“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.

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.

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.

I find it amusing that JoeRichmond calls you a professional blogger when the guy has every other post in this thread.

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Last I heard, Robert Bobb was a key figure in that planning.

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.

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.

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?!

******

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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).

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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!)

Sorry the link above did not work — this one should. ~ JR

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

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].

“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?

Why no mention of Richmond by the *home* office team?

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.”

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.

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.