RECENT COMMENTS
Baseball debate heats up again
The debate over the Shockoe Center proposal has flared up this week with dueling statements of support and opposition. On one side of the issue, ACORN released a statement saying that the development “is not an appropriate project for the City of Richmond’s most historic and hallowed ground”. Working in favor of the project are both the Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Association and the online group I Support Baseball In Shockoe Bottom.
Organizers of the Facebook group I Support Baseball In Shockoe Bottom have organized “Shockoe Center Community Support Meetings” for February 10th and 11th:
In order to get everyone up to speed and to help answer the question “what can I do to help?” we have scheduled two Shockoe Center “CSM’s” or “Community Support Meetings.” These will be informal but informative meetings where you can get more information, meet more of the people who really want this to happen, and find out how you can make a contribution to the cause.
Tuesday, February 10, 5:30pm and Wednesday, February 11, 5:30pm.
Both will be at GlobeHopper Coffehouse & Lounge, 2100 East Main Street in Shockoe Bottom. 804-523-8083,
ACORN’s full statement comments certain aspects of the proposal, but in the end comes out against the idea:
The A.C.O.R.N. board has looked long and hard at the pros and cons of the latest proposal for a ballpark– considering the claims made by developers and the many questions that have arisen.
We join the community in questioning the following aspects of the Highwoods Properties’ plans for Shockoe Center:
If the bond projections fall short, will the city and state taxpayers end up saddled with the debt?
What are Highwoods Properties’ archaeological plans for the inevitable discovery of Richmond’s buried history?
Does this project truly meet all the challenges of frequent flooding in the Shockoe Valley?
How does this project improve intermodal transportation, and, in particular, affect federal funding secured for use at Main Street Station?
What is Highwoods Properties’ succession plan for Shockoe Center? Has thought been given to making the stadium entity serve multiple purposes?
Is not the overall Shockoe Center concept– including the baseball stadium– more compatible with the scale, massing and overall urban form of Boulevard Gateway, Highwoods Properties’ other City project, on the Boulevard near the Diamond?
How does Highwoods Properties propose to respond to, and prevent, if possible, the adverse impacts of Shockoe Center on the surrounding neighborhoods, including light, noise and traffic?
A.C.O.R.N. applauds Highwoods Properties for the following components in the Shockoe Center plans, including a number of elements recommended in the Downtown Master Plan:
The creation of a non-profit foundation to fund the ongoing discovery, preservation and interpretation of the historic and cultural resources located in and around Shockoe Bottom, including, among others, the Richmond Slave Trail, Lumpkin’s Jail and the African Burial Ground.
The expansion of the City of Richmond’s Old and Historic District in Shockoe Bottom to encompass a greater area.
The limited demolition of historic structures in Shockoe Bottom and the planned preservation of other historic structures, such as the Seaboard Building and the last remaining depot.
The promotion of two-way streets in Shockoe Bottom to facilitate access.
The construction of compatible urban infill on vacant lots in Shockoe Bottom, especially along East Broad Street.
The introduction of neighborhood-oriented uses and services, including a grocery store and gas station.
The restoration of the train shed adjacent to historic Main Street Station.
The re-opening of East Franklin Street as a pedestrian way between North 15th Street and Ambler Street, partially re-establishing a portion of the historic street grid.
The installation and maintenance of streetscapes along the project’s perimeter.
The provision of support services, such as recycling, for Shockoe Bottom businesses and residents.
The expansion of the 17th Street Farmers Market.
The invitation to A.C.O.R.N. to take an active and meaningful role in directing and supervising the development and implementation of the Shockoe Center project as it moves forward.
Although Highwoods Properties’ proposal is a vast improvement over similar plans presented several years ago, A.C.O.R.N. believes that Shockoe Center, as presented, is not an appropriate project for the City of Richmond’s most historic and hallowed ground.
We look forward to continued civic discourse on this and other projects, and to working with the city in shaping appropriate development in Richmond’s old neighborhoods.
TAGGED: Shockoe Center
Several very important points are brought out in ACORN’s statement. Any discussion of the proposed development and diversion of tax revenue has to be seen in the context of the most dire financial crisis in this country in the last sixty years. The plan put forward for development of the Bottom in this fashion would be questionable in the best of times. In our day and age, it verges on insane.
Now that we no longer have our egomaniac Mayor, Mr. Wilder working against us on the subject, why doesn’t Richmond do the logical thing and promote this area as the National Slavery Museum? We are such poor stewards of our tourism potential and haven’t really taken advantage of our history, both the good and the bad, since the Civil War Centennial.
Remember how the Sixth Street Marketplace was going to suck all those people out of the suburban malls and whisk them back downtown? Where is that failed idea now? Mr. Cox’s dumptrucks have hauled it away.
The baseball scheme won’t be so easily taken to the landfill in Charles City. It will forever ruin one of Richmond’s oldest areas and again brand us an opportunistic and short-sighted city, all too happy to sell anything we might own and cherish to the first developer with something shiny and colorful to dangle in front of our eyes.
This development scheme (and that is the word for it) has to be stopped for many reasons. It just has to be stopped.
Let’s surprise everybody and do something appropriate, clever, meaningful and successful in the Bottom and not sell our patrimony for another stupid developer’s scheme.
right where on broad? getting yourself a good feeling to bash the past mayor that said there would not be a baseball stadium in the bottom? ask your city council years ago why they refused to submit a proposal for the national slavery museum. poor stewards? so when did you figure that out? didnt you just go thru the feel good process with the new downtown master plan that failed to include the archaeology/burial ground as a component? you are right it would be a suprise if you got off your butt and did anything other than complain. why dont you put some money in a deal to get your clever something?? and then when it looks like the ball park will come:
get up with bob the negotiator and the cha, negotiate brick for a brick standard building, and negotiate for reduced hours to 24/7 and say you did the right thing.
btw, watch new mayor whats-his-name fall in love with baseball
A National Slavery Museum will bring regional, national, and international tourism.
I hear that Wilder has come to his senses and now wants to bring the museum home from Fredericksburg ….
Haven’t many of the questions ACORN asks been answered? Why didn’t they include what they think are the ((incorrect)) answers?
Just b/c 6th Street Marketplace was a disaster doesn’t mean we should never do large scale development again…
Can’t this development be done with the National Slavery Museum as a part (with the project funds building and sustaining it as the developers have suggested)?
I find it noteworthy that the host group is a strategic social marketing company whose name is baseball related.
Let the marketing frenzy begin as a “community meeting.”
~kimmy
still undecided but feeling unimpressed with the whole business given the whole economic crisis thing going on.
I agree, Ry. It doesn’t have to be either/or. If the Slavery Museum is built in an empty lot in Shockoe Bottom that is surrounded by other empty lots, I doubt it will draw many people. Seems reasonable to coordinate development in a holistic way.
And baseball has proven to be a draw all these years in Richmond?
Have development along with the Slavery Museum, like the slave trail and memorial, transportation, maybe a Whole Foods, Trader Joes, etc….
People already travel great distances to see slavery’s ports in Africa -I imagine people would follow the route to Richmond.
Someone might want to find out just exactly who/what owns the property that will be most “enhanced” by this development effort ….
Ry, 6th Street was a colossal disaster and we are still paying for it… Pity, too, because James Rouse didn’t usually flubb up …. but, there were some unscrupulous folks who took advantage of people like Henry Marsh, Roy West et. al. who all think they know so damn much but who always let their egos and emotions lead instead of using analytical skills and seeking out experts, regardless of skin color.
Now come on bill, tell the truth… you know d**mn well that the hours were NOT 24/7 Not sure what they are now. And to blame Ms. Burton or CHA is ludicrous.
was going to let this one go because it is nothing but silliness.
Bob the negotiator
By having the city basically setting up a special tax district to finance the ballpark. Why not extend the tax zone to encompass more of the imediate area, since all the area businesses will benefit from the enhanced infrasturcture. Perhaps we should levy a higher tax rate for all “entertainment” based businesses including restaurants, movies, music venues and cultural events. We already levy 1% city wide restaurant taxvfor the Cultural Arts Center. Why not turn Belvidere to Rocketts Landing into a special tax district. Downtown, Shockoe Slip, Shockoe Bottom, Churchhill, etc. are going to benifit from the new Stadium. Here is an opportunity for the whole city to benifit.
#11, to raise taxes on entertainment based businesses would have a devastating effect. Small businesses, such as restaurants, are struggling in this hard economy as it is to stay afloat. Customers and patrons are looking to spend less money, not more.
bob the negotiator, true story: negotiating to get limited hours and getting 24/7 aint much negotiatin.
bob, who is claiming credit for the negotiating?
bob, richmond baseball needs you and greg
@gray: baseball was proven to be a draw. The average attendance at the Diamond, is round about 5,000.
@JoeRich: Again, just b/c 6th st was a ‘colossal disaster’ doesn’t mean we should never have large scale development. Just that we should take away the lessons from it. We have one of the best community development directors around in Rachel Flynn and I think we should let her do her job. If they support the project, I certainly think it is feasible. I work for a corp. and I’d be angry if every big decision I made was quadruple guessed by the board of directors.
I think baseball is extremely lame for Richmond. Add in the fax that you just had a major team leave here and nobody I know even would honestly go to a baseball game and I overall think its a bad idea. The city should push it’s history and develop downtown in the same way that DC does it’s downtown area, museums, art galleries, restaurants.
And didn’t this same proposal come up 5 years ago and get shot down? What is the difference now from then?
If you want additional information, come down off the hill to the Fourth District tonight for a special meeting of the Huguenot Neighborhood Team and Council President Graziano. Meeting is a 6 pm for a presentation by the Shockoe Center developers. St. Luke Lutheran CHurch, 7757 Chippenham Parkway, corner of Chippenham and Custis.
bill- all I am saying is that if the City is going to designate a tax district for the luxury of a new stadium and surrounding businesses will benefit from that, why not see better returns for the cities investments. For years we have been collecting 1% tax going to the Cultural Arts Center. Why not collect from the businesses that will truly benefit?
I could really care whether a stadium or museum is built, but keep a few things in mind here. Do people (residents or people from out of town)actually visit the Poe museum, or the Valentine museum or the Museum of the Confederacy?? Seriously folks, all three of these museums are within a mile of the slavery parking lot. Richmond is oozing with history, but it is not enought to draw people here. Do you really think building a sole museum in that big area will suffice? I think more people would visit a slavery museum if there were other sights around it, whether that be a stadium or some shops, who knows.
Ry,
Your corporation is funded by private dollars not public dollars. If public officials don’t want to do their business in the sunshine, then they need to go to the private sector.
Pity there was not more scrutiny of what was being done on Wall Street. A few quadruple guesses there might have saved the nation the shame and pain of this $700-billion-plus bailout.
And, as to public officials making decisions without full scrutiny by the public, just take a look at the Bush administration. Or Wilder, or McCollum, Lee Young or Roy West?
Honestly, how long do we need to keep making the same old mistakes?
Seriously?
“Richmond’s Hallowed Ground”
Cut me a break!!
If everyone is so concerned about the slave museum, why haven’t private funds been raised to develop it?
Call me cynical but I don’t believe for one second anyone is concerned about the Slave Museum. It sure hasn’t been a priority up to now.
People need to Get Real. Shockoe Bottom is a stinking run down eyesore. This is the CAPITOL OF VIRGINIA. I know you’re comfortable with keeping all the ugliness right where you’re comfortable with it, but that area needs something. You say no stadium- then what do you propose? Why aren’t you grateful that someone is doing anything at all?
It won’t only be baseball. It will be stores and restaurants, housing, and increased use of the million dollar renovation of the train station. Yes it looks pretty but TWO- count ’em TWO trains go in and out of it daily. That is not “urban revitalization”.
I will be there to fight the selfish backward people who think they are policy makers- you’re not. Other people have other ideas, and guess what? We’re not the minority. I for one walk through Shockoe Bottom every day and I am sick of looking at it.
FYI, There is also an “I Support Baseball on the Boulevard” group on facebook.
I believe this will go through and we will get baseball. And with the exception of a few commenters here and there and Sam Moore, nearly everyone else in the city supports it. Especially most of the retailers and restuarants in the Bottom.
The musuem will not be a draw that will turn downtown into a destination spot. The stadium will be! And, as I’ve stated in the past, we really do support our team. I will be missing baseball this summer and can’t wait for its return.
@ Duhon: Just b/c you don’t like baseball doesn’t mean others feel the same way. I don’t shoot down everything I think is lame in Richmond. Its the diversity of options that make great cities. I’d advise you to do some research on this proposal before you shoot it down. It is completely different from the one presented a few years back.
@ Joe: I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a review of the projects, etc. My point was more that we hired a professional to do a job and shes done it well. So I’m inclined to take her professional advice, b/c it’s much more educated on ALL aspects of urban development than mine. And the city folks are completely different from the team that signed off on the 6th St project- aren’t they?
I agree Rabbit! Where were the slavery museum advocates when they decided that our “hallowed ground” would be better served as a parking lot? I think the staduim would bring people down and the history would grab their attention once there. Incorporating the past with the future is best.
Rabbit, run!
BASEBALL IN THE BOTTOM!!!
From the drawings I’ve seen, the ballpark plan treats the burial grounds far more respectfully than the current MCV parking lots do. Trees, sidewalks, museum space, good stuff. Right now it’s a paved wasteland of nothingness.
In any case, the pro-stadium Facebook group has over 500 members, and the Shockoe businesses who will actually be impacted by the development are on board – with the notable and hilarious exception of Sam Moore – so why are we still arguing about this? Game on!
There are still no guarantees that 1) taxpayers won’t be left on the hook for business failure, 2) the proposed stadium will have a team. The more cost effective and more environmentaly friendly option is still refurbishing the Boulevard, especially if green building can be used for refurbishing.
http://scfoj.tumblr.com/post/75141058/green-stadiums
The mistake was made years ago when alot of great brick buildings were torn down for ugly surface parking. I wish the old buildings were still there for reuse. They’re not! This is a completely neighborhood prposal that will enhance the whole area. How can anyone stand to keep looking at those ugly surface parking lots. This gets rid of them. A downtown area should be denesly developed with lots of traffic pedestrian and vehicular.
Baseball in Shockoe Bottom for all the reasons listed above! I especially agree with Rabbit’s, Omelette’s, and the most recent joe’s comments.
As for Mr. Burger’s comment – they’ve made it pretty clear that there is at least one team currently in the discussion that is available this year. Also, you can certainly try to refurbish a stadium that has had many on-field flooding issues, but you can’t change the make-up of the North Richmond area. Green or not, the Boulevard ain’t cuttin’ it as a baseball site.
Finally, I was just talking to a friend today about his hometown of Lowell, Mass. and how developing a stadium in their (admittedly smaller) *downtown* area has done wonders for the city’s revitalization. Behold the power of MiLB.
The new stadium will surely end up looking like crap, just like everything else that gets built around here. And then they’ll add hideous surface lots/decks all over the place. i wish we had architectural regulations that forced developers to keep Victorian Era themes; isn’t the olde architecture the only reason people like this town? Just think, if this was the case, we’d someday surpass Charleston in city beauty.
our brilliant state legistatures on the finance committee think spending our hard earned tax payments on baseball, they show the prudence we estoll in our leaders of shrewd wise management of the public till
@Liberty: Your state tax payments only go to this project if you spend money at the park or new retail spaces, which, I’m guessing you won’t do. So you need not worry on that count…
B.S. — Ry ….. What about our CITY tax payments? How many over-priced parking lots did “the public” a/k/a “taxpayers of City of Richmond” buy on Broad Street when CDA business went belly-up?
The tax payments are on the incremental increase in revenue from that specific district. City and state. The developers have committed to guarantee the development. The CDA never had a private guarantor.
The “promise” made was that the taxpayers of Richmond would not end up holding the bag. But, that promise was broken. HOW MANY parking lots did we buy? HOW MANY MILLIONS were wasted?
You are already double-speaking. In post #36, you say “your state tax payments only” and in post #38, when forced to clarify, you admit “City and State.” Could you please clarify just exactly what “specific district” you are referring to in your post — CITY district? STATE district?
Baseball parks are dead economic zones on nights without games, which are most nights. The structures are just more places for rats to live and graffiti artists to tag. On game nights, we would be looking at traffic and noise, with fans spending money inside the park on beer and peanuts. We would have better economics and quality-of-life if the land were turned into green space.
A new stadium looks beautiful right after it’s built. But it does not take long for the bloom to lose its petals, after the developer has been paid and has moved on. It’s a development project for a developer. That’s all.
Ry — if stadium opponents believe their taxes will pay for the stadium, there is no convincing them otherwise. These… “facts” you speak of have no place here.
Any money that goes toward silly things like “infrastructure improvement” or “economic development” is clearly just money taken away from schools. Or so I hear. Repeatedly.
I suspect these same people frequently cause a scene at Chipotle if someone in front of them gets more rice than they do. After all, by this logic, THERE IS A FINITE AMOUNT OF RICE AT CHIPOTLE. FOR GOD’S SAKE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Ry, bonds have to be issued by a public authority. The developers can’t issue them by themselves. So, right there, you’ve got either the city issuing them, or a CDA. Or the Industrial Dev. Authority, which I think is defunct, if not then it should be as I seem to recall that it didn’t bother to keep any books.
Now, you’re saying that they’re (the developers) going to be a private guarantor – please refer me to precisely where you have seen/read that. I can’t find any such info.
Knowing who will be on the hook for the bonds in case of revenue shortfalls will be critical to a complete understanding of this scheme. This much is clear, though: the ballpark was included primarily because of project requirements relating to the need for emergency access, a decrease in pavement and mitigation of storm drainage issues, which a stadium would conveniently provide. As others have noted, there is no team in Richmond currently and no evidence that a minor-league stadium with a new team will drive the kind of economic benefits that the developers are claiming. And if this is ever built in the Bottom, look for construction costs to soar. For example, check out the substantial cost overruns for the Gwinett County, Georgia stadium—the new home of the AAA Braves.
@ Old School: You’re taking my statement in #36 incorrectly. I was saying the payments “only go if you spend money there” not the “state payments only” but whatever. My opinion on the project is based on what the developers and city have told us. I’m not going to assume that they are lying b/c of what has happened in the past. But I will make sure they follow through on promises, including the one that they will not leave the tax payers on the hook. The “specific district” is only the area within the new development. Please do some research before you get all wound up.
@Vista: That is precisely why moving away from the stand alone park on the BLVD and to a development that includes retail, residential, hotel, office, etc. in an area that already has things going on in the evening is a good idea. And last I checked those particular lots are dead in the evenings anyway…
@crd: Yes they have to be issued by a public agency with a bond allocation from the state. That doesn’t mean the developers can’t be required by the agency to guarantee the issuance.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/BALL15_20090114-223038/178610/
“Officials emphasized that the deal would be structured so that private investors — not city taxpayers — would be on the hook if revenue fails to cover debt payments.â€
For everyone worried about the bonds: This may seem like something completely strange and off-the-wall to issue bonds for a private development. However, just in the state of Virginia hundreds of millions of dollars in private activity bonds are issued each year for economic development, manufacturing facilities, affordable housing, etc. It is certainly something to look at closely and ensure we, the taxpayer, are not on the hook for anything we shouldn’t be, but it is a viable tool for economic development when used correctly.
@Ry:
I don’t think “Old School” is “wound up” at all, simply aware that past actions are a great predictor of future behaviors.
Why NOT put the baseball stadium on the Boulevard and put a National Slavery Museum in place that will serve as an anchor to other historic sites that are all close to one another?
Omelette,
You sound like someone scrambled your eggs a bit too much. The rice at Chiplotle’s and the emotional invocation of “the children” have nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion here that involves millions of dollars and could leave the citizens of Richmond holding the bag (once again) on a deal that developers and propoents are presenting in vague language that literally sounds too good to be true.
And, when it comes to business, most folks know that deals that sound too good to be true usually are not true.
“Just b/c 6th Street Marketplace was a disaster doesn’t mean we should never do large scale development again…”
This sounds like the poster child for the Those Who Forget the Past are Condemned to Repeat It.
Responding to an earlier comment above, if the investors are the guarantors to this project, then the City isn’t on the hook. In the worst-case-scenario the bank or bond holders could only go after the land under the baseball park and the guarantors’ assets.
We (Richmonders) seem to have developed a knee-jerk reaction to automatically oppose any major Shockhoe Bottom development.
While there are certainly a number of important questions that need to be addressed in regards to the new stadium proposal (parking, access, viability, funding, etc.), maybe we should at least consider the possibility that tens of millions of dollars being spent in our neighborhood (esp. in these trying economic times) might not be such a bad problem to have.
I for one, am in favor of a vibrant, FUN, safe, clean, Shockhoe Bottom – a place where Richmonders can gather for entertainment (stadium could be used for both sports and concert events, I would imagine) and socializing. The ballpark just might bring these things to bear.
In regards to the National Slavery Museum idea, I am a big history buff and lover of museums. But I can just about guarantee that a slavery museum is NOT going to revitalize Shockhoe Bottom or bring revenue to Richmond. Sadly, most Americans just aren’t into spending money on anything remotely educational. (For example, Busch Gardens is a big money maker, while Colonial Williamsburg – right next door – is struggling).
I do believe a monument / marker near the Lumpkins Jail site would be totally appropriate though.
In response to Vista (#40):
The development is going to be mixed use. This means that there will be residential and commercial units available. So, the development will be occupied 365 days a year.
Parks/green space are great but they produce zero revenue and cost the city of Richmond thousands of dollars each year to maintain. Besides we already have parks in Church Hill a short distance away.
As for all you that want to turn the site into a museum, maybe you should look at the underground rail road museum in Cincinnati that NO ONE goes to.
Oh yeah, and I’m sure rats don’t live in parks or in the existing vacant buildings.
Play Ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Two strong reasons to oppose the development in the Bottom.
1. We tried it 20 years ago, and it didn’t work.
2. We’ve never done anything like this before and we shouldn’t try new things.
These ought to cover any proposal that comes up.
“We have one of the best community development directors around in Rachel Flynn and I think we should let her do her job. If they support the project, I certainly think it is feasible. I work for a corp. and I’d be angry if every big decision I made was quadruple guessed by the board of directors.”
RV, while your confidence in Ms. Flynn is admirable the fact is she has been the architect of some colossal boondoggles that would make Sixth Street Market seem like a well thought out idea. There is a five star boutique hotel that the taxpayers of Lynchburg are currently paying for that was one of those great “creative financing” projects that wasn’t going to cost the citizens a dime and was going to revitalize downtown. Her track record is not very good.
I think it is important for these projects to be looked at with a critical eye. I don’t know if the stadium project is a good idea or not. I do know we need to know, truthfully, what the city’s obligations will be if this project fails.
Hey folks, Post #52 by the “other” Union Hill, was NOT me.
And for just for the record, THIS UnionHill RVA opposes the development plan as currently written for the stadium, residential and retail construction. I concur with A.C.O.R.N.’s recently announced position on the situation.
@ JoeRich: The ballpark and slavery museum are NOT mutually exclusive parts of the development. The reason I like the proposal is that it includes diverse attributes.
((p.s. typing in CAPS = wound up to me))
@#48: Way to take my comment out of context. I went on to say that we need to take the lessons learned from 6th str. NOT ignore that it happened
Old School – Omelette wasn’t implying that Chipotle had anything to do with this project. It was tongue in cheek. The point is that the opposition to the project is grasping for straws in their argument by relying on the old standbys of “you’re wasting our tax dollars, we should build a school!” when this project IS NOT on property earmarked for a school, and is not using tax dollars that could otherwise be used to build a school.
Also, while I agree we should learn from our mistakes (such as building a complementary project to the Richmond Convention Center *before* the main project is complete – aka 6th Street), we should not turn our backs on any sort of project to move our city forward. Not only is this project located in a different section of our city, it is completely different in nature. The 6th street market place was not an attraction in itself, it was a place to stop while you were either working downtown or holding a conference in the Convention Center (which again, was not yet completed).
Finally, just because this project isn’t only about baseball doesn’t mean its ONLY about a history museum, either. Its a MULTI-use area which means its many things. The stadium defines it because some of the investors are taking an interest in the area in order to bring baseball back to Richmond. Its about putting together ALL the elements (the Canal Walk, Main Street Station, the Bottom’s existing business, the historical significance, the new retail, new residential buildings, AND stadium)to make it a thriving area that every Richmonder can be proud of. It will not only bring together central Virginia residents, but make it a region that offers enough to warrant tourism.
Need I mention that the more people this area brings in, rather than scares away, the more tax revenue the city makes? And that more revenue = more money for schools and further improvements? Green space is nice, but is almost all expense and zero return by way of economic development (something that is important to focus on in our current economy).
Sorry folks but so called revenue bonds to finacne a project like this one are not a viable means of raising fund in this economic environment. Any financing that would be apt to find buyers would have to be a General Obligation bond gaurantreed by the city, state or someother taxing jurisdiction and if it failed, taxpayers would in fact be on the hook to the lenders as the municipality wpuld have to guarantee replayment.
If the bonds don’t sell under the proposed financing structure, then nothing gets built in the first place. No General Obligation bond is on the table.
http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publis…
If there is no risk to taxpayers, then why do we have City Council members being asked to raise their hands (in an unofficial vote, of course)and members of the General Assembly pushing a bill through?
They need building permits. They also need approval on the bill to use part of the sales tax generated by the stadium (any stadium, not just in the Bottom) to pay back the bonds.
Those revenue streams don’t currently exist to the city. As pointed out in the article link above, the bottom currently generates about $100k in tax revenue. Its possible this new project (and just this project with no other ‘ripple effect’ development) could increase those revenues to $3 million in the first full season. I understand this IS speculation and of course nobody can say with certainty, but no rewarding projects are free of risk.
“Building permits?!” You gotta be kidding! This whole dog-and-pony show is not about “building permits.” It is about money. Lots of money.
Can some please show us the documents that establish what the risk is to the developers?
And, what pray tell, will be the consequences if these developers happen to go bankrupt?
Who is left holding the bag, then?
I believe the developers’ risk is loosing a $360 million investment, which is some combination (a combination that won’t be determined until the financing package is finalized) of public financing(the TIF bonds), private financing, and equity.
Could you provide the actual documentation? I believe in reading the fine print. How are the developers making money on the deal? What’s their profit margin?
What are consequences if they go bankrupt, Ry?
Taxpayers pay, right? Just as we are for those greedy b@$#@!s on WallStreet.
You want the documentation you’ll have to go for to the city for it. Obviously, the developers will make money on the sale of condos and leasing of retail/office/residential space. If they go bankrupt the consequences would be determined by a bankruptcy judge, just like Circuit City. In all likelihood, they would take everything owned by the guarantors and sell it to pay back the bonds and any other outstanding debt. The value of the guarantors would need to be in excess of the value of this project otherwise their guarantee would mean as much as mine ((please oh please don’t take my 25 inch tube tv!!!!))
As to the wall street folks, well the taxpayers weren’t left on the hook, our congressmen/women put us on the hook. You don’t like it talk to them. That has nothing to do with this project.
I just sent an email to Jennifer McClellan this morning in response to an email she sent out last night seeking public input before the House votes on Delegate Loupassi’s bill today.
I encourage others to send similar emails if you support a slavery museum in Shockoe Bottom. All I requested was that a slavery museum be added to the bill, as a possibility, to have access to the same tax financing scheme the stadium would enjoy.
Here is the text of my letter, feel free to copy or remix.
Dear Ms. McClellan,
Though I am generally skeptical of this proposal and there seems to be little public support for this project and the most interested party is the developer. This proposal is a remanent of the failed Wilder Administration. I will not ask you to vote against HB 1803, but I would respectfully request that you amend the language to offer the same financing scheme for the possible construction of a slavery museum on the site. There does seem to be public support for preserving the history of the site, commemorating the horrors of slavery, and respecting the African American burial ground that is near by.
This may be the best opportunity Richmond has to seize our rightful place in history and lead the way for national reconciliation on slavery. I hope you can support such a concept.
For an interesting discussion on the stadium and the slavery museum, please see http://chpn.net/news/2009/02/02/baseball-debate-heats-up-again/
Thank you for seeking public comment on this bill.
Respectfully yours, Silver Persinger
JoeRichmond – check out the style weekly article linked in post 59.
@Ry, They would sell everything owned by the guarantors that the courts can actually get to — but developers playing this league definitely know how to protect their A$$ets.
And, the history of the City of Richmond is that the so-called leadership in these types of situations is that it is totally clueless. There is absolutely nothing different in this equation that would make the outcome any different than it has been in the past.
The same old leadership is still acting as if they are smart enough to go toe-to-toe with the big league players (pun intended).
As to your notion that we blame Congress, that is just too glib.
Had Congress not stepped in, there would be even more regular people feeling the brunt of the bruising greed of the super-rich.
These developers are not from Richmond. They just see us as easy marks. Were this big money people to be trusted, Obama would not need to step in to cap pay.
Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05pay.html?ref=us
Been There, these developers know Richmond quite well actually:
Here is the lead developer (Paul Kreckman) on the project’s profile:
Paul oversees a portfolio of 2.4 million square feet. He has over 30 years of experience in the Richmond real estate market, first as a consultant and then as a developer. In early 1984, Paul formed his own company with a local partner and began developing their commercial investment portfolio. In September 1995, they merged with Highwoods. Paul has been a guest lecturer in graduate real estate courses at the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University. He is actively involved in a number of civil and church programs, including Capitol District Chairman for the local Boy Scout Council. Paul holds a bachelors degree in economics from Syracuse University and a master’s degree in economics from the University of Virginia.
Also, blaming Congress is not glib at all. They dished out billions of dollars to these banks and corporations with barely any checks on how they spend it – and after they plan weekend getaways and the public is outraged THEN they set up checks.
ps – there is a lot different in the current equation. We’re talking about a mixed-use development anchored by a baseball stadium. The baseball stadium (and all the people it attracts) come first. Not to mention, the walls of the stadium ARE the complementary pieces: the retail, the office space, the residential property.
Name a project done in the past that practically guarantees anywhere from 3500-8500 people visit it at least 5-6 months out of the year. Not to mention this project is in an area that people typically visit even when its NOT baseball season (unlike the Boulevard site).
What are those opposed to the project protecting in the Bottom? A few dilapidated buildings and surface parking lots? I know, history, they’re building a museum to honor that…the question is WHAT ELSE?!
we need that stadium.
Your corporate profile of him is wonderful, Anna. It is lacking, however, in any detail as to what real estate projects he has successfully managed. I honestly could not care less about his involvement with the Boy Scouts if you don’t include relevant years and location.
What are the projects he has managed in this market? What has actually done in this community? Where does he live? Go to church? Details, please. When did he graduate? Wilder lectures at VCU — does that mean we should trust him?
Greed is greed, Anna. City taxpayers have lost way too much money due to sheer stupidity. It disturbs me that you are inclined to blame Congress and the President rather than express any outrage yourself over the excesses of the corporate Titans.
Kinda sounds like fiscal “date rape” — the politicians didn’t set any checks and balances, blame them because those addicted to greed and excess couldn’t control themselves? “She didn’t say no …….”
I’m curious, Anna, how does the project practically guarantee that 3500-8500 people will visit at least 5-6 months out of the year?
I don’t pretend to know the man, that is the description given on his companies website. The point of providing the information is to show you haven’t done your research when it comes to professing that the developers know nothing about Richmond.
If you want to know the answers to those very personal, and somewhat irrelevant questions, try google. If you want to know about his projects and his community involvement, google it. I’m not here to copy and paste information that is readily available.
I am most certainly not saying that its not the corporations fault. Simply that both the public and the government KNOW they can’t control themselves…that’s how they got into the current predicament they’re in! We then give them MORE resources to lose control of, with no restrictions on how to use OUR money, and surprise! They did it again. What’s that phrase – “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”
Queen of Church Hill, those are ‘ballpark’ average numbers of MiLB (not independent, actual affiliated teams like the Braves) attendance for teams with newer stadiums (ie – Durham, Greensboro, Trenton, Lakewood, Toledo, Greenville, Reading). You can read all about the continued success of minor league baseball and their attendance records on MiLB.com.
The RBraves had an average annual home game attendance of 412,066 from 2000-2007, and played approximately 70 home games per season during that period. That means an average home game attendance of 5800 on each of those 70 nights with a season that runs from April to September.
That’s how, Queen.
The 2008 RBraves media guide supplied me with the attendance information:
http://rbraves.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/Media%20Guide/RBraves%20MG_001-4.pdf
I think the bios of the principals are a matter of record. For instance, in answer to #74, Highwoods manages At least 35 projects at Innsbrook, Stony point, Shocloe Plaza and Wyndham. Highwoods is acting as master developer, but Bryan bostic is the basbeball end of this, and he is a long time Richmond businessman. David White (?) would develop the housing components, and he is supposed to have significant experience in the Shockoe/Church Hill area.
I’m not endorsing this, but as I understand it, city involvement is limited to a few areas…$8 million in infrastructure (which will have to be done for any reuse of the area), the city-owned or acquired proerty (estimated value currently $1.2 million), and the outstanding question of city liability for the bonds to build the ballpark. If the bond issuance holds the city harmless even in the case of default, then city exposure is very limited. The city is naot being asked to finance the residential, commercial, retail development. Go stand down there and ask…what are we protecting?
I think Anna brings solid points here. Richmond, CH especially, holds on to past fast failures way too tightly. Public debate and dsicourse are great but let us not vacillate too long and see this pass by. It is a significant boost for the area and maks plenty of accomodation to the areas history. This could be a centerpiece that draws the community to the area to discover the rest of the rich cultural history of the area. I live on the hill, dont care for baseball, but eagerly look forward to walking to many games in the near future. BUILD IT. Use my tax dollars as well, as I will benefit as will the community. Better they go here than off to DC to be disbursed to keep failing companies alive for a few more minutes. BUILD THIS STADIUM.
Blaming Congress for guaranteeing and investing in numerous companies that would be bankrupt otherwise isn’t glib but this is hardly the forum for me to get into why that was a terrible decision…
A quick jaunt to the Highwoods website will show you the properties they have developed and managed. Here’s a good one: One Shockoe Plaza (http://www.highwoods.com/HIWMain/PropertyDetail.aspx?id=dca36a0f-2ee4-477d-9305-1a358d74d3bd). You forget in your statements that developers know how to cover their assets, the banks and investors in the bonds know how to as well; especially in this market. If the developers go bankrupt and there isn’t enough assets to pay down the debt the hit is taken by the banks and bond holders…
@#75: that would be the attendance at ball games….
Been there – done that. The developer manages Innsbrook Office park – maybe you have heard of it, as it has been kicking this city’s ass for two decades b/c we can’t get it together. You say we have lost too much to stupidity but we have lost even more because of LOST OPPORTUNITIES. And thsi is not a suburban style park they are bringing to us, but an urban development in an urban setting.
And if you actually attended any of the meetings as I have, you would know the developer has lived in the Fan for more than 30 years because he told us he knows a little about living with parking issues and traffic as he lives on West Ave, right next to VCU.
Or maybe he just made all that up.
Try and learn something about this project before you demean those involved with it.
By the way, my typing sucks. I apologize. I still haven’t got to the place yet where I would vote to support the proposal should it ever come before council, but the information is coming together. Should the city support private development? Fair question, but we do it all the time, whether it is the infrastructure incentives for MeadWestvaco, or the development agreement for Stony Point Fashion Park. What do we get from this project? First, lay aside baseball itself. We get short term construction jobs, about a thousand of them for about three years, living, working, paying taxes and buying pickups. Then we get the Real Estate taxes from the commercial and residential developments. That’s about $300 M, taxed at $1.20/100. That looks like $3.6 m a year at the current rate. That’s 36 fully equipped police officers, or 72 teachers, or the debt service on a $60-70 million school. It’s beginning to look like a good business deal for the city. Finally, why not the Boulevard? Because the private sector, the businesses who are betting their own money on this being successful, say the Boulevard site is not as good a business proposition. You live in the Bottom or Church Hill and are concerned about the traffic? Fair question and an honest position to take. People who live in the counties won’t come downtown? Screw ’em. At a project of 5800 per game ticket sales, we don’t need them.
Since when is asking questions about the project demeaning it? Since when is asking about the principals involved demeaning them? You sound defensive/pushy/condescending and that always makes people nervous and suspicious.
Others may not have done their research, but I have and I know there is plenty more here that is NOT being discussed.
Such as, what effect will the FEMA regulations [effective April 1, 2009] which expand the flood plane in the bottom, have on the values of property in this project?
@Ry #81 …..”If the developers go bankrupt and there isn’t enough assets to pay down the debt the hit is taken by the banks and bond holders…”
To quote that baseball great Yogi Berra:
“This sounds like deja vu all over again.”
Joe (84) – there is nothing wrong with asking questions. And I used to live there and am passionate about this idea because I know it will help the area. I’m not trying to be pushy or defensive.
But accussing the developers of being outsiders and then asking others details about them when that info is readily available is not Anna’s job or mine. How is accussing them of being outsiders a valid argument against this project anyway? What if Tiger Woods was in charge of it?
If someone hasn’t done even the cursory research, then we can also suspect they know little detail about the project itself and are just spouting off to be heard.
It is obvious you have studied it and you know as I do that this plan has evolved WITH community input. It is not an inflexible deal. Just look at the latest renderings that reopen the discussion on the Lumpkin’s area. I look forward to that process continuing and hope your questions and doubts are answered.
Thank you for answering my question, David.
Its not asking questions about the project, its asking personal questions about those involved with the project that have no bearing on the project. Especially when those questions are prefaced by statements prejudging that those involved know nothing about Richmond or might not have the right zipcode. It screams elitism (which, by the way, is condescending).
The research I was referring to was that on Mr. Kreckman, himself. There is plenty of relevant information available, you can even ask him questions at the community meetings.
I *believe* the building plans address the FEMA regulations where ramps must be present above the floodplain/basin/whatever the requirement is…the answer to that regulation was that the concourse itself acts as a ramp. Is that what you’re referring to?
Hasn’t Shockoe only flooded once since the flood wall was completed in 1995?
And wasn’t that flood due to retained water from a massive hurricane that overwhelmed a drainage system that has since been upgraded?
No. I am inquiring as to what the changes in the flood plane do to the property values and the ability to get insurance on said properties.
You are asking the citizens of Richmond to buy into a deal and “TRUST” the developers. Pardon me for being old-fashioned enough to believe that one should “trust,” yes, but always verify.
I took issue with you — not Kreckman — and the way you were so willing to blame Congress and not hold those who actually perpetrated the wrongdoing accountable.
I’m not sure why you took my stance on Congress so personally, and what it has to do with the Shockoe Center, but given my interest in the issue at hand I won’t be responding to any more debate about who’s to blame re: Wall Street.
My question, though, is what is the point of the insurance question? I’m not quite sure where you’re going with that. Sounds like a great question to bring up at a community interest meeting, though.
Anna,
The nation is in the middle of a $700 BILLION of Wall Street, the state is wrestling with a $3 BILLION SHORTFALL, FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN WITH MENTAL ILLNESS ARE BEING CLOSED, every newspaper and media outlet are telling us we are in the worst financial situation since the Great Depression, and the City of Richmond is NOW being asked to hold the bag on a $360 million deal.
This project has cheerleaders such as yourself who keep asking the public to sing kumbaya and play ball all the while playing dumb with serious questions about the VALUE of the properties once the flood plane changes go into effect.
The cost of the insurance is part of the bigger question about the value of the properties. How will residents be able to afford the insurance on their properties? What will this do to property values in the affected area? Don’t tell me you and Mr. Kreckman and your attorneys haven’t pondered this one.
I did NOT take your response about Congress “personally” and I find it a cheap rhetorical trick for you to state that I did.
I took offense that the idea embodied in your response, i.e., that it is somehow the fault of Congress (please remember they are supposed to be the representatives of the people) that they did not hold the guilty accountable on Wall Street. Following your logic here, if this project goes belly-up, it will be the fault of the elected representatives (who all seem to have drunk the kool-aid on this one) and not that of those bulldozing this deal through.
As Will Rogers once said: “I would much rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge, than the one who sold it……” [Thank you very much, but the City of Richmond has already bought more than its share of “Brooklyn Bridges.”]
These “leaders” have been fooled before and I, along other hard working taxpayers in this community, are still paying off the mistakes they made.
Don’t condescend to me to suggest that I throw this question about the flood plane out at a community meeting because you and I both know that someone will stand up there and call it a “great question” and promise to get back to me on it. Later, of course. Way later.
When you and others respond with “play ball” answers to legitimate questions, you reveal a lack of concern with how this project is going to effect the average citizen. Reminds me of the apocryphal Marie Antoinette remark “Let them eat cake,” when told the peasants had no bread.
what time will they turn off the lights? without darkness, the soul never rests.
From what I understand, Richmond is not being asked to hold the bag. From what I understand, this will be financed privately, and supported by the bill recently passed in the house to allow the project to use sales tax revenues to pay off the bonds. Seriously, that is what *I understand* and until they ask the city to fork over cash that they won’t get back (more than the $8mil for infrastructure, mind you), I’m willing to see where they’re headed with it.
You call myself and torn defensive, pushy, and condescending, yet you use awfully strong language when responding to our tempered arguments and opinions. Comments like I’m “playing dumb with serious questions” and patronizing me for honestly wondering what you were implying with your insurance question. I would legitimately like to see what Mr. Kreckman’s answer would be to that question.
I have a college education, a darn good in-state one, and I resent what you’ve accused me of. Blindly “cheerleading” a project for the sake of baseball is hardly my intent. If it was really just about the baseball, I’d probably argue against the Bottom just so I wouldn’t have to deal with the project being killed by such paranoid and negative people.
More evidence of aggressive language and taking things personally – “I took issue with you — not Kreckman…” You once told me you were disturbed by my view of the “bailout”…well I’m disturbed by the way you lash out and get into a semantics debate.
“Don’t tell me you and Mr. Kreckman and your attorneys haven’t pondered this one”
– Wait a second, my attorneys? I’m 23, I have an admin job. I love my city and I want to see it move forward. I’m not a hired ‘cheerleader’, I’m passionate about what this opportunity means for our city.
Unforunately, when we’re dealing with focusing this project on a baseball stadium, you’re going to get some answers pertaining to the business of baseball and all the benefits a minor league team provides. I’m sorry if you find that hokey, or a “play ball” answer as you call it, but there is a lot of evidence to support the success and benefits of baseball.
What is also unfortunate is that while you’re patronizing those of us who are passionate about changing the face of Richmond, you’re glazing over all the positive aspects of this development. Yes, there are questions that need to be answered, I would like to hear those answers too. In the mean time, there are a LOT of great things that could come out of this project. Oh, and maybe we can get baseball back, too.
Again, I’m not responding to the Bail-out debate, this is not the place.
Again, this isn’t the forum for my debate on the pros/cons of the Federal deficit, bailout, state deficit, etc.
However, I am the one who blamed Congress and it isn’t the same as the ballpark. Congress made a decision to bailout Wall Street. Wall Street was holding the bag and Congress said “Nah let me take that. And while we’re at it go ahead and throw any other losses our way.” Here the city and state have specifically defined roles in which they are in the project for a set amount that will generate benefits beyond the investment. And no additional losses. If this project goes belly up it’ll be the fault of the developers. You’re misinterpreting the comments.
Oh and PS the city is being asked to provide assistance on one sixth – one sixth- of the project financing. Not the whole ‘bag of a $360 million deal’.
As far as the insurance, that’s a matter for the landowners, of which I’m guessing you’re one. But as a landowner, I’d rather my property values increase and pay a little more in insurance. Than the other way around.
http://scfoj.tumblr.com/post/75992067/sierra-club-opposes-shockoe-stadium-proposal
Scott, I’m honestly confused how the Boulevard site qualifies as “smart growth.”
I totally understand your desire to make any development as green as possible, but favoring a site bordered by two four-lane highways with no offices or high-density apartments within walking distance strikes me as very sprawl-ish. The Boulevard site is 100% car-dependent.
This project will include and enhance both the Slave Trail and the Lumpkin’s Burial site. It will expand the Farmers Market and revitalize vacant parking lots surrounded by chain link fences in Shockoe Bottom. It will create thousands of Jobs in Richmond over the next several years. JOBS! We should be grateful that this project is even a possibility and embrace it.
As a 30-year resident of Northside, I have to agree w/Scott Burger on the reasons to place the stadium on the site of the current one.
There is plenty of room along the Boulevard to build high-density apartments, businesses and close proximity to various museums, Children’s, Science, Historic Society, VAMFA …. the highways present easy access and already exist.
Plus, no one has to worry with the flood plain problems etc….. Why not go w/Blvd. location– that is if anyone can figure out how to hold the developers accountable (not likely) should this whole thing go the route of the Broad Street CDA boondoggle.
Does anybody like the current condition of the 11 acre parcel where Shockoe Center would go?
One question – where do you all who support the Boulevard site propose the team plays while the stadium is being built on the old site?
They are in the process of purchasing an available team *this* year. There are no guarantees a team at a level that Richmond deserves will be available in a couple years if we were to pass on the current opportunities. Remember all the red tape the Richmond had to go through when the R-Braves were discussing leaving? That we couldn’t pursue another team until we were released from our contract with the big team? The same happens all over the country and speculating availability more than a season in advance is virtually impossible.
The issue with the Boulevard isn’t available space, we all know that. Its the ability to attract businesses willing to take a risk on the area. Baseball will attract enough business there 6 months out of the year, but what about the other 6 months? It just doesn’t have the pull that the Bottom does. The Boulevard is like the suburbs in a gritty urban setting, you can’t walk to anything, and its arguable you’d want to walk anywhere if you could.
And Shockoe Bottom is not car-dependent?!
Why can’t offices and apartments be built along the Boulevard?
Realizing that there are many questions out there, I encourage everyone to review the presentation on the project if you have not done so already. The answers to so many questions posed here in the past days are addressed:
http://chpn.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/cha-powerpointcombinedv2.pdf
If you still have questions, attend one of the meetings being held and ask them. It just seems that so many of the questions here, while valid, are addressed in this document. Sure, some of the terms are broad; but, that’s why it’s a proposal. Is everyone entitled to additional facts before a final approval? Yes. Is everyone going to be happy with whatever is finally decided? No. But a NIMBYesque panic where proposals are shot down out of hand is counterproductive to everyone.
Old School (98) – don’t forget the City put out an RFP to private developers for the Boulevard and of the six companies that responded, none of them said they would keep a ballpark there. They ALL said it would be better used in some other capacity.
Also, the current plan doesn’t call for an annual government subsidy as is the case currently with the Diamond (and has been since it opened).
The Boulevard site is not 100% car-dependent. Many historic neighborhoods are within walking distance of The Diamond: Sherwood Park, Laburnum Park, Ginter Park, Rosedale, Bellevue, Ginter Park Terrace, and Battery Court. Scott’s Addition, located across the Boulevard, is seeing more and more condo conversions and thus gaining more residents. The Boulevard site is an existing urban site – albeit different in character from Shockoe Bottom, but every bit as urban, and benefits from both proximity to nearby neighborhoods and existing access to highways.
@#101 – What we mean by car dependent is that there is nothing within walking distance once you arrive to the Boulevard site. The Children’s Museum is a mile away, are you really going to walk your children a mile down the Boulevard and Broad St where there’s 4 lanes of traffic and train tracks?
Offices and apartments can most certainly be built on the Boulevard, but its a matter of attracting tenants. The 2 current successful models for upscale business offices are downtown (i.e. One Shockoe Plaza, home of the Martin Agency) and Innsbrook in the West End. The Boulevard is what marketers (suddenly I recall Principles of Marketing 101!) would refer to as “the muddled middle” – having aspects from 2 different types of environments is typically not desirable because you don’t distinguish yourself.
Geez for the heated debate here you might guess that 30 or 40,000 fans went to every Richmond XXX baseball game.
Silver, you wrote a letter to Del. McClellan that there is very little public support of this project. There is a lot of support for this project and you seem to be ignoring the input of those who disagree with you!
“Shockoe Bottom is not car-dependent?”
Almost all bus routes lead downtown.
Restaurants and the river are easy walking distance.
E A Poe and other possible new museums are close by.
Farmers Market is next door.
Many people already live walking distance to SB.
It has been pointed out that this part of SB is a black hole and dragging down the tremendous assets surrounding it.
I agree with David (102) and tom (103) makes a good point.
Just to note, the Shockoe area has existing access to highways. It’s how everyone gets out of downtown during rush hour.
i have a feeling anna will not be an admin for long. if all 23-year-olds were as involved in their community as she, and were as well-spoken and could write this succinctly, we would be in a lot less trouble than we are.
I support the Baseball stadium in Shockhoe Bottom. Richmond desperately needs mixed use urban design. The Boulevard location has nothing to offer. Anna, keep it up! I’m on your side.
I love living in richmond and im all for things that make richmond better… anna sounds like she has the right idea… i’m not even a sports fan and i can see that! i miss having somewhere else to go besides bars and malls to go to!
Old School (98), there is no CDA proposed for the Bottom.
I love living in Richmond as much as the next person. And, I have been to Shockoe Plaza and know for a stone-cold fact that parking there is an awful mess!
I am inclined to go the Boulevard route on this one given the uncertainties Joe has enumerated about the floodplain and the historic issues presented in the proposed location in the Bottom.
The Movieland Theater is going into the bottom and there is plenty of property that can be developed into apartments and businesses.
Gotta go w/Joe, ACORN, Sierra Club and other concerned citizens who have sound economic and environmental reasons to go the path of least resistance as far as citizen groups go.
Re: walking distance …. it took me 15 minutes to walk from the Diamond to the Children’s Museum this morning.
*****YIKES!!!**********MOVIE is going into the Boulevard!!!!!!!!!!! NOT the Bottom. My bad. Pardon moi.
Is it just me, or is there a pretty palpable discrepancy in the average age of stadium opponents and stadium supporters?
It just seems like I keep hearing a lot of arguments for the Boulevard site from people who have been here since the 70’s. I think nostalgia for the Diamond of yore is clouding their judgment. Chipper Jones doesn’t live here anymore, my friends.
Anyway, I’m sure they mean well, but I would be very wary of a generation that allowed eyesores like the Coliseum and the James Monroe Building to be built.
Neighbor,
I wasn’t speaking of the Bottom, I was speaking of the Broad Street CDA.
I’ve never really had a problem parking when I visit the bottom. Not that there don’t need to be improvements made if a stadium is built there, but its not *already* a problem area as implied.
As far as the floodplain goes, the design of the stadium not only addresses the restrictions, but also improves upon the most recent drainage improvements (made after the last storm – 5 years ago – that caused a problem). Also, these are issues that need to be addressed in order to preserve the historical integrity of the area. Do we throw our hands up and surrender the Bottom to the flood by not fixing the problem?
The project also promises to help us remember and honor our history with museums. Which, as I’ve said before, we’d be lucky to find such flexibility with other developers.
As for Sierra Club’s opposition statement, in my opinion it seems poorly thought out. They use some buzz words like “against the principles of smart growth” but don’t mention what exactly these supposed principles are or say what exactly the Shockoe Center does to work against them. They also don’t acknowledge that the structure in the Bottom *could* be built with green materials, which seems one of the main reasons for their opposition. All of the examples they site were additions onto already built stadiums, therefore they are green aspects that arent necessary from the initial phases of a project.
Finally, they say their main suggestion is to reuse (and not dispose of) the new stadium. I didn’t think fixing the old structure was ever a permanent option. I thought all the ideas for the old site were of rebuilding? Am I wrong?
Re:re: walking distance – they don’t play a whole lot of day games, try that walk at night with children(but be careful).
ps – JoeRichmond = Old School? who else have you been?
Omelette, I was thinking the same thing!
Omelette,
You crack me up! The only way this can be seen as a “generational thing” is that it is [relatively] easy for some people to convince young men and women to go to war and die in the name of nation and glory — because the young will believe anything.
But as the poet Wilfrid Owen wrote in his classic poem: “Dulce et Decorum Est” ….
“Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.”
Similarly here, these “young” people are willing to beleive any and everything they are told because they do not know their history. As the old adage goes: “Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.”
Thank you very much, but I am tired of war and tired of paying taxes to bailout developer dreams that go bust.
Anna = Ry = AnnaFan!= Omelette
Nah, I’m pretty sure I have boy parts.
While I’m sure you could assume we’re the same person to support your arguments, you have no proof. I won’t bother denying it, you wouldn’t believe me anyways.
On with the evidence: #113 (Neighbor) responds to #98 (Old School)…at #117 JoeRichmond responded in first person to Neighbor.
To recap:
-Old School Posted
-Neighbor responded to Old School
-You (JoeRichmond) responded to Neighbor’s response in first person.
For evidence on the generational aspect, go check out the facebook groups for the bottom and for the boulevard. There’s photographic evidence. Not to mention, the name Old School?
By the way, I believe $500,000 per year of the city’s tax revenue went to the Diamond. That place has been around for a loooong time.
In general, the neighbors on the Northside of the city agree and welcome new development to both the Shockoe and Boulevard areas. However, we do not support moving baseball downtown. The Shockoe area is better suited to historic and cultural venues, while sports and sports facilities are already long accepted on the Boulevard. Added to the fact that the stadium proposed for downtown has the field below street level in a flood plain (Richmond Mag., Sourcebook article), it makes no sense to build such a structure there. We agree the Diamond has seen better days. Like many structures, it was built and left alone without proper maintenance & care. No wonder it’s breaking down. There are 65 acres of available property on the Boulevard. There is no reason a new ballfield, sports venues, retail & residential cannot all go in 65 acres of land. Members of City Council have already (6 years ago) stated that the current city facilities there can be moved elsewhere in the city.
Please do develop downtown and the Shockoe area in a sensible, thoughtful, and beautiful way. But leave us our baseball here on the Boulevard.
Liz, while I appreciate the residents of the Boulevard area would like to keep baseball nearby, I personally feel the project would serve Richmond better in the Bottom. The options and plans they recently proposed for the Boulevard (with mainly residential development) seem to be better suited for that area, again, in my opinion.
As for the argument regarding the playing field and floodplain in the Bottom, please reference the plans listed in #102. Also, the comments by Ry and Shockoe in the sierra club official opposition outline exactly why the stadium development is good for the Bottom when you reference the floodplain.
http://fdhub.net/local-sierra-club-opposes-baseball-in-shockoe-bottom
The Shockoe Center, in my and many others opinion, is a sensible, thoughtful, and beautiful plan as it includes historical, aesthetic, and infrastructural considerations while developing the area econimically.
Liz, your argument is slightly undermined by the fact that there is no baseball on the boulevard, because the braves organization hated the location. If they were still there and thriving, you may have a point.
Anna,
I thought Neighbor was speaking to me, instead of Old School. Plus, I have been researching the CDA all day in hopes of gaining insight into what is happening.
I had this problem as a child as well. Frequently, my mother would ask one of my siblings a question and I would answer for them, only to be told: “I wasn’t speaking to you, I was speaking to your brother.”
Not Hizzoner,
I must respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points. My fellow Northsider, Liz, and I agree that it would be wonderful to have baseball back on the Boulevard.
Northsiders are well aware that there is currently no baseball on the Blvd., but that isn’t because Brent Baldwin and others hated the location. Au contraire, what they didn’t like was the condition of the stadium.
I further submit that their departure had more to do with the frustrations of attempting to negotiate with the prior City Administration than anything else.
As a former School Board member for Northside, I must thank Baldwin for all the great things that he and his organization did to help our citizens and our schools.
They were great friends to have in the neighborhood and I only wish we could have done what was necessary to keep them here. That said, I hope we can do what is necessary to bring them back.
Isn’t everyone putting the cart before the horse on this deal: shouldn’t we have a baseball team first and then build the stadium? Perhaps, I missed the announcement that a team had actually signed on the bottom-line to come to Richmond. Please advise.
How much can you really upgrade the diamond? I always felt like I was going to be killed by a slab of falling cement in those godawful bleachers.
Yup boy parts here…No scrambled eggs here, and not anna.
Carol. That has been discussed it is not a major issue, because the developers have stated they plan to pursue a team during off season and hopefully sign one before a decision is made be city council in August.
I haven’t been here since the 70’s, but I’m old enough to remember when baseball was baseball, people were passionate about it and everything came to a halt if your team was in the World Series. I remember them broadcasting the last inning of the ’67 series over our Jr High PA. Please don’t do the math.
Yeah Cardinals
Carol,
There has actually been quite a bit written about the chicken and the egg situation we have with the stadium. That being, which comes first, the stadium or the team? The answer has basically been ‘neither’. The developers and potential team owners have technically been working separately on this issue, though for the same goal and under the same PR firm.
The PR firm has told us that while the stadium approval has been pushed back to August, those wishing to bring a team to Richmond that we can be proud of will have to work “without a net” (Boisseau’s words, not mine) as they work out a deal with a team. That leads me to believe that they have a team in mind to bring here and begin playing in the Diamond next season (2010), hoping construction will be underway shortly thereafter.
And that’s the team situation in a nutshell, to date. What happens with minor league baseball, and what happened here, is that when teams are in contracts with an affiliate or a city, they are barred from shopping around for new locations. Richmond, for example, was barred from bringing in a new team for the 2009 season until Atlanta released the territory. That makes speculation on availability for more than a season in advance pretty difficult and is the primary reason for the original March 1 deadline (affiliates go into Spring Training at that point).
It’s also the reason I’m passionate about throwing my support behind this project, and trying to convince others why its such a great opportunity.
Sorry, I didn’t mean for that to be that long winded. I’m sure there are some rules I’m not aware of, but the maneuvering of affiliated teams is pretty complex.
As for the Boulevard not being the reason the R-Braves left…well…its part of the issue. It is my understanding that the powers that be in MiLB, as well as either a developer of urban ballparks or consulting firm they hired to evaluate both the Bottom and Boulevard sites (I can’t remember which), determined that the Boulevard was less than desirable to build a new stadium. I have to say that I agree, but thats just another, less than expert, opinion.
ps – I saw this comment earlier and meant to reply (#92): “what time will they turn off the lights? without darkness, the soul never rests.”
I understand a lot of people in the Church Hill area are concerned about light and noise pollution. Most minor league games, and major league for that matter, end around 10-1030 PM. If you leave time for the crowd to exit and some grounds maintenance, the lights will probably go off around 30 mins after the end of the game. Those running the stadium have no incentive to keep the lights on, they cost a lot of money!
Also, noise level – there really aren’t any sirens or airhorns that go off during games like they do in hockey. And crowd noise generally doesn’t carry all that far unless its 40,000 people. Not to mention, the ballpark is surrounded by buildings.
There will be *some* late night traffic heading out of the stadium, but I hardly think that a) they’d all leave the area at the same time (like they would if it were the Boulevard) and b) there would be enough cars to cause any problems on the major interstates just a few blocks from the stadium.
Anna,
Do you have a copy of that report? If so, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me. Wolfies@aol.com
Help me understand something. You write: “There will be *some* late night traffic heading out of the stadium, but I hardly think that a) they’d all leave the area at the same time (like they would if it were the Boulevard) and b) there would be enough cars to cause any problems on the major interstates just a few blocks from the stadium.”
I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say in this paragraph.
Re: a) why would *everyone* not leave at the time? Huhn? People leave when the game is over. The Boulevard plan, as I understand it, also calls for residential and retail development.
Re: b) The Boulevard location has exits to both 64 and 95 practically within spittin’ distance from the Diamond. I call those major interstates.
Having attended games at the Diamond and elsewhere, I can attest to the fact that baseball stadiums do make a lot of noise.
Re: lights being turned off 30 minutes after the game(s) end. Unless the clean-up crew and groundskeepers somehow are transformed into Clark Kent/Superman, I don’t think it is really possible to have lights out within 30 minutes after the game.
Do you know where I might obtain a prospectus for this project? Surely the details are somewhere on the internet and I think people would appreciate seeing them.
I can appreciate the process you describe about which comes first the baseball team or the stadium.
Although, IMHO, going about it this way seems akin to buying the wedding dress before *obtaining* the groom.
wild guess: the developer will want to make money. the stadium will be multi-use, baseball, concerts, etc. so what time will the light go out? what time will the bands stop playing?
Re: the noise. Baseball games are loud, when you are in the stadium. Even games at the Diamond (which is shaped in a way that I would think would project the sound) you couldn’t hear them but -maybe- a couple blocks away. This stadium is designed to keep the noise in. For concerts,I don’t know what it is in Richmond, but most cities have ordinances that say you can’t play after 10:30 or 11pm. I would assume there is a similar one on the books here.
Re: the lights. The stadium has been designed differently from your typical ballpark. The lights will be BELOW the surrounding buildings. Additionally, they plan to mount them in such a way that there won’t be alot of ‘wasted’ light. Don’t think of the typical stick 5-10 poles around the field with 30 lights on each.
**Remember the development will have residential units, so they will want to make sure there is a minimum amount of light and noise leaving the stadium.
Re: team vs stadium: there are a limited amount of teams, so its not like a wedding. To me, there are two factors at play here, and its a careful balancing act. There are enough teams out there that it should be rather easy to draw one to this market. However, you have to incentivise the team, they know the Diamond is a terrible venue, one that it has been stated publicly numerous times that a renovation would not solve. The development team must be fairly close and confident in acquiring a team, the project they are shelling out $360mm for doesn’t work without one.
Boy parts and girl parts have nothing to do with this.
All anyone really wants is to be assured by “facts” that this can work, instead of lobbyist and public relations persuasion techniques.
How can those who are most strenuously promoting this project expect that those who saw the CDA problems on Broad Street honestly think that the Richmond citizens should be willing to buy in absent full disclosure?
@Omlette- i dont want my tax dollars going to a this blackhole ballpark because i think the tax money can be spent on more worty projects, no no no you misunderstand. I dont want my tax money wasted at all because i want that money for my own greedy self. Some people dont think the govt. is the answer to all their problems.
“Baseball games are loud, when you are in the stadium. Even games at the Diamond (which is shaped in a way that I would think would project the sound) you couldn’t hear them but -maybe- a couple blocks away.”
I suppose it’s that whole NIMBY attitude for most supporters. And for most of the bar owners in the bottom who support it because most don’t live there, and if they do, the essence of their business IS late nite. They would be silly to not support it.
Old School, I am not so sure that
“All anyone really wants is to be assured by “facts†that this can work, instead of lobbyist and public relations persuasion techniques.” Some do, but there is also some spoon feeding.
Re: the lights and the cleaning crews – those running the stadium won’t have any incentive to keep those lights running, as I’ve stated. I’ve heard of teams taking care of the immediate needs following a game (i.e. playing field repair) and leaving the cleaning of the stands for the morning.
Re: a) Not everyone would leave at the same time because of the location in proximity to post-game activities. This means the *established* bars and concert venues. While some will pack into their cars right after the game, some will also go out, which is one of the benefits of this location – there are options! Even without the new developments its an *established* area of closeby retail…that goes for pre-game too with the Canal Walk and museums.
Re: b) If you’ve been reading aaaaall the debate on this forum, or anywhere, a LOT of people state the Boulevard’s proximity to interstates as one of THE reasons to build the stadium there. The point of my comment is that the Bottom has that access, too. No slight to the Boulevard, just that it isn’t a deciding factor.
As for the “report” that the Boulevard is less than desirable, if I had the actual, official report I would have quoted it. I did, however, do a search for the response to the RFP (request for proposal) to the Boulevard site, and here’s a quote that describes how potential developers felt about the Boulevard:
“[City CFO] Black said all of the proposals submitted by developers interested in the Boulevard project had suggested that baseball was not an economically viable solution for the property and suggested it be located elsewhere.”
David provided a link to the project plans in #102 above, if that’s what you mean by a prospectus. There’s been a lot of good debate in the preceding comments.
@#140: Your tax dollars won’t be going into this project, private dollars will so that this site can *generate* tax dollars for those more worth projects you speak of.
I pose the question AGAIN – where do you all in favor of the Boulevard site want the team they are trying to purchase *this year* to play if they rebuild the Diamond on the same site? If we use the Citizens Bank Park/Veteran Stadium model where you build right next door so that one may be used, all the parking that is such an asset disappears.
http://floricane.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/27/boulevardplan0927_2.jpg
Above is a link to answer from the Buttermilk & Molasses blog of 9/27/08. The assertion by Mr. Boisseau – whose assertions seem to often feature a certain credibility gap – that baseball was uniformly scorned by all Boulevard developers simply isn’t true.
About tax dollars, consider the following from Bob Rayner’s op-ed in the R T-D Thursday:
“The developers estimate the $9 million in revenue will comfortably cover the annual debt service-interest and principal-of about $5.4 million. The projections anticipate the bonds will pay 6.5 percent interest rate, an optimistic assumption at the moment.”
The developers anticipate $270 in revenue over the 30 year life of the bonds; 162 million of that (60%) goes to debt service. And the other 40%? In the Graziano Q & A three items were mentioned reserves for bond payments-reasonable within limits; operating reserves – whoa! aren’t operating costs and ballpark upkeep the responsibility of the team ownership? And the other one was a generic ‘other’ purposes such as the Cultural Heritage Foundation which conveniently mollifies select interests. In other words, the to-be-named authority will have $3.6 million a year of real tax money to spend at their discretion with little likelihood of meaningful oversight or accountability.
Let’s not forget that this to-be-named authority is financing a to-be-designed ballpark for a to-be-acquired ballteam.
I expect the details and the numbers to shift shapes as this thing stumbles along.
Is this the template for future development? Create a pseudo-quasi layer of government which serves no real purpose other than harness public income streams to private uses. Will there be another authority to develop the intermediate terminal, another authority to develop the Boulevard, another for Manchester, and on and on – each one controlling a little pot of spending money from the taxpayers. And who pays for the city services these developments will require?
I’m with Liberty on this one. If we took all the money we have thrown at these other projects and invested it in our schools, roads, building an educated workforce, we wouldn’t need these multi-million dollar “golden fleece” jobs on our taxes.
Acorn, the Sierra Club, various citizen associations, Henrico County ALL favor the Boulevard location.
As to quoting Harry Black on how it wouldn’t be financially feasible, you must remember that at the time he said that he was working for Mayor Wilder.
And, as we have all learned, anyone can play numbers games to support their case. I just don’t think there will be any way — especially in this economy — that the bonds can be sold. So, at the end of the night, when the pitcher has left the mound, the taxpayers will be the ones who must pay for the greed of the elites.
ry i was just asking, what time the lights get turned off and waht time the bands stop playing. and it didnt get answered by you response. maybe the best answer would come from the owner/developer. will there be a straight answer on that one?
bill, that would be a question for the management, I was just supplying what information I figured relevant.
@ Joe: just because a bunch of groups favor a location doesn’t make it a viable business plan. Market studies do that and the majority -if not all- have stated that the BLVD location isn’t viable and the Shockoe location is. If the bonds don’t sell then the deal doesn’t get done, I don’t know how the deal not happening makes the taxpayers pay.
@ptaylor: This is a proposal(!). There are many aspects of the project and package to be worked out. The generic other is to allow the Slave Trail and other vested parties to have input into how the Lumpkins Jail site is honored. And operating reserves are a routine piece of a financing package.
Bill, its an outdoor facility surrounded by residential buildings, there are ordinances that would prevent such things as concerts to go beyond a certain time. They exist in every community, therefore concerts would most likely not get scheduled to violate those ordinances.
As far as lights go? Like I said, probably about 30 mins after the game is over – after all the fans have left and immediately necessary work is completed.
@JoeRichmond – just because a couple citizens associations (you’ve only named 2 and who knows how many people they represent) have disagreed with the Shockoe site, doesn’t mean that the Boulevard is where they should put a stadium. After all, if the citizens don’t want to put tax dollars into the stadium (regardless of the location), then they shouldn’t get to say where the private investors have to take a risk, as long as the project doesn’t violate any restrictions or ordinances or current property owners’ rights. That’s like saying “you can have that old boring toy over there, nobody’s playing with this kinda broken toy, but you can’t have it because you might actually fix it.”
By the way, here’s ACORN’s mission statement; seems to me they should want to work with the developers rather than against them on one of Richmond’s “older” neighborhoods:
-to identify vacant, derelict and/or tax delinquent buildings in the older neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia
-to promote the purchase and renovation of the vacant and abandoned structures
-to revitalize the inner city by educating its residents and by marketing its vacant houses to attract homeowners of all income levels
-to preserve the city’s past while enhancing and strengthening its neighborhoods for current and future Richmond citizens.
Last I checked, 3/4 of these are main goals of the Shockoe Center project. If “A.C.O.R.N. hopes to restore vitality to historically important urban areas and, thereby, improve the quality of life for all Richmonders” – I highly doubt they’d want this opportunity to pass the Bottom by. Maybe they need to revisit their mission statement.
and Acorn lost my renewal next time it comes up too.
Ry(146)”Market studies do that and the majority -if not all- have stated that the BLVD location isn’t viable and the Shockoe location is.”
It was just last week that Mr. Boisseau stated that there have been no marketing studies – they’re going to do that after the project is approved. Please share the market studies you reference – they don’t exist.
Anna(147)Apparently, you’ve failed to keep up with the changing face of the project. BizSense interviewed Mr. Bostic last week and he listed the components of the proposal. Apartments no longer are part of Phase I – they’ve been replaced with another 200,000 sq. ft. of office space. This will be a miserable place to watch baseball. The outfield will be walled off by 80-100 foot tall monoliths which are oriented so they will soak up heat during the day and radiate it back in the evening. It will have all of the allure of a courtyard of a South Bronx tenement.Can anybody cite a ballpark that is ringed by structures of this mass in this close proximity to the field?
During the SBNA presentation Bryan Bostic stated that they brought in an outside consultant who’s name eludes me. He is an expert on urban ballparks and they instructed him to identify the best site in Richmond for a ballpark. With no further instructions, he narrowed the search to seven sites that included the Bottom site, Fulton Gas works, a site in Manchester, the BLVD, and some others (you’ll forgive me I’m reciting this from memory). In his final report he stated the proposed site was not only the best in Richmond, but one of the best sites for MiLB in the Nation. A Google search may produce more info and I’ll post it if I have any luck…
The Memphis Redbirds stadium isn’t completely enclosed but does have buildings surrounding a good portion of it.. You can see it on live.com by using the birds eye view. The consultant I referenced put together the Memphis park.
Also here: http://www.newurbannews.com/Ballparks.html
It’s not at this point but I believe the Durham Bulls stadium will be partially surrounded by buildings.
But in truth is there any difference in having a building behind you or 50-100,000 fans?
I did read that article, however the composition of which buildings make up what didn’t really occur to me as significant details at the time. I saw that all the planned components were still there (office, residential, retail, historical, etc.) and didn’t read into the rest of it. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, I don’t think that really changes my statement that local noise ordinances will dictate when concerts end. I also don’t think that will change that whoever is in charge of stadium ops will want to turn those lights out as soon as possible to save on the electric bill.
As for being surrounded completely by buildings, its not my first choice. I’d personally prefer it being more similar to Camden Yards in that there is a slight opening around center field.
Finally, yes, I quoted the CFO of the Wilder administration, here’s what Minor League Baseball had to say about Richmond’s assessment (during Wilder’s time as mayor) of the two sites:
“Minor League Baseball officials have visited Richmond a number of times and tend to agree with the Mayor’s assessment of the sites available. This progress bodes well for baseball’s future in the Richmond area.”
Ry(150) Uh oh, Bostic’s getting his stories mixed up. Previously he had indicated that the Bottom was not among the sites originally considered by the earlier proposal. The baseball proponents had taken the consultant to dinner and they drove through the Bottom at which point the consultant had a Eureka! moment
@#152(Anna),
You write: “Minor League Baseball officials have visited Richmond a number of times and tend to agree with the Mayor’s assessment of the sites available. This progress bodes well for baseball’s future in the Richmond area.â€
Remember: Consider the source and remember the context of the event you are describing.
When these minor league officials visited Richmond, they did their level-best to try to get along with Mayor Wilder.
He strung them along. Promising this and that and playing his mindgames. Little did they realize that no one who engages in the back-and-forth name-calling-spin-machine ways of Wilder ever wins. He called them liars, they called him a liar. Not in those exact terms, mind you, but the meaning was absolutely clear.
Of course, they were going to agree with him. They were reasonable people who just wanted to work something out. Little did they realize that they were not dealing with a reasonable person.
I am sure there are Wilder loyalists out here who can find plenty of nice things to say about Mayor Wilder, however, the way he handled the baseball stadium is not one of them.
So, to throw that quote up there without context is disingenuous at best. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt considering that you have said that you are 23 years old, which would have made you “Hey, 19” at the time the Mayor Wilder’s administration took control of City Hall.
http://fdhub.net/local-sierra-club-opposes-baseball-in-shockoe-bottom/#comment-93025
ptaylor: I haven’t heard that, can you give me a reference as to where you did?
I guess you were privy to all the inner workings of the Wilder era that I was not. Its hard for me to provide any more quotes then, if those opposed are simply going to wave them off and say “Oh well that guy said it, so it doesn’t count” or “He was controlling the RTD at the time.” Remember, we elected him so we may want to temper our criticism of the person we put in that office unless we are prepared to take some of the blame ourselves.
I got that quote from the MiLB website, not from a Richmond-produced article. It was written from the point of view of minor league baseball and the findings of its Vice President on his visits to Richmond.
Here’s the link if you still don’t believe me:
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080922&content_id=459417&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp
Ry(146)Regarding the use of TIF funds for operating reserves and arbitrarily chosen ‘good works’, These are addressed in the Graziano Q & A on pg 17, items #24 & #25. Item #24: “The cost and responsibility for maintenance and operation of the ballparkand attached necessary public facilities would SOLELY be with Richmond Baseball Club, LLC…
Item 25:Regarding TIF funds:”The increase in the revenues will be paid to the RSFA FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CONTRIBUTING TO FINANCING THE BONDS ISSUED BY THE RSFA. Operating reserves are a cost of doing business, and as such do not meet the legal criteria. The bonds arer the responsibility of the RSFA; operations are the responsibility of the ball club, a legally seperate entity. Political slush funds are the domain of our august City Council.Funds not applied to debt service must be returned to the city and state.
So this is a proposal. It’s been around for well over a year. It was first presented as an option within Highwoods RFP, meaning Highwoods also presented a plan without baseball. One has to wonder what it contained. 16 months later it is still an amorphous, continually morphing half-baked scheme.
Anna,
There you go again resorting to sophomoric rhetorical flourishes and putting words in my mouth (so to speak) that were never said by me.
I never said I was privy to “all the inner workings of the Wilder era,” nor did I remotely suggest that Wilder was “controlling the RT-D at the time.”
Futhermore, I did not vote for Wilder. So — you don’t get to blame me.
I am well aware of his confrontational [bully] and dramatic [grandstanding] nature, his divide and conquer strategies. He probably was one of the kids who was never commended for being able to work well and play nice with others.
Nevertheless, thanks for the link. I found the following remark most interesting.
“The first step is to get a league on board, and then we have to look at current owners within that league who seek to move their teams, or if there are potential owners who would purchase a current team and move it to Richmond.”
He appears to be someone who knows baseball and something about getting stadiums *built* and teams *bought.*
Again, the Braves wanted to stay and tried very hard work to work with Wilder and members of his administration.
!56)Ry, I distinctly remember reading that in either Style or the T-D., probably linked through the Baseball in Shockoe thread on Richmond City Watch. It would have been 2004 or early 2005 I believe.Sifting back through the threads reminded me of several things. The artist’s renditions of this ballpark are physically very, very similar to the last Global Development proposal. The earlier RBI proposal took hold, then sputtered after failing repeatedly to provide relevant data. Shortly thereafter the Braves and Global Development made a dramatic announcement of their grand plan – ballpark and $330 million in ancillary development. RBI disappeared. The Global Development PR campaign was very well done. Their financing plans considerably less so.
Anna, Ry, et. al. —
What point does building a baseball stadium on top of the slave trading docks make?
Proof positive that some people in Richmond really don’t give a damn about Black people dead or alive?
Do you think it would be appropriate to build a baseball stadium on top of any of the World War II Concentration Camps.
Do you think that the Jewish Community would be up in arms were someone to propose doing that?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/layman.html
The proposal INCLUDES funding and designs for recognizing the Lumpkin Jail and site. I don’t post on here be to called a racist and told that “I don’t give a damn about Black people.” Your personal attacks are unwarranted and unnecessary. I have said repeatedly throughout the discussion and at least once on this thread that one of the reasons I liked this proposal was that it included the museum/memorial/ or whatever the Slave Trail Commission felt was best. I won’t be posting further on this thread.
the current, and recent version of the downtown master plan has no mention of the archaeological site from the slave trading. if it is not there it must not be important to those all knowing city planners! there are some organized groups against baseball in the archaeology, but they are opposed to amending the downtown master plan, which could note the importance of the archaeolgy they claim important.
it only makes sense in richmond
(163)Actually, that very issue is before City Council tomorrow night as they consider paper #2008-265.
http://www.richmondgov.com/applications/clerksTracking/getPDF.asp?NO=2008-265
Oh, Ry, no need to get your tail-feathers in a huff. NO ONE — repeat No One — accused YOU of a thing.
All I did was ask you a question.
Neither Doug Wilder nor Henry Marsh are “King of Richmond.” And, just because you happen to have them “on board” with you, it does not absolve your organization of the responsibility of respecting the importance of bringing our city forward in terms of how we relate to one another as human beings.
If this thing goes south as the CDA situation did, then it will be the citizens of Richmond who will have to step up and pay the price.
Oh, I know you say there is absolutely no risk to the taxpayers. Right. Just like there was no risk back in 2003.
But, truth be told, people didn’t buy the bonds back then as the developers and city officials said they would. And, then the City has to step in pour millions into the project.
How in the world do you think that the bonds will sell in today’s market? Honestly, not a day goes by when someone isn’t losing their job or a company is declaring bankruptcy.
As to the umbrage you are taking right now, I want to assure you that this was no personal attack. I simply wanted to help you see that there is no place for a cavalier attitude vis-a-vis the importance of those docks and burial ground.
Post or don’t post — you are free to do whatever you like, afterall this is America.
@JoeRichmond – Well, to be honest, I found the way you phrased your question to be pretty offensive.
I don’t think the current plans call for the actual docks themselves to be built upon (I could be wrong here, I honestly don’t know). What I’ve heard is the remnants of some jails (aside from Lumpkins). But what’s the answer here? Leave the Bottom like it is? Seems to me like surface lots and dilapidated buildings don’t do much to honor that culture either.
Why not just build a big museum here to commemorate the slave trade? Because of the floodplain that everyone’s up in arms about. The way I understand it, the restrictions placed on the Bottom require it to be developed in large chunks, and not piecemeal. Which means without the stadium, or a large complex, the slave museum can’t get built.
Now, are you willing to put your tax dollars (and lots of em) towards a project like that? Because I highly doubt a private developer or investors are going to put their butts on the line for a project that won’t attract nearly as many people as a stadium will.
With the project designed the way it is, and with the allowances they’ve made to preserve the Lumpkins Jail/School site, I think the project is mindful of what this area means to black people, and helps in our country’s continuing effort to make ammends while still moving forward.
@Anna, Ry,
Well, to be equally honest, I find your patronizing comments and attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow not nearly as smart or capable of seeing why this stadium deal is a great thing, to be offensive.
Precious little effort has been made to be totally transparent with the citizens of Richmond. Building a baseball stadium Shockoe Bottom seems so silly and nonsensical, especially given that not a day goes by when we are not hearing of home foreclosures, layoffs, bankruptcies.
I find it offensive that we have record numbers of people needing free food from the FoodBank, increasing numbers homeless mothers and children needing shelter, school systems in Richmond and the surrounding counties facing severe budget cuts, and the Virginia General Assembly, Richmond City COuncil all nodding their heads about what a damn good deal this is, and you just haveta wonder where people’s priorities are.
If you really want to so something to help the City of Richmond, sponsor the afterschool athjletics programs — elementary, middle and high. Offer something that will give back to the community other than increased taxes when you can’t sell the bonds.
Joe
I personally believe the proposed slave heritage museum coming with the ballpark would only serve to honor the history in a way that the current parking lots for drug deals and prostitutes never could. A stadium will only add to the numbers of people drawn to the area, many who would probably not be there otherwise, and who could then take the opportunity to learn more about this historic city.
Can we please stop referring to this as a “stadium.” It’s a ballpark. Learn the difference.
Check this out: http://www.baseballontheboulevard.com/
(169)FanGuy By law, this is a stadium; from Senate Bill 1201:
“Stadium” means a sports facility owned by a Virginia county, city, town, authority, or other public entity that is designed for use primarily as a baseball stadium for a minor league professional baseball team. Any property, real, personal or mixed, that is necessary or desirable in connection with any such stadium, including without limitation, facilities for food preparation and serving, parking facilities, and administration offices, shall be encompassed within this definition. In addition, only a new stadium shall be eligible under subsection B of this section. A new stadium is one whose construction began after December 31, 2008.
(166) Anna wrote:”Why not just build a big museum here to commemorate the slave trade? Because of the floodplain that everyone’s up in arms about. The way I understand it, the restrictions placed on the Bottom require it to be developed in large chunks, and not piecemeal. Which means without the stadium, or a large complex, the slave museum can’t get built.” The young lady’s understanding is incorrect. The ‘floodplain’ presented in the PowerPoint display is grossly overstated. The proponents include Zone X’s in their ‘floodplain’, when , in fact Zone X’s are not in the 100 year floodplain. I’ve worked with these maps since years before Anna was born. There are flooplain issues in the area. They minimally addect the ballpark itself. The sites that have been rendered essentially unbuildable due to expansion of the Zone A designation are the MCV parking lots and the Hungerford property, both north of Broad and both of which are outside the current project area.
Ry(146)â€Market studies do that and the majority -if not all- have stated that the BLVD location isn’t viable and the Shockoe location is.†Aww, gee; now that Ry has gone away, I guess we’ll never see those market studies.
I love the plans for the Shockoe Center. Would undoubtedly be a tremendous and needed shot in the arm for downtown Richmond!!! Is amazing to me that opposers of this quality development which is respectful and responsible to both its surrounding neighbors and taxpayers can’t see that. Many cities across this country have greatly benefited from downtown ballparks. Why not Richmond?
Who on this thread lives in the east end?
I do, but why does that matter? All of Richmond and the surrounding counties can enjoy the ballpark. Unless you think the “noise” and “traffic” will disturb those of us on the Hill.
Gray, if only the opinions of NIMBYs mattered, nothing would ever be built.
FanGuy, I asked a simple straightforward question. Didn’t say that particular people’s opinion didn’t matter. No need to be a jerk.
I live in the area and this stadium will directly affect the east end residents quality of life -so right now their opinion does matter more than yours.
Gray,
Your calling FanGuy a jerk is inappropriate. He has as much right to express an opinion as anyone else. Whether someone lives in Church Hill or not, they will be impacted by this development, whether it be through taxes, fees, or other quality of life issues. I live on the hill and am impacted by MCV workers parking on my block all day. I don’t complain about it. I just suck it up and adjust. Maybe you should, also.
Face it this Ballpark will cause lots of problems and these developers don’t care about what is here already they just want their money and when it goes to pot they will blame everyone as they count their money. We may not be dependant on cars here but most here still have them and we still need to park.
There is no team they want us to pay for us to clear the area and then build the ballpark which no one else will use and they tack on other businesses that they will have friends own that they will want everyone want to go to and not the already established places like Alex’s, Halligans,Zuppas and other places I like to eat at. So how does this help anyone but the folks selling you the pipe dream?
Winston, Putting words in people’s mouths they did not say is also inappropriate.
I live in the East End and support the stadium. There needs to be more to do (and look at) besides club Velvet and those skanky looking clubs on E.Main Street.
I’d argue FanGuy and other non-east end residents have a huge stake in the ballpark development, because it actually gives the city a reason to turn Main Street Station into the multi-modal transportation hub it should be.
Without the ballpark complex a block away, why bother? Unless you’d like to take a trolley from Boulevard to Club Velvet, there’s no point in turning that station into a hub as it stands now.
but you did call him a jerk
And, Tiny, sometimes, a jerk is just a jerk.
I’ve had to call them on twisting my words and inserting distorted meanings of what I have said.
It is a cheap rhetorical trick and they continue to do it because they must think we are too stupid to see what they are trying to do.
Why aren’t they giving straight answers to the questions that are asked?
Could it be, perhaps, that they are trying to hide something?
What are you talking about? No one is trying to hide anything. The fact is, a whole lot of people support this project, and many of those people live in the Eastend. We know you do not support this project and you think your opinion is the correct one.
I am not trying to change your opinion. I simply disagree. You cannot attack people just because they disagree with you.
Gray, sorry if I offended you. Don’t see how my comment was inappropriate, or makes me a jerk. The point is that there are always going to be folks who are NIMBYs for any project. It’s the nature of the beast. They should be heard, but the good of the city has to be valued above all.
I love how people have attached so much to this Ballpark project that they never promised and yet people add them to what will improve the area. They will only build a park that will only be used by an unnamed ballteam and little or nothing else and this will help how?
The additional stuff is used to make the Developers money but they will go against the people who are already in business. Just ask Norfolk about their Conference Center and their relationship with the people who developed it Marriot and how Marriot has always made sure they made as much money out of it in spite of Norfolk. or Go to Waterside and see how they burried that place into the dirt. and that is just the tip of the Iceberg Hampton has a few other disasters themselves and We want to copy them?
Richmond is what it is don’t try to make it some other city.
Of the stadium supporters on this thread, who is in favor of the Echo Harbor project on the river’s bend that named our city? I know a couple who are for the stadium and against Echo Harbor but I’m curious about the rest.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/minors/minors_baseball/article/BASE10_20090209-222808/202367/
It’s real people, not just some “pipedream”.
Anna I know you must be desperate for a ball team any ball team but they tell you right here it will be AA and they use the good ole I can’t name the team excuse to cover the fact they don’t have a team. The fact they demand it be in the Bottom shows they want to force the issue and brow beat anyone who might not agree with them.
I’m acurious. For those who oppose Shockoe Center, what is your business model for the property?
Oh, Anna, this is all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
This town didn’t support the Braves when they were here and in all likelihood, they won’t support any baseball team that comes this way.
Why don’t you advise your developer bosses to go buy an NBA team. Now, that would really be something!
They could use the Siegel Center at VCU, which would actually help Stuart Siegel out since I see from this morning’s newspaper that Siegel’s company — S&K — is the latest in a growing list of Richmond companies to file for bankruptcy.
If the country weren’t in a financial crisis teetering on catastrophy, this might be entertaining. But, as it is it is dangerous and frightening.
Ok, for the last time, I do not work for the developers. I happen to be an educated young woman, who knows a lot about baseball; it is my favorite sport.
The Wachovia center in Philadelphia holds 22k for basketball. The Siegel Center holds 7.5k. Stop with the ridiculous figures and schemes. The sensationalism isn’t an appealing argument.
For the record, all further arguments will be on the new discussion thread, no need to keep 2 threads going on the same topic (read: respond to this post in the other forum for discussion, please).
I will respond in both so I am clear where I stand I am not saying your stupid or you want for baseball is wrong but Shockoe Bottom is not the right place for a ballpark. The Diamond is still funtional and if they did some work there they would have a good park to play in. But that seems to be besides the point for the Developers and they are the ones forcing this. They have no problem selling this to people who want Baseball back.
ShockoeBottomDweller, AA baseball is often more interesting that AAA. AAA is loaded with “career” minor leaguers who will never make the show, while AA often has the guys who are the hot prospects who will one day be in the minors.
FanGuy I am not against Baseball A, AA or AAA it is the building of the Ballpark in an area that people just want to take over and use baseball as an excuse.
I guess I misinterpreted this statement then:
“Anna I know you must be desperate for a ball team any ball team ***but*** they tell you right here it will be AA…”?
Sounded to me like a slight against AA since we’re “settling”. I’m ecstatic there’s no AAA available.
Hey even though AA is better in talent in the world of finance you are still going downwards versus maintaining your ranking. Just The Facts Anna. If you really want to watch ball The Peninsula Pilots are a great A team and they love their Ballpark and it makes The Diamond look like treasure and they don’t beg for a new park but hey I am sure you could lure them into Richmond and play at the Diamond without any changes and they will be happy.
shockoe bottom dweller, are you sure the loving family will be pleased? do you know if the developer has approached the loving family about a purchase? or their real estate representative, possibly porter & co? if you remember the city ran loving (and their tax revenue) out of the bottom. city planners developed a shockoe bottom plan that said lovings property needed to be demolished to accommodate positive development in the bottom. so exactly what is your loving family contact saying to you. does it smell like condemnation?
No insult intended to “The Boys of Summer,” but Richmond isn’t really a baseball town –unless you are watching your kid, boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse play.
I’ve lived here for more years than you have been alive, Anna, so believe me. Baseball just doesn’t cut it. Sorry to say, it is just so whitebread boring.
But, this town really gets excited over basketball and would go crazy if these developers wanted to try to bring in an NBA team.
This is how out-of-touch you people are. We’re in the middle of the greatest fiscal crisis our nation has ever experienced in most of our lifetimes, and we have a bunch of people acting like spoiled rich kids running around trying to force a damned baseball stadium on the town.
Re-think. Study the stats on the number of people who attend basketball events vs. baseball and you will see for yourself exactly what I am talking about.
Basketball, Anna … now, that’s a game.
Cheating the taxpayers may be a game to some, but it really should be a crime, for which there should come a serious reckoning.
As my Momma usedta say: “Y’all stop that right now, because if you don’t, somebody is gonna get hurt and somebody is gonna cry, and it won’t be me.”
Actually it was Sarcasm but hey I’ll take the Condemnation title as well lets face Loving was a fully functioning business they already effected by this little Fiasco but Shockoe Properties is all about Local Business…. (yea Right)
You know it is trouble when the politicians look cleaner than the developers and both of them want your money and neither care how they get it
http://floricane.typepad.com/buttermilk/2009/02/live-blogging-highwoods-development-presentation-on-baseball-and-the-boulevard.html
John Sarvay has some excellent live-blogging from the meeting tonight at Holton Elementary on the various baseball options and concerns.
Check it out….
202 i understand. are you in the new ball park tax zone? the politicians never look cleaner than the developers. with developers it can be good/bad or smart/stupid, but with politicians you will always get screwed.
winston, gray has earned the right to call anyone a jerk, especially the fan & ur guys that have been coming to the bottom for the last 30 years to drink underage, puke & pee in the street, but thankfully leave before the sun comes up
Wow, I just caught this one JoeRichmond (apparently I don’t have the same amount of time that you do to read this blog). You are against building the ballpark because Richmond is not a baseball town, but are fully in favor of trying to bring a NBA team here? Then you go on to say “This is how out-of-touch you people are.†Do you remember the Richmond Rhythm from a few years ago? You are right, the Coliseum was packed with basketball fans; it’s a wonder why the NBA is not knocking down the door to get into Richmond – even the NBA Developmental League wasn’t interested in considering our basketball loving city. I think your post only serves to prove how out of touch you really are.
Oh, Jim, we all have the same amount of time, just depends on how we happen to allocate it.
The Richmond Rhythm? No, I don’t remember. Why am I in favor of bring an NBA team — like that is ever gonna happen, right ;(;(;( ???
We already have a Coliseum and the Siegel Centre. It would require no new construction, no new tax districts. We would use what we already have in place, for which we are still paying mightily.
The current deal on the table is a tangled mess and I hope the citizens and our alleged leaders take the time to read the fine print, lest we wind up like the folks in Gwinnett County.
Gwinnett officials says stadium still a deal – Despite overruns, and now lean times, 3 officials not sorry
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/m…
Play ball? Stadium deal continues to draw criticism as costs rise, slow economy hampers potential benefits
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/01/12/focus1.html
Even more…
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernom…/
Newsworthy information …..Please read carefully, as the Romans said, “caveat emptor.â€
And, this is interesting as well ….
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=b6ee4be9-7e5e-4ed3-893b-4650699e7ae0
Virginia ball club is reportedly interested in buying Defenders
Norwich team could move to Richmond if $15M deal is realized
By Claire Bessette
Published on 2/14/2009
This thread has been totally overtaken by the fanatical few that adamantly oppose this development. They are slapping each other on the back, saying “Great point!” etc. etc. I guess they think they have won the argument now.
Well, many of us ball park supporters have stopped leaving comments as the discussion got nastier and nastier. I am voicing my support to the members of city council, where it really matters. I believe the council will do what is right and listen to the voices of the majority that support smart development and will not allow this very vocal minority to impose its will upon the rest of us.
Tiny, have you ever opposed anything? A great deal of the opposition is based on Richmond’s track record for this type of large scale development. Distrust of developers and big business is not “fanatical”, it is common sense. My main question is why do we need another ballpark? Why spend $70 million to build something we already have? Developers make huge money from construction so I know what their answer is, but for the rest of us, how does it benefit the public to build another one rather than upgrade the one we have? I would seriously like to hear the answer to that one.
Tiny,
If you — or anyone else — can counter with articles and fact-based information supporting building a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom, please do so.
I am sorry that a preponderance of the facts indicate that this is not a rational way to proceed at this point.
You can name-call all you like, but such responses do not enhance your argument.
Just the facts, Tiny. Just the facts. Emotion will never pay the bills.
Joe,
So you are a huge proponent for basketball in Richmond and yet you don’t remember a failed basketball league from just a few years ago. Yet you claim that people who support minor league baseball (whose attendance is actually on the rise) are “out-of-touch.†As for an NBA team playing in the Siegel Center, which seats 7,500 with no luxury suites is just one more example of how out of touch you really are. But you’re right, we do need to learn from Gwinnett County, they have built their new stadium in the middle of nowhere, and it is not spawning growth. Building a stadium in a central location will only serve to encourage the kind of development Gwinnett is hoping for, and is not going to get.
Jim,
I made my comments about basketball because I see that March Madness, NCAA and NBA generate far more excitement that the Braves or the World Series generates in Richmond. I don’t really care for it myself, but I have family members who love it.
If it were up to me, I honestly think that we should just forget about baseball and basketball and concentrate on making our schools right, our city safe, our museums world-class.
To my knowledge, Paris and London do not have basketball or baseball teams to draw people to their cities. Admittedly, Richmond isn’t Paris, but if we would just stop chasing pie-in-the-sky solutions and focus on basic quality-of-life issues, we would have far more to attract and retain citizens than we do now. Far more.
For instance, much has been said about having a “Slavery Museum.” Some have suggested that we make it a “national” slavery museum. Why not elevate it to international status and market it to tourists that are coming to Washington, DC and New York City?
Why not invest heavily in the Virginia Museum for Fine Arts? The Folk Festival could be marketed internationally as well. The French Film Festival has demonstrated that Richmond can go “international” when it chooses to …. why not invest in creating Richmond as an arts and culture town?
As a city we need to stop rushing here-and-there looking for a miracle and settle down and focus on something. It feels as if the business community suffers from collecttive ADHD and this makes the rest of us weary trying to figure out how to accommodate without totally alienating you.
Richmonders talk a real fine game about caring about the children and the safety of one and all, but when a “shiny thing” like the Performing Arts Center comes along, everybody is gung-ho thinking that will save us from ourselves. Baseball or Opera …. oh, gosh golly …. for pity’s sake — focus on something and stop flitting around.
Before that, the “shiny thing” was the 6th Street Marketplace and before that …. and before that …. There’s always something that the people in the business community band together and decide is more important than fixing our schools or making our streets safe.
And, now this baseball stadium. When I reference something, Jim, I provide a link to it, but since you didn’t, I googled the Richmond “Rhythmn” [really dumb name, pardon me], and this is what I found:
What’s In A Name? The Rhythm Says It Knows The Score
By Scott Bass
Like every other Sunday morning, gospel music pumped through the speakers of Ralph Sampson’s green Toyota Landcruiser en route to church. Call it divine intervention, perhaps: The 7-foot-4 inch former NBA star was taken by the rhythm.
“Everybody likes some kind of music,” Sampson recalls thinking on that fateful Sunday morning four weeks ago. “It just dropped right on us.”
Hence the brainstorm that produced the nickname of the city’s latest basketball franchise, the Richmond Rhythm. What’s with the name? Who really associates River City with a musical history?
Sampson, executive vice president and general manager of the team, says he would have preferred a public naming contest, but had little time to conduct one.
Among the names considered and rejected when the ex-Wahoo came on board in early May: the Rebels, Flavor, Road Dogs and, um, the Raccoons.
Welcome to the bizarre world of naming sports teams. It used to be that tigers, bears, cowboys, eagles and lions dominated the sports-name landscape. But teams are running out of aggressive-sounding animal names, some say, leaving new franchises with the task of finding unused, unlicensed nicknames. Sports fields are littered with everything from Sand Gnats to Banana Slugs, to the abstract forces of Orlando’s Magic and the Miami Heat.
The Rhythm will drop on Richmond this November at the Coliseum. University of Virginia standout Sampson, one of the NBA’s great disappearing acts, is even pondering a return to the hardwood himself as part of the team.
The new team, which is part of the International Basketball League, has all the makings of a cable-TV special. If Sampson chooses to play and if former U.Va. star Harold Deane joins the squad, Richmond could finally have a sports team that fills a few seats.
Naming a team, however, is a complex matter.
The two recent examples locally, the Rhythm and Richmond Speed (an indoor football league franchise announced by Renegades owner Harry Feuerstein in April), follow the now defunct Richmond Rage, a women’s basketball team that moved to Philadelphia before the American Basket-ball League tanked late last year.
“Alliterations are good mnemonic devices, but only if they impart true meaning,” says Elizabeth Goodgold, owner of The Nuancing Group, a branding consulting firm located in San Diego. “What’s the benefit of having rhythm connected to a basketball team?”
Goodgold takes exception to Sampson’s favored name, however. “I don’t think Richmond is known for its rhythm the way New Orleans is for its jazz.”
Though dancer Bill “Bojangles” Robinson was born here, one might be hard-pressed to make a case for Richmond’s rich musical history. The Statler Brothers, mind you, are from Staunton. In its favor, the Richmond team’s name can be molded into a nice logo, which is a key reason why many new teams are opting for the abstract.
The Rhythm’s team colors are red, yellow and black, and the logo includes a basketball with three musical notes. The nickname and logo appeals to a broad audience, says Sampson.
“There is a lot of information that documents the increased revenue in these new logos,” says Gregory M. Pickett, assistant professor of marketing at Clemson University. “The licensing revenues are becoming something the teams rely on.”
So what’s wrong with the market-ability of the old-fashioned lions and tigers? They’re old hat, marketing experts say. Total sales of licensed products from the big three – the NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball – dropped from $7.2 billion in 1997 to $6.7 billion in 1998.
Part of the reason for the drop are teen-agers, the biggest buyers of licensed sports merchandise, who are looking for something new to call their own. They aren’t interested in the old Redskins and Cowboys.
Says Clemson’s Pickett, “It’s a fine line. You want to energize the brand while maintaining a kind of consistency.”
A good example: The traditionally black-pinstriped New York Yankees now sell team hats in colors such as red, yellow and baby blue, which have been a big hit with teens and can be found in the coolest MTV videos. Shifting colors on uniforms can be found in the NBA and NFL as well.
Of course, the minor leagues followed suit. Until the last few years, says John H. Antil, a marketing professor at the University of Delaware, most minor league baseball teams lost money. But franchise owners discovered they didn’t have to be just farm teams for the big leagues. A night out at the baseball diamond could be marketed as a family event.
To improve revenue, many teams also chose not to pay licensing fees to their major league counterparts in the 1980s and started venturing out on their own.
Minor-league baseball now boasts some of the weirdest – and most marketable – names around, including the Piedmont Boll Weevils, Lansing Lugnuts, Beloit Snappers, Carolina Mudcats and the Jupiter Hammer-heads. Not to mention the Toledo Mudhens.
The names work because they are distinctly local, says Nuancing Group’s Goodgold, “It’s marrying the concept of the locality with the personality.”
It’s also important that new teams find a name that doesn’t offend. The Washington Redskins recently lost federal patent protection after a group of Native Americans protested that the nickname was derogatory. For Sampson’s team, there may have been similar issues with the “Rebels.””One of the things they have to do is deal with political correctness,” says Chris Ault, a public-relations executive with The Martin Agency. “Richmond’s a tough market. Your choices are already limited.”
Politics aside, some still take issue with the abstract names. Part of the problem with names like Heat, Magic, Rhythm and Speed, says Andy Appleby, president and CEO of General Sports & Marketing of Detroit, is that fans have a hard time identifying with them.
But not long after the Heat and Magic joined the NBA in 1988, traditional names started falling by the wayside, Appleby says.
“I don’t know what the life span of those teams will be,” he says of the Heat and Magic. “I don’t really understand it. I think there are a lot of great animal names out there still that haven’t been used.”
Sampson disagrees. “Rhythm is a good fit,” he insists. “It will have some longevity.”
Inside Business, June 1, 1999.
Forgive me for not remembering a half-baked idea that got floated out a DECADE ago.
JR
re:213
“if we would just stop chasing pie-in-the-sky solutions”
…
For instance, much has been said about having a “Slavery Museum.†Some have suggested that we make it a “national†slavery museum. Why not elevate it to international status’
Wouldn’t it be less “pie in the sky” to invest in a proven commodity that could draw 500,000 to the Bottom where they could also visit a slavery jail museum/interpretation site which is part of this project?
Why not invest heavily in the Virginia Museum for Fine Arts? The Folk Festival could be marketed internationally as well.
I think both those things are being done now.
Poverty and schools are complex and inter-related, but won’t be addressed by flat out opposition to this project which should be addressed on it’s own merits. Keeping Richmond an economic cripple only aggravates the problem.
To post #205:
What does Gray have to do with Fan and UR guys peeing and puking in the streets 30 years ago? Just curious. Or should she worry that they may do the same in her art gallery? Maybe every guy in the Fan pukes in Shockoe Bottom, which allows you to call them jerks. Just wondering.
Baseball will not save us from ourselves, gang.
I have looked for articles that would support your theory that it will save Richmond from being an “economic cripple” and I have to tell you, the literature doesn’t support the theory.
My concern has nothing to do with whether I personally like baseball.
It has everything to do with how this is such a bad idea from all perspectives that employ any factual analysis.
Show me some documentation that supports what you want to do and I will be happy to be supportive.
But, don’t ask me to suspend rational thought to jump on a bandwagon that appears headed for quicksand.
What precisely is the point you are trying to make by noting that schools and poverty are “complex and inter-related”?
In reverse order
#217 “What precisely is the point”?
That urban schools/poverty are a completely different subject and worthy of it’s own thread and discussion. A ballpark/development are not going to affect either one, except marginally.
#216
Baseball will not save us
I never said it would. It is just another piece of the puzzle that can draw people back downtown, spend some time and money and rediscover Shockoe Bottom.
Re: 217 Response — As long as people keep seeing the schools and poverty as a separate issue from other efforts to improve this city and quality of life here, we will continue to have families move in and leave once their children hit school-age. We will continue to have single mothers raising children with precious few resources and people will continue to complain about that.
We will continue to complain and do nothing to integrate our schools into the mainstream of our lives. In short, the children who attend these schools will continue to be “other people’s children,” until we realize that our schools are indeed our future.
It doesn’t matter what fine ball teams, fancy opera houses and whatever else we get going, the sorry state of our school system will continue to be the “Shame of Our City.”
Re # 216 Response — I continue to ask for some documentation that establishes that this is a cost effective use of valuable resources and, so far, no one has produced any examples — or documentation — to back up your case that this project is worth the time and trouble it will take from this city.
This baseball stadium is a monumental ego trip without any substantive facts to back it up. Sad.
What happened to the other comments on
this blog site? The comments numbered
in the 300’s with John Gerner’s information
about the bonds? And JoeRichmond’s links
to Gwinnet’s baseball park problems?
Why have you discontinued that thread and
linked into old posts from Feb 10th?
Would like to go back to those comments?
Please provide a link. Thank you.
Carolyn, I did not discontinue the thread.
As new stories get posted, older stories are pushed lower down the front page. Eventually they are no longer on the front page. To view older posts, scroll to the bottom of the front page and click PREVIOUS. That will show you the next older batch of posts, and at the bottom of that page there will be a link for PREVIOUS. You can go back through this way and view all of the posts going back to 2004.
There is a also a search form on the right side of every page. A search for baseball pulls up many of the conversations that’ve been held on the topic.
There is also a drop-down just under the search form labelled ARCHIVES BY MONTH. This allows you to view the posts from any given month, which is useful if you roughly remember the date of something for which you are looking (or want to see things that were happening at the same time).
Still would like to know what happened to
the other thread of discussion that had
important information from John Gerner.
Please do not omit my question, but answer
it. This is the second comment I have sent.
Thank you
Thank you, john. I’m obviously unaccustomed to blog sites, but I was quite
impressed that John Gerner came forward and
finally made some sense of the bond issue.
Why did the presenters, Paul Krekman, for
example, have to be so evasive in the two
meetings that I attended. I appreciate
what you have provided on this blog.
Joe, everything is connected. Schools and poverty are a critical problem. It’s not the shame of OUR city, it’s a national shame. Visit any city in the USA and you will find the same. Bigotry, hypocrisy and poverty are all important issues. Using it as an excuse to do nothing else is an accomplishes nothing.
Get to know the children who know no fathers and know nothing of motherly love, then we can start doing something about poverty and stop blaming the school system.
Let’s debate the merits of a a stadium/development downtown on it’s merits. Dismissing proponents as morally apathetic is an intellectual cheapshot.
RE #219, JoeRichmond – “We will continue to complain and do nothing to integrate our schools into the mainstream of our lives. In short, the children who attend these schools will continue to be “other people’s children,†until we realize that our schools are indeed our future.
It doesn’t matter what fine ball teams, fancy opera houses and whatever else we get going, the sorry state of our school system will continue to be the “Shame of Our City.—
Bravo!
I HOPE EVERYONE WHO IS IN FAVOR OF THE BALLPARK IN SHOCKOE GOES TO THE CHURCH HILL ASSOCIATION MEETING TONIGHT TO MAKE THEIR STAND KNOWN.
“Visit any city in the USA and you will find the same.”
False. Absolutely false. Richmond has the OLDEST school buildings in the state. Other cities are not in violation of federal ADA law the way Richmond is.
Paul Hammond has a history of being a cheerleader for these corporate welfare schemes and everything he says should be questioned.
Carolyn They represent the Developer and they don’t want you to know the truth just what they think will help their cause.
Toledo, Louisville and Memphis are three successful minor league parks/economic development models that have been cited as precedents to this one.
Mr. Gerner is still incorrect regarding the bonds. The worst case scenario in the current Bottom proposal is that the bondholders could take the park itself. That’s it. It is VERY misleading to compare the financing of this proposal with the previous Bottom proposal and with the Broad Street CDA, which incorporate City obligations.
Also, it’s important to note that the public/private money will not be in the developers’ hands at any point. It goes straight to the City to use to pay the bonds for the ball park only (not the developers’ own project components), with the excess going to the City to do with as it pleases (Slave Trail Museum? Schools? Sidewalks? Trees?)
New tax revenue from broad-based economic development is what is going to pay for new schools, new sidewalks and new roads. If Richmond doesn’t keep growing, it’s going to wither on the vine. We have some serious problems in this town that the counties and the state don’t want to help us with. Let’s start helping ourselves.
(229)And Nashville is a succesful city that rejected a TIF-financed ballpark. Any deal must be considered on its own merits. A revenue bond is not a mortgage. The income stream is the collateral – the land is not encumbered.
Can you go to the CHA meeting even if you are not a member?
Paul Hammond has a history … everything he says should be questioned.
Thanks Scott, likewise I’m sure. Still I’d like you to show me one inner city school district that doesn’t share Richmond’s problems of underachievement and dropouts. Then let’s set up thread (john?) on that so we can give it the attention it deserves.
Until Richmond can once again annex surrounding counties growth will continue outward.
Tiny … you can always go to the meetings but if your not a member your vote or opinion won’t count. I rarely agree with their positions on issues which is why I joined. I don’t want them to have a free hand in deciding what happens around me without my having a say. The City takes the CHA’s opinions seriously so I feel strongly that I must take part. Joining is NOT agreeing!
PS You can go and join tonight it’s quick and only costs 20.00. Their meeting in the church tonight because they are expecting a large crowd. Mostly against the ballpark I would think.
Lisa, even if the CHA does not vote your way, I encourage you to make your voice heard to City Council and let them know that the CHA does not speak for all of Church Hill.
Ramzi — Why would annexation stop outward growth? Wouldn’t it just push it even farther outward as owners of annexed property sell and move back into their counties? I’m guessing that you are not really a proponent of annexation, right? If I’m wrong, how would you feel about the counties carving up Richmond and each taking a slice? Wouldn’t that be better, since the city would come under better management rather than the counties coming under poor management? I don’t like either option — each municipality needs to do the best with what they’ve got, and not jealously confiscate neighbors’ properties.