Sports Backers support Shockoe Bottom ballpark

Couple of points:

1)  The only cost of this development directly to the City/taxpayers is $8 million for infrastructure (roads/sewers) that the entire Bottom will benefit from. 

2)  As to Rondo33’s point, renovation of the Diamond is not an option.  The entire structure would basically have to be re-built if it were to be renovated in a manner that would attract a team and patrons.  Even if we though renovation was the way to go, no private investor has stepped forward willing to put together a package to renovate for less than $8 million in cost to the city.  In other words, if it is to be renovated, it is probably going to be through public money—more public money than the $8 million in infrastructure needed for the Bottom.  Bottom line = it would cost more and would not bring all of the benefits to the city that the Shockoe Center project stands to bring.

3)  Same goes for a new ballpark on the Boulevard.  Last year’s study showed that the highest use of the Boulevard property could not include a ballpark.  Building a new ballpark on the Boulevard would likewise involve more taxpayer money.  If you disagree, why has no one—not a single of the developers that responded to the City’s RFP last year—come forward with a plan for the Boulevard like the Shockoe Center plan that would cost the City only $8 million or less?

4)  Everytime I see the traffic argument for the Boulevard I just have to laugh.  When the Diamond was busy (a rare occasion), getting in and out was hardly a breeze.  Parking lot access was limited and difficult to enter except from one direction.  You have one on ramp north and one south.  That’s it.  On the contrary, in the Bottom you have the convergence of I64, I95, the Downtown Expressway, and the east/west routes of Broad St., Main St., Cary St. and Route 5.  Contrary to Dogtown’s point, the streets around that area are no more “narrow and congested” than the streets around the Diamond.  Moreover, the Bottom is only 3 exits away from the Diamond, is closer for many of those who live south and east of town, and is within walking distance of thousands of downtown workers and residents who are likely to walk over to a game after work or dinner.  I believe that the traffic concerns are raised mainly by those folks who don’t come downtown and really aren’t that familiar w/ the Bottom. 

5)  As for tax rates and tax districts, let’s be clear about one thing—the new tax district will only include the new development.  Existing businesses, etc. won’t be affected, and funds generated by those existing businesses (which will likely increase w/ this project—just ask the businesses in the Bottom that support this) will continue to go directly to the City and state as they always have.

6)  Finally, as to Jack’s point about “baseball fans.“  I am not a big baseball fan, but I feel passionately about this project.  That’s because I believe that in addition to providing a huge ‘quality of life’ benefit, it has the potential to provide a large economic benefit to the city by making it possible for the development of a piece of land that otherwise could not be developed due to flood plain restrictions.  This project will draw not only big baseball fans, but also families and single 20 and 30 somethings who are casual fans but looking for a new way and a new place to spend their entertainment dollars.  I believe the end result will be a better Richmond, and ultimately a larger tax base for the City, which means better schools, better services, etc. 

Check out more of my thoughts on my blog—lifeinthe804.blogspot.com

To Frojunk:  Your response typifies, for me, the “group think” of those who propose that tax payers support every development that is proposed. Firstly, there is a great deal of recently developed real estate in the city that suffers from very low occupancy, and make no profit or very little.

Secondly, every development imposes costs on the city for increased fire protection, police protection, water, sewer, drainage, highways, and other infrastructure. Unless the development in question produces sufficient revenue to pay its fair share of the incremental costs, tax payers are left “holding the bag’.

Thirdly, Richmond has an inordinate amount of government-owned real estate which is totally exempt from property taxes designed to pay for the infrastructure and public services load it imposes. Richmond taxpayers are left paying those costs minus reasonably inconsequential “voluntary” contributions from the government.

Forthly, a ball park depends upon regional attendance ... if those outside the City of Richmond benefit from its construction, they should share proportionately in the risks and rewards.

Finally, my original comments were specific to a proposal for taxpayer subsidies for an unnecessary public facility designed, primarily, to benefit the developers and professional baseball for which there is a demonstrated limited regional audience.  As those of the “entitlement class” often do, you, incorrectly attempted to divert attention from the issue being address by making a ludicrous statement that I was suggestion no further development.

If you are so strongly in favor of the proposal, my suggestion would be that you join The Sports Backers in a privately funded venture to construct the stadium and pay for necessary infrastructure improvements it will require.

I have seen alot of talk about this ballpark, but nothing has been said about the much beloved July 4th fireworks display. If you build the ballpark in the bottom that event would come to an end. You certainly can’t have a large and loud display of fireworks in the backyard of VCU’s critical care hospital.Just something to think about.

Who cares where they put it as long as they and the maybe 5 to 10 thousand baseball fans pay for it and not the taxpayers having to put up even one penny.

These sports fanatics are heck bent to have their favorite pastime as long as someone else pays for it.

Sports is not a function of government and spending any public funds or committing any future tax revenue schemes to sports is unconstitutional.

The Sports Backers find much merit in Highwoods’ proposal, so they, not Richmond tax payers, should raise the money to underwrite the cost.  If The Sports Backers and other private interests raise and provide the funding, I don’t care where the stadium is built.

However proponents of the downtown site seem not to want to acknowledge that the streets leading to the proposed downtown site are narrow, congested, and tremendous amounts of Richmond’s tax revenue will be required to improve them to the extent required to accommodate the additional traffic. Similarly, it is likely that expensive, additional drainage improvements will be needed, at Richmond tax payer expense. We cannot afford those costs.

City tax rates already exceed those of surrounding jurisdictions, the City is having to leave jobs unfilled and considering possible layoffs (both of which will adversely effect the delivery to services), now is not the time to place further burdens on Richmond taxpayers to enhance the financial welfare of Highwoods or professional baseball. Streets, critical
infrastructure, schools, programs to keep our youth off the street and build character, and public health all require more money than is available. For the City to subsidize a sports stadium for minor-league baseball which has a very limited following within the City, would be inexcusable.

Those willing to objectively view the situation see that access to the existing property on the Boulevard is much easier than is true downtown - and no money is required to make street improvements or improve drainage at that sight. In today’s economic climate, those that want “luxuries” should be content to wait until the necessities have been provided or underwrite the costs themselves.

Until necessary public services and badly needed infrastructure repairs and upgrades are accomplished, those that want a new stadium should keep their hands of our Richmond taxpayers’ pockets.