bunch of ankle biters, I maintain that spending millions of bucks on anything because it is *neato* is so ignorant that it is almost beyond belief. This is not a monopoly game. This is our cash, and it is excruciatingly obvious that our city’s funds are needed at the foundation, rather than blowing them on cotton-candy proposals with so many unaddressed variables that it might actually be funny if it were not so tragic.

Reply
neighbor 02/27/2009 at 10:11 AM

Gray – subsidies from whom to whom? The arts center didn’t have large economic development components that had to be timed concurrently with the City expeditures (this proposal does – they have to be lined up before the City spends a dime).

The slave museum is not an either/or here. It would be an awesome addition to the existing proposal. Think of the area around the Verizon Center in DC – museums, restaurants, a sports facility… critical mass. If the slave museum is all alone it will be just another museum people don’t go to.

I see that we don’t see eye to eye, but keep looking closely at this proposal. It really stands up to close inspection.

Reply
Matt 02/27/2009 at 11:10 AM

I agree with Justin who aptly posted “That’s right: the last thing Richmond needs is more jobs and higher property values. We must respect the historic nature of Shockoe Bottom with cracked, decaying parking lots and strip clubs!”

Indeed. By all means, Preserve Blight, Resist Change, Foster Crime, Flee & Sprawl to Suburbia….it’s the Richmond Way!

Reply
deanna 02/27/2009 at 11:11 AM

Shannon – very good points. Nice to see you back and posting!

TVnewsbadge – thanks for the brief history on the River City project. I’m just shy of a year here in Richmond. Any other projects, perhaps with links you can forward so I can read up on them, that you’d care to share?

Gray – I do understand the concept of critical mass. That area teems with activity on most any given night. And forget the weekends… it’s packed with hustling and bustling people. This city does need that kind of traffic. Is the bottom the right place? I’m still studying on that.

I also agree that the slave museum is a must for the area. It’s an incredibly important part of this area’s past and should be recognized.

In an environment where the city spent over one million in legal fees fighting with itself (tax payer dollars) makes me think:

1)- I should have really gotten a law degree instead of studying classical victorian oil painting techniques and,

2)- a tight reign should be placed on our tax dollars. Spending someone else’s money is a lot easier than spending your own. It flows when the pocket it’s coming out of isn’t your own.

Reply
Paul 02/27/2009 at 11:54 AM

JR,

So let’s get an NBA team. Go for it. Of course we would be the smallest NBA market in the country. Then we would have to rebuild the Coliseum to NBA specs. But wait, weren’t we discussing redeveloping Shockoe Bottom. I forget.

Gray,

I live walking distance to the bottom if it matters. I’ve spoken publicly and privately about this issue, on and offline. I either use my real name or a part of it.

****

I’m willing to accept that most people here either live in or near CH or SB, but that doesn’t make any one opinion more or less qualified.

I’ve always liked the idea of a downtown SB ballpark, for a lot of reasons. One of them is that it is NEATO, but I’ve never used that term. Mostly though is because I want Richmond to be an outstanding city and break down the political and cultural barriers that drive businesses and people away. I want to make Richmond a safe, attractive place for both suburbanites and urbanites and I’d love to see the bottom and all of it’s attractions crawling with people from the city, the burbs and beyond.

Reply
tiny 02/27/2009 at 1:51 PM

I just want to know – is the Ball Park project “shovel ready”? Does anyone know?

Reply
Jim 02/27/2009 at 10:50 PM

Joe,

I am not telling you what to do. However, when you make claims that no one wants this development please show me some data to prove this. Any poll that I have seen (and not just the one on CHPN) has shown most people in favor of the project. How can you accuse me of being high-handed when you are the one posting links to Auschwitz websites when discussing a ballpark development in Richmond, Virginia?

Let’s take a look at your Richmond would go crazy for the NBA hypothesis. First of all, do you know the population of an NBA town? Richmond is not even on the NBA’s radar. Richmond wasn’t even in the discussion for and NBA Developmental League team. Secondly, you mentioned in an earlier post “How many citizens will be able to afford upwards of $35 a ticket (single) to take their families and children to a baseball game?” when discussing the Shockoe Center. Have you been to an NBA game recently? The cheapest tickets in the house are $35 (although the Wizards now have some for $20). I ask you, how many people will be able to afford the $300-$400 for a courtside seat at an NBA game in Richmond? You also claimed that getting an NBA team would require no new development since we have not one, but two facilities for basketball. Once again, have you been to an NBA game recently? There is absolutely no way that an NBA team would play in either the Coliseum or especially the Seigel Center. And if you want to look at finances, newer NBA franchises such as Charlotte are already in trouble and in danger of moving only 5 years after they started in Charlotte. So no, personally I don’t agree with you on numerous levels that an NBA franchise would be successful in Richmond.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 7:34 AM

I have posted a great deal of accurate and informative information on this site and all you do is want to discuss the NBA.

This should tell people that your game is to avoid answering any direct questions about the economic feasibility of this issue.

Aushcwitz? NBA franchises? You are throwing red herrings out here to confuse people. Pathetic.

Answer the questions and stop playing games, please.

Reply
Jim 02/28/2009 at 8:58 AM

Joe,

First of all, you were the one that brought Auschwitz into this whole debacle of a discussion in the first place so think carefully before placing blame. It was actually a despicable move on your part and has debased any real commentary you have. I simply made reference to the NBA information to show how “out of touch you are” and who exactly needs to “buy a clue.” But thanks for not actually answering any of those questions. It shows that you have none.

So let’s get back to the real discussion shall we? Earlier in this post you mentioned the book Field of Schemes. When asked for actual information that could pertain to this discussion you simply referenced quotes from the back page of the book. You can not compare the development in the Bottom with boondoggles “from Baltimore to Cleveland and Minneapolis to Seattle and dozens of places in between.” So what have you learned from this book about Minor League stadiums built in an urban environment? Please give us some facts.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 9:37 AM

Let’s talk about this:

The transcript of this conference call with analysts is now available at:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/120357-highwoods-properties-q4-2008-earnings-call-transcript?source=yahoo&page=-1

Richmond was not mentioned at all. An interesting comment was:

“All this recognize that we’re operating in a challenging environment and will take some time before the economy begins to recover.

Highwoods is fortunate to have manageable debt maturities, a right size line of inventory, free cash flow, respectable leasing activity and a manageable development pipeline that is a continuing source of new FFO. Two key goals for 2009 are to preserve cash and tightly manage operating expenses in G&A.

Officers will not receive base pay increases in ’09. Discretionary spending has been significantly curtailed. We are negotiating rate cuts with our vendors, speculative developments is off the table and financial institutes returns must be very compelling first to consider using our dry powder for builder suites, for acquisitions at this time.”

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 9:42 AM

For all those who may have *forgotten* by now, Highwoods is the major developer seeking to bring this project to Richmond.

Why no mention of Richmond by the *home* office team?

Reply
Anna 02/28/2009 at 1:04 PM

“Answer the questions and stop playing games, please.

“How many citizens do you think will be able to afford upwards of $35 a ticket (single) to take their families and children to the baseball game?”

“Who cares about baseball in Richmond? About the same number of people who care about OPERA.”

“I also hear they have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Just the thing for a sleepy Southern town filled with rubes who will agree with anybody in a suit & tie and a slick patter. Especially, if they hire 23-year-old somethings to work the blogs on their behalf and throw in some batter batter batter chatter about what a good CIVIC thing this is …”

These quotes are all from JoeRichmond. Who’s playing games now? Over the past few weeks you’ve brought up NBA teams (in a stadium that seats a fraction of the typical NBA stadium, mind you – maybe we can send THAT to Charlottesville’s JPJ Arena along with all the major concert tours, too), the Holocaust, the ‘Umpire’ has no clothes, Vietnam/Nixon, the Simpsons, the old sale of the Brooklyn Bridge line (multiple times), and how a couple *major* league stadiums have failed. Though you have not yet told us what your source says about the development of urban minor league stadiums (like Durham, or especially Toledo)- even one of your fans asked you to find the “Field of Schemes” opinion on that.

Also, I cannot recall ever using baseball slang or “batter batter chatter” in my comments. In fact, you have with your whole “Steee-rike…” post back at 156…which only added up to 2 outs, btw – the game is still winnable even with a biased umpire 😉

Oh, and the phrase is 20-somethings, not 23-year old-somethings…I won’t be 23 for much longer and I’d hate for you to have narrowed your insult.

“The reasons against this far outweigh even the best reasons presented by its proponents…”

Since I’ve rarely heard your arguments against the proponents points’ themselves, I was wondering if you could even name what the reasons “for” the stadium are. Most reasonable people can find pros and cons of a development, as nearly every development DOES have both…I wonder, can you name any, or are those that support the stadium wrong about every single thing?

I’ve agreed that the financing needs to become more transparent, and that I’d like to hear more about how the stadium aids in the drainage of that area (from an engineering standpoint)…have we said *anything* that makes sense to you, or are we all off our rockers?

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 3:09 PM

http://www.confluenceresearch.net/docs/Stadiums.pdf

Note, pls. Page 8 — “If the state of the local economy is at all in a downturn, it is very hard to justify public expenditures, or even financial backing, of any kind for projects that are not directly related to the public good.”

Page 13 — Appendix A, Summary Statistics for Affiliated Minor League Ballparks [Really cool chart here w/some very interesting numbers that are at odds w/those presented by the proponents of this project].

Page 15 — Has the Pacific Coast League Summary. [Again, includes some interesting numbers that are at odds w/ numbers presented by proponents of this project].

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 3:14 PM

Please respond to the question in Post #228.

More fuel for the discussion of “Fields of Schemes & Bad Dreams” ….. Here’s what is happening in KC ….

Click here: KC feels heat to recast bonds to avoid $36 million payment | KansasCity.com Prime Buzz

Home
KC feels heat to recast bonds to avoid $36 million payment
By DAVE HELLING

The Kansas City Star

Kansas City’s financial wizards are scrambling to avoid a $36 million catastrophe within the next 90 days.

Their challenge: Find a way to restructure $180 million in city-backed bonds sold for the downtown Power & Light District project.

Recasting the deal would cost taxpayers millions — one reason the city’s new budget proposes setting aside $7.2 million for the project next year, up $3 million from this year’s estimate.

Without refinancing, though, Kansas City is on the hook for a $36 million payment this April, a cost that would cripple a budget that already calls for cutting jobs, freezing salaries, and raising taxes.

City officials blame the financial meltdown on Wall Street, which turned municipal bonds such as those backing the district “toxic.”

“No one ever dreamed the market would do what it did,” said Kansas City Finance Director

Kansas City’s financial wizards are scrambling to avoid a $36 million catastrophe within the next 90 days.

Their challenge: Find a way to restructure $180 million in city-backed bonds sold for the downtown Power & Light District project.

Recasting the deal would cost taxpayers millions — one reason the city’s new budget proposes setting aside $7.2 million for the project next year, up $3 million from this year’s estimate.

Without refinancing, though, Kansas City is on the hook for a $36 million payment this April, a cost that would cripple a budget that already calls for cutting jobs, freezing salaries, and raising taxes.

City officials blame the financial meltdown on Wall Street, which turned municipal bonds such as those backing the district “toxic.”

“No one ever dreamed the market would do what it did,” said Kansas City Finance Director Jeffrey Yates.

More here.

Submitted by Keith Chrostowski

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 3:16 PM

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/16602

Sorry the link above did not work — this one should. ~ JR

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 3:19 PM

Pssst ……

Anna,

Go back and pull out every question I have asked and please start answering them ….

(I am not the person/entity asking for millions of tax dollars!)

Reply
Jim 02/28/2009 at 7:15 PM

Joe,

Great job at avoiding both the questions that Anna and I have posed. But thanks for the link about Kansas City Power & Light District (which is again completely unrelated with completely different figures and doesn’t even have a ballpark – it does however have your basketball arena). Keep up the great investigative work!

And to answer your question to Post 228: Why would they discuss a proposed project (i.e. one that has not happened yet) on a conference call about their 4th Quarter Earnings in 2008?!? I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this one. There is the elusive answer to your question. Now it’s your turn. Please show us your evidence against recent Minor League stadiums in an URBAN setting.

Reply
Winston 02/28/2009 at 7:44 PM

What is everyone’s opinion on the suggestion by Michael Paul Williams in the T-D that the space occupied by the old Alcoa/Reynolds plant at Hull and 7th (southside) would be a good place for the stadium?

Reply
Anna 02/28/2009 at 9:14 PM

Here was the only answer I ever received to “where should the team that RBC is buying THIS year should play if they knock down the Diamond and rebuild on the Boulevard?”:

“Gee, Anna, nobody told “Bostic & His Boyz” to buy a team for $15 freakin’ million dollars!”

The price is what most teams around that level (or AAA for that matter) go for, so I’m not sure what that criticism is supposed to do.

The main point though? I’ve seen just about every opponent to the stadium criticize the developers for trying to build us a stadium when we “don’t even have a team.” Well now they’ve very nearly got one – its literally a “build it and they will come” situation as the Eastern League wants to make sure there will be a new stadium in the works. So what now?

Winston – I’m not terribly familiar with that part of the MRA, but from what I’ve seen on google maps, I think I’d have the same issues here as I would on the Boulevard. Those issues being that its not already a pedestrian area like the Bottom is, and that the 4 lanes of traffic don’t easily promote that.

My opinion is, if we can’t put the stadium in a pedestrian area (like the Bottom), then you might as well build it out in the surrounding counties. An area typically favors pedestrians or motorists, not both. At least it can’t benefit, I mean hurt (?), the city out in Chesterfield or the West End.

JoeRichmond, if I were to go back and try to answer every question you’ve ever asked, my head would be spinning at the amount of times I’d have to repeat myself…again. That doesn’t mean I, or anyone else, have ever not answered one of your questions, it just means I think you’ve ignored the ones that we’ve answered time and time again.

You went to the trouble of citing a book that could have some bearing on the situation, but we’re all waiting to see if it actually speaks of minor league developments in urban areas.

Reply
gray 02/28/2009 at 9:42 PM

#237 “My opinion is, if we can’t put the stadium in a pedestrian area (like the Bottom), then you might as well build it out in the surrounding counties. An area typically favors pedestrians or motorists, not both.”

Wherever the stadium goes, the area must be motor friendly. People from the counties won’t be walking to a baseball game. True though, the bottom is not motor friendly. Anyone witness the Franklin exit ramp during high traffic times? It backs up onto 95. Or the Broad St exit -how you have to U turn to go east on Broad? People from the westend are going to have a hell of a time getting to the baseball stadium. Anyone waited on the RMA ramp winding by the Main St. Station? That’s real fun too.

Reply
gray 02/28/2009 at 9:46 PM

Actually, the Boulevard location is both pedestrian and motor friendly. I’ll also check out the Hull and 7th -I would think that might be pedestrian friendly given there are sidewalks in the area -but I don’t know about easy highway access.

Reply
Anna 02/28/2009 at 9:50 PM

I realized that post was going to become too long to digest when I started reading one of the reports JoeRichmond posted (back in post 231)…one he surely only skimmed for the juicy parts since he didn’t realize how positive a light in which it paints downtown stadiums, especially when they are part of a revitalization effort.

From that awesome report on minor league stadiums http://www.confluenceresearch.net/docs/Stadiums.pdf):
“In a survey commissioned by the Nashville Sounds…it was found that attendance at baseball games held at a downtown facility was up to 50% higher than attendance at COMPRABLE suburban settings.”

It states that “better attendance almost certainly has to do with the amenities such as bar and restaurants that are typically available in the area immediately surrounding a downtown facility.”

It also states that in areas, like the Boulevard, where surface lots dominate, that “the opportunity for land development around the stadiums tends to be limited, and results in the area being under-utilized during times when a game is not taking place.” I will note that this quote comes from the “suburban” section of the report, because that is what I consider the Boulevard area. A suburban sprawl without all the trees and grass.

As far as the very short point made on page 8 about the state of the economy (just so you don’t think I’m ignoring it) – I agree, the financing needs to be clear and transparent in that the city will not be left holding the bill (aside from the infrastructure improvements that DO directly affect the public good in terms of existing businesses and residents).

As for the numbers presented in Appendix A…even if the numbers presented by others (and I’m assuming you mean stadium capacities) were incorrect, what does the PCL have to do with the Eastern League? One is AAA and the other is AA. The numbers clearly show that the stadium plans in the bottom are more in line with that of a AA team (with an average seating capacity of 7200 vs 12,000 for AAA).

Its like the link to the article citing Norwich’s attendance problems (remembering that their population is less than a third of Richmond’s, and their April/May is MUCH colder)…how are those numbers relevant?

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 9:52 PM

The only reason you want to talk about the book is that you DO NOT want to talk about the other questions I have asked. The book has plenty to say, but it is not about Highwoods or this development proposal. There are lesson to be learned there …. and there are answers needed here.

Why didn’t the Highwoods Home office even mention Richmond in the analysts phone conference?

SHOW US THE MONEY that exists independent of what you want from taxpayers in tough economic times.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 9:54 PM

Y’all are the *Artful Dodgers* here. Not I.

Reply
crd 02/28/2009 at 10:17 PM

Anna #237: “Well now they’ve very nearly got one – its literally a “build it and they will come” situation as the Eastern League wants to make sure there will be a new stadium in the works.”

I seem to recall that you were adamently against the “build it and they will come” position earlier. You actually said that Sixth Street Market was a “built it and they will come” approach that failed, and was related to the convention center, because you were too young to remember that there already was a convention center when Sixth Street Market was built.

I realize that you are VERY wise on minor league baseball, and you think you know everything there is to know about financing, TIF bonds, bonds in general, the current financial picture for cities, urban planning, baseball stadiums, baseball parks, flooding, engineering of FEMA areas, more urban planning, etc etc – but please, tell me WHY you think that being able to WALK to something either before or after a baseball game is a good idea?! You seem to think that a “pedestrian friendly area” is necessary for a baseball stadium. Why?

Winston #236 – sounds good to me. It’s close to Legend’s brew place, that’s good for beer drinkers. I’m waiting to be attacked with sharp sticks for saying that….actually, it’s closer to the Canal Walk that Anna seems to think is such a great pedestrian destination (why, I don’t know, there’s nothing there but a canal).

Reply
crd 02/28/2009 at 10:47 PM

http://www.FieldofSchemes.com/

This is mostly for JoeRichmond. I was trying to find the article in the New Yorker, some years ago, that not only debunked the idea that urban baseball stadiums were a good idea, but showed that cities that bought into the idea actually lost money. Still have not found that, but did find an article in The New Yorker that mentioned the above link. Archive article is dated Feb. 2 2004, titled Net Loss, and towards the end I got this: “Neil deMause, who maintains FieldofSchemes.com, a Web site devoted to studying myths about stadium-financing ploys, takes what he calls the “extremely skeptical” view. (The site, which is updated almost every day -and sometimes several times each day – tracks boongoggles in St. Paul, West Palm Beach, Pittsburgh, and beyond.”

Reply
ptaylor 02/28/2009 at 10:51 PM

Anna, anna, anna…
More than a week ago, I provided a link to a post on Buttermilk & Molasses (from last September as I recall) that clearly showed the Robert Bobb Group’s schematic of a ballpark located wherer the Vehicle Maintenance Facility is now. The original RFP for the Boulevard site specified that the developer is responsible for relocating the vehicle facility. I don’t have time to track the link down again.

From the R T-D of 2/24:

“Minor League Baseball’s vice president for legal affairs, Scott Poley, said yesterday that construction of a downtown ballpark isn’t the only way to relocation approval. “Something like they did in Albuquerque could work,” Poley said.(speaking of Richmond)” The Eastern League is not adamant on a new stadium. But you seem to have the inside scoop on everything, so the EL”s VP is a liar. And Anna is ,of course, correct. Assuming Bostic gets a team, they can play anywhere they want as long as RBC, LC can afford a stadium. Bostic’s group doesn’t have $70 million. Too bad. They’ll play when and where the taxpayers decide. This thread started off on the subject of the CHA vote. They voted no. The SBNA voted yes. Neither vote has any meaning. Civic associations aren’t footing the bill here.There are no issues before local government at this time. This project is nowhere near ‘ shovel ready.’ This must pass multiple levels of scrutiny by outsiders. The developers are creating artificial floodplain – which requires review and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. The developers must acquire the land for the ancillary uses.The developers must obtain construction financing; they must acquire permament financing. Commercial mortgage underwriters will be demanding verifiable rational economic and cost projections, not hype and opinion.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 10:52 PM

I provided a link that speaks directly to the minor league developments in other areas. Post #231
http://www.confluenceresearch.net/docs/Stadiums.pdf

Field of Schemes focuses more on the majors and not the minors, but the financial lessons to be learned are the same.

The KC situation is a cautionary tale. Our city has too much to lose than to throw money away on this project that will not benefit the greater good.

You are attacking me because I have presented information that shows problems with your project.

You have totally distorted the importance of that analaysts conference call — it is about the future plans of the company and, once again, Richmond is not even mentioned.

Reply
JoeRichmond 02/28/2009 at 10:58 PM

Jim and Anna,

Is this “Urban Enough” for you — the Memphis stadium is struggling (one of the examples Jim used) and one of the “minor league developments in urban areas” that Anna asked about. The Memphis article is at:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/Apr/24/new-redbird-has-tough-goal-fill-the-park/

Memphis is also one of the three examples used on page 16 of the developers’ “Shockoe Center – 40 Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.” The Q&A is at:

http://pharrout.com/~hillsand/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/shockoe-ctr1.pdf

Reply
ptaylor 03/01/2009 at 9:00 AM

Anna (246) provided the following quote:

“In a survey commissioned by the Nashville Sounds…it was found that attendance at baseball games held at a downtown facility was up to 50% higher than attendance at COMPRABLE suburban settings.”

Key phrase UP TO 50%.And despite that, Nashville’s local authorities rejected the Sounds TIF scheme. Thec real numbers didn’t add up. The Sounds’ new owners are re-habbing the old facility.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/01/2009 at 10:06 AM Reply
Anna 03/01/2009 at 4:57 PM

First of all, CRD, the “build it and they will come” was in reference to the baseball team and everybody calling it a mystery team. I’m saying build the stadium and the team transfer will be approved.

Second, I’ve stated many times that I don’t understand all the financing issues as far as bond issuance goes and how exactly the engineering bit is supposed to work, so saying I “know it all” about financing and engineering is a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think?

Lastly, CRD, being able to walk to something, like a restaurant, bar, or museum, before or after a game is not only fun for people going to a game, its good for businesses surrounding the ballpark. That’s why, as cited in the link provided by JoeRichmond, ballparks are often marketed as part of an urban revitalization project. The best part about the project being in the Bottom is that it would create an influx of people in the summer, and the new business would be sustained by bottom-goers in the offseason. That’s not necessarily proven on the Boulevard. It being “not necessarily proven” makes it more of a risk for potential business owners or franchise owners in the new development.

As for the Boulevard being a pedestrian area…the presence of sidewalks does not make an area “pedestrian friendly.” I visited a friend in Chesterfield the other day…Hull Street Road has sidewalks down there, would you walk along a 4 lane highway just because it has sidewalks?

As far as the EL not requiring a brand new stadium, from my understanding the Albequerque stadium retained the foundation and a couple walls in its “renovation,” and took 16 months. That’s at least 1 baseball season.

JR – somebody answered your question about the conference call, I guess you weren’t reading…too busy with the HWFO, maybe? Its post 241

The Memphis article is interesting, and while I’m sure they are concerned that they are declining in attendance, they’re still attracting roughly 8000 people a game. They also site people not wanting to drive downtown for a game because of gas prices – if that’s the case, I guess the Boulevard doesn’t work either.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 8:09 AM

Anna,

The questions about the conference call were definitely NOT answered.

Sure, Jim provided words, but his words ducked the real issue, i.e., why was there no mnetion whasoever of a planned developemnt upwards of $300-plus million dollars in the discussion of FUTURE plans of the company?

Why is there no mention of this planned stadium, retail build out and more in this conversation or on their website?

If I were a stockholder in Highwoods, I would want to know how they plan to address the significant drop in the value of their stock over the past two years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HIW#chart3:symbol=hiw;range=2y;indicator=volume;
charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Peak stock price was more than $46 two years ago. Current price of $21 is less than half that amount.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 8:13 AM

Anna, I don’t know what “HWFO” means in blog-speak. Care to inform me? I’m not a “professional” in blogging the way some people are.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 10:19 AM

Anna,

Might I suggest a possible resolution to this situation?

I cannot imagine a worse time to attempt to get government and the public to buy into what can only be seen as a “nicety” and not a “necessity” for our daily lives.

Instead of asking the citizens of Richmond to foot the bill and liability for this stadium, why don’t the proponents attempt some regional cooperation and bring all parties to the table? The federal stimulus will only provide temporary help for Richmond and the surrounding localities.

One good thing that might come of the “troubles” that have best our nation, state and region could be that we are all forced to re-think assumptions about one another.

Isn’t it about time that we get to know our neighbors better?

Just in the central Virginia region alone, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in layoffs, factory shutdowns and corporate bankruptcies in the past year.

What offends most of all about this stadium is the rigidity in the thinking of the proponents of baseball in the bottom.

Anytime anyone suggests an alternative, i.e., the Boulevard, we automatically are attacked for not getting with the developers “program.”

It is as if you are all saying that it is either *your way* or *no way* and given a choice like that, I think most people recoil and prefer *no way.*

The citizens of Richmond have just gone through four years of being bullied by the Wilder administration and we are, frankly, more than a bit sick and tired of seeing the tactics continue.

The recent brouhaha in the 7th District concerning who would serve a Council member to replace Delores McQuinn is evidence that the *new boss* appears to be *same as the old boss.*

The wholesale unwillingness on the part of the proponents to consider a scaled-back version or another location is troubling, to say the least.

The SB proponents really come off as bullies here from attacking individual posters to attempting to impugn the integrity of respected citizens in our community and of professional journalists at Style Weekly.

Just something for us all to think about.

Reply
Anna 03/02/2009 at 12:54 PM

I think where some discrepancy lies is that some who question the SB project seem to victimize themselves. They compare it to projects of the past (with questionable relation to this projects), and blame *elected* officials’ shenanigans (not just you, JR, others have brought up issues with the mayors).

So far the developers have said, and I realize that this does not actually mean it will be done, but they have SAID that the city will not be liable. I would also like to hear more about just how this works, but until it comes out that the city of Richmond will back the ballpark, it doesn’t seem fair to dismiss the project for that reason.

Also, we do not attack those that suggest the Boulevard, we attack the Boulevard as a site. I don’t think I’ve ever made a personal attack against anybody who suggested the Boulevard, I’m almost positive every time it comes up (and I mean EVERY time), I’ve outlined why the Boulevard hasn’t and doesn’t work. I’ve also outlined why I think the Bottom will work.

If I’m wrong, please find where I’ve outright belittled the actual person, and not where I may have [over]passionately stated my opinions.

As for regional cooperation and the like, so far the PRIVATE developers aren’t even really asking the city for help (aside from, again, the money for infrastructure improvements), so why is ‘help’ from the surrounding counties needed?

As for the “scaled-back” version, what do you propose they do to achieve this?

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 2:44 PM

Anna,

If the developers didn’t *need* help from the city, why does it matter whether Jones and the Council members think this is a good idea? If the project didn’t *need* help from the General Assembly, why does it matter?

You and I both know why — the financial structure that is being proposed involves public money. You cannot dismiss the behavior of the city officials inthe past who allowed themselves to be bamboozled by fast-talkers talking big stuff. I still have not received a satisfactory answer as to why Highwoods is not publicly owning any piece of this project, according to their own home office? What is up with that?

The players in this little drama are not virgins trapped in the forest. They have all been here before. I do not respect their lack of wisdom or the amount of money they have foolishly wasted. Never mind the many promises that have been made — by officials and developers alike — which have never materialized. Honestly, we would be crazy if we DIDN’T bring this up.

Those who question the public necessity of this project (and others) have a right to feel victimized. It is our money that has been absconded with and it is our public trust that has been abused. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

When I think about the $3 million we are still paying on the CDA, I can’t help but wonder how schools could have been made ADA compliant or renovated with that money. We could take the money that has been wasted and continues to be wsted and invested in taking the public buildings in the city “green.” We could use this money to train young (and old) so that they will be able to get the “green” jobs that will be part of the nation’s economic reovery.

What about the athletic facilities of RPS Schools? These are shameful and the school system is proposing to cut the sports programs even more.

Thus far, this project proposes no effort to give back to this community, simply to take from it in terms of taxes and future revenue.

Unless you all can come up with an idea that will actively give back to the citizens and children of this city, I honestly don’t see why the needs of a baseball stadium should be placed before any other need.

And, I also don’t understand why the needs of PRIVATE business people should be placed over the needs of other private business people already in our city.

What is up with not doing your due diligence with the restauranteurs in Shockoe Slip?

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 3:09 PM

My apologies. I left out far too many words when I accidentally hit the send button before my comment was “pub-worthy.”

******

When I think about the $3 million we are still paying on the CDA, I can’t help but wonder how MANY schools could have been made ADA compliant or renovated with that money. Would that we could HAVE taken the money that has been wasted (and continues to be wasted) and invested IT in taking the public buildings in the city “green.”

We could use this money you propose to take from the city ($15 million in infrasctructure alone!) and use it to build a state-of-the art career and technology center that would train young (and old) so that they will be able to get the “green” jobs that will be part of the nation’s economic reovery.

Reply
Ramzi 03/02/2009 at 5:15 PM

As proposed by Highwoods, the stadium will be paid for by bonds (borrowed money) issued by RFSA, a to-be-created government entity. The money will be repaid through the increase in tax revenue generated by sales in the development zone. If sales are not sufficient and the debt cannot be repaid, RFSA will be the one responsible for the debt, not Highwoods. Since RFSA is a government entity, it means the taxpayer will be ultimately responsible for the debt if the development fails. This information is derived from the Q&A link that JoeRichmond provided above.
If this project gets off the ground, Highwoods will be the head developer and will parcel out work to other developers, contractors, etc., which is standard procedure, but keep in mind that this is how they make money. If the project is successful, they’ll make more money from managing properties, etc, but if it tanks they will still have made millions along the way. Just by getting the project approved they will make money.
My take on the city’s position is that they think that this will be a solution to the drainage problem in the Bottom. Tax revenue from the development will be used to repay money used on the drain system. The down side is that if revenues are not as projected then the city will have just spent a ton of money that it didn’t have.

Reply
Anna 03/02/2009 at 7:04 PM

I suppose they need the council approval for the creation of the authority to issue bonds (which again, they say the city is not liable for), and for the land permits. I’m still not a finance expert, as others have proclaimed, and I’m not a law expert, so I can’t say for sure. Call me naive, I’m sure you all will.

But more to the point- Where does the number $15 million come from anyways? The number I remember seeing in the report was $8 million.

Though I don’t know the details of the CDA, considering they’re still paying for it it was obviously a bad move. One that probably didn’t come with a steady influx of 500k people per year to spend money in the area. The mayor at the time, according to an article I read when the idea was initially voted on said “‘None of us know what the future holds” but the project is a bold step into the unknown” – Its a good thing minor league baseball isn’t all that unknown. There are lots of numbers backing it up.

To quote JR: “Thus far, this project proposes no effort to give back to this community, simply to take from it in terms of taxes and future revenue.”
– This is simply false, and considering how many times people have outlined why, I think you really aren’t reading it.

We’ve stated how much tax revenue that area currently generates. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $100k. With the new project, they project the development will generate $3 million in taxes. No, not all of those taxes will go to the state, city, wherever, but nearly HALF of them will.

Tell me, if half of 3 million is 1.5 million, is the projected tax revenue greater than the status quo? Does that not benefit the community?

When you make blanket statements like that, saying there is absolutely, positively NO good in having the stadium there, that it will provide nothing for the surrounding community, you make your argument weaker.

Furthermore, how does having a ballpark in the area that will provide entertainment for countless area families, provide more tax revenue for the area, make the area safer by throwing out businesses like strip clubs, and provide role models for children (that’s right, kids look up to athletes, and usually those athletes participate in charity events that children attend – its called community outreach, it sells tickets)…[back to the point] how is that NOT actively giving back to the community??? HOW?!

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 9:38 PM

I will crunch some numbers tonight and I hope others will as well.

I, too, have tried explaining things to you and am trying very hard not to take offense when you personally attack me and accuse me of not reading explanations proffered by other proponents of SB stadium. I simply disagree.

And, just because I disagree with your take on the numbers does not mean that I am either illiterate or ignorant. You do yourself a disservice when you resort to such insult.

Can you, or any of your developer friends point to ANYTHING that has brought 500,000 people into one part of town? Reasonable people should be able to disagree.

The baseball stadium in the bottom will not change the flood plain issues, nor will it “Save Richmond.”

I thought the Performing Arts Center was supposed to do that. Guess there just aren’t that many people really excited about opera.

You are dishonest when you say that I said there was NO good in having the stadium there. I never said that.

I have said that it needs to be scaled back and if you are so hellbent on having a stadium, what is wrong with the Boulevard location other than the fact that the developers do not own as much land around the Bloulevard location as they do in the Bottom?

Money is driving this deal and I think we need to find out who owns the land in question in order to understand why there is this shrill insistence that the Bottom is the only place it can be.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/02/2009 at 10:24 PM

Oh, and another thing, Anna — I am not exactly wild about the “sports heroes” that our kids have today.

There are far too many steriod-pumping-dog-killing-doped-up-oversized-manchildren-lost-in-the-promised-land-where-Olympic-winners-bong-along-and-make excuses for their excesses ……

My heroes are the not-so-famous men and women who do their jobs that bring no headlines, but do help keep a roof over their heads and food on their family’s table, the teachers, police officers, office workers who all have families to support and who get up everyday in this city and work hard in the hopes that they don’t lose their jobs — as so many of the their neighbors have, and will — before this economic crisis is righted.

The $15 million figure is from a recent story in Style Weekly and I have had it confirmed by friends who work in City Hall.

Reply
Carol A.O. Wolf 03/03/2009 at 11:21 AM

Does anyone have any current information concerning the City’s plans to develop the Boulevard from Broad Street to Hermitage Road? What will happen to that area if the Diamond is not rehabbed for use as a baseball stadium?

Last I heard, Robert Bobb was a key figure in that planning.

Reply
neighbor 03/03/2009 at 1:31 PM

Joe, I would encourage you to ask the schools what they are doing with the money they already recieve – over half the City’s budget currently.

Carol, according comments on this site, the many RTD articles, the powerpoints on the CHA site and the ACORN site, and the many materials circulated by the City and the developer, the City realeased two RFPs – one for the Bottom and one for Boulevard. The City selected Highwoods as master developer for both projects in response to the RFP process. Check out yesterday’s RTD for info on the BLVD. You are making a lot of public comments about these projects without the basic and freely available information.

Reply
neighbor 03/03/2009 at 1:51 PM

Ramzi – if the City itself is not a guarantor and does not execute a guaranty, there will be no City obligation. The bad examples everyone cites involved some document like a guaranty that hooked the City. No guaranty, no hook. Also, according to the Q&A, most of the revenues will come from real estate taxes not just sales taxes, real estate tax amounts being money the various private owners and developers would have to pay no matter what their “success”.

Reply
Carol A.O. Wolf 03/03/2009 at 1:59 PM

Actually, Neighbor, I have ALL that information and more!

My question was specific to the word “current.”

As proficient as I am with staying on top of a situation, I am humble enough to know that there is always someone else who knows more than I do.

Given that Bob Bobb recently took a job in Detroit, I am simply curious concerning any ongoing interest he or anyone else might have in the Boulevard project.

Reply
Carol A.O. Wolf 03/03/2009 at 2:06 PM

Also, Neighbor, care to cite the authoritative source for your statement to Ramzi? Where is the legal basis for the conclusion? Ramzi’s comments are consistent with materials distributed by the developers themselves and with comments made by John Gerner.

Reply
crd 03/03/2009 at 3:27 PM

Article from Salisbury, NC Post:

TIF bonds on hold; Kannapolis hopes for stimulus funds
Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:00 AM
By Emily Ford
eford@salisburypost.com
KANNAPOLIS — Officials hope money from the stimulus package could help pay for projects at the N.C. Research Campus that have been delayed because the city can’t sell $95 million in bonds.

The interest rate for tax-increment financing is so high — about 12 percent — that Kannapolis won’t sell the bonds in March as planned, City Manager Mike Legg said.

“No way,” Legg said. “Anything above 7 percent makes us leery.”

The city compiled a list of 17 “shovel-ready infrastructure projects” that total more than $1 billion and distributed it to advocacy groups, coalitions and lobbyists in hopes of landing stimulus funds.

The projects include road, utility and waterline improvements in and around the Research Campus. Many are already designed and could go into construction within 180 days, Legg said.

“This is completely uncharted water. It’s not the normal federal budget process,” he said. “Our approach was to get our list in as many people’s hands as possible.”

In reality, most of the stimulus funds for construction probably will go to the states, with some trickling down to local government, Legg said.

N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue has been an advocate for the campus, and Kannapolis stands a good chance to see funding, Legg said.

“Any money spent on the campus is supporting life sciences, high-tech and the future economy,” he said.

The city is considering issuing a much smaller bond package, probably $30 million to $50 million, when the economy improves, Legg said. The money would build a new public health department for $15 million and reimburse the city and campus developer Castle & Cooke North Carolina about $20 million for projects already completed.

These bonds would be tied to construction already in place on the campus, as opposed to future construction, making them less risky to investors, Legg said.

“The risk is a lot lower when you can see the building, see the tax bill being paid,” he said.

TIF bonds are backed by future tax collections on improved property. Campus founder David Murdock has constructed four buildings in downtown Kannapolis so far.

Ultimately, the city will still issue the original $164 million bond package created in 2006, but over a longer period of time, Legg said.

“We have some breathing room,” he said.

The campus already has major improvements to roads, water and sewer lines and utilities. Developers could build “dozens of buildings” with just that first phase of infrastructure complete, Legg said.

“We don’t have the pressure of the project being in jeopardy,” he said. “We’re in wait-and-see mode like every other real estate deal in the United States right now.”

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/03/2009 at 4:06 PM

Thank you, crd! Glad for the research assist!

Reply
crd 03/03/2009 at 7:26 PM

Thanks Joe, I hope the points came through loud and clear.

One other thing – not for Joe, I think he understands this, but anyone else who thinks the city won’t have an obligation needs to think again. The only authority that can issue TIF bonds is the municipality or an entity created by same, and that authority would be an arm of the city. Hence, the city would most definitely have an obligation to repay. If the combined real estate taxes in the enhanced stadium area, plus the sales/use taxes generated, are not enough to repay, then the city would be obligated for payment.

That’s not just my opinion, I talked to a financial professional about it, someone with thirty years experience in banking, financial planning, stock brokerage, etc. He also had some negative editorial comments about some projects done with TIF financing, including things in D.C., Baltimore and Cleveland, which weren’t overly successful. He knows nothing about the stadium but he does know about TIF bonds.

One other thing, mostly for Anna – Henry Marsh is behind this as attorney for the developers. Henry Marsh was also very very involved with Project I and Sixth Street Marketplace. He stands to gain. The taxpayers do not. I’m sure I’ll get slammed for that, but it’s true.

Too bad we aren’t required to have a referendum about TIF financing, as some other states require. If we issue enough TIF bonds that don’t work out & obligate general revenue for repayment, maybe someone will wise up and make it a state law that the taxpayers have to have a say before they are issued. ‘Nuff said.

Reply
Anna 03/03/2009 at 8:30 PM

Ugh, this already got deleted once while I was looking for a number…here we go again:

Here are quotes from what JR said in #261:
Thus far, this project proposes ***no effort*** to give back to this community, ***simply to take*** from it in terms of taxes and future revenue.

Unless you all can come up with an idea that will actively give back to the citizens and children of this city, I honestly don’t see why the needs of a baseball stadium should be placed before any other need.”

And now 265 after I asked how there was NO community benefit:
“You are dishonest when you say that I said there was NO good in having the stadium there. I never said that.”

If the project proposes “no effort” to benefit the community, how does it produce any good? Did I miss something?

Also, regarding your ‘sports hero’ comment – have you ever talked to a minor league baseball player? Many of them (not all, but most of those who volunteer for community outreach) are very humble, hard-working early 20-somethings who work hard for very little money in order to fulfill their dreams. Most importantly, kids can identify with these players through sports/baseball – and if that makes them listen to “work hard for what you want” and “make school a priority,” can you really argue with their influence?

I respect that you regard public servants highly, I do as well – but I don’t think its fair to judge these young, talented adults who are pursuing their dreams. Isn’t that important to teach children, too? Not to mention, very few minor leaguers actually make do make it despite it all – many become your teachers and police officers, and local coaches.

Finally, because this is getting long, I took 10 seconds to come up with something that has drawn 500,000 people to Richmond. I picked a random year, 1995. The attendance? 524,210. The team? The Richmond Braves.

I was going to respond to the article posted by crd when I thought it referred to the Kannapolis Intimidators, a minor league team in the same town. Alas, its another random project for another non-MiLB purpose.

Yes, I see how the last couple of paragraphs applies, and I agree, the Diamond site would be ‘easier’ – but considering the failures of that site and all the reasons I’ve sited why the Bottom is much better for baseball, I still think the expense would be worth it as long as an acceptable financial plan is reached.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/03/2009 at 10:05 PM

Anna,

To say that I do not see why the needs of a baseball stadium should be placed before other needs in our community, is not to say that I see NO good in the proposed project.

You continue to ignore the fact that people are losing jobs everyday and that our community has limited dollars available to help an ever increasing number of people cope with the economic hardships that will continue to get worse.

I suggested a state of the art career and technical school to help young and old in our community get the necessary training to cope with the economic devastation that far too many are confronting already as a HINT of a way that business leaders and baseball stadium proponents could come together to help our community.

Instead of understanding the necessity for job training and an educated workforce, you think sending minor league ballplayers around to the schools to inspire kids is what is needed.

Well, Anna, that’s nice. But, gee whiz, maybe these ball players (whom you all but call a bunch of losers because “very few” actually make it “despite it all”) could use some job training for a green economy themselves.

You are twisting my words, Anna, and instead of attempting to find a resolution that could be a win-win, you are attempting to personally attack me because I am attempting to get you to see that there are a few other things in our community more important, perhaps, than a baseball stadium.

Your choice of the year 1995 — nearly a decade and a half ago — is telling also. Every year since then the attendance continued to dwindle.

This is not about those earnest twenty-something baseball players who all have Moms and apple pies waiting for them when they go home.

This is about making some big bucks for developers whose headquarters are not located in Virginia and who have yet to acknowledge this project on their home website.

Lastly, the site was not the problem. The problem was that the city administration neglected to take care of the stadium and it fell into disrepair.

Clearly, by your own statistic, it is possible to get the requisite number of people down on the Boulevard for a ballgame. Given that, doesn’t it make more sense to build on success, renovate the stadium for far less than is being expected in the Bottom and everybody gets something of what they want?

Reply
FanGuy 03/03/2009 at 11:58 PM

Anna, give up! You are talking to a wall. Although your efforts are admirable, they might be better spent talking to those with an open mind, and to those who will treat you with less venom. I mean, I see we are 275 posts into this thread, and some people are still harping on the issue of whether the bonds will even get sold. (CRD’s post # 272). If they don’t understand the basic point that if the bonds don’t get sold in advance, the project doesn’t move forward and the City doesn’t contribute a dime, then they will never understand any point you make.

I find it amusing that JoeRichmond calls you a professional blogger when the guy has every other post in this thread.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/04/2009 at 11:02 AM

I don’t even have my own blog like you do, FanGuy! And, as far as responding on this blog, I guess I happen to care to what to those less fortunate in our community and am patient enough to continue to dialogue. **********

No job? Don’t worry, go to a baseball game.

No home? Don’t worry, go to a baseball game.

No venom here, FanGuy, just rough reality.

Reply
JoeRichmond 03/04/2009 at 11:05 AM

*what happens to those less fortunate

Reply
Anna 03/04/2009 at 9:06 PM

You must not have actually looked at the attendance figures for the years following 1995 – the attendance did not dwindle. I’m not going to check every single year, the baseball cube is available to the public free of charge. The attendance for 1996-2000 is as follows: 500,035; 512,727; 528,230; 523,670; 585,107.

If I had wanted to show off, I would have picked my favorite year, 1993 (when Chipper Jones was there). That year the attendance was 550-something-k. Though, 2000 was very impressive considering their record was TERRIBLE and they still won.

I’m not sure what you were reading, I far from called those young men losers. I think they’re very brave and show a lot of hard work and perseverance to be one of the very few who make the league. If it wasn’t an honor to be in the MLB, everybody would make it. Talk about twisting words – you took all the positive out of my respect for following their dreams and made them “losers.”

And unfortunately, those young men don’t get to go home to their moms and apple pies – they’re away from their families 8 months out of the year trying to make a name for themselves. Not to mention, many (no, not all), of those men have a college education under their belts – if they came out of high school, they often have college tuition written into their contracts. Sorry to burst your patronizing bubble.

You failed to recognize that I did agree with you. You failed to recognize that I pointed out that many of these minor league players become more than just “sports heroes” – even without the career center you propose.

On that note; I’ve never seen you suggest the career center before on this site. I think its a great idea – however I doubt you’re going to get public financing for it (maybe donations). Nor does the ballpark take away from the ability to start such a center. Heck, you don’t even need a building, I’m sure they could use existing school buildings for that. Take that up with your councilperson?

And quit with the “I’m twisting your words” and “personal attack” stuff…you’re the one who called me dishonest when I merely quoted you. If you didn’t mean the project was making no effort to improve the community, then don’t say “this project is making no effort to give back to the community.”

Oh, and don’t tell me I’m ignoring those losing their jobs – I’m going to be one of “those” very soon.

I think fanguy might be right, I think I’m done here. Feel free to respond – just know there will be no response.

Reply
Paul Hammond 03/04/2009 at 10:28 PM

Nice work Anna, there is a time to call it quits, at least for a while. I know you, FG, myself and others are getting tired of repeating ourselves and ad hominem attacks. I’m quite sure there will be other opportunities and venues. Feel free to look me up.

Reply
Carolyn Paulette 03/04/2009 at 10:45 PM

If the stadium will belong to an author-
ity (ultimately, the City taxpayers), will the City be able to collect real estate taxes on the stadium, an $85 million facility? If not, that’s quite a loss in real estate taxes, isn’t it. If the team owned the ballpark, wouldn’t they have to pay real estate taxes to the City? Seems a good reason not to own your own stadium. Everyone seems to be making money on this project except the City.

Reply
Carolyn Paulette 03/04/2009 at 11:00 PM

Since the sports authority will own the
stadium, will the City be able to collect
real estate taxes on the stadium? If not,
taxes on $85 million worth of real estate
is a huge loss for the City. No wonder
the team doesn’t want to own the stadium.
It seems that everyone is making money
except the City taxpayers.

Reply
Anna 03/05/2009 at 1:15 AM

I’d really like an edit button…

“2000 was very impressive considering their record was TERRIBLE and they still won.”

I meant to say “and they still drew a huge crowd.” Long day, haha.

Reply
ShockoeBottomDweller 03/05/2009 at 7:44 AM

Bla Bla Bla ( saying something about Anna working for the Project and that she lives somewhere like NC or something) Lets face it this could go forever and everyone is going to keep their opinion. Anna why not use your zeal for baseball for good? ( and if you think supporting this boondoggle is you still need to do some more research and not into the team the effects of Failures in Ballparks and teams to draw enough fans to maintain viable running) Bla Bla Bla Bla

Reply
Queen Mum 03/10/2009 at 8:53 AM

Try taking a look to other cities with the same problem. Richmond, Va. is not the only place to have stadium/ball team problems. Log onto the Miami Herald and read the article “Stadium stats not adding up for economy,’ by Jackie Bueno Sousa…. it’s pretty interesting and telling.

Reply
clarisonic 02/14/2013 at 10:56 PM

Excellent post. I am dealing with a few of these issues as well.
.

Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.