Loupassi introduces stadium financing bill

Can anyone clarify? My reading of the article does not suggest that the tax would go up, but only that the revenues of the existing taxes would be funneled to the ball park. If this is so, where would those revenues normally be directed or is the use of the state sales tax revenues addressed each year in the budget?

Especially given the controversies regarding the recently vacated 7th district city council seat.

Given that most of the footprint of this development is taking place on vacant land and parking lots, it would stand to reason that sales tax money would increase. There’s likely to be increased tax revenue from neighboring businesses and restaurants as well as an overall increase in property taxes.

Sweet Jesus, will this stupid idea never die? We’re going to plop this expensive turkey down in the only part of Richmond with the most important archeological site in Virginia since the new discoveries at Jamestown, in an area with highly restricted access, little space, and confounded by the traffic at the Main Street Station transportation center, and now get it paid for with some kind of tax revenue shell game.

This is so transparent, so mindless, so corrupt, and so wrong.

I can hardly wait for that august academic, our former mayor, get up to speed and join Mr. Marsh as shills for this disaster.

So let me get this straight – developers will be given prime land in what appears to be a no-bid situation, develop a ballpark that no one will go to, at least not enough to come close to covering costs, and then we’re going to let them keep the tax money, which is really the only public incentive for having it there.

Damn, here we go again. Marsh F–K us in Fulton with the Six Street Market Place and now he is going to F–K Church Hill with the Stadium. Damn will we ever learn!!!

“Meanwhile, the development group has enlisted a powerful ally for their negotiations with the city — state Sen. Henry L. Marsh III, D-Richmond, a former Richmond mayor. He was retained after the November election to provide “government advocacy” with the city, project officials said.”

Interesting, huh?

Given the size and proximity to downtown it certainly qualifies as prime real estate. Building on individuals parcels rather than developing the entire area only requires the buildings to be slightly elevated, enough say for ground level parking. The ballpark, however, will be going below grade, where I believe there is already flowing water and an antiquated drainage system. The developers are claiming that this will allow the ballpark to be used as a catch basin in severe flooding, kind of like a giant sump pump well without the pump. A great example of this can be seen in Battery Park. Doesn’t work so well, does it? You may not enjoy walking by empty space but it least it didn’t cost the city $300 plus million. The stadium is expected to draw a crowd of around 3000 at a time. If you put Club Velvet’s dancers on the roof you’d probably get a bigger crowd. There’s no way this project will cover costs and it will be up to the taxpayers to foot the bill. No one is building this to make the city better, they’re doing it to make money off of its construction. Once it’s built they couldn’t care less what happens, they’ll have made their money, as will all of the sleazy politicos who helped make it happen. I’d like to see the city grow but it won’t happen as long as people like Marsh and the other old influence peddlers in Richmond have power. Also, who decided that it was a stadium or nothing else? Maybe the city should have some sort of competition to come up with different strategies, give the land to whoever comes up with a great idea.

Go to the Hills and Heights blog for more complete information about the Shockoe Center development, which is a lot more than a ballpark.

Just to note, Ramzi… If you look at the downtown master plan the primary focus is pedestrian friendly design. Building projects elevated with first (ground) floor parking is far from pedestrian friendly.

Also, if this doesn’t work the taxpayers aren’t stuck with the bill. The developers will be guaranteeing the debt on the project.

RE#19-‘”Bonds” means any obligations of a municipality for the payment of money.’

This is directly from Mr. Loupassi’s bill. The developers are not on the hook for a dime of this. This appears to be modeled on the Broad St. CDA which originally specified that the Authority was responsible for the debt incurred and that the City was not responsible for payment. The CDA’s by-laws specified that CDA debt was not city debt. The result was a bond issue that could not be sold. Several months later, City Council wimped out and assumed a’moral obligation’ to pay the debt one year, Future years would come from parking receipts; without the city’s gaurantee, no bonds would have sold. And that was before the bond market collapsed. $60 million plus was spent. The city’s investment has resulted in a net loss of hundreds of parking spaces and there is no reasonable chance that the CDA will ever meet its debt service obligations without continuing taxpayer subsidy. The $60 million for this scheme is just a starter. The city is also expected to acquire the private property at public expense (recent sales suggest the land alone is worth 1-4 million dollars per acre for raw land, plus the cost of acquiring active businesses such as Weiman’s bakery and Hungerford Oil.

There is a Senate companion to Mr. Loupassi’s House Bill. It is patroned by Senator McEachin.

And the baseball debt is growing rapidly.
Originally, as in a few weeks ago, this was to be financed by a $40 million dollar bond issue and a $20 hypothetical sale of tax credits. In the Q & A linked above, in item 25 on page 17, there is now a $70 million dollar bond issue; tax credits are no longer mentioned. (The credits were never a workable option here.)

@#20: This isn’t a NFL team we are trying to attract. A minor league team is easy to attract, especially to a city with a history of minor league baseball. As I’ve said before, I agree that the city has more pressing needs but the funding for this project doesn’t take away from schools or public safety.

@#21: For the bonds to be Tax Exempt they have to be sponsored by a municipality with a tax exempt bonds allocation. Just like any type of loan, the debt can be backed(e.g. guaranteed) by anyone. I was just commenting that the developers have said a number of times that they will be the backers on the bonds. I would certainly have reservations about any change that would put the city on the hook, but I refuse to damn this project b/c of past screw ups. Can’t we learn from our mistakes? Just b/c the bond issuance didn’t work in the past doesn’t mean we should never use them again.

@#25: The tax credit sale is from historic tax credits that would be generated from the renovation of the train shed for the GRTC center. These are dependent on how the renovation takes place and the final plans that are decided upon by GRTC. They are a workable option and I would be in favor of seeing the shed renovated in keeping with the historical fashion.

But a shed does not a baseball stadium make ….. nor does the rush for a quick approval make a convincing argument of the merit of the proposal.

ptaylor speaks with great knowledge on this topic and I urge all to share this concern with our elected representatives. Democracy should never be a spectator sport/process. Let’s make that change happen, folks.

Thank you, Ry, for illustrating my point. The developers are not on the hook for the bonds. The ‘investors’ are the bondholders.Without some assurance of repayment, the bonds are likely to be unmarketable. Note that unspecified “officials” – no names, no quotes – provide the information. It’s hearsay; what counts is what is written in the enabling legislation which has yet to be revealed.
As to March 1, the T-D printed a story on 1/7 containing the following:
“A potential local ownership group aiming to return professional baseball to Richmond hopes to purchase a franchise by March 1. Prospective buyers first, however, require the community’s assurance of a new stadium.” Note the curious use of the word ‘require’. Ball Club, LLC can request city approval before pursuing a team, but they are hardly in a position to ‘require’ anything of the city.
My remarks on Lunpkins Jail are based on the location of the excavations, which are immediately north of the old Seaboard freight house, which Highwoods power point presentation showed as the location of the high-rise. There has been no new plan offered as far as I know.

In a private email to the developers, Ellen Robertson says she and Mayor Jones will decide whether the project goes forward. Wonder what the community and the rest of council think?

WOW! So when Kathy slipped and called the 7th seat Ellen’s, she was serious. Boy everything is starting to stink.

Must read in this week’s Style Weekly Out of the Park

The Style article is definitely an interesting read, but I can’t help but feel like Goldman is a tad bit bitter. He is certainly correct about the trouble in the bond market, and I’d venture a guess that it is a reason they decided to push back the date they hoped for approval from the new admin. However, he fails to take into account the state sales tax that will be attributed to the TIF bonds and makes no mention of the fact that the developers will be the guarantors.

Has anyone checked into the relative health of these companies considering the “economic failures” that are becoming banner headline daily news?

How do you spell voodoo economics? Now Loupassi is in the act, suggesting that we can pay for all this with “state sales tax” revenue from the project.

In Loupassi’s words, the revenue would come from buildings and businesses which do not now, even exist!! But wait, buildings do not pay sales tax, so revenue would have to come exclusively from ticket sales and food sales. Holt frankfurter, that’s a lot of hot dogs. Citizens will be left holding the “frankfurter” long after the developers are gone.

Baseball on the Boulevard makes sense for everyone except one group. They want us to take our eyes off the “ball”. That group consists of those who would either seek to gain financially, or to get a free piece of ground on the Boulevard – essentially cheating Richmond taxpayers out of their excellent real estate.

The attempt to move the Diamond downtown is a smoke screen – attempting to hide the real motives.

VCU wants our free ground on the Boulevard, but who asked VCU? It’s just more Trani greedily grabbing land. Why wouldn’t VCU want our land for free? It’s just another ripoff of Richmond taxpayers.

Who asked Highwoods Properties? They are just trying to make a profit on the backs of Richmonders. It seems that it’s not about the good of our city – just their bottom line.

Who asked Sports Backers? They just want a free venue. Who wouldn’t? Let them build something in Bryan Park or at other available locations. The Boulevard is too important and too valuable.

Ultimately, we’re all unwitting dupes of Wilder on this one because he set all of this in motion as part of what appears to be his Pay-for-Play with Trani. Trani gets free or essentially free land, and Wilder gets $150,000 annually for making it happen – or so it seems.

Citizens Beware. This deal will likely happen. City Council is being sold a bill of goods and some folks are using voodoo economics. Financial newcomers like Ellen Robertson have no idea they are being shown numbers which are likely bogus. Besides, Ms Robertson has been told that she is getting a slave museum, in the trade. Why not? We’ll even throw in a free ride on the Annabelle Lee too!

The companion development for the ballpark in the bottom is a hoax. It is being promoted by very highly skilled and highly paid lobbyists who are accustomed to getting their way. Detailed a few days ago, the $9.5 million in suggested revenue for the downtown ballpark project is false in that it’s just theoretical and will likely never materialize. It’s just pro forma. For them, convincing Council to go along is like taking candy from a baby. Soooo easy.

When all is said and done, there will be a $5-10 million dollar shortfall per year in the downtown ballpark project, and Richmond taxpayers will foot the bill, and will lose the superior Boulevard site in the process.

Imagine this: the downtown baseball guys will get the plum – a $60 million facility at a cost of $200,000 per year. What a deal for them! Please name the person who has attested to the fairness of this ripoff, other than those who benefit monetarily.

Almost no one knows it, but this is similar to same cruel trick that developers of the downtown CDA used to justify new parking decks around the Coliseum. Somebody made up apparently false revenue projections and Council members fell for them. They never materialized and the taxpayers are on the hook for $ millions annually. Council members are ill equipped to deal with folks who present bogus numbers. Ask Bill Pantele, Daisy Weaver, or anyone in the city’s finance department or anyone with the CDA, if we weren’t sold a bill of goods.

Where is Paul Goldman, and where are the other truth tellers when you really need them? The odds are badly stacked against the citizens of Richmond on this one.