Ballpark Would Dig a Financial Black Hole in Shockoe Bottom

BY RANDOLPH BELL AND JEAN WIGHT The proposed Shockoe Bottom ballpark complex is being advanced on the premise that it would impose no burdens on public finance and the taxpayers. This is a false premise.

The transfer of centrally located city-owned ground, of already considerable fair-market value, fails to figure into the proponents' calculations. It is inappropriate simply to add in public land as a no-cost donation to private development efforts.

The developers propose using sales and use taxes generated by the project for the purpose of paying interest on a civic bond issue to fund a ballpark. The implication is that any tax receipts generated by the project are somehow qualitatively different from other tax receipts.

In fact, Shockoe Bottom has continued to develop positively for more than a quarter of a century now -- without the touted necessity of a baseball field. And all the taxes come directly to the city, rather than being diverted.

It is well to note that the developers will exit the risk loop upon completion of the project. The proposed bond issue for a ballpark not only denies the city any immediate return but also, like other aspects of the proposal, privatizes gain while socializing risk.

The proposal envisions leveraging state historic tax credits from a restoration of the Main Street Station train shed as a financing tool while also calling for the demolition of the contributing structure of the Lovings building, in whole or part. As demonstrated by the rehabilitation of Tobacco Row and now the Cold Storage Building, tax credits are a grant of decrease in federal and state revenue for the purpose of incentivizing the preservation and reuse of historic properties. They constitute a valuable and "green" program. This program should not be abused as a mere financial tool to fund demolition and new construction.

Neither the developers nor any baseball franchise they manage to attract will be paying maintenance costs for the ballfield. That is to fall to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, which is publicly funded. This strikes us as a further, inappropriate burdening of public revenue.

If a ballpark is truly an economic generator, then the land, site construction, and management should be financed by the use itself without public expenditure. If the economic substance of the ball park is insufficient to support the land use, then it is simply not sustainable, and the resultant loss should not be socialized.

The developers say nothing about policing costs. Most crime in the Bottom is attributable to the night-time club scene. Adding yet more bars and a ballpark, the latter for only short periods of entertainment, does not decrease but rather increases policing needs.

If the currently uncertain economic climate continues, public costs may be greater still. The market for the current supply of Class-A office space in Richmond is weak and growing weaker. The proposal includes building more Class-A office spaces to support the ballpark. Where supply demonstrably exceeds demand, it does not seem reasonable to presume that a bond issue for more supply could be serviced without recourse to public tax money. Moreover, the use of a bond issue for construction of additional Class-A facilities denies owners and investors in the current market a level economic playing field.

Portions of the proposal that envision new residential construction could have the effect of diminishing the incentive for rehabilitation of historic properties in the vicinity as residences. In any neighborhood, the "greenest" building is a building that is already there. Why should a bond be issued for new construction to compete with the many new units that will become available at the Cold Storage Building? If and when the market demands more, let the free market build it.

Accounting sleight-of-hand is a common aspect of the hype that surrounds baseball projects. In its authoritative 2003 study of metropolitan baseball projects, the District of Columbia Fiscal Policy Institute found that "claims that substantial economic investment is warranted because it [a stadium] will bring significant economic benefits -- in terms of jobs, income growth, and increases in tax revenues -- in addition to boosting civic pride, which are common from leaders of cities seeking to attract a professional sports team, are not backed up by research. In fact, economic studies show that baseball stadiums do not promote economic development and that public subsidies for stadium construction do not 'pay for themselves' by generating increased tax revenues."

The Fiscal Policy Institute determined that "most of the jobs directly created by stadiums are day-of-game jobs, such as concessions, which are part-time and have low pay and low benefits." It noted that, in instances where economic growth has occurred in downtown areas that included a baseball field, that growth resulted from downtown resurgences generally and not from any effect associated with the sports facility.

To us as city residents, this project seems demonstrably bad for the economic future of our vibrant and exciting East End. Transportation arterials there cannot be expanded. The Bottom, except for 17th and 18th Streets and a portion of Franklin Street, is predominantly residential and becoming more so.

Church Hill, which is within the lighting, noise, and traffic catchment of the project, is almost entirely residential. Also adjoining the site is a major medical facility. Ballpark activities and peak use of the project could impede access to emergency facilities at VCU that many in our district rely upon.

The developers have offered no empirical evidence to support their contention that, without a ballpark, the Bottom cannot be developed. Common sense indicates that digging a large, 20-foot-deep hole in the middle of the Bottom's notorious flood plain is not an enlightened idea.

The hard-scaping of the project's surroundings does not take into account the concentration of water flows. If the city were to take seriously the rehabilitation of the Bottom, it might spend funds instead on water-absorbing green spaces along I-95 in recognition that water created the Bottom in the first place. The current dismal landscape is largely the result of city neglect.

Barely 90 miles to our north, the booster community in Washington got its way, and the taxpayers provided a new arena for the Nationals. Finance has certainly not proceeded as the boosters claimed it would. The Nationals are refusing to pay their rent. That project is a costly mistake. Should Richmond make one too?

The City Council, whose accomplishments are sometimes overlooked, can make good history in a gloomy time by summoning the political will to just say no.

That a neglected area -- a gateway area -- should be in better form than it is now does not mean that saying "no" to the current proposal is an endorsement of current conditions. This is not a matter of "this plan or no plan," and it should not be perceived as such.

The Bottom is a valuable and highly significant area. If the city does its part to improve infrastructure there, the scarcity of building sites so close to the center can attract other options. It is worth waiting for the right solution.
Randolph Bell and Jean Wight are resident homeowners on Church Hill. Contact Bell at and Wight at .