Poll shows increasing support for baseball in Shockoe

I think you meant February 2009, not February 2008, right?

Of the 101 people, how many live in the area? How many are connected with the developers?

How many actually reside in the City of Richmond and are risking their tax dollars being used to bail-out another half-baked idea?

How many citizens do you think will be able to afford upwards of $35 a ticket (single) to take their families and children to the baseball game?

RE: JoeRichmond

Thanks for showing your ignorance towards every single thing about this project. We are talking about Minor League Baseball here. Ticket prices usually top out at $15 a seat. Ex: The most expensive ticket for the Norfolk Tides (AAA) is $11.

Really? Show me the site that says what they will charge then.

$35 a ticket? That’s absurd. The average ticket price of a minor league ticket is $8-$9.

Sorry, I don’t have kids. I’ll take the stadium.

I live in the city, I pay taxes, I’m not connected with any developers, and I fully support baseball in Shockoe Bottom. With downtown to the west, the rest of the Bottom to the south, and Church Hill to the east, that area shows much more promise, developmentally speaking, than the Boulevard location, which is surrounded by nothing but parking lots and warehouses and chain-link fences. It would take a vastly larger and much more expensive development, stretching from Broad Street to the Interstate, to turn the Diamond area into a thriving mixed-used neighborhood, one that is connected to the rest of the city and is easily accessible by foot or public transportation. I can’t imagine how anyone can look at the Bottom, its location and its promise, and then look at the Boulevard and think that the latter is in any way superior. And I also can’t imagine paying $35 to see a minor league baseball team. I’ve paid less to see the Nats and the Orioles.

I have kids and I support the stadium! For heaven’s sake, the funds that go to the school have nothing to do with the ball park. Building the ball park will not take away from the schools.

My hope is the ticket prices will be kept low as they were at the Diamond, so me and my children can continue to enjoy baseball in Richmond.

How many families will be able to attend baseball games and then hit the bar and restaurant scene with the kiddoes?

The Richmond Baseball Initiative (or whatever they are called now), the organization that has been trying to bring baseball to the bottom for years is adamant that affordability is a key component of the stadium. At every presentation I have seen, they insist that the stadium will be an affordable way for families to go out and spend time together in the city. Nobody benefits from an overpriced baseball game, and I believe they are keeping that in mind with all aspects of the stadium.

@ Gray: Schools are clearly a problem in the East End. I would like to see interest in development in Shockoe Bottom AND improving the schools here. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps there is a more appropriate place to discuss how the community should work to improve the area schools, because “polls show increasing support for baseball…” is probably not the best avenue to get your point across.

@bcat: Right on about how Shockoe Bottom is a superior location. Of the six developers that the city invited to study the Boulevard and consider the possibilities of renovating the Diamond a couple years ago, ALL of them questioned why the city was confining them to the Boulevard because it is not a good location for baseball.

I misread the ticketmaster information and I stand corrected.

I predict this will all become a bunch of sound-and-fury signifying nothing when the bonds don’t sell.

If the private developers who stand to make a tremendous profit on this were to sign an iron-clad contract stipulating that when the bonds don’t sell, they will be totally liable for all debt incurred and that they will not under any circumstances come back to the citizens of Richmond and ask us to bail them out, then I could be more open to the idea. Still, there are other ways to do this and placing it on the Boulevard would be dramatically less expensive than what is being proposed for Shockoe Bottom. Check this out:

http://www.baseballontheboulevard.com/blog/

I was waiting for someone to bring up the ol’ “stadium or schools” canard, since no one had mentioned it for a while. Thanks for coming through, gray!

I hope you’re lobbying the General Assembly just as hard. Since that’s, you know, their call.

This pretty much nails it! The stadium will be make the developers and landowners rich and will place an additional burden on already strained finances. The General Assembly has never really looked out for Richmond, what makes you think they will make a decision that is in the best interest of the city now?

http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&typ…

Funny the people who don’t have to live in the Bottom have no issue with the Construction or the Impact it will have on those of us who Do Live in the Bottom. It is a BoonDoggle and just because people who have nothing at stake says it ok makes it such. As my Statistics Teacher was fond of saying there are Liars, Damned Liars and Statisticians

No construction can proceed at Shockoe Center until bonds are sold, as Mr. Boisseau discusses in his 2/3/09 Style Weekly letter to the editor.

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

Most of the stadium’s detractors do not have a passion for baseball in Richmond and did not attend the Braves games. But I did! And plenty of people came out! From the figures I have seen, it was an average of 3000 to 4000 per game and I can attest to that. And the ticket prices were low and other they had specials.

The money for the ballpark would never be diverted to the schools. Now the detractors are pulling out every argument they can to try to convince the supporters that this is a diastrous idea.

They have a right to their opinion. As a fan of the R-Braves, I think that they would have a different opinion if they regularly attended the Braves games. I understand if that sort of entertainment isn’t your cup tea. But, that doesn’t mean it isn’t other people’s cup of tea.

I live in Union Hill and I support Shockoe Center! (and I have no connection to developer)

*a few decades ago

@shockoe

I lived in Alexandria a decade ago, and it’s not at all true that it was in “complete disrepair.” You have to go back more than twenty years to find a situation in Alexandria that is comparable to what we have now in Richmond, and even then, the most blighted parts of Alexandria were Potomac Yard and the Route 1 corridor, not the Old Town waterfront. Hell, the Torpedo Factory was up and running in the 70s, and most of the major riverfront renovations took place in the early 80s. Having said that, if you can pick up a top-tier city and plop it down less than two miles from the Bottom and then add the additional development stress of five million people in the surrounding suburbs and at least two subway stations connecting the Bottom to the greater metropolitan area, to say nothing of VRE and Metrobus, I’ll concede and say yes, this stadium is probably not worth it, because the Bottom will inevitably develop on its own, without a major investment from the city.

Omelette: “Atlanta is the Capitol of the South; Richmond is the high-maintenance girlfriend. It doesn’t have to be that way, folks.”

I think I just found a new title for my dissertation, Omelette – thanks! 🙂

I spent some time in Memphis last winter, and was impressed with how much their downtown AAA baseball stadium brightened an otherwise dismal town. While I wouldn’t normally recommend that Richmond follow Memphis’s lead (if Richmond is a high-maintenance girlfriend, Memphis is a washed-up step-sibling), in this case I think Memphis city leadership made the right choice. The stadium was built, people came, and now the entire area around it has become desirable commercial and residential space. Wouldn’t it be great if we could say the same about the Bottom?

Amen Joe but the other thing is no one takes into account the Demolition of the area they want to develop and the Construction afterwards will make Most of Shockoe Bottom intollerable to live in. But then again most in Church Hill and other areas don’t have to live with it day to day so they don’t care if you want a Minor League ballpark then why not put it where you live? Omelette you have seen the sucesses me I lived through one or two failures and frankly I have no urge to watch others try to sell a cookie cutter Ballpark Idea to solve a problem that is not as bad as others have painted this area.

I live in Church Hill and drive down Broad every day to work and go out to eat in the Bottom often and I support the ballpark.

We have an opportunity to bring some major development to the area during this economic malaise and we should (after a thoughtful review with community input) embrace it.

If we time it right, (which I think will happen), this thing will be completed in the middle of an economic rally and the whole community will gain from the growth. Certainly the developers will do fine but everyone else will enjoy job growth and higher quality of life.

For those who disagree, what are some other ideas for area development that you would like to see (serious question)? I’ve heard talk about a high speed train to DC which would be cool. Other ideas?

I live in the East End and I support the redevelopment of Shockoe Bottom, including baseball and rail hub at Main Street Station.

I grew up in Durham NC and the DBAP has and continues to inspire great downtown redevelopment there.

Durham Bulls tickets are about $8 per game for normal seats. Cushy seats go for about $12.

i live in church hill, i don’t even like baseball and i wouldn’t mind the stadium being in the bottom. something really needs to be there. might as well be baseball. who else would develop something there in the next few years? or decades for that matter? i’m tired of parking lots and desolation around here. let’s make something happen for a change.

also, it would help if they were serious about putting in a slavery museum that connects to the slave trail. that is important. more important than baseball.

hopefully, with the new development, it wouldn’t turn into a chain area, meaning chain restaurants and such. although that seems to be what people like these days.

@ShockoeBottomDweller: The movie theater and other shops you are thinking of could not exist without the stadium because of the drainage system it would offer. Development cannot take place in a flood plain without a massive storm drain (in this case it’s the stadium itself).

Sure, baseball games would be fun after work, but I am really mostly concerned with the shops development would bring to the neighborhood. However, I recognize that what I hope to see in Shockoe Bottom can not happen without the stadium attached to it.

Read:

http://www.jmisports.com/casestudy/

Posted On: 3/29/2006

The Braves Drain
Could the Richmond Braves have a negative impact on the regional economy?
by Scott Bass

With the Richmond Braves and Mayor L. Douglas Wilder locked in the proverbial blame game — and which side will take the heat if, or when, the Braves leave — a bigger question has yet to be addressed: Does Richmond lose money on the Braves?

Almost everyone agrees that the Braves’ franchise is a “quality of life” attribute rather than a major economic engine for the region. In the past, the team’s owners have admitted as much. But here’s a more radical precept: The amount of tax dollars and new money brought in by the franchise may actually be less than what the region puts into the team. In other words, the Braves may well be a drain on the local economy.

It’s not so far-fetched, experts say. Nearly all of the independent research on the economic impact of big-league sports comes up nil. That is, pro basketball, football and baseball teams generate no substantial economic benefits in the regions where they are located. Typically, big-league cities are on the hook for multimillion-dollar sports stadiums, which negate any benefit by way of ticket sales, food-tax receipts and other ancillary benefits such as player salaries and merchandise sales.

Fans typically come for a game and spend their money inside the stadium, experts say, and that money fails to trickle down significantly to surrounding retailers and restaurants. There are fans from outside the region who bring in new dollars, but not enough to offset the typical debt service taxpayers pay on, say, a $300 million arena.

“In all major league sports, the economic impact is virtually nonexistent,” says Robert A. Baade, a sports economist at Lake Forest College in Illinois. “In order for a team to have an economic impact, it really has to somehow induce spending from outside the area. And then the money has to stay in the community.”

Take the Richmond Braves. Last year, the team reported an average of 5,214 fans attended each of 69 home games, according to the city. It’s improbable that a significant portion of those fans traveled from outside a 25-mile radius, Baade says…..
As for direct tax benefits to the city, there appears to be a net loss, according to city tax records and financial reports from the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, the political subdivision that owns and operates The Diamond.

On the plus side, the city received a total of $183,737 in tax revenues from The Diamond — including sales taxes, business and personal property taxes, admissions taxes, meals taxes and annual business license and occupational taxes — in fiscal 2005.

That’s not bad, until you factor in the more than $261,000 subsidy that Richmond gave the RMA to pay debt service and close an operating shortfall at The Diamond in the same year. (In 2005, The Diamond was finally paid off, marking city’s final loan payment on the facility. For fiscal 2006, the city has budgeted $83,000 to subsidize The Diamond’s operations.)

Above are excerpts from a Style Weekly article in 2006. I think the figures speak loudly. Also note, the Diamond is paid off, no mortgage to pay – AND it was a joint venture with the counties, which this idiotic idea is not. I can’t make this link look live, but here it is anyway. I did an advanced search to find the article, specifying dates after 2000 and before 2009, because I could not remember when it was published.

http://styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Pub….

@marshall-you poor baby, having to listen to negativity, poor thing. Im against the stupid stadium and all other stupid govt. schemes. I want to keep my money in my pocket. You must work for the govt.

Bruce (and others) —

I want to thank Jennifer McClellan, my Delegate in the General Assembly, for having the political courage to vote against the bill greenlighting the stadium.

I think many of us who remember all the “high talkin'” that happened with the CDA development on Broad Street, are concerned about the potential fiscal danger of pursuing the stadium effort, regardless of location.

The first quotation that follows is from a June 2002 op-ed piece that discusses the original Broad Street CDA proposal:

“There is *no net cost* to the city, and Chmura Economics and Analytics completed an economic “impact analysis” of the proposed Broad Street redevelopment in March. The study provides a glowing green light as it relates to projected job creation, annual spending and tax revenues beginning next year and increasing from there.”

SOURCE: [Richmond Times-Dispatch (Richmond, Virginia) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News), June 10, 2002 pNA/OPINION: Despite Delinquencies, Loans Remain in Demand].

Now, the world must have changed dramatically from June 2002 to April 2003, because all the developer promises about how it would be at “no net cost” *suddenly* turned into a sorry situation where the developers needed a bail-out because the bonds were simply not selling as well as they and their experts predicted.

The second source is an April 2003 RT-D article after the initial bond financing effort failed:

“The CDA is asking City Council to consider backing the bonds with up to $3 million in city funds annually. CDA officials stress the council would need to step in only in a “worst-case scenario” and would not be obligated to make any appropriations.

“They are calling the arrangement a “limited contingent liability.” In the proposal, the council would agree to consider appropriating money to a reserve fund set aside to pay off the debt on the bonds.

“That reserve fund would be tapped only if the project does not generate enough parking and special assessment revenues to cover the debt. The CDA could also tap another source of money, called a supplemental fund.

“CDA officials predict the project will never get into that kind of trouble. “If we ever got to that point, there would be a major disruption in the economy and a lot of other things would have to be considered,” said Kenneth E. Powell, a vice president at Legg Mason, the underwriter for the deal.”

As we now know, “the worst-case scenario” did indeed happen and the City is now spending millions annually to pay back the bonds originally presented as being of “no net cost” to the City.

SOURCE: [CITY RETHINKS DOWNTOWN PLAN; SOFT BOND MARKET FORCES CREATIVITY ; Jeremy Redmon Times-Dispatch Staff Writer Contact Jeremy Redmon at (804) 649- 6804 or jredmon@timesdispatch.com; ; Richmond Times-Dispatch ; 04-05-2003]

NOW, could someone please explain what makes anyone think that bonds in 2009 [especially given the economic crisis facing this nation] will sell any better today than they did in 2002 & 2003, especially if the City sticks to its promises that we won’t guarantee the bonds nor will we bail out the developers?

I would love to have a baseball stadium and think it would be great fun to take my grandchildren to the games. The price on this stadium, however, makes it the Sistine Chapel of baseball stadiums.

But, I think my grandchildren and everyone else’s deserve to have safe streets and a quality education in schools that are ADA accessible and comply with the 1992 federal law.

However, I would rather take them to Little League games than hock their future in the name of this baseball stadium.

Have your taxes gone down, lately? Mine sure haven’t. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, but I would love to hear a reasoned explanation that could assuage my concerns and those of other citizens wary of yet another way to save us from ourselves. And, I can also appreciate the argument that *development* is good for the city — it was used back in 2002 & 2003.

Convince me.

Not with my money!

1. The poll is a little flawed imo. Why not have an option for supporting the development but NOT baseball? You’re forcing people to choose baseball or nothing which isn’t fair.

2. Most of normal readers (voters) on this site are hill people (duh). They are far more likely to support this development bc it fixes the crap-hole right at their area, while people in other areas don’t really want their tax money going to this area. So, your numbers probably don’t represent the whole city.

3. I don’t think tax-payer money should make developers rich. If people believed this was likely to be financially successful, private investors would eat this up, and the city wouldn’t be dumping our money into a risk. The city already dumped way too much money into the last stadium. And where are Chesterfield and Henrico? They’ll have more in attendance than Richmond. Why is Richmond always paying for everything?

The CDA bonds were structured in a very (how do I say this nicely) outside the box kind of way. TIF financing, while not routine, is a generic financing structure that bond investors can plug into a formula and decide if it’s worth their risk. These bonds should be much easier to sell (from a product perspective).

From a market perspective, no the market has not returned to its pre-2006 norms, but you can see it is returning as the Treasury rates creep upwards and the yields various sellers have declined some. Most believe the markets will be fully on their way to strengthening, especially given the recent $1 trillion that have been OK’d to spend/invest by the feds.

If the structure of these bonds changed to one similar to the CDA where the city was asked to dedicate revenues to back them, my view of this project would completely change. But right now, we’ve been told that won’t happen,and that investors will be backing the bonds. And that the project won’t go forward if the bonds don’t sell. So that’s what I’m basing my opinion on.

Keith, actually, the government gives takes credits to rehabbed private property, including homes, all of the time. Government subsidies for developments that will benefit the entire city are nothing new.

Keith,

Perhaps you should go back and read the comment history on this and other related posts. Many of your questions are addressed there. Also “Fan Guy” has a pretty good summary over at Life in the 804.

To further FanGuy’s comments, here is the program for which you could apply for Keith:

“City of Richmond Real Estate Tax Abatement Program
The City offers partial exemption from real estate taxes for qualifying rehabilitated or replaced structures. For properties that qualify, the initial increase in real estate taxes caused by rehabilitation or replacement will be excused for ten to fifteen years, depending on the district. Property owners must apply to the program. For full information including provisions for qualifying for this partial tax exemption program, and to get an application, contact the City Assessor’s Office ”

And a list of other programs available in the City from a variety of sources:

http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/comm…

Again, Richmond school buildings are among the oldest in the state. Many violate federal ADA law. Their condition is one of the reasons families with school-age children move out of the City. There are well-proven international studies that school building renovation creates more jobs than opera and baseball ever will.

I have no doubt that this Shockoe stadium debate, like the white elephants before it, is distracting money and attention from more worthwhile City priorities. When one considers the overall costs of the current proposal, including financial, environmental, and opportunity, its pretty clear that it is not in the citizens’ interest.

In terms of ‘development opportunities’, I have no doubt that both Boulevard and Shockoe Bottom have some great chances for more green, pedestrian, interconnected residential and retail development, but Boulevard is still the most logical place for a minor-league baseball team.

I’ve been reading and listening and reading some more about this subject and I’ve been remaining open because I’m not opposed to thoughtful, well reasoned development. I’ve been a Fulton resident for 9 years and work in the Bottom.

I’ll also be listening in on tonight’s meeting at GlobeHopper where they’ll be selling this stadium idea. I’m thinking this will be the night I decide where I stand on the issue.

Just a couple of quick morning questions.
1. The RMA has publicly previously offered to sponsor the bond issue for the new stadium. The RMA exists and has statutory authority to issue bonds. The RMA has a good credit history. The RSFA has none of those. So why do we need the RSFA?

2. Why are we even talking about building in the 100 year floodplain? Can anybody cite a single commercial or residential building built within a 100 year floodplain in the last 20-30 years in any nearby locality? Is there a shortage of buildable sites for these same ancillary uses elsewhere in the city-but not in the floodplain? (between Monroe Ward and the James Center?, Manchester?,Boulevard?)

So what people are telling me that the 2 million dollars they spent to fix the dranage didn’t happen and that we want a ballpark that will be unusable when it rains? just like the Diamond? and you think this is a smart thing? This sounds like Politics as usual

KIMMY, I don’t believe the Globehopper meeting tonight is a presentation by the developers, and I certainly don’t think it is an “open forum.”

Firstly, I’m going to bring this article from the RT-D here that I posted on the other baseball debate on this site:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/minors/min…

And I’ll respond to ShockoeBottomDweller (#191 on “baseball debate heats up”)here:

AA is 10 times better than AAA. Yes, that sounds crazy, I realize this. But think about it – your AAA players are typically the oldest ones who have yet to get a shot at the major leagues. They’re the minor league vets, the lifers, that are kept in AAA as a contigency plan for when one of the big team’s stars goes down. They’re more the safe bet vs. the big risk on a kid who might not be ready yet.

AA is where all the young, exciting talent is; Joba Chamberlin, the Yankees new star pitcher, for example, spent only 3 games (3!!) in AAA before hitting the Yankees’ bullpen. Ryan Howard was in AAA for 29 games. That’s less than a month. Evan Longoria – 38 games over 2 seasons.

Also, to say “they can’t name a team because there isn’t one” is a little ridiculous. They wouldn’t apply to MiLB for a team unless there was a team to be bought. Richmond wasn’t allowed to seek out other teams until Atlanta released the territory (which didn’t happen until they were POSITIVE their new stadium would be ready), that should give you some idea of how MiLB operates before things are considered “done deals”

Also, as for #81 on this page, I’ve now been told two different things by detractors of the stadium. That this stadium should not be built in a floodplain, and that the stadium will not be affected by the floodplain (see #172 by ptaylor on the “baseball debate heats up again”). If what ptaylor states is true, then I guess the stadium is an insurance policy should we get another Gaston-like storm.

Otherwise, for the bajillionth time, the stadium is meant to facilitate drainage in the Bottom in the event of a FLOOD. This area hasn’t flooded since the hurricane and we certainly have had rain since then. It doesn’t turn into a lake everytime water falls from the sky.

And, SBD, just about any ballpark is unusable when it rains. They’ll either delay, call, or suspend games if its raining enough (which is anything more than a mist, really).

Take me out to the ballgame, take me out with the crowd;
Buy me a stadium in Shockoe, please;
I don’t care if you don’t like the fees,
Let’s all root-root-root for our hometown;
If they don’t build it’s a shame,
For it’s ONE, TWO, THREE times we’ve tried, and it’s getting very lame!

(PLAY BALL!!)

Hey now, back off the Opera! I love the Opera! I attend the Opera, just like I attended baseball games at the Diamond and Richmond Ballet (which I’m going to this weekend). You should try it but you seemed pretty close-minded to everything else so I’m sure you won’t.

Given the state of the Diamond and the fact that it still drew 4100 per game last year, as crappy as it was, I’d say there are a lot of people who care about baseball in Richmond.

Again, I point to Toledo, Durham, Norfolk, Trenton, and other teams with stadiums built in the past 10 years – they all have attendance numbers far greater than that of Richmond’s numbers. Many in cities with comparable or fewer people, population-wise. Its not a coincidence that newer stadium models (including enhanced features) beget better attendance.

Just because you don’t care about baseball doesn’t mean that nobody does. Not to mention, it seems that an equal amount of people who have posted here care about the development in the area in general. They understand what this means for an area that currently consists of surface lots and old (not in a good way) buildings.

As the proposal and many posters have mentioned, the stadium serves as a drain itself. How, exactly, is a question for the civil engineers and architects who understand how to construct such things. If you don’t want to believe that, I guess there’s nothing else I have to say to you on the subject.

As for the Bottom having flooded again, I did a google news search and couldn’t find anything. I saw there was Ernesto threatening in 2006, but I never saw a story about it causing flooding in the area. Is there a story I’m missing?

Just two examples to follow up on Anna’s post #91.

Rochester, NY has an approximate metro population of 1 million and built a 10,000 seat downtown stadium in 1996. In 2008, they had an attendance of 490,806 (6,913 per game).

Norfolk (Hampton Roads) has an approximate metro population of 1.7 million and drew 433,767 (6,197 per game)to Harbor Park in 2008. This downtown stadium, built in 1993, seats 12,000.

Comparing this plan to Waterside in Norfolk or Sixth St. Marketplace or the Arts Center is the proverbial apples to oranges comparison. People can shop or go to restaurants in countless places. Inclusion of baseball in the Shockoe development means bringing 5000 to 6000 people to the neighborhood and patronizing both new and current businesses located there 70 nights a year.

As for the schools argument, is more money really the answer to the problems facing City schools? We already spend $5000 more per student annually than Henrico, Chesterfield or Hanover:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Publications/asrstat/2006-07/Table15.xls

We’ll just host swimming/diving events in the stadium when it rains hard. No worries.

And, no stadium does not equal parking lot, people. You can develop without a stadium. Or gut the place, and just make a nice park. That actually would help with flooding and who doesn’t like parks? Or a park surrounding by new office/retail. Baseball isn’t the only possibility for development.

The problem is that people who go to Norfolk Tides did not have existing business in that area with the exception of the Boathouse so how is that like here? Shockoe Development is not going to help anyone but themselves with the bars and Resteraunts that they want people to go to. and your numbers are far from accurate try 2500-3500 max at best and they came for the game and that is it. The Developers don’t care about the Bottom other than what they will reap they have no plans to improve anything surrounding when they are competing for scares dollars 2 or 3 years after the interest level died

Bottom Dweller, your continued assertions of opinion masquerading as fact are quite tired. My numbers for Harbor Park are far from accurate? You’re right, apparently they’re low:

http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?featureid=230#tides

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/rosters/2008/10323.shtml

And saying that Harbor Park was built in the middle of Waterside (post #92) is laughable. It’s about a half mile walk along interstates and heavily traveled surface roads from one to the other.

Gray, in defense of Anna, who may or may not have a job that relates to this project, having information doesn’t mean you’re involved. She is probably just an informed citizen, or maybe like me, some kind of student of urban planning. All the information she presented is nothing I haven’t seen before in class. It takes almost no effort, a little patience, and google to learn about similar project in other cities. This is the second time I know of that you have accused someone of working for this development. It’s unnecessary.

I guess being there at Harbor Park for several of their games over the years and talking to people who run the park is just my opinion and your information that is culled from a website is 100% accurate? Funny that.

Shockoe you must not got to Timeshares presentations much. They will do what it take to sell you.

David I did not mean physically I meant their design was to bring people in with the park and they would stay to shop Waterside and that did not happen.

Style reports this week that the $70 million in bonds proposed to construct this project will be paid for with speculative revenue from a special new Shockoe tax district.

That is to say, revenue that does not currently exist.

So if sales in this new tax district fall short of what they’re projecting (and it doesn’t take an economist to see that these days that is a real possibility) the city will be on the hook to pay for this thing out of other city funds.

In order for this plan to work, NEW business that does not currently exist has to succeed in order to create NEW tax revenue.

Is the current economic climate really the time we want to try something with that level of risk?

From this week’s Style Weekly:

Ballpark Bonds: A Lesson From Broad Street

by Scott Bass

As part of the Broad Street Community Development Authority’s deal with the city, the developer agreed to turn the old Miller & Rhoads department store into a hotel to help the convention center attract more conventions. It opened this week. Photo by Scott Elmquist

While City Hall debates whether to allow developers to issue bonds to build a downtown ballpark, Richmond’s first experiment with nongovernment bonds offers a lesson in missed financial projections.

Six years after the Broad Street Community Development Authority floated $67 million in bonds to level the 6th Street Marketplace and fund other improvements, the authority is on schedule to run out of its internal cash reserves by June 30.

“We’ll just see where our cash position is from the last bond payment,” says Jim Johnson, a member of the Broad Street authority’s board of directors. “It depends on how some things go in the last couple of months.”

There are differences between the ballpark proposal and the Broad Street authority. The $70 million in ballpark bonds would be paid for with new, or speculative, tax revenues generated within a specified tax district in Shockoe Bottom. The $67 million Broad Street authority pays its bond debt mostly with parking revenues and special tax assessments — revenue that largely existed before the bonds were floated.

The Broad Street authority almost immediately ran into setbacks — misinformed revenue forecasting and construction delays — and was forced to recast its financial projections and increase parking fees to make its debt payments.

To make its annual bond payment this year, the Broad Street Community Development Authority needs $5.37 million. The authority told City Council last summer that it expected to be about $124,000 short.

The authority has two primary cash reserves to make up the difference. There’s a supplemental reserve fund, which is nearly depleted, and a trustee-held debt reserve with about $6.13 million. The authority expects to use all of the first fund and begin dipping into the $6 million fund this summer.

But here’s the catch: The city agreed to replenish the $6 million fund to the tune of $3 million a year if the bond payments fall short. How short will the authority be this year? Ron Stallings, its chairman, says he isn’t sure. He hopes by only a few thousand, but says he won’t know for sure until later this month: “We were hoping it would be as little as $3,000.”

But there’s an implied warning: Six years into a 30-year bond issue, the authority already is asking the city to make good on a moral obligation it promised wouldn’t be necessary. Sold as a deal that wouldn’t cost the city a penny, the Broad Street authority — which also included the city’s giving the Miller & Rhoads department store building to the authority’s master developer — isn’t going as planned.

Those proposing a new ballpark in Shockoe Bottom make similar claims — they won’t ask the city for a moral obligation to back the bonds if payments fall short, says Paul Kreckman, vice president at Highwoods Properties, the ballpark project’s master developer.

That’s exactly what the Broad Street Community Development Authority proponents, including city officials, initially promised. Edwin Gaskin, the city’s deputy director of economic development in 2003, told Style then that the only way the parking revenues would ever fall short is if the convention center went belly up.

“That’s an almost apocalyptic scenario for downtown,” he said.

http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publi…

The Loving Family will be pleased especially since they a large chunk of their property to make this thing happen and the City can annex it for the greater good and as they tear up a large part of the 2 million dollars it took to repair the drainage there we won’t be wasting a single cent. besides all the people who do park in large areas of those lots don’t need to drive and park they were just paying their 50 bucks a month to waste money. But I am just expounding opinions and hearsay ( I like to call them facts because they are from legit sources.) where you give me concrete projections from people who see this as their big paycheck both in government and the developers.

I should learn to trust Salesmen more when they want to sell me the Brookland bridge.

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?

Omelette, now you’re putting words in my mouth. Again, I asked a straight forward question. For all I know some of these folk might not even live in the city or surrounding counties.

http://map.richmondgov.com/zoning/

This should help everyone figure out who stands to profit from the proposed Shockoe Bottom Stadium and, to be totally fair, who will stand to profit from the Boulevard location.

One thing is very clear — the taxpayers will lose because these bonds will not sell in this economy. Try reading a newspaper other than the RT-D.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/16602
http://www.miamiherald.com/602/story/882587.html

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: the bond market is on its way back. Here is an article just today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123422878893265915.html

The Style article is misleading, but the project is proposed to be **partially** financed with those TIF revenues. TIF financing is not a new financing structure and is used to do a variety of economic development projects. The city still directly benefits from the sales tax revenues that aren’t allocated toward the payments and from the increase in property taxes. Remember, the developers will be bringing another $300mil or so to the table to finance the development.

Again, my opinion on this project were Highwoods to ask the city for its backing would change, but they haven’t so until then I’m supporting it. Did the CDA have the backing of a publicly traded development company?

If I tell you I’m from the fan, you’ll tell me I’m lying. If I tell you I’m from the surrounding counties, you’ll tell me every argument I’ve made doesn’t matter. What’s the point in answering the question?

As for the Norfolk ballpark, that stadium is similar to the Boulevard site in that it is not an increase in “foot” traffic. A close examination of maps.google.com shows that the ballpark is surrounded by interstates and surface parking lots. Now I’ve never attempted to walk from HPS to Harborside, but I imagine taking the kids on that walk is a little less than desirable. Point is, that ballpark is an example of how a similar population draws in a newer stadium.

I would compare the Bottom project, in terms of its urban environment, to Toledo. The field is even built sub-street level, like the proposed ballpark in SB is. No, nobody fed me that information, I used google’s streetview tool.

PS – you can use that tool to check out all the surface lots in the Bottom, too.

You’re right, SBD, I posted countless times on this thread and the last because I don’t care what this ballpark and surrounding development will do for the city.

So I don’t care and FanGuy is smoking something, who else are you going discredit because they disagree with you?

“their warehouses mysteriously burned down to create those lots” I love it! Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Kimmy, no one said it would be an “open forum.” I pointed that out to you yesterday. I’m not sure where that idea came about.

#123, Anna, it was a simple question that many for and against the stadium have answered and I believe them.

When polls are conducted, they often include demographics. Now the poll above is like a raise of hands at a party -not enough to influence my decision making. However, I am interested in knowing how people from various areas feel about the stadium. Spoke to a couple from Chesterfield yesterday, one was in support of the stadium and one was not. Their opinion mattered and they were honest.

Fanguy, it says here http://www.globehoppercoffee.com/ghc3/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=60 open forum.

Gray, that’s Globehopper’s website. Regardless, after the presentation there was a question and answer period and some pretty free and engaging exchange of thoughts. Afterward, several people hung around and were able to talke with and directly question the presenters as well.

I just don’t want Kimmy to leave people w/ the impression that the advertising for this event was misleading in some way.

#130 “It may help the city, but it won’t help the Bottom.” Forget the ballpark. New commercial space, new rental space, new condos, all paying taxes, won’t help the Bottom? Cleaning up the concrete desert won’t help the Bottom?
Please do this, as I asked the other day. Show us your business plan for development of the 11 acre site. Six groups have done that, the city selected Highwoods with whom to negotiate. Show us your plan.

I sure hope not, SBD, because it looks as if we are being sold not only something we do not wantnor need, but something that is so overpriced and poorly planned that we will all come to regret acquiescing to the greed of City Hall and these developers.

THERE IS NO WAY a stadium can be built without public money. These folks might as well be selling us the Brooklyn Bridge — and then when this deal goes belly-up, the citizens will be blamed because we didn’t fight hard enough against it.

Fiscal date rape. That’s what this is.

Check this out:

An in-depth report on “Minor League Baseball Stadium Construction: A Primer on the Key Issues and Considerations” is available at:

http://www.confluenceresearch.net/docs/Stadiums.pdf

The primary intention of this report is to provide a primer on the major issues that a group considering a baseball stadium construction project must address during the initial stages of the project life cycle.”

On page 11 it stresses that “a solid, realistic financial plan is generally considered the make-or-break criteria in most stadium construction proposals. Because the incidence of public funding requirement is so high for stadium projects, arriving at a politically palatable financing plan can be difficult.”

The report provides details on new and renovated stadiums. We’ve already heard much about some of the new stadiums, but little about those that have been renovated. On page 13, the report notes the 1999 $16 million renovation of McCoy Stadium, used by the Triple-A Pawtucket Red Sox.

The top new AA stadium in this report is the $34 million Jacksonville Suns stadium built in 2003.

Fanguy’s statement: “Kimmy, no one said it would be an “open forum.” I pointed that out to you yesterday. I’m not sure where that idea came about.”

Just pointing out how kimmy didn’t get it wrong -it was titled open forum on the Globehopper calendar. Good to hear the event went well.

#136 I had asked where people reside, ie, city, eastend, county and so on. Again with polls, you want to know the demographics, locations, etc.

The organizers did not advertise the meeting as an open forum and my above statement in post #126 was in response to post #80 & #83.

I apologize for the confusion.

I’ll also say that I am still undecided about the whole project. What would have been helpful to me would be to hear the city government, the stadium folks and the folks who oppose the stadium in one room having a mediated discussion about the whole shabang.

I should correct one thing from my post above. As I understand it, the city would contribute $8 million toward infrastructure (roads, sewer, sidewalks), which would have to be contributed regardless of what gets built in the Bottom. But again, not one penny is contributed until the bonds are sold.

Here is exactly what the Globehopper calendar read:

“Shockoe Stadium Open Forum
WhenTue, February 10, 5:30pm – 6:30pm
WhereGlobeHopper (map)
DescriptionThe builders proposing the Shockoe Stadium will be at GlobeHopper for an open community discussion. 5:30 – 6:30pm.”

Re: Style Weekly’s Coverage of BallPark Issue

I can certainly understand how some might not recognize investigative journalism when they see it, considering that you are accustomed to the thumb-sucking boosterism that the Times-Dispatch dispenses on a daily basis.

Scott Bass and Chris Dovi are the only two reporters in this town who dare to delve deeper into a story to get at what is really happening, whether they are reporting on ballparks or bogus school suspension numbers.

The blogger assault in favor of this scam (soon to be scandal) of “the ballpark we do not need” is intentionally misleading and manipulative and insulting to anyone with a modicum or more of intelligence.

Times are changing. Richmonders are not as placid and content to do what we are told to do any longer. There is a growing consciousness, and a new generation, that understands that the same old lies from the same old liars have gone stale.

Gray, that’s great. But Globehopper didn’t organize the event, but they did provide a great venue which I highly recommend everyone patronize. Sorry if you were confused about it.

_____

FanGAL, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Welcome to the debate. However, if you are going to throw bombs like that, I must ask you what is your evidence that people are “intentionally misleading and manipulative” concerning this project. That is a very serious charge. I will be waiting for your answer.

Ron It does not matter what plan I have it will never be done they have this thing is locked on target. And apparently if you object your are Liar because those who support this thing say it is so and they never ever lie (We have a team lined up) The help Local Business (Sorry Lovings you might want to move your business elsewhere and sorry about those fires you had that was a shame.) But I am sure they will build plenty of Condos which provide housing we already have so much at but they will never decrease the Cost to buy or Rent here but what do I know?

I am trying to make a ton of money opposing a juggernaut that is beyond reproach. Insulting? Comical is more like it.

Actually, SBD, I read FanGal’s comment to be that those who are questioning the wisdom of this (as Scott Bass at Style Weekly appears to be doing) are the ones seeking some straight answers, the ones trying to get reporters to do some actual investigateive reporting instead of the pablum that the RT-D passes off as “news.”

Those who are mindlessly reporting this story without looking into the backrounds of the various players who are promising it won’t cost a dime of taxpayer money (when we all know how that story goes) are the ones who don’t “get” investigative journalism.

I took FanGal’s comment as a compliment to the positions that you and I have taken consistently questioning this boondoggle.

Hang in there, SBD. This support of the baseball stadium is not based on any fact — it is based upon what people wish to be true. The way that those who are supporting this stadium nonsense attack those who question it is the insult.

Would that the supporters would do some independent research I am sure they would discover that they are being manipulated into suspending their disbelief. Maybe THEY are being paid. I sure am not.

Guys Trust me I am far from insulted I just love to Mock and use Sarcasm but Hurt? it just shows I hit some soft spots. They better remember we have to vote on Taxes like that and I vote No.

I used to watch the same network in Hampton and Norfolk and frankly they were better at it than Richmond.

@bill: The financing structure, zoning, and infrastructure improvements all need an OK from the city or City Council. It does need public money, I don’t think anyone ever said it didn’t.

WHooooooooaaaahh………Ry …..

After maintaining that it DOES NOT NEED PUBLIC MONEY, now we are hearing that it does. Next question: HOW MUCH?

In Post # 67, you said: “If the structure of these bonds changed to one similar to the CDA where the city was asked to dedicate revenues to back them, my view of this project would completely change. But right now, we’ve been told that won’t happen,and that investors will be backing the bonds. And that the project won’t go forward if the bonds don’t sell. So that’s what I’m basing my opinion on.”

We also have this from David in Post #31:

No construction can proceed at Shockoe Center until bonds are sold, as Mr. Boisseau discusses in his 2/3/09 Style Weekly letter to the editor.

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

Lest we not forget your own post #154, Ry, where you link it to Buttermil & Molasses ….. where Kreckman Himself says the City will have no obligation.

Whazzup with this?

i’m wondering what the worst-case scenario would be if the ballpark IS built. more than likely, just the novelty of it would bring in lots of people at first. that’s a given. after that, though, if no one came, what would happen? does the city get a bill, thus the taxpayer? would our taxes really go up that much? would it just become a pigeon coop along with all the other new shops that come with it?

and if it isn’t built, what goes in that same spot, if anything? it seems like anything is better than nothing at this point. i like the idea of a movie theater and shops, but i’m wondering why that hasn’t been done before now? it’s been years and years and still nothing!

what is left of the historic sites (lumpkins, the slave cemetery, etc.) really need to be included in this plan. i think they are, but i think we should keep mentioning them, just in case. a slave museum is crucial to this city making amends with its ghosts. no matter how many parking lots and baseball parks are built over these graves, the ghosts will still haunt us.

#165, not just a slavery museum but a National Slavery Museum. I imagine European tourists in Washington deciding to take the train down to Richmond for this. I know I certainly took trains in Europe to small towns to such historical landmarks and museums. I agree that small places like the Poe museum won’t do it. For example, you go to Florence for the Uffizi and while you are there, you hop over to the little Michelangelo’s studio/home museum. Not only do National museums draw in people, they increase flow through smaller tourist sites.

Outside of Richmond and the surrounding counties, does anyone imagine folk coming in to see a minor league team?

just for a point of reference to the direction of this chpn poll, no insult intended if i imply that it does not quite meet the standard of say a gallup poll. go back and look at the 2006 city council election for church hill (district 7) and compare the chpn poll result and the actual registered voter poll recorded in the election. how accurate is the chpn poll compared to the results from registered voters

Ball,

No, the city would not be on the hook if no one came.

First, I don’t think there is a chance that we would see lower attendance figures than what the RBraves had the last couple years. BUT, even if we did, and the bonds could not be paid off on schedule, the bondholders could either foreclose on the property, and in effect, become owners of the ballpark; or (more likely), they would simply regnotiate the term of the bond. Think of the bond as a mortgage. Either way, the city is not on the hook. And, by the way, Toledo used similar financing for its ballpark, and the bonds were paid off in 7 years even though they plan was for 20! Once the bond is paid off, that’s all added tax revenue for the city and state that it otherwise would not have.

As for your question about what if it isn’t built ….If it isn’t built, we will have a very difficult time building anything there due to the flood plain. I can’t explain it nearly as well as the developers can, but essentially the design of the park makes it work. In addition, the field itself provides the mandated greenspace. So, a movietheatre by itself, for example would pretty much be impossible (besides, the new theatres on Boulevard open later this month).

I encourage you to attend one of the developers presentations if you get the chance. They can explain things far better than I can. The problem is that some people dismiss everything they say simply because they are “developers” and thus supposedly inherently evil.

Cheers.

Perhaps, John, — in a real exercise of Democracy — you might call for a city and regional referendum on the question.

Let the voters decide.

john, i didnt think abt it but the chpn polls are from different samples. in 2006 is was mostly 7d voters. baseball poll is all across town. when the vote gets to the city council the chpn baseball poll will likely be more accurate that the 06 council 7d polling. maybe you got a new calling

re #176 With one exception in support of the stadium.

Ry, With a stadium, there is room for a dinky museum but I’m talking National -Smithsonian size covering the history of slavery here and abroad and where we might find it in today’s world.

John #171 – actually you cut off the poll before at least three people I know were going to vote. All three think it’s a bad idea, but hadn’t bothered to vote (hmm, LOL sounds like actual elections, doesn’t it!!!)

You are a very funny poster, SBD. ROFLMAO ….. 😉

To Gray’s comment about the Smithsonian sized slave musuem – where will the money come from for that development? I have to think tax payer dollars would be needed. Would it be a substitute for the ball park? If so, how would you deal with the flooding issues?

Ry,

(Heavy sigh)…. Know this, I am always going to come down on the side of giving “We, the People,” the right decide what is done by our government, with our money, in our names.

I have seen enough of government in an up-close and personal way to know that the “ideal” of the so-called all-knowing “experts” in community, economic and urban development rarely becomes the reality. If that were the case, Richmond and other cities across the U.S. would be in great shape, right?

I would prefer to see elected officials show some common sense and integrity by trusting that if “the people” are given the facts — all the facts — “the people” will make the right decisions.

Oftentimes, citizens get so tired of trying to decipher “what is what” that they just give up and let “government” do whatever it wants. And, when that happens, we all lose.

So, I am willing to believe that the citizens of Richmond and the region can be trusted to make some big decisions.

I would hope that the developers and other elected officials would realize that unless they actively engage the citizens in this process, it may be very difficult to ever fill that stadium.

Keith,
If a factory plan were to come forward the city could certainly issue bonds to support that project as well (given there were a revenue stream to support it). This project doesn’t exclude any other project from happening. Aside from the use of this land, and I would be opposed to using this site for a factory. The only other constraint would be the tax exempt bond cap and I don’t think that would be an issue in this economy. If it were to be fully utilized Congress would certainly allot more.

Carol,
I think that is a great way to approach many issues. However, with one as complex as revenue funded tax exempt bonds, well, that is a structure that is difficult for anyone to get their heads around. Can you reasonably expect a fair percentage of the Richmond public to take the time to do that? I have a hard time believing that would be the case. I know many of the folks in both the city community and city economic development dept.s and have plenty of faith in their abilities.

Bruce We paid over 2 million dollars to fix this issue and it is fine til you dig up the repaired Cisterns and Drainage areas they have right where they want to build.

So either they did not fix the problem like they did at Battery park and claimed they did at the time or they plan to mess this all up and claim to fix something again either way business as usual

sbd-now what you gonna do? the i want you to pay 4 my ball park gang has got the edge on bailout/welfare, it is all in keeping with the times, bail out the sleazy mfs that created the mess. even pres bo is on the bandwagon. cont to rant on the same rant site? it will get lame after awhile. what would hst do? go ug for a moment cause that is what i want you to pay 4m my ball park has already done. in the bottom it aint far to the ug

no welfare for baseball

it could be big fun

crd, are you a hanging chad?

Also Anna VA is for dumping Teams both pro and Minor league I bet they would publicly kill all the members of a minor league team if a Pro team ask them so they would move to this part of the country.

The VA Squires
The Richmond Braves

There are plenty of examples so why be so suprised personally I would not be against it if this were a Roller Derby Rink.

A proposal:

If there is indeed money for other projects, why not tie the two biggest development issues facing the East End?

Build the stadium, but at the same time buy the Echo Harbor land and make it a park. The cost of the Echo Harbor land ($3-$5 million) is less than the improvements the stadium developers are asking of the city and represents a small fraction of the total project.

The proposal has several advantages, mainly that more people get what they want. My sense is that there are more people against Echo Harbor than the stadium, so this would navigate a happy middle ground.

The question is, do the outside pinch hitters who’ve taken over this blog really seek accommodation, or do they just want to use a complaisant city council to ram this down our throats?

Next thing you know, Tiny, you will go Nixonian on us and label yourself a member of the “Silent Majority”?

Remember how Nixon and Agnew sought to discredit the voices of the Viet Nam War protesters?

Yeesh, this thread still alive?

Here’s a little suggestion from the world of politics: if you stadium opponents want to be a little more savvy, you should make some demands instead of just flat-out opposing any attempts to develop Shockoe.

I mean, these are rich business guys we’re talking about. They just want to get this thing built, period. If you stopped kicking and screaming and instead asked that they throw something your way in exchange for your support, hell, they might just take the bait.

School construction funds? New park facilities? Who knows? What do you want, Church Hill?

Just a suggestion. Chicago’s a pretty sweet town, so apparently their way of operating works pretty well.

This name calling and buttonholing has gone on long enough me. There must be a new thread coming along soon. I think it’s time to check out of this discussion.

Boy, JoeRichmond, you really do not understand me. It seems you seek to humilate those who disagree with you. Listen, you have your opinion, I have mine. Just be aware that you don’t speak for everyone.

Boy, Tiny, you really do not understand me, either.

It seems that it is thee who seeks to humiliate those who disagree with you. I just don’t let you shove me around.

For instance, accusing people who disagree with you of not representing the majority of Church Hill residents, assumes an all-knowing stance that other have called you on before on this blog.

I never said I speak for a majority of anyone. But, you seem to think that you do.

Plus, this rhetorical gambit you toss out of attempting to marginalize the views of those who disagree with you is so lame. Saying people who disagree with you sound like “right-wing” commenters on an AM talk show is what you call respecting other people’s viewpoints?

Totally Nixonian. Really retro …..next thing, you’ll start attacking Style Weekly and accuse them of being “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

http://melissasavenko.typepad.com/melissa_savenkos_…

FanGuy is branching out and picking fights with perfectly reasonable and intelligent people. Why FanGuy? Melissa is a great lady, she just disagrees with you. And so does Jennifer McClellan and so do I. No need to get all ugly about it.

It really does seem to me that the opponents aren’t only against a stadium here, but development here period. The project is more than a baseball stadium and that keeps getting forgotten. We might as well at least get rid of the surface parking lots for parking decks since nothing is good enough to fill these empty areas. Nevermind, that might involve building something.

Carol.

I think you are injecting yourself into a conversation that is not as bad as you are talking about. I read Melissa’s blog and I feel that Fanguy has some rational points. I know Melissa and I know Jennifer McClelland and I think they are both thoughtful people, but I don’t understand why you are putting yourself into the discussion as an arbiter of what is right or wrong.

I agree with Winston.

cahedo, did it ever occur that some are opposed because it involves taking of public money/land to benefit a private interest? is baseball a public interest? maybe it could be. you should check out rfp park, mountain road in henrico, almost continuous baseball, even better/more fun to watch than the old braves, no admission fee, no falling concrete, no over priced food/drink and it serves the public interest. you can find other examples nearby but richmond is another story. city park & rec is a poster child for failed youth baseball.

Just catching up here after days and days of being away. Interesting stuff.

What comes to mind for me is this question – when the “there are going to be SO many jobs created!” line of reasoning comes into play, I cannot help but be curious as to what kinds of jobs those will be, and how many of them will be suitable for kids who make the decision to drop out of an unsafe high school, located right down the path a bit, in order to preserve their own hides.

Just wondering, because this looks like sticking fingers in a dam, and making leaks spring up all around the patches. Priorities, priorities, priorities.

Of course, I speak for myself. And I can’t help but echo the thought of another poster that the arrogance of proposing to speak for “unheard masses” cannot be masked, no matter how you slice it. Everyone has the right to exercise their right to free speech, and if they choose not to, that is on them. Just because someone is quiet does not mean that they want to be spoken for – AT ALL.

So please never do me that favor. Thanks.

#221 “I cannot help but be curious as to what kinds of jobs those will be, and how many of them will be suitable for kids who make the decision to drop out of an unsafe high school, located right down the path a bit, in order to preserve their own hides.”

Good way to put it.

sorry ron i dont have/want a business model that relys on welfare. i will be good with you using your own money for baseball, and then i decide if i want to pay your admission price. how much skin do you have in this thing? keeping those fingers crossed for the big bail out/stimulus/prolonged foreplay action.
for my investment down i have gotten outrageous taxes, shitty infrastructure and the standard abuse/neglect that has made this city famous. what i think doesnt matter but i dont/wont smell like a welfare/cheat. what are you going to call the team ron? the scammers?

It’s a mixed use retail, office/hotel and residential project with a ballpark. That means jobs, businesses, residents and recreation. It also mean thousands of Richmonds and visitors visiting Shockoe Bottom, many for the first time and discovering an area unlike any other.

How many of you got your first job at a “dead end” minimum wage restaurant and moved on to something better. Everybody has to start somewhere or better yet has to have somewhere to start.

And, our money, Ron.

Sad, how frequently you forget the taxpayers, given that you apparently work in City Hall.

Carol,

The flood plain question is integral to the proposal as is the ballpark. See John’s earlier piece for details on the entire proposal.

Here’s a snippet he reposted on RDN.
“The ballpark is the centerpiece of the flood alleviation built into the proposal. As an open 4-acre greenspace, the park would help to catch and hold water. Futhermore, by building the surface of the park below grade, the effect of this would be intensified.”

Without dealing with the flood plain issue, no major development is possible.

some people like living where there are things going on past 8pm. that’s why some people live in the city.

Ron:

What do you mean by “dedication of the 11 acres of vacant land” in Post #222? Is that a sale or lease at market price? If not, that’s why many citizens are concerned. Let the market decide what the best “business model” is for Shockoe Bottom. The City can provide reasonable improvements, but don’t create a new sports authority that could issue public bonds. The planned office and residential developments don’t need a nearby ballpark, and neither does a grocery store or other resident-oriented retail uses.

There must be another way to deal with the floodplain concerns without building a $70 million baseball stadium. Has there been any independent examination of this aspect by someone not associated with the developers? What are other options? Don’t let the framework of this important issue be set by those that have a monetary interest in its outcome.

You mentioned in Post #228 that “they are backing that bet with their own money (and their bank’s money)” I didn’t see such a commitment in the presentation slides or Q&A handouts available to the public? Where is that stated?

the developers are on steroids

@ShockoeBottomDweller #210 AND 226 -“Love the Jobs angle … but I am sure we can find something that creates more jobs that people throwing peanuts.”

Odd that you posted that twice, just about verbatem. Machine-like, and piques my interest in agenda. Also, my question was not an angle. Just a question.

While I, myself, would absolutely LOVE to have a job “throwing peanuts” (SERIOUSLY!!!!) I’m not too sure that it would pay my bills – and this is coming from a person who intentionally lives extremely low to the ground. I have been known to take a second job for the fun of it, but I’m not sure that is what we are talking about here, when we are talking employment-based benefits to the community.

My inclination is that, if examined closely, the whole *jobs* boon is a smokescreen, and an attempt by some guys in suits to appear to give back to the little guy. Bring the Everyman into the equation, and let him eat cake, know what I mean? If he is lucky, after 40 years we’ll hook him up with a nice little watch, or a gift certificate or something else just as neato…

My first job, after delivering papers, was untangling hangers in a dry cleaners after school for four hours every day. Man, it sucked, and there were many more just like that over the years. But I learned how to work, and to appreciate and handle cash. So I know what a starter job is, for sure.

But these are not great jobs that we are talking about. And anyone in the higher-up echelon of jobs that might be considered “great” will surely have the benefit of an education under their belt. (ding ding! education!)

It’s all cool if we tell it like it is – sweet weekend jobs for 13-18 year olds. But please let’s not pretend that working at the ballpark will be some excellent career move for anyone but a few chosen ones, because that idea is just ridiculous.

“The RBraves drew an average of 412,000 fans annually from 2000-2007. Is there any other proposal that is going to invest $255 million in private funds in the Bottom and draw over 400,000 people to it annually? I haven’t heard of any.”

Is that what you really want?
Exactly my point, too excessive in every way on limited space. Let’s get real, how may families outside of the City, will truly come downtown to watch baseball,And when the nostalgia wears off, ?

Bob, in one sentence you sum up the contradiction of the opposition to this project:

“Too excessive in every way on limited space.” i.e., too many people, cars, too much noise.

“How many families outside of the City, will truly come downtonw to watch baseball?” i.e., the project will fail because of lack of interest.

Which is it? Are too many people going to come and make you mad, or is it going to be an empty shell making you mad?

No, I don’t work at city hall, but I do read the documentation. Basic financing:
$8 million infrastructure (city money).
$60 million bond money, privately backed.
$300 million private investment by the developers, no public money. Commercial, residential, retail, etc., will be taxed real estate.

Now, let’s look at another aspect. Is $8 million sufficient for the infrastructure? What does DPU/Mayor’s office say?

Ron:

Where in the documentation does it say that the bond money is “privately backed”?

The bonds are not typical muni bonds. They are “tax increment financing” or TIF bonds. I don’t believe this is adequately explained in the powerpoint; but, it has been openly addressed by the developers at meetings I have attended.

The rating on TIF bonds are not tied to the city’s general obligation; rather, they are tied to the performance of the district covered by the development. The obligation on the bonds are paid by the tax revenue created in the special district that Shockoe Center will encompass. This is why the developers are asking for the creation of a special tax district.

From what I understand, 2% from all sales in the district will go to the bond obligation until it is paid. This is because while VA sales tax is 4.5%, the transportation and education portions are untouchable. Once the obligation on the bonds is paid, all tax revenue from the district goes to the city. If the developers default on the bonds, the bond investors may either foreclose on the project and own it themselves, or extend the repayment period to permit additional revenue to come in to pay off the bonds.

i want a vibrant city. this development could be a good thing. i do not want public money to pay for anyting for it and i do not want to be inside the baseball tax zone. you build it and then i decide you i want to let you get my money. it can work and you will likely get my money. there is a lot of time and energy beating up a developer that just wants to do a project and make money, and good money if they do it right. the developer does not decide how much public money they get. the city council does. they are noted for giving it away. the baseball tax zone will likely be bigger than the ball park, office, condo, retail so it will be a double whammy. city land giveaway and more tax on the fringe.

@ SBD: there are plenty of empty warehouses in Shockoe Bottom, I don’t buy the need. Your statement that it won’t draw fans is completely inaccurate. Over the life of the Braves, the average attendance is what is used for the models I have seen.

@ Carol: I agree the rhetoric needs to be toned down, but I still can’t condemn FanGuy. Both used plenty of rhetoric in their arguments, including the quote you posted from Melissa. I didn’t feel either was attacking the one personally more than the other.

@ John Gerner: re: Privately backed: Please see my earlier post or the Buttermilk and Molasses blog. At the last presentation Highwoods was asked explicitly if the city would need to guarantee them and he said NO, the city would NOT be backing them. I have seen these statements in Style and RTD as well.

@ David: Or option 3 in default: Highwoods continues to make the payments, which is the most likely scenario.

Jobs? Don’t forget the construction jobs to build it, the retail jobs, the jobs to manage it, to maintain it, to clean it, the office jobs, the hotel jobs, etc. And I know plenty of people that make a living in the restaurant business, a great place to earn a living without HAVING to have a college degree.

Tax in the district will remain 4.5%. Of that, 2% will go to payment on the bonds until they’re paid when they will return to going to the gov’t as before. The remaining 2.5% will go to the state for transportation and education funding as it is doing already.

And the district is only a proposal. The state gives power to the city to create a district and it is up to the city to authorize it. This has not been finalized as yet, so no reason to yell JoeRichmond.

This is different fron the CDA because the bonds ARE NOT guaranteed by the city.

Ry you have not been around Shocke Bottom then Because a majority of those warehouses you say we don’t need are Converted to apartments or condos. If they are not being turned into living space they are renovating them for office/business so guess again.

No need for a Ballpark no team for that ballpark not visitors going to that park and yet we do fine because there was something here before the idea of a Ballpark.

Quit trying to hide this as an American flag, Mom’s Apple Pie and Baseball will save the Bottom moment because it isn’t it is an attempt to sell a bill of goods that is not in everyone’s best interest. Inspite what the Developers and the City tries to sell you

http://riverdistrictnews.com/2008/01/07/floo…

FanGuy: You should take a look at these amazing photographs that show flooding in Shockoe Bottom as an event not limited to Isabelle and Gaston.

Looks like Melissa Savenko got this one right.

Is there a proposed “side agreement” to abate taxes on these commercial real estate developments? Will residents have their homeowner taxes abated as well?

What would be necessary to achieve a “win-win” resolution of this issue?

Think of it this way, your money is helping to rebuild this section of the city. If you don’t like that, move to “Henrico, Virginia.” I am ok with however cents or dollars coming from my taxes to help improve this city. It’s not as if you are going to end up poor.

Again people keep forgetting the stadium is just one part of the plan. How is that being forgotten over and over again? Even if the team doesn’t have packed games, we still have office space, shops, a museum, and residential units. We still have office space, shops, a museum, and residential units. We still have office space, shops, a museum, and residential units. We still have office space, shops, a museum, and residential units. In case people still think it’s only a stadium, I thought maybe if they read it again they may not miss it. Besides who has sold out games every game?

About jobs, I guess whatever offices, hotels, and retail that opens won’t be hiring anyone over 18. All the jobs created will be minimum wage… every single one of them. Again, this development is not just a stadium, stop trying to make it seem like they’re moving the Diamond only to the Bottom.

The flooding issue has been addressed over and over as well. It is not as if it floods every year (and I don’t recall flooding in Isabel). Gaston was a fluke, get over it. And if anyone brings up the James River flooding the area, that would be the poorest of all excuses not to build.

So, what’s the alternative plan? There will be new retail, hotel, museum, places to live, and office towers. is it to leave the area as is and let forest reclaim it?

Anna if you look at the Commonwealth 20 they are a great example of a well working shopping complex and has the proper set up that Shockoe Bottom needs and it is doing better than Short Pump so there are better examples so don’t get so negative about it because there is no Ballpark is attached

Anna, the RT-D story says: “Bostic’s group includes 10 to 15 “committed investors,” he said.”

10 to 15? Bostic isn’t sure just HOW many “committed investors” he has?!

This fuzzy math is disconcerting when I hear them saying they need $8 million from the City …. could that be 8 to 16 millions ….or more ….more ….more…..Bad idea, Bostic! Very bad idea.

Will someone please answer John Gerner’s question? The suspense is hard to bear ……

@SBD: I live in one of those converted warehouses. First, its not a warehouse anymore now its apartments. Second, there are still vacant warehouses in the Bottom that I walked past everyday on my way to work. ….Oh and I’m pretty sure many of those warehouses were rehab’d using money from bonds issued by the RRHA.

@John: Here is a letter written to Style where they say the City won’t be on the hook: . Again, Highwoods has stated publicly a number of times the city will not be legally or morally backing the bonds. The structure would be complex, but simply stated, the bond investors (or more likely the bond issuing bank in this case) would demand a guarantee on the bonds from one, two, or all of the related parties depending on what level of comfort they had with the companies’ financials. My guess is, because legal costs play in to this, is Highwoods would be the sole guarantor. Remember, the better fiscal shape of the guarantor, the less they have to pay for in interest too.

@Carolyn: I know the number of posts is intense, but many of those questions have already been answered here. Yes, there are examples of ballparks being a boondoggle, and there are examples of them not: http://www.jmisports.com/casestudy/ . As I already mentioned twice, the most likely alternative in the case that the sales revenues don’t exceed the debt service is for Highwoods to cover the difference. They are a public traded company and a default on their project wouldn’t bode well for them.

Try again John – “But if it does get built and the project does not meet projections, the investors, not the City, will take the entire loss. City taxpayers will not be liable for any of the financing.”

And a guess is all that is available because the financing structure is going to be constantly changing until the city approves the revenue bonds and their bank approves the remaining financing. If you have ever gotten bank financing you know there is a constant give and take to develop the structure, a negotiation. You can say what you want, or blow off what i say, but that is the basic guidelines for creating something of this nature. The bank that sells the bonds will need a guarantor to sell them, and Highwoods has stated the investors will be that guarantor.

**edit: Not all city shopping doesn’t work, the fan is evidence of that (though its not nearly as urban as the bottom is), but you’ll be hard-pressed to find enough local business owners with the capital to take the risk. Then you’ll find yourself stuck with the big chains you all have been arguing against with the ballpark’s retail availability.

John Gerner (#247, 260 & 268): I asked a finance pro (guy I know who’s been in stock brokerage/banking for thirty years) and he said tax increment financing (TIF) bonds absolutely have to be issued by the municipality. Makes sense to me that the same muni also guarantees them, I don’t see how the investors can do so when the investors aren’t issuing the bonds. Unless there are more bonds involved, apparently the developers could issue their own bonds, but not TIF ones. I think you’re asking the right questions, keep asking please.

Also, no one on here to my knowledge has mentioned Weiman’s Bakery, which is a business down there that is baking bread daily. Where is it proposed that they move and with what sort of funding? Anyone know the answer to that?

#266-Good points! And something to consider, they will promise you the moon to sell their product, but once they run into trouble, the amendments start. May sound cynical, but is reality.

JoeRichmond – If you’re trying to say that because the Norwich Defenders had attendance issues, so will the Richmond Whatevers, I’d have to disagree with your lofic.

Aside from the obvious fact that we’re not buying their fanbase, the metro Norwich area has 266k people vs. Richmond’s 1.2 million. Also, they’re in Connecticut…April and May are probably not fun months to watch baseball.

Far-Northern, small cities are better served by short-season ball when the weather is warmer (which is conveniently noted in this article).

If you’re pointing toward’s McEachern’s comments – I hope he’s posturing since the name of the team was not supposed to be released. I would guess he is, especially since its in his best interest that Norwich draws well in their final season.

Bob #278, that’s my point with Weiman’s Bakery and other places down there. Does the city buy properties to be demolished via eminent domain? I think the answer is yes. They moved Harper Hardware out of the way of Project I / Sixth Street Market, that is how Harper got down to 17th and Broad Streets. As to the cost, who knows…

So, pictures of 4 flood events–BEFORE the flood wall–in over 100 years means that we’d better keep the scenic asphalt and chain link fences? Because that’s what people who keep talking about flooding are saying. Gaston caused a flood because the city CLOSED the flood wall, preventing water from draining. I’m sure even SBD would agree with that. My wife watched our car float away in that one . . . right past closed flood wall doors.

If an entire development that’s geared to meet all standards for flood plain construction isn’t good enough, you can forget about things just popping up there organically. That will never happen . . . it’s too expensive. See all the construction there in the past four years.

No, David, and please don’t misconstrue what people are saying. Because Highwoods and the stadium proponents have chosen to attack anyone who disagrees with their findings of (alleged, but not documented)fact, citizens have been forced to seek out answers on their own.

This is what happens when an entity decides people are too stupid to govern themselves — or too stupid to figure out what is happening around them.

Better that Highwoods and stadium proponents would give us credit for having ability to seek our own answers.

Now, this business about essentially saying “take it or leave,” “y’all oughta be grateful anyone wants to do anything there at all,” or “step up with your own plan if you don’t like ours,” is similar to telling those who protested the Viet Nam War — “America, Love it or Leave it!”

Please just stop doing that — it isn’t helping.

Citizens do not like to be talked down to and we really don’t like having to ask questions over-and-over-and-over in the hopes of getting a straight answer.

I did not post the story about the Norwich team for any other purpose other than to provide information. Period.

But, David, you bring up an interesting point and it is one which has bothered people in Battery Park for quite sometime now — why were the flood walls closed? Why didn’t the water drain properly?

FanGuy, your comments hurt the cause you claim to care so much about because of the disingenuous way you attack anyone who disagrees with you. How about acknowledging that the flooding has been a perennial problem? How about someone from the city explaining in terms that presume a certain amount of iuntelligence on the part of the listenerrs just what has been done and is being done.

I haven’t seen anything that addresses that issue other than insulting remarks that do nothing to move the discussion forward.

Can anyone explain why the flood plain, for instance, now encompasses more of the bottom?

I have no idea why the flood wall doors were shut during Gaston; however, I’m not aware of a flood from the river since the wall was completed in 1994. Millions of dollars have been spent to improve the drainage in the Bottom since 2005 and the Shockoe Center plan includes additional improvements to the drainage system.

I’m not aware of anyone saying “take it or leave” or any other such thing either. I’ll acknowledge that no plan, Shockoe Center included, is perfect. Also, since I am not directly involved in the development, I don’t have all the answers for which many opponents are looking. However, in the past 5 years I’ve seen two attempts at development on this site. The second (Shockoe Center), in my opinion, is much improved over the first and I think the developers should be given a chance to try and make this thing work. What I see instead from many, not all, opponents is a desire to shoot down development in this area completely instead of trying to develop relationships with people interested in seeing something in the bottom work and reach a consensus.

I also want to point out that the 2000 population of Norwich, CT was approx. 36,000. The estimated current population of Richmond, VA exceeds 200,000. The same year (2007) that Norwich drew only 202,000 for baseball, the RBraves drew over 350,000.

Anna (270) Young lady, what have you been smoking? “Privately backed means privately owned. Come on.” Indeed. The team ownership are to be tenants of the Richmond Sports Facility Authority (RSFA). The yet-to-be-created political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will be overseen by the to-be-named and to-be-appointed board members as specified in the to-be-introduced, to-be-debated, to-be-passed-by-Council legislation. I am astounded by Ry’s misinformation on the subject of bonds in public finance. (Just a suggestion, Ry, before trash talking John Gerner, I suggest googling the words ‘John Gerner Richmond’)

It is undeniable that 90% of this thread would be superfluous if the developers had a website with verifiable facts we could all reference or a lack of facts that would make their timeshare-quality scam apparent. Instead they feed ever changing facts to audiences in paper handouts and PowerPoint presentations at controllable locations and times. How 20th century! So where is Shockoe Center.com? This ‘idea’ is four months old. The peanut gallery on both sides have introduced web presences; the developers? Cluelessly none. Ry and Anna are sales staff by proxy, if not by fact.
If this deal goes through, they certainly deserve season passes.

I have several observations, but I’ve got a business to run; and I’m slammed – busier than I’ve been in almost 10 years.
I have a few short observations. There is a major player who is glaringly unmentioned except in passing. Since it’s Valentines Day, consider the queerest (as defined by my New Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary, copyright 1964) of queer (as defined previously)Richmond couples, Doug Wilder and Gene Trani. There have been two real estate transfers in the proposed footprint of the RSFA since the RFP competition for the Bottom was approved; one to VCU, the other to the Democratic Party of Virginia. O.K. kids, time for some sleuthing.

Anna – a request. Could you provide the average per game attendance for the Eastern League for 2007 and 2008? if not could you provide a link where the figures can be found. I’m sure that’s well within your skill set and t would be greatly appreciated by an older fella who really needs to get back to work. Thank you.

I’ve now seen comparisons of we who support the stadium to the french aristocracy, Vietnam/Nixon, the Simpsons, and Lemmings, and accused us of the whole american flag/apple pie/baseball propaganda thing…So forgive me if I don’t feel too bad if I’ve insulted the detractors in nearly the same way they’ve insulted those for the project. I believe I’ve used the pot and kettle line before…really, its a little too late to point fingers on the insults bit.

I’m still curious as to what information you intended to provide with the article, JoeRichmond. Its a highly negative article that bears little to no relevance to our situation in Richmond aside from the fact that we are attempting to bring the organization (not its location-based problems) to the area.

Post #288,

“Supposing this thing happens and the bonds don’t sell – what recourse will the bondholders have but to come after the City?”

Huh? Think about that question for a minute and tell me what sense that made.

Given a ballpark bored 20′ into a floodplain at the foot of a slope, consider just two words: groundwater and subsidence – under this plan, flooding may be the lesser evil.

By the way John I do appreciate the fact your group has left this open but hey If I kill it for speaking my mind so be it. I have regulated discussions myself and I would kick me off but look at how things are going you have an active interaction. Hey it is your site I just comment on it. Good luck with your desision

Anna,

As I stated earlier: “Caveat Emptor”

Translation:

Latin for “Let the buyer beware.” The idea that buyers take responsibility for the condition of the items they purchase and should examine them before purchase. This is especially true for items that are not covered under a strict warranty. See, e.g. SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002).

(And, David thanks for your answers! And, SBD thanks for your support! And, John Gerner & pTaylor, thanks for your questions. Hope we all get some answers sooner rather than later.)

ShockoeBottomDweller.. Stony Point is in Richmond proper.

Joe, you act like they’re going to have everything built by the end of this year and the recession is going to last 100 years. Why build anything at all? Why do anything at all? Let’s just let Henrico and Chesterfield have everything while we wonder why they feel superior. We don’t ever want to build anything.

Let’s just turn the Lovings warehouse into apartments and let the rest of the vacant losts become free parking lots. All will be happy then.

Wrong, Cadeho …. as you just mentioned, we “built” Stony Point and, of course, we “built” the 6th St. Market Place and have purchased plenty of parking lots at overpriced rates.

Why is it that the state and feds can build in the City of Richmond and bring said projects and buildings in (relatively) on time and (relatively) on budget — and yet, we can’t.

Don’t say it is because there are people like me who simply ask that the city do its due diligence and follow the Virginia Code procurement process.

Just because a bunch of guys in suits make us an offer to do something “for us,” doesn’t mean we should all jump up and down like a bunch of little kids at a birthday party.

We’re grown-ups — or at least we are supposed to be. And, grown-ups know that we are supposed to read the fine print before we sign on the dotted line.

Ry, speculative privately-issued bonds are typical examples of “unbacked bonds”. These are often called “junk bonds” because of the risks involved. If the company goes bankrupt, the bondholders generally lose their money because there’s no one with “deep pockets” that they can go after to get paid.

The proposed stadium bonds, as they are described in the materials presented so far, would essentially be publicly-issued junk bonds. This is because bondholders would be paid back with tax revenues from developed property that doesn’t exist yet. The difference is this. If the TIF district doesn’t provide enough tax revenues, there are “deep pockets” the bondholders can legally go after. That’s the City of Richmond, the entity that created the sports authority issuing the bonds. If the City’s credit rating is downgraded from such legal action, the financing cost of everything the City issues bonds for is more expensive. That includes new schools and infrastructure improvements, so this is a very serious concern.

Simply saying that the City of Richmond would have no obligation for the stadium bonds is not good enough. The 2003 Broad Street CDA bond prospectus clearly states on its first page in capital letters that the “bonds shall not directly or indirectly or contingently obligate” the City of Richmond. Yet, we Richmond taxpayers are now paying the shortfall in repayments for these bonds.

TIF district revenue bonds are no different. Four years ago, I talked to Richmond City Council about such bonds that were issued by the District of Columbia for the Gallery Place project. The bond prospectus states in bold capital letters that the bonds “do not constitute debt of the District within the meaning of any debt or other limit prescribed by law.” Yet, the District later had to help repay these bonds.

There is a difference between the legal definition of “obligation” and its practical definition, and that difference could cost Richmond taxpayers millions of dollars. My previous comments are at:

http://www.leisure-business.com/comments1.html

It’s sad to have to talk about this again. We should learn from experience.

David,

I can sense that you care deeply about this project and your comments all reflect a great deal of sincerity.

Could it be that you are simply seeing what you want to see? For example, these meetings that you reference are all coming at the END of the planning process instead of the beginning.

Some people have difficulty getting out at night during the week — school, work, family. Have there been meetings held on a Saturday morning or afternoon, for example?

Why is this company willing to issue “junk bonds”? When will we ever learn from our mistakes?

What have you done other than arrange meetings at night during the week to solicit public input?

Until the City of Richmond does something to break up the high concentration of poverty within the city limits, any development project will have to contend with the social problems that are created when you crowd too many poor people into too small an area.

The recent RRHA plans are all great and good — but HOW LONG will it take to bring that relief? Is the development project working with RRHA?

All people see are two efforts — targeted at two very different demographic groups — that are largely separate. And, not equal.

So, how to reconcile the issue of how this is to be funded with who will be served? No one wants to beat up on anyone really, but what is needed is some effort to coordinate and communicate in a manner that is respectful of all parties.

Some of the people who have been assigned to advance the cause of this project on this blogsite (and others) have done a great disservice by ignoring hard questions and tossing out easy and condescending answers.

#305 thank you for the post as well as the comments in the link. Well said.

David:

In my initial comment (#235), I commented generally about the Shockoe Center project, so I won’t repeat those views. I support responsible development in Shockoe Bottom, which is a few blocks away from my home on Jefferson Park, and feel that the community has a responsibility to help it grow.

Criticism does not always destroy positive efforts. I questioned the assumptions for the performing arts center in a Richmond Times-Dispatch guest column in late 2005. A copy is at:

http://www.leisure-business.com/rtd-column.html

I emailed former City Council President G. Manoli Loupassi and others in July 2006, offering to take a more active role in the performing arts center issue. As I said in my email message to him, “I would prefer to roll up my sleeves and be part of the solution rather than simply be a cynic.”

Two months later, I was appointed by former Mayor L. Douglas Wilder as the City of Richmond’s Liaison Consultant for the Performing Arts Committee and represented both City Administration and City Council. After my appointment as the City’s liaison, the Times-Dispatch profiled me. An online copy is at:

http://www.leisure-business.com/rtd-article-1.html

In late 2006, we were able to resolve this challenging issue. The committee’s report recommended a compromise plan. City Council approved that plan, and construction is underway.

During the past three months, I have emailed local leaders and offered to be part of future negotiating team involved with this Shockoe Bottom project. Highwoods Properties has said in its Shockoe Center Brochure that: “It is imperative that the City designate a negotiating team acceptable to the new administration to begin discussions in early November, 2008.”

This is the first blog topic I’ve ever commented on, and I only did so because there was the growing perception that the stadium bonds are privately-backed. I felt compelled to correct that misperception.

John you can try and I applaud it but be prepared to be lied to because they are locked in place to the plan they have.

Thank god I’m moving before I’ll ever see a stadium anywhere near us.

The proposed bonds are issued by a private authority, created under city and state codes, with repayment to come from a TIF. No general fund obligations.

Carolyn:

The following observations are based on the January 7th “Shockoe Center – 40 Frequently Asked Questions & Answers.” Keep in mind that there are multiple “developers” involved with the Shockoe Center project.

The proposed $70 million bonds would finance the ballpark and related facilities. The bonds would be issued by the Richmond Sports Facilities Authority (RSFA), created by the City of Richmond. As noted in the Q&A, RSFA would be “a public subdivision of the Commonwealth.” RSFA would own the ballpark and lease it to Richmond Baseball Club LC. This authority, RSFA, would pay interest to bondholders.

Based on the Q&A, “Richmond Baseball Club LC, on behalf of the Richmond Sports Facilities Authority created by the City, will take all the appropriate actions to construct the ballpark and associated public facilities.” Therefore, this private company would functionally act as the “developer” of the ballpark using the bond money raised by the RSFA, but would not own the facilities and not directly pay interest to bondholders.

The “investors” under this plan are the bondholders that buy the bonds sold by RSFA. The amount of money they would have in escrow to secure the bonds would likely need to be equal to at least one year’s bond repayment. This is usually held in a “Debt Service Reserve Fund.” Although not mentioned in the Q&A, RSFA could have a side agreement with the City of Richmond or others to help fund this Debt Service Reserve Fund, thereby guaranteeing annual payment to bondholders if revenues are less than expected. This is what occurred with the Broad Street CDA bonds in Richmond and the Gallery Place TIF bonds in Washington DC. This is the typical backdoor to the City’s general fund that we need to prevent from happening again. Such side agreements could occur at any time, before or after the bonds are sold. That’s why we need to assume that the City of Richmond would ultimately back the bonds unless other guarantees are firmly in place. An example of an alternative guarantee is an irrevocable bank letter of credit, often used in revenue bond financing. Given the current economic situation, such a letter would also likely have to be guaranteed in case the bank goes bankrupt. Sadly, these are the times we live in today.

I’m not familiar with “arbitrage gain”, but it does not appear to be a factor in the proposed financing plan.

wow 320 comments and dead? and there are so many details in the development venture! john gerner has latched onto the long term choke the taxpayer to death in the event of failure. but, carolyn paulette has opened up a new can of worms with arbitrage. and it is not always buying your marlboros in north carolina for smoking in new yawk. i am no where associated with economics but if there was no arbitrage there would be no business/economics. good arbitrage brings value to the community, bad doesnt. edison proved that, cause you can see this in the dark. immediate baseball fever arbitrage could take the value of swamp land “flood plain” got from the city for next to nothing, or nothing, or less than nothing, to a big scale development where the underlying value of the land could be 10-20% of the building improvements. and when the project kicks off with everything inked, then cash value of the land after improvements (less, less than nothing) could revert to a development partner. is this possible? if it is it could be a lawyer playing financial engineer. with that kind of payout, you could pass all the rest of the gravy to someone else and finish the dirty work of bad development. but it could be good development. paulette knows more than she is saying. why kill this thread? paulette, tell more.

Carol, I still think it’s a terrible idea to put it in Shockoe, and the new report does nothing to alleviate my thinking. And for the city to even contemplate doing it in this economy, given that they’d had to leverage their credit to the hilt, is incredible to me, but hey, that’s just my take. I’d like to see the different localities all pull together and simply renovate the Diamond.

Joe Richmond, where are you these days?!

Gee, “FanGuy” (or should I call you Bryan Bostic or Paul Kreckman?)YOU are being way too defensive and accusatory.

What is your problem?

I simply asked for people to give their opinions about the ballpark now that the report is back saying that the city backing AND taxpayer money is required for this project to have a green light.

You are “anonymously” attacking me for simply noting that the concerns expressed by many posters on this site have been proven true.

Fine. This is America and it is your freedom to post anonymously should you so desire. However, since I posted under my real name, I invite you to do the same.

Carol, woah, woah, woah. Where did I attack you? I simply said let’s not jump to conclusions and asked you to explain your statement about “ponying up.” I don’t see why you are getting so worked up. My tone was extremely civil in that post.

As for the reference to “Nobody’s Fool,” if you look at the Style article on-line this week you will see one of the commenters posted almost exactly the same thing you posted here. I assumed that was you — if not, sorry. Either way, it’s kind of a harmless assumption, don’t you think? Certainly more harmelss than you accusing me of being Bostic or Kreckman! But rest assured, I’m not affiliated w/ this development in any way, shape or form. Bostic and Kreckman are probably uncomfortable with my level of “zeal” (some might say) in challenging some of the points made by the opposition.

Let’s all take a deep breath and wait to see how things shake out. Nothing has been decided. We aren’t even in the late innings yet.

While it is true that the preliminary report recommended the City-backed approach, it is also true that the report found that the project was highly feasible with only 67% of the most conservative income projections in that scenario. Also, the developers are not precluded by the report from still trying to go with bonds with no City recourse.

Regarding the Diamond, there are a few items you that aren’t addressed in support for the Diamond location:

The Diamond is a failed location.

No baseball development expert has supported a ballpark there.

No team will agree to play there more than as a temporary measure.

There is no room at the Diamond for any mixed use TIF development that could pay off bonds, therefore every cent spent there would be directly from City taxpayer pockets.

There would be no “highly feasible” bond payment mechanism like in the Bottom proposal.

To make room for mixed use, the City taxpayers would have to pay for new public works storage and maintenance facilites and would lose or have to pay for a new, relocated Ashe Center.

Carol – I would respectfully encourage you to consider these points.

Carol,

Nice deflection. I did not attack you. As for Diradour, he is fair game and he is injected himself in the public debate. If the motives of Bostic, Kreckman and others are fair game, so are Diradour.

And nice job putting words in my mouth. I don’t recall suggesting we should use stimulus money for anything, but don’t let that stop you from carrying on with your rant.

Finally, if you haven’t realized by now that this development is not just about “baseball”, there is no point trying to have a discussion. I am not even a baseball fan, but, like Mayor Jones, believe firmly that this development has the potential to transform Richmond.

PS – Do you rely solely on Style comment threads for your talking points?

Carol,

What royal “we” are you talking about? When I said “we shall see.” LOL. That we would include you, me, and the rest of Richmond. It’s a figure of speech, geez.

As for stimulus funds, considering the Mayor views this as a potentially transformative project, and the projections of revenue, I wouldn’t be surprised to see stimulus funds used for this development if available. I’m opposed to stimulus funds generally, but they are certainly being used for worse things around the country than inner-city development. Again, let’s see how it plays out.

I think FanGuy makes one point, when he says “Let’s wait and see.” We haven’t seen the deal that will come out of the mayor’s office; we only saw the proposal going in. It’s premature, and a little irresponsible, to lock yourself into a position on either side until we see what is finally brought forward.

Why do the Boulevard supporters keep ignoring the fact that the boulevard is a failed location, the diamond is a failed model, no team will play there on a permanent basis, that 100% of the funds used there for renovation or a new ballpark would be straight tax dollars without a mixed-use TIF model to pay back the City or pay off bonds, and that the costs to move the Ashe Center and Public Works are astronomical without mixed-use in the footprint?

There’s a rally today (5/21) for the supporters of the ballpark at Buffalo Wild Wings from 4 to 7. Let’s make a strong show of support!