32 Responses to “Let’s Play Ball!”

1. posted by Scott Burger at April 7, 2009 3:01 pm [#]:
   

   Great, more pretty pictures and disinformation- just what this debate needs. Its like reading another puff piece in the TD.

   I still don’t see the actual engineering plans on how this area will help deal with flooding- just vague promises. Why should Richmond settle for a measly 4 acres of what might possibly be absorbent area when its clear that there needs to be a serious stormwater runoff plan for this area and the whole city?

   There’s no mention of the planned transportaiton center and its needs and how it would be impacted by this proposal.

   Where are the green features that other cities all over the United States and the world incorporating into their stadium designs? Why should Richmond settle for third-class cheap development?

   There is still nothing on this website that addresses the environmental concerns raised by the Sierra Club.

   Let’s not play ball, let’s go to work reclaiming our City from the white elephant, corporate welfare hucksters and make progress by doing a Green renovation of the Diamond and concentrating on constructing world-class SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

2. posted by Stuart at April 7, 2009 3:14 pm [#]:
   

   I came up with some great team name ideas:

   The Shockoe Shills
   Tax and Spend Sluggers
   Corporate Welfare Warriors
   Wilder’s Folly
   Shockoe Bottom Bondsmen
   Gaston’s Revenge
   The Richmond Flood (obviously like the Norfolk Tides, but in a lower division)
   Lumpkin’s Losers
   Big Government Giants (for a SF Giants farm team)
   The Highwoods Hitters

3. posted by FanGuy at April 7, 2009 3:17 pm [#]:
   

   Scott, where is the “disinformation” that you reference? Please cite a specific mistatement of fact on the website.

   I am sure the developers would like to know what fact they have misrepresented so they can correct it.

4. posted by Stuart at April 7, 2009 3:28 pm [#]:
   

   FanGuy, the Highwoods developers have consistently misrepresented the sales this mall will generate in order to raise enough tax to pay the ballpark bonds.

   I asked in another thread for supporters of the Shockoe Center to rebut Charlie Diradour’s Style op/ed that says their sales estimates are unrealistic, if you want to take it from there.

5. posted by Jason at April 7, 2009 5:24 pm [#]:
   

   The development will be financed with REVENUE BONDS!!!!!!

   As I understand it, some sales tax revenue from the development will be diverted to pay bondholders. In fact, that’s the only money bondholders can be paid with.

   Essentially, the bondholders are taking on all the risk.

6. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 7, 2009 5:30 pm [#]:
   

   Well Highwood has all their winnings from the lawsuit they had against MCI/Worldcom for all the back rent they were not paying all that time. Wait that is what they are using now all the meetings and website and Bribes

7. posted by Edward Alan Po at April 7, 2009 5:46 pm [#]:
   

   then why did the taxpayers get stuck paing for the broad street development bonds when the parking revenue came up short? they said the same thing then no risk to the taxpayer but taxpayers are paying. so

8. posted by ptaylor at April 7, 2009 6:35 pm [#]:
   

   Sorry Jason, your information is flawed. Properties in Shockoe Center will take all city tax streams: real estate taxes, meals taxes, admission taxes, BPOL(a/k/a gross revenues taxes), business personal property taxes. Risky bonds are bonds that do not sell in today’s market. The bondholders’ recourse is to seize the property. A 4+ acre hole 15′ into a floodplain with serious if not severe groundwater issues has a market value of zero. Without a government (i.e., taxpayer funded), assurance of repayment, these bonds will be as marketable as they would be if backed by Bernie Madoff. I strongly suggest everyone read the ERA – Chimura / Davenport consultants report. As analyzed, the Highwoods proposal is wildly overbuilt relative to demonstrable market demand (as opposed to demand phoned in on Bostic’s cell phone.)

9. posted by FanGuy at April 7, 2009 6:59 pm [#]:
   

   Stuart, I think you need to learn what a misrepresentation of fact is. You are citing Diradour’s projections. Diradour is hardly an analyst, and he has a vested interest in the Boulevard location. Why don’t we see what Davenport et al. say about the projections.

   In the end, though, they are still PROJECTIONS, which hardly amounts to a misrepresentation of fact.

   Edward Alan Po, the Broad Street Development deal was completely different. You are talking apples and oranges. As Jason points out, the bondholders will assume all of the risk. Now, whether the bonds sell or not is a different issues. But if they don’t sell, nothing happens.

10. posted by Anna at April 7, 2009 8:03 pm [#]:
    

    Ballpark = private development company

    Schools = public development funded by aaaaall the stimulus dollars the systems just received.

    These, as I’ve said so many times, are concerns that should be taken up with your representatives. The ballpark does not impede work on schools, unless you plan on building the school in the floodplain.

11. posted by Jason at April 7, 2009 8:16 pm [#]:
    

    @ #7
    because the city unofficially backed the bonds. ie, people who bought the bonds did so because they knew the city would step up and pay if ever the CBA could not.
    http://www.richmondgov.com/departments/presssecretary/pressreleasedetails.aspx?seqnum=7953

    Think of it as the relationship Freddie Mac and the government. Freddie Mac would be out of business if people did not believe would step up and back it, even though the government has no such obligation.

    If the city is firm with the “invest at your own risk position”, we will not see a repeat of the Broad Street CDA.

    Assuming the city holds strong “invest at your own risk position” and investors aren’t confident about Highwoods proposal, the bonds wont sell, game over.

12. posted by Ry at April 7, 2009 8:36 pm [#]:
    

    Scott- There’s no mention of the GRTC plan b/c that hasn’t been fully developed by GRTC yet. Highwoods did state they support the transit center being in the train shed and part of the overall development.

    Ed Poe- The Broad St project you reference weren’t TIF bonds, its not the same structure.

    ptaylor- If the bonds are as unmarketable as you suggest, and I’m not saying they aren’t, then the project will never get off the ground.

13. posted by The Fan District Hub » Blog Archive » Baseball stadium issue whirl at April 7, 2009 11:04 pm [#]:
    

    [...] News’ “Let’s Play Ball!” is a recent post on the issue with comments. Click here to read [...]

14. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 8, 2009 6:26 am [#]:
    

    This is behind the doors politics will come in the City council will wait for the report to tell them it is ok and they will save the day when the bonds don’t see because they will feel honor bound to sent this project in motion. That is How Hampton ended up pay to build the Bass outlet and plenty of the Power Plant that was to be a private venture but was built on taxes.
    Rinse Lather repeat

15. posted by Jeff E. at April 8, 2009 9:08 am [#]:
    

    Scott no offense to the dedication you show toward your causes but you’re a broken record and have a VERY limited and extreme view of how development should proceed. Hell, even being green isn’t enough anymore. I noted the other day how you stated wind energy in SW VA wasn’t going far enough and that everything should be focused on solar… which just happens to be one of the least efficient and most expensive forms of “green” energy out there. You also think that a revenue drain, the godawful idea of the Main Street Station transfer station, should take precedence over a revenue generator. The fact is, you complain about corporate welfare yet your green ideas are even more dependent upon taxpayer money and government welfare than this ballpark mixed-use development and promise no return on investment. At least with the ballpark development we will be bringing people downtown, boosting the revenue for existing/surrounding businesses, addressing flood plain development issues, and developing a plot of land that has been nothing but an eyesore for decades, detracting from the value and appeal of surrounding real estate and businesses. And regarding the corporate “welfare”, over and over we proponents have to repeat to the same 3 or 4 people that with the exception of infrastructure improvements, this project is going to be funded through the sale of bonds to private investors. If they don’t sell, the project simply won’t move forward. What will it take for that fact to sink in?

16. posted by Paul H at April 8, 2009 9:53 am [#]:
    

    @Jeff E

    ?Nodding assent and polite applause.

17. posted by Scott Burger at April 8, 2009 9:55 am [#]:
    

    Actually now you are mistaken about what I said about wind and solar. I said that in addition to wind, solar needs to be implemented and because much of it could be onsiste, it would not include the cost of transporting the energy produced, since much of it could be used where it is produced. You are also wrong about the corporate welfare involved, and you are wrong about the bond sales as we have already seen with the Broad Street CDA. In short, you are wrong and I urge people to look at the facts- including the environmental and opportunity costs of this proposal. Gotta go for now.

18. posted by FanGuy at April 8, 2009 10:17 am [#]:
    

    LOL. Jeff E., in case there is any confusion, allow me to sum up the substance of Scott’s rebuttal to you:

    “You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong!You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong!You are wrong! You are wrong! You are wrong!……….big business……….corporate welfare……..green………….yuppies………yada yada yada……..rinse, lather, repeat.”

    [Just having a litte fun, Scott!]

    BTW, very nice post Jeff E.

19. posted by FanGuy at April 8, 2009 10:20 am [#]:
    

    Scott, seriously though, I don’t think you understand the fundamental financing differences between the Broad Street CDA and this development. I encourage you to read up on the financing a bit more. These bonds will not be govt backed. If you deny this fundamental truth, it really looks like you are just ill-informed and regurgitating talking points, which takes away from other legitimate points you may have.

20. posted by Stuart at April 8, 2009 10:23 am [#]:
    

    Jeff E.- the point of contention is what “won’t move forward” means. Are we going to spend $9 mil on infrastructure improvements and then not move forward because bonds aren’t selling? Some of us are concerned because Richmond already bought a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded hole in the ground up on Broad St.

    As for developing the Bottom, the Downtown Master Plan is an incremental, inexpensive, and democratic road map for continuing to improve the neighborhood. The Bottom is experiencing a period of stable growth right now, and executing the Plan would bolster that growth.

21. posted by FanGuy at April 8, 2009 10:29 am [#]:
    

    Stuart, the proposed deal calls for no capital expenditure by the city for infrastructure unless and until the bonds are sold.

    As for current growth, the new flood plain boundaries pretty much insure that the undeveloped swath of land in the Bottom that exists now will remain undeveloped unless there is a project like this one that comes along.

22. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 8, 2009 10:39 am [#]:
    

    Jeff E I would love to see thing happen that way but History with other Virgina cities and their pet projects have told me otherwise. Hampton with their Power Plant Idea. Norfolk with Waterside. Just about every convention center in Tidewater and even here. If it looks good for City Hall to save the day they will attempt it. When the Study comes back and approves the Location for the Ball park it give the city a green light if and when these bonds don’t seem to offer assistance. Then it will be in for a penny in for the whole project.
    In Virginia we love our History and our Politicians love to repeat it all the time why should this be different?

    You going to tell Dwight he can’t help? He will be hurt if this study supports your viewpoint(like that is not going to happen)

23. posted by Jeff E. at April 8, 2009 10:57 am [#]:
    

    Scott, don’t get me wrong I believe renewable energy is the future but only once it becomes competitive in price with the resources that are already cheap and readily available. I mainly wanted to point out that in order to meet your approval, developers would have to significantly increase their construction costs implementing green technology and Richmond is not in the position to require this type of development yet. Forcing it would only push would-be developers out of town. Regarding the bonds again, opponents are expressing fear more than fact. The language as it stands keeps taxpayers off the hook and puts the risk on investors, where it should be. If corporate welfare is your main objection then you should be concerned with ensuring City administration and council keep the risk on the investors instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater on unlikely fears that the developer will pull a switcheroo on us without our even knowing it. Very rarely do developers have enough cash on hand to complete a project of this magnitude thus the need for bonds. Selling bonds doesn’t mean they are asking for a handout, it’s just the reality of large-scale development. If we wait around for Warren Buffett to plop down a half-billion in cash on that deserted Bottom parcel, we’ll be staring at weeds and asphalt for many a decade to come.

24. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 8, 2009 12:05 pm [#]:
    

    Richmond is well known for chasing off Developers and Companies that would love to set up shop here and a few Museums as well but hey they will be on this project like dog with a bone if they get the study back giving them the green light

25. posted by FanGuy at April 8, 2009 12:22 pm [#]:
    

    The Richmond Sports Backerts have apparently endorsed the concept of baseball in Shockoe Bottom. I’ve posted the press release on my blog:

    lifeinthe804.blogspot.com

26. posted by Richmond at April 8, 2009 1:40 pm [#]:
    

    Um, don’t care about baseball -?
    Thanks for listening.
    x Richmond

27. posted by Anna at April 8, 2009 9:15 pm [#]:
    

    Got this response today regarding who is designing the ballpark (the website, http://shockoecenter.com/default.aspx, has a section through which you can ask questions)-

    HKS will be *the* architect for the ballpark. Once final plans are drawn, bids received and the contractor(s) selected, the scope of HKS’ role during construction will be determined.

    For all those who were concerned about the lack of sports facility experience of Highwoods…HKS is a premiere architect for stadiums and ballparks, their site lists some of the ballparks in their portfolio.

    I highly suggest sending your questions in to get answers instead of making assumptions. They were pretty prompt considering I’m just a concerned citizen, and not a member of the press nor potential investor.

28. posted by ShockoeBottomDweller at April 9, 2009 6:25 am [#]:
    

    I tend to not assume they will tell me “Hey we are going what is in our best interest not yours?” I believe that Highwood’s Chief Financial officer said in an article back in 04 when they did in some investors involving taxes so I am sure they will tell us when they plan to do something besides what they advertised.
    Contractors hire Sub-Contractors but that would never happen here because Highwood told us.

29. posted by Scott Burger at April 9, 2009 10:50 am [#]:
    

    I did not realize that Charleston, S.C. was “in a better position” than Richmond.

    http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/09/blackbaud_stadium_going_solar30090/

    Or that Germany was 15 years ahead of us:

    SC Freiburg’s Badenova Stadium is equipped with both solar thermal and solar pv systems. Both systems were installed in 1995, the solar thermal has been supplying hot water for the changing room showers ever since. The PV system has a capacity of 290 kW

    Are we really falling behind the Brits?:

    Dartford, UK, has a stadium constructed of timer with a sedum green roof, the stadium is partially below ground level to limit noise problems in the vicinity. The stadium also has a solar thermal system and energy efficient building services.

    But forget about green building for a second…(cause the developers really hope you just forget about it altogether-they don’t care about the environment)

    This website and proposal have not answered serious questions about flooding and stormwater runoff.

    It totally ignores the fact that the digging and concrete needed for the stadium will contribute more to Richmond’s carbon footprint after the City publicly agreed to diminish it.

    It makes more environmental sense to renovate the existing Diamond while clearing the “weeds and asphalt” from the Bottom land and doing more sustainable development there.

30. posted by Scott Burger at April 9, 2009 11:15 am [#]:
    

    How about Cyprus’ Kissonerga stadium?

    http://www.panair.com.cy/cyprus_solar_applications.php

    Or, somewhat closer to home, the Giants’ new stadium

    http://solarpanelspower.net/solar-panels/major-league-solar-stadium

    Hey, aren’t the Connecticut Defenders a farm team for the Giants?

31. posted by Oregon Hill » The Dream of High Speed Rail - Richmond, Virginia at April 17, 2009 4:00 am [#]:
    

    [...] seen. I have listened to the excuses and the reasons for the delays. I have heard the naysayers and distractions. I have learned about the Acca train yard and CSX obstacles. I have grown to understand and [...]

32. posted by The Dream of High Speed Rail | RVANews at April 17, 2009 8:49 am [#]:
    

    [...] seen. I have listened to the excuses and the reasons for the delays. I have heard the naysayers and distractions. I have learned about the Acca train yard and CSX obstacles. I have grown to understand and [...]

Share a Comment