Let’s Play Ball!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@ #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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.