RECENT COMMENTS
Alternate plan proposed for Shockoe
Style Weekly has the details of an alternate to Mayor Jones’ proposal for the development of Shockoe Bottom.
The plan, put together by Ana Edwards, Phil Wilyato, Waite Rawls (executive director of the Museum of the Confederacy), Randolph Bell (former president of the First Freedom Center), and “a group of Church Hill residents and some black activists”, calls for increased emphasis on the history of the area and does not include a baseball stadium.
The District itself would form a coherent whole, symbolizing the fact that at one time Shockoe Bottom was an integrated commercial district serving the slave trade, while at the same time providing vital public park/green space for this highly dense urban area.
One new element in this plan is a linear water feature: the Shockoe Creek Canal Extension. This waterway would run along the east side of the present-day CSX railroad tracks. In addition to being an attractive new feature to the Bottom and illustrating the historic connection between Shockoe Creek, the Kanawha-Haxall canals and the James River, this feature would satisfy the EPA and Chesapeake Bay Act mandate to separate storm water and sewer management.
[…]
The Vision Plan basically replaces the RRP’s Shockoe stadium with a memorial park, while keeping all other elements of the mayor’s alternative plan. This would allow the anticipated collection of the new tax revenue the mayor has described, while adding new tax revenue realized by greatly enhancing Richmond as a tourist destination.
TAGGED: Shockoe Redevelopment
So how do they plan to offset the shortfall in revenue that will be created by not being able to open up the Diamond site? Any honest alternative proposal either needs to count that against their bottom line or be explicit that the plan also assumes Richmond loses a ball club. Anything else is just a shell game since it will cost the city a lot of lost revenue.
Can someone help me track down yearly attendance numbers for similar types of museums? I’m a little skeptical that this is going to be a hot draw but would love to be proven wrong.
Dear Comment-o-Sphere:
Please give this the same amount of scrutiny you give baseball. There is nothing behind this proposal – no tenants, no funding. Its sole purpose is to cause the defeat of the baseball proposal and then it would lay dormant and unbuilt.
really don’t understand how building the stadium “disrupts sacred land” and building this does not. Get a grip people! Stuff changes all the time!
The headline piqued my interest, but I’m left disappointed. It sounds like a beautiful concept, if only we could win the lottery, marry Bill Gates, and discover gold deposits underground.
How does Style Weekly not even mention the concept of funding in their reporting?
The “Vision Plan” outline only dedicates 133 words to financing, most of which is based on the naive presumption that everything will work out if you just “basically replaces the RRP’s Shockoe stadium with a memorial park, while keeping all other elements of the mayor’s alternative plan.”
Do they actually believe that the developers will go ahead with their same commitment even though the centerpiece has been completely changed?
While I’m sure that there would be some demand to live/work next to their proposed “Sacred Ground Memorial District,” I’m equally sure that the analysis of the developers would need to change to accommodate this new centerpiece. Will those numbers work out? We will never know unless people ask.
Their vision for uncovering Shockoe Creek sounds beautiful, but they don’t ever talk about how that would be funded, not even in their 133 words about financing.
Come on! This is not an alternative plan. This is a 3-page dream followed by 1.5 pages of fluff to make it look somewhat well thought out. In truth, it is nothing but a huge disappointment celebrated by those desperate for another option. Please, give us something real to consider as an alternative.
Alex said: “So how do they plan to offset the shortfall in revenue that will be created by not being able to open up the Diamond site? Any honest alternative proposal either needs to count that against their bottom line or be explicit that the plan also assumes Richmond loses a ball club. Anything else is just a shell game since it will cost the city a lot of lost revenue.”
My understanding is that the stadium itself is a money-losing proposition in the Mayor’s plan. The hope in that plan is to pay off the stadium bonds with revenue from the surrounding development. So why would leaving out the stadium cost the city lost revenue? From a pure city revenue perspective, losing baseball is probably better than building a new stadium. The discussion about whether it’s worth paying ~$30 million to build a new stadium for a AA baseball team should not be obscured by being packaged with a wider redevelopment proposal.
The reason is that style is hell bent on destroying this great proposal. The neighborhood has been destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. The mayors proposal rebuilds it. This proposal has nothing about a grocery store which is the most important part of the whole project.
The ballpark is the catalyst. No ballpark, no grocery. No apartments. No museum. No hotel.
Not rocket science. This whole thing is far more controversial than it ought to be.
@7 – the stadium itself is indeed most likely a slightly money losing to modestly profitable project. It’s likely not going to be huge in either direction.
However, not having it in the Boulevard frees up that location for other things. Doing that will be VERY profitable for Richmond. The two sites (current any Shockoe) are NOT equally attractive to developers so you can’t just mix and match elements of the two like it’s some kind of Lego set.
If people don’t want to move the park to Shockoe, it’s going to cost the city lost revenue that they would have gained from opening up the Boulevard site. So to find other “uses” for the “savings” from not moving the ballpark is disingenuous or idiotic. In reality those opposing the ballpark should be explaining what the city could cut to keep the stadium in the Boulevard location.
To be fair the city’s been pretty poor about framing the debate this way so I can understand the confusion. If Jones, et al would just make it clear that there’s four options on the table we could stop discussing pipe dreams that don’t add up. Those options are some flavor of:
A. Classic Richmond – do nothing
B. Move ballpark at a small cost to small profit to the city, use money from selling Boulevard site towards other priorities and to offset any losses on stadium
C. Build something in Shockoe, leave Diamond site as is. This option requires us to sacrifice other priorities and/or find other ways to fund the project since the Boulevard offset wouldn’t exist.
D. Tell the Squirrels to get lost, free up the Diamond site and use the money for whatever.
Laura G- the cost for the stadium will be $80+ million, not $30 mil.
STYLE WEEKLY quote from Mayor- 10/26/23
“”In and of itself, the mayor notes, a stadium doesn’t generate a “large amount of revenue.” (The Richmond Flying Squirrels will play about 70 home games next season.) And, the mayor adds, 33 percent of people who go to the stadium are city residents. So “at the end of the day,” he says, “the baseball stadium doesn’t really change or move the city of Richmond forward in terms of conquering some of our primary problems.””
Therefore, removing the stadium and putting in an alternative flood plain measure works (like the proposed open space in the above historic plan). If it actually can be used 24/7 and generate funds and cost less- like this proposal, it not only works, it not only equals the Mayor’s shell game, it is a superior proposal. It need work, but its far better option.
I like to see people hard at work putting their head’s together to make this a great area. I think there are some nice details here that could be applied to whatever museum is built in the area.
This is not portrayed; however (in my opinion) as any kind of comprehensive plan with real backers, with real money, with real desire to see this area transformed. I bet there are a lot of talented people in our community that could come up with fun concepts and renderings of what this area or any other area for that matter could look like. But this area of town has been a mess for a long time now and I have only seen one (maybe 2) legit proposals from what I perceive to be legit developers who are spending real time and real money to try and turn this area around.
I have a large back yard (for a city property at least) and I have sketched out some neat ideas as to how I would like to lay out my flower beds add some additional shed space and create more off street parking but to be honest with you, I haven’t really done much to make this vision come to life. Life is busy and I end up not really having the time or energy to put towards improving my outdoor space. If my neighbors; however, came to me and said that they felt like it would improve the quality of their life and improve their property values to do a comprehensive rehab of my back yard and would cover a lot of the cost, planning and implementation, I would think very seriously about taking them up on their offer.
I don’t want to wait any more for the perfect Shockoe Bottom. I want to see this area get better and I don’t believe that by approving the Mayor’s plan that we are making any catastrophic errors. I personally believe that the community should now move in the direction of helping the City fine tune the specifics to help make the Mayor’s plan a success.
Thank you team. New plan appears to be thoroughly thought-out, by genuine citizens who’s interests are pure.
@11 – you completely missed the point of that quote from our Mayor. It only “works” if there is a way to generate the same revenue from the Boulevard location. So would you propose we chase the Squirrels out of town?
Also, how exactly is this going to be “used 24/7?” As a continued wasteland?
Build the stadium. They will come. By they I mean jobs, tax revenues, and increased property values. Otherwise…you may as well plant corn down in the bottom.
While the alternate plan doesn’t say much about financing, neither does the mayor’s plan. We have no idea what the true cost of his proposal is because it’s a secret.
The alternate plan is a great idea. Tourism is a huge industry and produced record revenue for Virginia and the Richmond region last year. Governor McDonnell has dedicated $11,000,000 to a slave center in Shockoe Bottom, no strings attached. That’s a good start, and we don’t have to float a bond issue to get it.
If the city wants to develop the Boulevard without a stadium, that’s fine. They can put the ballpark on Bell’s Road. The city owns land there. It’s easily accessible to county residents, and a ballpark might help that area.
Yuck. The new plan does not entice me to visit the bottom at all.
@16 – tourism is a big business… that doesn’t mean that slapping a tourism label on something means it’s going to do well.
Also, why would the Bell’s Road site be any better? It seems it would be every bit as expensive to build there, with worse traffic concerns since it’s not right off an interstate. There also doesn’t seem like there would be any place to reap economic development benefits nearby. In short, it’s Redskins training camp.
In Shockoe Bottom the remains of our history are piled 10-20 feet deep. We’ve already destroyed Richmond’s first stoneware pottery to build a parking lot for a grocery store down there. And what about all the dead people? Are the graves of our ancestors less important than a place for men to play with balls? Why can’t that be built outside of town, where there is room for cars and everything?
Alex- The point your missing is the Mayor’s plan is built around an outcome- putting baseball in the bottom- not economic development. In other words, the result was decided upon (baseball) in a back room with Venture over a year ago, then the data was collected, modified (I.e. Redskins camp benefit report) to support the desired outcome. The proof is in the pudding: the Mayor and Venture were and still are totally unprepared to present an alternative location or the data they allegedly studied for so long.
So, if the only benefit of the baseball stadium- IN the bottom, is flood control, then it makes since to consider a cheaper plan that accomplishes the same thing? If you don’t agree with that then you only support baseball- not improving the City. I do not buy the all or nothing demand from the Mayor or Venture. That’s a bunch of crap.
How in the world do you see the proposed plan above as a wasteland? Unless it’s because you don’t see a $80+ million toilet bowl where you see a park and new development. Why am I calling it a toilet bowl? Because that’s what you get when you dig 25 feet down into a flood plain right over one of the largest combined sewer/water runoff pipes on the east coast. Imagine that field right now after this months rain or any other of our wet months? What a complete waste of money when there are viable alternatives that can be used 24/7 and remain public land.
Would I run the team out of the town? It makes since to me that Squirells would want to be where there customer base is- that’s the County. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised at all if the Squirells leave US is a few years regardless of a new stadium or not. Their MLB affiliate is in California for goodness sakes. It it is a documented fact that franchises are moving their minor league operations closer to their core market to save money and expand their reach. No one in Richmond is a San Fransico Giant fans because the Squirells are here. When they leave we are stuck with a $80 million (and that number is low) soggy, sewage filled , small baseball field built on promised money from a smoke-and-mirror development on the Boulevard.
It seems every anti-development proposal utilizes a lot of “green space” to make an idea seem plausible. And, as usual, it is done with taxpayer dollars to make it happen.
From the City master plan that even covered the city sewer storage tanks in “green”, to turning suggestions we turn Echo Harbor into a “park”, to this, we always throw some green around to make it more palatable.
We can’t even get the grass mowed properly in most of the parks. Who here thinks this will be better maintained if the City takes it over?
I’m not a fan of baseball. I’d rather watch paint dry. I would go to a game to have an overpriced beer with some friends to shoot the breeze.
The proposed idea is simply not based in any economic reality except to rake over the taxpayers, one more time and shake them down for a little more green.
Let’s add another tax to what we are already paying. Oh, I got it! The meals tax that was supposed to go away after it paid for the Carpenter Center work? Maybe we could use that? Naw, that money is just being tossed into the City coffers to pay for something else.
“Exaggerated stadium pledges by officials are common, said Miles Wolff, commissioner of the independent Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball, known as the Can-Am league, which helped bring baseball to Ramapo. Wolff is often credited with reviving minor-league baseball in the 1980s as owner of the Durham Bulls, the team that gained fame with the movie “Bull Durham.”
Here is the link to the article: http://www.bloomberg.com/2013-12-23/ramapo-fbi-probe-shows-risks-of-minor-league-stadium-boom.html
I love the idea of day lighting streams. Does anyone have a link to the study for the day lighting proposed for Shockoe – I think it would be cool aesthetically, but I am unclear about how it would help meet EPA clean water goals/requirements. I am under the impression that this is an expensive project and I am a little surprised that its footprint in the project area is so minimal. Any details or links to details on this stream day lighting (I didn’t see any in the proposal).
@20 – that’s some of the most mangled logic I’ve ever heard. Why does it matter whether something was the desired “outcome” or not? You still need to evaluate the plans in their totality.
The fact remains that the plan that the city put forth is significantly revenue positive (largely due to the Boulevard site). Whether they arrived at that outcome by starting from “let’s put baseball downtown” or not is irrelevant.
@19 – just to be clear, you’re advocating that we destroy the environment to save history (that may already be destroyed by now) right?
It’s a valid position but I just wanted to be sure you understand that there’s a trade off. Suburban ballparks would leave zero chance of people being able to drive to games and would probably require bulldozing a field to make room.
IMO, we’ve captured most of what’s underneath in writing by now so I’d take the other side of that trade off to get a walkable amenity.
This “alternate plan” is solely publicly funded – no way to recoup costs. Do you know what it costs to daylight a stream? Do you realize how it works with the combined sewer? The details here are wildly expensive – do some homework if this is a real project, which it is not.
Alex, Bell’s Road does have an exit off the interstate. In fact, the city did consider that location. Reva says it’s okay. It’s in her district.
I disagree that a Bell’s Road ballpark would cost just as much. The soil is good there, not clay like Shockoe Bottom. And Bell’s Road does not have an underground creek that needs to be re-routed or dug up. An engineer told me it would be cost prohibitive to make Shockoe Bottom pass the percolation test required for a stadium. Also, the Shockoe land is not likely to survive the necessary Section 106 review.
I am opposed to building any sports stadium with taxpayer money. But if Richmond insists on paying for a ballpark, they should put it on Bell’s Road.
Actually I would prefer that the stadium stay where it is on the Boulevard. But that won’t happen. The city and the developers have already divided up the land. It’s a done deal. The Times-Dispatch ran an article about future development on the Boulevard. Incredibly, the newspaper had to file a Freedom of Information Act to get the plans. The mayor is spending our tax dollars for a secret development. Cronyism at its best.
@26 Next Friend – what is to ‘daylight a stream’? I’m curious, don’t recall hearing that phrase before. Can you describe, please? Thanks in advance.
The Shockoe stadium plan further buries Shockoe Creek, a natural feature that served as another of Richmond’s original ‘blueways’. Think about it, while cities all over the world are recognizing the importance of urban tributaries and working hard to daylight them, Shockoe stadium proponents are lobbying to pour more concrete over Shockoe Creek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylighting_(streams)
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002355545_ravenna02m.html
The RVA Environmental Film Festival will be showing the following film at the Byrd on Feb. 8
http://vimeo.com/50839044
@27 – now I see why Reva’s opposed to the bottom site!
Alex, are you Alex Dahm who works for Venture Richmond? If you are, the public has a right to know that. You are no ordinary citizen.
@31 – nope. Alex is a pretty common name and I have no affiliation with Venture Richmond.
I’m curious why the few proponents of the Mayor’s proposed plan keep using the Boulevard stadium attendance numbers as what will happen in the Bottom. If 78% of Richmonders do NOT want to move the stadium to the Bottom it would seem to me there is logic in assuming that you can half the current attendance in a stadium located to the bottom. If not half than some significant drop will occurs. Either way it fails to generate the promised income.
@33 – you’re grasping hard. That 78% figure is irrelevant to attendance unless 100% of Richmond attends games currently and people who disapprove of the move won’t attend (some will). There’s no way to translate the support to an attendance projection and it’s laughable to try.
Most of the Richmonders I know support the stadium proposal in Shockoe Bottom. I question the validity of the 78% disapproval figure.
So the idea to honor the area is to dig a ditch filled with stagnant frothy water from the canal to a drainage pond? I’ll give them credit: the resulting stench would be historically accurate.
@crd, “daylighting” a stream means re-exposing a stream that’s been routed below ground. In this case, Shockoe Creek, which I understand was routed underground years ago, would be uncovered and restored to something resembling a more natural condition.
The newspaper conducted a valid scientific poll that shows taxpayers don’t want a stadium in Shockoe. That’s why City Council voted against a referendum. If you don’t ask the taxpayers, they can’t say no.
A stadium without voter support will be a failure. Miles Wolff, former owner of the Durham Bulls, is credited with reviving minor league baseball in the 1980’s. He says: “If you don’t have taxpayer support, you can’t build a successful minor league stadium.”
@38 Why is it that I or any other Richmond taxpayer that I know (and I know many) was not asked to participate in any official, “scientific” poll about a desire for a stadium in Shockoe?
@38 -Did you receive a phone call or a questionnaire? Has anyone reading this blog received an official phone call or questionnaire asking about their support for/against the stadium. Just who is being “polled”?
I still doubt the validity of this so-called poll.
Oh Bridg…I just followed the link in your name…So you’re not in support of the stadium in Shockoe! The area that you’re advocating for is nothing but a useless wasteland…always has been and always will be unless a large scale initiative such as the ball park proposal remedies the issues of the area. The dreams of a museum bringing in throngs of tourists throwing their wallets open and spending tons of cash are just that—dreams! Its not going to happen. Most Richmonders that I know want the bottom cleaned up, viable and vibrant! Bring on the stadium! it would be a huge win and catalyst for other development in the area!.
Can we get a “valid scientific poll” on what percentage of Richmonders would give a shit about a daylight stream to compare to the level of support for a stadium?
Or one that shows how many people visited the holocaust museum (the closest current analog to what’s being proposed here) vs went to a ball game last year?
And Houdon’s right about the smell. We don’t have clean pristine water in this town folks…
Hi Laura, nope, not in support, been fighting this issue for 10 years.
The most baffling thing about the stadium is we don’t know how much it will cost. The mayor won’t tell us the financing.
Just take your real-estate tax bill and move the decimal point one place to the right.
Why in the world would any taxpayer support a stadium without knowing the cost?
@42- just a bit dramatic…don’y you think?
@42- I think the mayor explained the plan. Tax revenue generated from development on the Boulevard would be used to finance the project. Bonds would be issued to finance the project. This makes complete sense for any business person who has taken risk to grow their business. Are you satisfied that the city is giving all of those tax dollars to Henrico and Chesterfield because the city retail landscape is dismal, at best. If we want to improve schools, neighborhoods, and services, that revenue has to come from somewhere. Do you think that silly park and “daylight stream” is going to do it? I don’t think so. For goodness sake, the city has a tough time maintaining the public spaces and parks on the current roster yet, this group of simpletons wants to add more! The group that is advocating this park has ZERO business experience and is out there advocating for something far beyond the pay grade. I wish they would sit down and be quiet!
Alex and Laura- The so called made up numbers you referring to the poll the RTD did in October. It’s not made up and it echoes the last two times this exact same plan was pitched over the last 10 years. Check out the following links and you will see why you are actually in the minority if you support baseball in the bottom. It’s not a bad thing to be in the minority. It has its advantages. Just not always the case in a democracy.
http://wtvr.com/2013/10/07/shockoe-bottom-baseball-stadium-focus-on-other-needs/
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/chesterfield/poll-finds-strong-support-for-baseball-on-the-boulevard/article_68afd61b-1ee3-5bd5-9c83-91d7094f026f.html
Laura –
Waite Rawles has plenty of business experience as this link shows:
http://vaudc.org/rawls.html
It’s probably fair to say, I fact, that he has far more business experience than does Mayor/Reverend Jones.
@45 – A poll finds that the Richmond region doesn’t want change? Not surprised. And just so we’re clear, you’re using a CBS 6 “online” poll and a RTD poll that was conducted before the proposal was announced/released/made public. If we followed “online” polls, Buzzy’s would be selling beer right now.
And with the RTD poll, 430 of the 694 people surveyed were reached by a landline phone. I don’t think I need to say more about that except re-read my first line.
@47 – Exactly. Where are the polls CHPN did (on either baseball or Buzzy’s)? They’re not cited because the outcome isn’t favorable to the anti-change agenda. Why is an “online” poll or a RTD poll conducted before the release of plans valid? I guess validity is in the eyes of the beholder.
The CHPN polls I believe where pretty much in favor of beer and baseball.
Just for the record, I never did a poll on Buzzy’s.
Here are the polls from the CHPN archives: http://chpn.net/news/tag/poll/
@46- Although the resume is impressive, it does not appear that he was the principal in any of these positions. Being the owner (the principal) and holding a leadership role within an organization are very different–as any business owner knows. In most cases, it’s only the owner has put up their home as collateral on business loans, risked their financial hides, worried about making the bi-weekly payroll for their employees, worked for years with no time off or vacations, and receive no salary for years on start-up and has been the chief accountant, marketer, front of the house service person. The folks who have walked this path really KNOW what it takes to grow a business and make it a success. A mere leader in a company is nowhere near as vested in the success or failure of a business than the owner. The business community in Richmond, made up of many principals, has given this project the nod of approval. The plan makes solid business sense. Growing revenue for the city is no different. It takes risk and a plan. Richmond can continue to play it safe and do nothing and likely, achieve the same mediocre results. The counties have nothing in the way of historic, cultural, social, and leisure-time amenities when compared to the city yet they continue to whip Richmond’s balance sheet when generating retail revenue. It’s refreshing to see the city take an approach to consolidate land resources and make them competitive with the counties. I despise the fact that I must drive to the counties to fatten their coffers only because there is no alternative in the city.
People complain about the city schools, the lack of services, poverty stricken neighborhoods, etc., etc. To improve, all of these things will require money to get things rolling. More parks and green space will not help move these wants to reality.
Speaking of sports stadiums…
http://m.nbc12.com/#!/newsDetail/24377338
I doubt this will sway any naysayers but it’s an interesting data point.
Mike and Justin- after seeing the CHPN poll where a majority are against baseball in the bottom- I think we can all now understand your impressive knowledge behind polls.
This plan has been defeated twice before (I think 2004 and again in 2009) for the same reason- a majority of people do NOT want baseball in the bottom. Period. It’s not anti-baseball, or anti-growth , or anti- change. It’s anti- baseball in the bottom. Imagine if the mayor had chosen to keep baseball on the boulevard (improved) and proposed to fix the flood problem in the bottom with an alternative method. Not a crazy thought since he knew for 10 years people have told him they didn’t want baseball in the bottom.I really believe we would all be cheering from the roof tops- new stadium, bottom continues to grow, and we get some kinda fancy mall around the new field on the boulevard.
One more thing- what about the Kickers?!? What will happen to them when all the land is given to some developer?
@52 Again, you’re referencing a poll that was “conducted” before the proposal was made available. The CHPN poll was 6 months ago, the proposal was announced not even 2 months ago. And even John says “our highly unscientific poll shows…”. That’s my point, online polls are anonymous and easily gamed. My knowledge here is that I’m a web developer. I know that you shouldn’t put too much value in these. And if you are, then why are you ignoring the 2008 and 2009 polls that CHPN did which showed 64% and 75% in favor of the Shockoe stadium, respectfully?
I personally think that the RTDs survey, which included residents outside our city, where the majority of its respondents were reached by a landline phone is not a good representation either. But that’s just my opinion.
I don’t think it is fair to compare 2008 to now. We didn’t even have a team play here until 2010. The 2008 plan was dead before the Squirrels signed up. And the question back then was ‘If we can’t even have baseball on the Boulevard, how can we in the Bottom?’. Probably because the Braves didn’t care about the fan experience and the Squirrels do.
I don’t know why you’re bringing the Kickers into this. They play at City Stadium – this is about the Boulevard and Shockoe.
It’s not as though the entire site has Shockoe Creek under it. Just fyi…
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=207185548068201764998.00049cac3413eeedd2b66&msa=0&ll=37.535483,-77.428476&spn=0.002995,0.005681
We have the power to reroute it once more and we have the power to daylight it. I recall during the charrettes for the 2007 Downtown master plan we called for daylighting Shockoe Creek. In my group, I had envisioned the entire creek under the archway and not just a portion presented here.
This is an alternate plan. Who’s to say those the mayor lined up for his proposal couldn’t transfer to this one? The site for a hotel is included in both plans. The grocery store can be incorporated maybe into the gateway building as it is a blank slate.
Anyone who says rerouting and daylighting Shockoe Creek will cost the City less than 30 million dollars is deliberately hiding something (other than a creek).
The Alternate Plan is a boondoggle!
So let me see if I get this right;
– Mayor, the leader of this proposal, goes to a pep rally given by 100 Venture and Chamber folks, made up of mainly county residents, and gets lots of pats on the backs and cheering.
– Mayor sends staff to District meeting – with actual City residents- to get pummeled once again with valid questions concerning every aspect of the Mayors plan.
-This comes right after a Chamber/Venture sponsored and organized trip to Durham who’s basic message was- even if a majority of your constituents don’t want something, don’t worry about them, they don’t have the ability to understand ‘complicated’ deals so to hell with their concerns and input.
When the Mayor tells us we don’t need to pander to the Counties because they don’t want to help us, let’s go it alone and build the stadium where I (not ‘we’ because we City tax payers didn’t participate in this plans development) want… Then turns to County residents for a pat on the back, pep rally, “keep up the good work Mr. jones”… I can only come to the conclusion that the Mayor must think City residents are just not worthy of his time, impediments to his plans, and simply must be ignored in order to establish some legacy or ground-work for a county or business job after he leaves office.
It doesn’t matter if you are for or against baseball in the bottom- this is bad government, bad planning, bad manners, and a bad idea.
This debate appears to be over:
http://wtvr.com/2014/01/10/goldman-mayor-jones-divisive-racial-comments-poison-stadium-debate/
That Goldman article is unreadable because of all the self-congratulating he feels he needs to add. That said, I agree with (what I think was) the point of the article – race has no part in this discussion. We need to focus on the finances and plans to determine which outcomes are best for the city.
Both sides are attempting to trump each other with race cards and it’s a pointless line of discussion. The opposition leadership, primarily made up of middle-class leaders, is attempting to wrap themselves in the garb of African American advocates when in reality their opposition to the project is actually for a variety of other reasons. Mayor Jones would do well not to join them in the gutter and keep focusing on the financial benefits that opening up the Boulevard site will produce.
@57 – just out of curiosity, do you have other idiotic pseudonyms that you use for posting on other topics or did you just decide to join the community for this one issue?
Good point made Alex…do you really believe the reason for one of the opposition leader’s stance is African American history or the proximity of the proposed stadium to his house on Broad?
@60 – I was thinking it was related to his day job actually. The slavery museum likely brings more visitors to the White House. Nothing wrong about that but anyone who pretends they don’t play for their self interest is lying.
Looks like the Shockhoe stadium proposal has some serious competition on the Boulevard
http://www.timesdispatch.com/latest-news/developers-offer-to-build-boulevard-ballpark/article_40a3481c-d0b1-11e3-9b2c-001a4bcf6878.html
I guess the Bottom proposal is in big trouble now.
If the new plan is better than Shockoe, I would be perfectly happy to see the ballpark on the Boulevard.
However, without the Shockoe plan, will the memorials still be built in Shockoe? Are they dependent on the ballpark plan to happen? Will the people who crusaded against a ballpark covering up American history continue to fight for areas to be evacuated?
Will there be any effort at all to revitalize Shockoe Bottom if no plan is in place? I can only hope the city finds some way. However, from the short time that I have lived in RVA it seems like Shockoe is only important is when suburban families want to avoid it.
1) New Boulevard proposal relies on free land from the City. That takes money out of all of our pockets. It should be sold at market rate, as contemplated in the mayor’s plan.
2) New Boulevard proposal is a smoke-filled back room deal. Where are the calls for “transparency” and dozens of public meetings?
I hope all of you naysayers will be happy when the west end of Shockoe is still ragged surface parking lots for another generation.
Bingo #64! I suspect that this deal is a developer taking advantage of the fact that so many people are fixated on the stadium price tag and don’t realize that it’s a fraction of the value of the Boulevard site that will be opened up.
No. 64 – I suspect they will be quite happy, Dusty. I’m not aware of any efforts on the part of the “naysayers” to do anything to improve the area before the ball park proposal arose.