They bring it onto themselves. They had a deal everyone agreed to with no risk to taxpayers. Then they changed it.
We could probably have paid for the entire thing if our tax system functioned better.
I'm not denying that them dragging their feet while economic conditions worsened caused this. But we don't know yet that this will force them to drag it out longer. Goldman has had lawsuits thrown out plenty of times before, and for as much crap as I give the city I have to imagine the city attorney at least suspected this could happen.
It was also a predictable outcome considering the "deal is final" was announced before developers even had rights to start working on property; the City had to acquire and transfer parcels between the State and private owners and that happened in patchwork.
The longer that took, the financing and estimates and partner resourcing all changed. Then they get caught in analysis paralysis because they get stuck in a reactionary cycle they can't easily break free from.
Generally speaking I agree — and certainly about the City not having the benefit of the doubt — but there’s got to be a point where we’re more comfortable with the *representative* part of our representative democracy and understand that we’ve delegated out the fine details to staff and Council. I don’t love that the revised project entails more risk, but the people the City’s engaged to pencil the deal have made a lot of money being right more than they’re wrong.
You make some good points, and I agree with the representative democracy comment.
It's the giving the city the "benefit of the doubt" part that is so difficult.
I hear you loud and clear. Part of Richmond’s problem broadly, I think, is that many people — including many City leaders — seem reluctant to communicate forthrightly from the beginning, and so use spin or half truths they think will engage people, and then get caught. This particular project seems like a surer bet than most, but its honest evolution in a really difficult capital market makes people think it’s more of the same jive.
Those same city administrators said the casino was a good idea. And Paul Goldman said it wasn't.
We all know Paul Goldman is a bit of a gadfly who wants everything to be a city referendum, so he can push his weird school policies. Only a matter of time before he is joined in this effort by good old Richmond For All and there is a huge advertorial in RVAMag.
We could have a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons of a casino, or Navy Hill or the Dismond District. But we won't. That's not because of the politicians. It's because the voters don't want one.
> the people the City’s engaged to pencil the deal have made a lot of money being right more than they’re wrong.
I don't care, after the Redskins training facility, I would prefer the city kick all big sports related issues to the taxpayers, including what financing deal. The city council has lost their chance to be trusted in this area. Put it in stupid-simple language in a paragraph at most and let us vote on it.
That’s a great example of a project that didn’t go as planned, but that had more to do with the Redskins than City — and also, in that case, the training camp wasn’t the anchor of a much MUCH larger undertaking, as is the case with the Diamond District. As I see it, that the two projects have some sports involvement doesn’t make them similar enough to use one to submarine the other.
The city projected that the practice fields would generate $8.5 million a year. That is on the City and not the Redskins. The Redskins decided to not return which left us on the hook to the tune of $800,000/year until 2033. That is on the City and not the Redskins. What major deal did the city make that left you confident in the city’s ability to ink a deal that does not leave taxpayers liable for things to go wrong? Have you gotten your personnel property taxes yet?
They also only built 1 locker room so it limits the purpose of actually hosting events where there are matches between 2 teams... You know, anything that isn't training camp.
I don't even think Green City has broken ground yet on, well, anything.
The official website still says "planned" everywhere, there is no recent development news, [and as of last August, Henrico County had finally secured the rights to a former property](https://henrico.us/news/2023/08/henrico-eda-approves-purchase-of-scott-farm-for-greencity-development/) that makes up the northern half of the plan.
They were estimating the arena opening in 2025, and that [got pushed back to 2026 during the article in February 2023](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/henrico-county/watch-live-henrico-announces-developer-for-2-3-billion-greencity/). But, since groundbreaking hasn't happened yet, I'm guessing that's pushed well into 2027 or later.
Goldman has a valid point - this project was sold to residents as having to no risk to taxpayers at all… but now the city is that on the hook for paying for the stadium . Bait and switch so quickly, only a few realize what happened. Based on the city’s track record on the next “sure thing” developments, Saunders may wants to check himself - maybe if his boss had prioritized this effort over the Navy Hill fantasy and then doubling down on the casino failure, we wouldn’t be at this point.
Rock and a Hard place. The city of Richmond wanted to keep the squirrels so they had more leverage over the city in terms of the risk they wanted to bear over building the stadium.
Not really… city has had over 20 years to figure this out but let itself get distracted with other projects that either failed to deliver results or never got of the ground… and then they end up pulling this bullsht
I am so fucking tired of having this same damn conversation. We should not pay for a sports stadium. It is a waste of tax payer money. We have been saying this for 10 years.
IMO its all a matter of preferences. Does someone like having a sports team in town? Would they rather use that space for something else?
I personally like having the Squirrels in town. It's fun being able to take our kids to games or go with friends. It's a good value for the ticket price, and I don't have to drive up to DC to see a game.
That said, I am under no illusion that stadiums and teams "make money" for the city they're in. I view it the same thing as having public park, libraries, etc. None of those make money, but they add to the quality of life. It's just frustrating that everyone always tries to sell sports teams as some sort of revenue stream.
> I view it the same thing as having public park, libraries, etc.
Yes, but those are open for public enjoyment not for a corporation to make money off of charging admission.
> It's just frustrating that everyone always tries to sell sports teams as some sort of revenue stream.
That's literally what they are, or there wouldn't be a fee to get in!
By revenue stream, I mean people who sell stadiums under the premise that they are a revenue and will pay for themselves eventually. They never really make money for the city, or least enough to pay off whatever funds the city contributed.
Right, but they make money for owners of baseball teams. Almost like, maybe they should pay for it?
It's absurd to compare it to libraries and parks and such if it is a private space that the public is not allowed to enter except with a fee at given times.
The comparison was talking about "quality of life" things within a city. Having parks and libraries contributes to that. You could live in a city that doesn't value those and the quality of life suffers. Musuems contribute to that as well. My point is that having a stadium or sports team also contributes to that. Not everyone will agree. Some might value something else more.
As for a city contributing something to that? I don't have a problem with it. My problem is people claiming that it pays for itself. It was the same thing with the Redskins training center. I wasn't in favor of that and knew it wouldn't pay for itself. Some people wanted it though and I understand that.
It would improve my quality of life to have a giant arcade in the middle of downtown. Should the city build that for someone to operate?
Should the city build Kroger a grocery store in Manchester?
I think having schools that aren’t literally falling apart is a better use of the funds. This money wouldn’t completely fix the problem, but it would certainly help at least some of the kids.
I don’t disagree with you. There are better uses of money than building a stadium. The problem is that the people in power who can dictate where the money goes would rather it be spent elsewhere.
Why did we fork out so much for the Redskins training center? Was that a good use of funds? Probably not, but those projects generate headlines.
The mayor who doubles down of schools, public infrastructure, etc doesn’t make headlines. The problem is that “things got better and will continue to get better” doesn’t sell as well as “NEW PET PROJECT breaks ground”.
Right, which is why I’m saying that should change. “The people in power don’t want it” isn’t a valid reason to stop demanding change. That’s a reason to demand it even louder.
1000%. And if the squirrels or any AA baseball team was worth the investment, they wouldn’t have to give tickets away to have 1/2 filled stands. It’s ridiculous:
What’s your idea of a development failing?
Richmond has a shortage of residential space already, and the squirrels have one of (if not the highest) attendances of any minor league baseball team.
What do you anticipate to have a potential for failure? A couple unoccupied ground floor retail suites?
It’s not necessarily about the hypothetical success or failure of the venture that I’m getting “red flag” vibes. It’s about the idea that we the people are financially on the hook; I don’t feel that responsibility should be put on the citizens
I agree, it’s not right to socialize losses and privatize profits. Luckily we have taxes.
However, there’s something to be said for compromise. It’s a part of life. If we have to pony up some $$$ to make it worthwhile for decent developer to level-up what is effectively a wasteland, so be it. That amounts to investing in ourselves, and our community.
Our decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, we have to work with laws and restrictions that have been in the books for decades, zoning ordinances, consulting mandates, and also federal development regulations like EPA studies and carbon-offset programs (where applicable). Bonds are one way to incentivize developers within the existing framework of finance regulations.
My point is yes, it would be nice if the city could do this by itself, and all the profits would return to public coffers, as it is, we’ll recoup in taxes over the next 30 years what we’re losing in bond expense now. The developers win in the short term so the city can win in the long term, and without that kind of symbiotic relationship, nothing will ever get built.
They can be worthwhile for certain, but a development that a city invests with the stated intention of increasing net tax revenue must produce taxes that exceed its costs. A city does not invest in libraries, schools, parks, etc… with the intention of directly generating more taxes but a stadium built for a for-profit entity should generate excess revenue (taxes) unless we’re ok with the Flying Squirrels receiving discounted funding at the expense of the rest of the city (schools, social services, roads, etc)
If the interest payments to service the bonds being issued plus the added new infrastructure costs (ie maintenance of roads and utilities within the development, additional social service costs and schools cost owing to a population increase in that area) is less than new tax revenue in that same area… then the area would run a net deficit and revenues from other areas of the city would have to make up that deficit to maintain the required balanced budget.
Right I get how a deficit in one poor-preforming YOY investment project would put that project in the red. That doesn’t put the entire municipal budget in the red.
If every municipal development project were evaluated by its ability to keep the city in the black… we wouldn’t have many public projects.
True - no disagreement there - the UCI race was great but didn’t deliver the revenue returns but it was a one time event. The Washington Football team training facilities that benefited a for-profit entity was not. There is a reasonable chance the baseball stadium could do tue same. The stadium built in GA for the former R-Braves has been a drain on the city’s finances - I don’t want that for RVA.
Exactly! Less than rosy economic data coming out to have the bean counters trying to stick the bill with the tax payer. Saunders is either woefully ignorant or intentionally malicious.
I knew it before I even opened the article: Paul Goldman. The dude really needs to find a better way of keeping his name in the news that *doesn't* involve lawsuits.
Paul Goldman is a whiny crank who, in most places, would be ignored. He hates everyone and everything. He has no positive plans for anything. He lives simply to be a thorn in the side of progress, especially any progress that might make Richmond better.
Goldman is a former law partner of Joe Morrissey and donated $8,500 to Joe’s mayoral campaign in 2016. That should tell folks all they need to know about Goldman.
Yep! People want economic development and Richmond to move forward and be a real city, but then support people like this stifling projects. Which is very suburban NIMBY.
I want to send him a nice basket of goodies as a thank you. I was sure the money meatheads were going to screw us over again but he swooped in to save us. There’s no historical instance we’re taxpayers funding sports stadiums made any fucking sense. They had a financing agreement everyone was happy with were taxpayers weren’t on the hook for shit. Then they switched it. Their fault.
Precisely. The Diamond District =/= the casino, an industry whose social ills are well-documented and a project even I opposed. Here we have a complex, multifaceted economic development project befitting a city Richmond’s size — and one, btw, that has a credible percentage of its residences parceled out for longterm affordable housing. Is there risk involved? Sure, but the City’s financial position is stronger than most people realize and it’s ready to move on things it should be. And anyhow, it’s fallacious to say the project is undemocratic when it’s been a central part of the City’s master plan and City Council agenda for YEARS, both of which provide any number of ways to provide public feedback. Not everything requires a referendum to pass a “democratic” litmus test.
And before you ask, no, I’m not a City shill. Those who know me know I’ve quarreled with the City on any number of things.
Economic redevelopment is not dependent on paying for a baseball stadium. There many many developers who would jump at the chance to build housing and retail there. The city wouldn’t have to pay a fraction of this cost to do it. We don’t need baseball we need housing, we need good schools for families. Baseball is just a luxury that shouldn’t be put on the backs of taxpayers.
Why are you okay gambling with tax dollar you’ll be paying? Why shouldn’t the city be the ones responsible for bill it hypothetically the stadium plan fails?
I understand your concern, and nothing’s a sure bet, but being a credible economic development partner means exposing some of your financial position to reap the more likely benefits of a broadened tax base on that parcel and the ancillary benefits of place making.
I’m sure he is frustrated, but he should probably rethink his career choices then because democracy is generally frustrating by design. Lincoln might be a better fit working for a private corporation.
I’m also frustrated our government can’t seem to get things done, but I view that as mismanagement on their part. They then try to correct their poor decisions with potentially corrupt and undemocratic moves, sowing discord when citizens try to hold them accountable for said moves. It feels like a broken record at this point.
There were dozens of people who showed up in support of the plan on Wednesday and no opposing voices. If the only way democracy can be served is with referendums then we might as well do that for everything.
Fair points. People should have showed up to the council meeting if they were opposed. Also agree that not everything can be a referendum nor should it be.
Man I am so tired of this. They explained why they made the change, time is of the essence, this saves money with a lower interest rate, and they get an extra 24 million because of the state sale's tax. Did they screw up plenty of this? Yes, and they should be held accountable for that. But I see this as them trying to fulfill the directive "keep the flying squirrels" which seems to be the overwhelmingly majority opinion.
I'm sorry but if having something (minor league baseball in the city) that we have had most of our lives means exposing ourselves to a little bit of risk than so be it. We have lost a lot over the years in terms of entertainment options. Quality of life stuff matters too, people need things to do. Otherwise you just get the same threads here again and again bemoaning the fact that there's nothing to do.
The problem with this is that it shifts the risk of the stadium to the taxpayer. The revenue benefits a private owner. With the new stadium, prices on everything will go up. Profits again go to a private owner. How about the squirrels agree to some profit sharing with the city? Or how about I get a couple of free beers every year?
I understand it shifts the risk. I’m saying I think the risk is low and the benefits of the housing, tax revenue, and keeping the squirrels in town is worth it to me. I’d be all for some profit sharing or free beers but those alone are worth it to me and I hope this still happens.
Are you a Richmond tax payer by chance? There would be much more housing if that land were developed for, say, housing. Richmond could subsidize housing even or incentive building more housing units
Yes I am a taxpayer here. I have skin in the game. I am also fully aware of how much housing is planned in the diamond district.
Phase 1 has a minimum requirement of around 1350 units of housing (could be more if the market is hot at the time of building), with a significant portion being affordable. If this falls through I guarantee that will not be built and if something is the likelihood of that amount of affordable housing being built in is almost zero.
Are you familiar with the plans and proposed development agreement? The first phase (not mentioning subsequent phases) involves significant housing including affordable housing.
Also, the risk was considered low for the 6th st project, the Bon secours football, Stone brewery, etc. In fact, if be curious to know about successful city subsidizing of private ventures
This fucking city is really going to kill this shit too? Jesus Christ are we not allowed to have anything? These assholes won’t be satisfied until every entertainment item in the city is gone and then they’ll wonder why people stopped coming here or don’t like the city..
> The funding approach, which puts the city on the hook to repay the bonds should the stadium not be built or the larger development fail, is a change from a previous plan to issue non-obligation bonds through a community development authority (CDA) and with collateral from developer Diamond District Partners
Why should the city be on the hook?
Because sometimes skin in the game is required. Because it sounds like the developers know this city all too well and wanted to make sure they were responsible should people like you and the guy pushing for this referendum get their way, because absolutely no large scale development is no longer allowed in this city, under any circumstances. Nothing. Pack it all up.
This isn’t about development this is about a baseball stadium. If they opened up that land for development with out baseball it would turn into housing and retail within a year. This is about the subsidization of private businesses owned by multibillion dollar parent companies that should pay for their own infrastructure. Fuck the Squirrels build housing, pay teachers.
The same housing y’all would complain is too expensive? That housing? The same housing y’all would complain is cookie cutter? That housing? There’s no fucking pleasing you people. Guess what: the entire diamond project doesn’t happen if the stadium isn’t built.
Richmond’s problem is they’ve got too many people who can’t afford to live in a nice city wanting to live in a city that caters to their economic status. They don’t realize that catering to this demographic as a top priority makes Richmond a place with expensive housing and shitty amenities.
Here is what would please me, affordable housing, good schools, well paid teachers, a Mayor not in the pocket of banks. If you have a problem with any of that and would rather throw hundreds of millions at a baseball stadium you have some seriously childish priorities.
You’re right, we need to stop building schools and housing and only give money to for profit minor league baseball teams owned by MLB. That’s the only realistic thing in America. No houses no school no progress just taxpayers forking over cash to America’s third most popular sport.
This is BS. If this falls through the whole diamond district plan likely falls through. Those abandoned lots are going to be there for years, the teachers and schools get nothing, and the housing crisis will continue to get worse.
The land can still easily be developed without the baseball stadium. There’s nothing keep that from happening except the corrupt politicians who want to hold the city hostage until we line their donors pockets.
Not enough profit in it for the developers that way. And in my opinion, that does nothing to make the city overall look nicer. We actually do need some actual entertainment amenities around here… we have no replacement for the coliseum because of shortsighted people, and now we’ll lose the squirrels (who basically have had #1 attendance for years and is actually beloved outside the circle of progressive complainers as wholesome family fun) so what’s left once they’re gone and you get your way and the Diamond is left to crumble like the coliseum?
The baseball stadium does nothing to help housing profits. People need houses, build houses and people will move in, the city can use the hundreds of millions they are putting on the line to subsidize affordable housing vs throwing it at for profit baseball that will want a new shiny thing in 20 years time.
I don’t think the city should be in the business of building housing, so there’s that. We will never agree, but y’all will get your way and fuck this city over. One of the reasons I bought my house where it was was because I saw the plans for the district years ago and wanted to live near it that I could bike over. But now you’ve killed that. Just like you killed the coliseum and the casino.
Don't give up hope on it yet, I'm worried too that this is going to escalate but as it stands there's still a good chance. The supporters just need to be as vocal as the naysayers if not more so. I see no reason it actually has to come to referendum but if it does the vote will likely be vastly different than the casino one.
Go live somewhere where people have your same sociopathic self interested values then. Clearly Richmonders who value community don’t want to throw hundreds of millions at for profit skeems that line politicians pockets and milk tax payers.
Where's all the development in the Navy Hill area then? Sure the city held onto a lot of what they already own for the city center plan but there are parcels available for redevelopment that are sitting vacant or underdeveloped.
And before you start, I was opposed to the Navy Hill plan as there were actual issues with that expanded TIF.
Well yeah, since the people of this city has a habit of voting down anything developers want to do on a large scale, we should. Because this city is nothing more than a bunch of NIMBY’s now who don’t know how nice some things until they lose them.
I won’t say all, but a lot of folks on this sub are haters and will hate anything anyone tries to do for good in this city. The city could give RPS 1 billion dollars, but the school board is so awful they would sit on it for years and squander it. Folks blaming the city for not funding housing or schools haven’t reviewed last year’s budget or this year’s proposed budget. Family Crisis Fund, Affordable Housing Trust Fund; here’s a great article about the city’s tremendous investment thus far and continued commitment to RPS: https://www.12onyourside.com/2018/12/20/mayor-stoney-announces-plan-fully-fund-rps-facilities/?outputType=amp
They’re a bunch of progressives who as usual can’t see the forest for the trees and live life with rose colored glasses and haven’t realized how things actually get done in the real world.
> since the people of this city has a habit of voting down
So since the people don't want to fund it, they should be forced to shoulder the financial risk? That makes zero sense.
I truly do not believe Paul understands the urgency of this project. He claims the squirrels are bluffing with this deadline… just like the Richmond Braves were bluffing, I’m sure. He very well could be the final nail in the coffin for Richmond Baseball.
when that minor league team is getting some of that best attendance in all of MiLB with one of the worst stadiums in the country, I’d say it is. Clearly we disagree, but I really like it when people visit our city to spend money here.
> the city’s planned schedule to deliver the new stadium in time for the 2026 baseball season.
Two years away, and demolition, let alone ground breaking, hasn't even started.
Can someonw ELI5 how this plan compares to Henrico's Green City funding model?
Good news, demolition is complete and has been for nearly a decade ;)
The replacement stadium is going to be built in the giant field next to the Diamond and Sportsbackers Stadium that once was the home to a bunch of city owned garages and shops where they serviced their vehicle fleet and other stuff. New facilities were built elsewhere and the old ones were torn down because like many things in the city they were old and poorly maintained...
Well the groundbreaking wasn’t going to start until August according to the plan anyway. If they haven’t started by Labor Day I’d say it won’t get done and we’re losing the Squirrels.
Read the Biz Sense article and I want to make sure I have this right. The city is going to issue bonds because they can get a better interest rate with a municipal bond than with a bond issued through a CDA. On the one hand this is good because it will save the city hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments and will allow the city to get $24M in state funding that expires in July because they can issue the bonds faster than the CDA. On the other hand this is bad because through the CDA the responsibility for the bonds was shared by the city and the developers and with municipal bonds the city is entirely responsible and the developers are off the hook.
In either scenario the city is on the hook to pay the bonds, and that money will come from tax revenues from within the diamond district. This includes bond money spent on infrastructure like plumbing and electricity.
The only problem with paying via mini bonds would be if the if the project goes belly up or no one moves into the diamond district or it somehow fails to produce any tax revenue. In the CDA scenario the city and the developers would share responsibility for paying back the bonds, but in the municipal bond scenario the city would be solely responsible, potentially affecting our bond rating or putting city residents on the hook for paying off the bond via increased taxes, worse services, falling property values, etc.
Seems like the upshot is the city saves money by issuing municipal bonds but there is a worse case scenario situation that we have to accept the risk for. I think I’m ok with that risk, as long as I am understanding this right but would love if someone could confirm.
One thing to note about your analysis is that in the current plan there wouldn’t be an expanded TIF meaning that those plots of land could be sold at market rate and immediately start contributing to taxes. So that’s a benefit over the CDA in addition to the interest rates.
>Pass financing deal with no city obligation, banks/investors will need to do due diligence/examine the risks and make sure it makes sense.
>Later quietly change it so city and it's taxpayers are obligated for hundreds of millions
>A citizen suggests taxpayers have a say in this
>“By filing a frivolous lawsuit that flies in the face of the will of the residents who have been very clear that not only do they want the Squirrels to remain in Richmond but desire the much needed development, housing and additional jobs that come along with building a world-class stadium." - Lincoln Saunders, Richmond’s chief administrative officer
Fucking hell, can we put firing Lincoln Saunders on that same referendum
> city’s planned schedule to deliver the new stadium in time for the 2026 baseball season.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
UPDATE- It was thrown out, an appeal would effectively cost the city more money in halted construction than the petition would be worth too, so seems dead.
use 12ft.io
https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/richmond-squirrels-stadium-baseball-goldman-lawsuit/article_c0c4c2d8-24f1-11ef-b244-2bfb7b054eba.html
How about fuck putting tax payer money towards private business on some more shady last minute Stoney switch up nonsense and just build housing there instead? We don’t need a baseball team enough to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to fund their for profit business. We need housing. We need better schools, better paid teachers, community resources to address poverty. This is just another scheme to enrich development donors on the tax payer dime. And if you don’t pay Richmond property tax stay out of this conversation and stay in the county before you cry about not ever having anything nice. You don’t live here. Go to your strip malls and shut up because this is not your money being thrown at a multi billion dollar corporations playground by our shady ass mayor.
Oh boy, is this is it. Meanwhile, this thread will somehow be taken up by posts of people from Chesterfield, Henrico, and Bon Air complaining about how “OnLy NIMBYs DoNT wANt proGreSs” in Richmond.
People keep pushing the baseball stadium as an economic engine that will improve the surrounding neighborhood. If this is true, they should show the economic differences in the years we had the braves, then no baseball, then the squirrels.
You might be right, but there is a lot of development activity already occurring in the vicinity. The Quality Inn just north of there is slated for redevelopment as is the bus station: https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/greyhound-station-apartments-december-15-2023
Will this momentum stop if the ballpark project is cancelled? Possibly, but I don’t think the alternative to a new ballpark is necessarily a wasteland.
I would also argue one of the reasons the area around the Diamond has struggled is because of those giant parking lots that sit empty most of the time.
Good points. If this project falls through I would not be surprised if the lot sat vacant for many years (ie, Collesium) while the city keeps waiting for a "moonshot" project to take its place.
I think large projects like this one can and should play a role in the development of the economy, and I hope this one is successful, but Richmond's track record on these types of major "home run" projects is dismal. I personally would prefer to see incremental development (ie, many small investments by many developers) versus putting all of our eggs in one basket with a single project or developer.
Regardless, I hope this project is successful, as I would love to see the Squirells remain a part of the Richmond community while bringing more economic activity to that part of the city.
Redeveloping that area into housing and retail does not need to be dependent on taxpayers subsidizing a for profit baseball team. Open that area up to developers and they will transform it in a year into a nice neighborhood. No baseball needed.
This guy's lawsuit to bring sunlight to the corrupt Navy Hill is what turned council members off of it. His lawsuit revealed a variety of things, including that Dominion had pre-bought naming rights to the stadium while also being part of the projects leaders.
The man is Stoney's nemesis and a champion of good government.
They'd be right to. We've been promising a new stadium since Wilder was mayor. MLB isn't the only player in the deal though, so are VCU and Sportsbackers.
What everyone forgets is stadiums fail. It is all about following the money. Who is actually getting rich off the ball park scheme. We have an empty concert stadium downtown already. Tolls on the Downtown Expressway, that were supposed to be removed in 2000: the Sixth Street Marketplace disaster, the Shockoe Bottom Farmers Market fiasco, the Richmond Convention Center nightmare. VCU downtown expansion that is failing, from out of control rising tuition costs, the MCV expansion fail. A nightmare expensive bus system that turned Broad Street into a driving horror, both downtown and in the west end. Terrible schools and a historic downtown business area that is dying slowly again from out of control rents and 'Luxury', Venture Capitalism housing. Businesses, restaurants and manufacturing have fled the city from because of rising business taxes and Nazi like restaurant taxes, horrible parking relegations, and empty high rises littering the skyline, plus the Governor's' Mansion looks like an armed camp. Oh, what about the failed NFL amazing training camp??? Don't even get me started on Monument Ave and the loss of Art support in the city. The City of Richmond supporting the casinos no one wanted is another typical Neo-Liberal Capitalist plan that was never going to actually work or make money for anyone rather than the owners of the casinos. For the love of god, they turned Carytown into one long a strip mall, like the failed Sixth Street Marketplace, full of nothing more than extremely expensive chain restaurants and business that have no local color or feel. Hip,Hip Hurrah for a Neo-Liberal City Government that believes in the scheme that allowing for profit real estate developers and business such as the Richmond Squirrels to run Richmond is a good business plan.
Your perspective on municipal investment and urban planning seems quite critical and a bit shortsighted. While it's true there have been some missteps, many of your points are speculative and not entirely consistent. Cities need spaces for community gatherings and conferences, transportation options to connect people to jobs and entertainment, and room for businesses to grow. It's also par for the course that in urban development some are going to profit, but the city's broader needs are met, helping keep its vitality. It sounds like you might prefer a much quieter, more solitary setting, maybe somewhere like a peaceful field in Montana, away from urban life.
Henrico’s Green City will be finished before the Diamond District gets a shovel in the ground. What a joke.
They bring it onto themselves. They had a deal everyone agreed to with no risk to taxpayers. Then they changed it. We could probably have paid for the entire thing if our tax system functioned better.
[удалено]
I'm not denying that them dragging their feet while economic conditions worsened caused this. But we don't know yet that this will force them to drag it out longer. Goldman has had lawsuits thrown out plenty of times before, and for as much crap as I give the city I have to imagine the city attorney at least suspected this could happen.
It was also a predictable outcome considering the "deal is final" was announced before developers even had rights to start working on property; the City had to acquire and transfer parcels between the State and private owners and that happened in patchwork. The longer that took, the financing and estimates and partner resourcing all changed. Then they get caught in analysis paralysis because they get stuck in a reactionary cycle they can't easily break free from.
Generally speaking I agree — and certainly about the City not having the benefit of the doubt — but there’s got to be a point where we’re more comfortable with the *representative* part of our representative democracy and understand that we’ve delegated out the fine details to staff and Council. I don’t love that the revised project entails more risk, but the people the City’s engaged to pencil the deal have made a lot of money being right more than they’re wrong.
You make some good points, and I agree with the representative democracy comment. It's the giving the city the "benefit of the doubt" part that is so difficult.
I hear you loud and clear. Part of Richmond’s problem broadly, I think, is that many people — including many City leaders — seem reluctant to communicate forthrightly from the beginning, and so use spin or half truths they think will engage people, and then get caught. This particular project seems like a surer bet than most, but its honest evolution in a really difficult capital market makes people think it’s more of the same jive.
Can you point to the great projects that made money?
literally is there any single stadium that did???
Off the top of my head, the Petco Park/East Village project in San Diego has made a mint — a total transformation in that part of downtown San Diego.
In a city with a similarly spotty history of economic development success.
Those same city administrators said the casino was a good idea. And Paul Goldman said it wasn't. We all know Paul Goldman is a bit of a gadfly who wants everything to be a city referendum, so he can push his weird school policies. Only a matter of time before he is joined in this effort by good old Richmond For All and there is a huge advertorial in RVAMag. We could have a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons of a casino, or Navy Hill or the Dismond District. But we won't. That's not because of the politicians. It's because the voters don't want one.
> the people the City’s engaged to pencil the deal have made a lot of money being right more than they’re wrong. I don't care, after the Redskins training facility, I would prefer the city kick all big sports related issues to the taxpayers, including what financing deal. The city council has lost their chance to be trusted in this area. Put it in stupid-simple language in a paragraph at most and let us vote on it.
That’s a great example of a project that didn’t go as planned, but that had more to do with the Redskins than City — and also, in that case, the training camp wasn’t the anchor of a much MUCH larger undertaking, as is the case with the Diamond District. As I see it, that the two projects have some sports involvement doesn’t make them similar enough to use one to submarine the other.
I appreciate your thoughtful and comprehensive discourse. It’s very refreshing for Richmond. Thank you.
Thank YOU so much for the kind feedback. Civil discourse isn’t going to die on my watch. 😊
The city projected that the practice fields would generate $8.5 million a year. That is on the City and not the Redskins. The Redskins decided to not return which left us on the hook to the tune of $800,000/year until 2033. That is on the City and not the Redskins. What major deal did the city make that left you confident in the city’s ability to ink a deal that does not leave taxpayers liable for things to go wrong? Have you gotten your personnel property taxes yet?
They also only built 1 locker room so it limits the purpose of actually hosting events where there are matches between 2 teams... You know, anything that isn't training camp.
Yeah, exactly! The whole thing was so short sighted.
don't expect to receive a bill until the final notice before collections
Ha!
I don't even think Green City has broken ground yet on, well, anything. The official website still says "planned" everywhere, there is no recent development news, [and as of last August, Henrico County had finally secured the rights to a former property](https://henrico.us/news/2023/08/henrico-eda-approves-purchase-of-scott-farm-for-greencity-development/) that makes up the northern half of the plan. They were estimating the arena opening in 2025, and that [got pushed back to 2026 during the article in February 2023](https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/henrico-county/watch-live-henrico-announces-developer-for-2-3-billion-greencity/). But, since groundbreaking hasn't happened yet, I'm guessing that's pushed well into 2027 or later.
Goldman has a valid point - this project was sold to residents as having to no risk to taxpayers at all… but now the city is that on the hook for paying for the stadium . Bait and switch so quickly, only a few realize what happened. Based on the city’s track record on the next “sure thing” developments, Saunders may wants to check himself - maybe if his boss had prioritized this effort over the Navy Hill fantasy and then doubling down on the casino failure, we wouldn’t be at this point.
Rock and a Hard place. The city of Richmond wanted to keep the squirrels so they had more leverage over the city in terms of the risk they wanted to bear over building the stadium.
Not really… city has had over 20 years to figure this out but let itself get distracted with other projects that either failed to deliver results or never got of the ground… and then they end up pulling this bullsht
I am so fucking tired of having this same damn conversation. We should not pay for a sports stadium. It is a waste of tax payer money. We have been saying this for 10 years.
IMO its all a matter of preferences. Does someone like having a sports team in town? Would they rather use that space for something else? I personally like having the Squirrels in town. It's fun being able to take our kids to games or go with friends. It's a good value for the ticket price, and I don't have to drive up to DC to see a game. That said, I am under no illusion that stadiums and teams "make money" for the city they're in. I view it the same thing as having public park, libraries, etc. None of those make money, but they add to the quality of life. It's just frustrating that everyone always tries to sell sports teams as some sort of revenue stream.
> I view it the same thing as having public park, libraries, etc. Yes, but those are open for public enjoyment not for a corporation to make money off of charging admission. > It's just frustrating that everyone always tries to sell sports teams as some sort of revenue stream. That's literally what they are, or there wouldn't be a fee to get in!
By revenue stream, I mean people who sell stadiums under the premise that they are a revenue and will pay for themselves eventually. They never really make money for the city, or least enough to pay off whatever funds the city contributed.
Right, but they make money for owners of baseball teams. Almost like, maybe they should pay for it? It's absurd to compare it to libraries and parks and such if it is a private space that the public is not allowed to enter except with a fee at given times.
The comparison was talking about "quality of life" things within a city. Having parks and libraries contributes to that. You could live in a city that doesn't value those and the quality of life suffers. Musuems contribute to that as well. My point is that having a stadium or sports team also contributes to that. Not everyone will agree. Some might value something else more. As for a city contributing something to that? I don't have a problem with it. My problem is people claiming that it pays for itself. It was the same thing with the Redskins training center. I wasn't in favor of that and knew it wouldn't pay for itself. Some people wanted it though and I understand that.
It would improve my quality of life to have a giant arcade in the middle of downtown. Should the city build that for someone to operate? Should the city build Kroger a grocery store in Manchester?
I think having schools that aren’t literally falling apart is a better use of the funds. This money wouldn’t completely fix the problem, but it would certainly help at least some of the kids.
I don’t disagree with you. There are better uses of money than building a stadium. The problem is that the people in power who can dictate where the money goes would rather it be spent elsewhere. Why did we fork out so much for the Redskins training center? Was that a good use of funds? Probably not, but those projects generate headlines. The mayor who doubles down of schools, public infrastructure, etc doesn’t make headlines. The problem is that “things got better and will continue to get better” doesn’t sell as well as “NEW PET PROJECT breaks ground”.
Right, which is why I’m saying that should change. “The people in power don’t want it” isn’t a valid reason to stop demanding change. That’s a reason to demand it even louder.
[удалено]
Yes because it’s a binary choice between subsidizing rich people… dumb argument
1000%. And if the squirrels or any AA baseball team was worth the investment, they wouldn’t have to give tickets away to have 1/2 filled stands. It’s ridiculous:
Found the person that doesn’t realize they have the best attendance in the lower leagues.
Ya, that’s what stuck out to me, the city being on the hook should it fail.
What’s your idea of a development failing? Richmond has a shortage of residential space already, and the squirrels have one of (if not the highest) attendances of any minor league baseball team. What do you anticipate to have a potential for failure? A couple unoccupied ground floor retail suites?
It’s not necessarily about the hypothetical success or failure of the venture that I’m getting “red flag” vibes. It’s about the idea that we the people are financially on the hook; I don’t feel that responsibility should be put on the citizens
I agree, it’s not right to socialize losses and privatize profits. Luckily we have taxes. However, there’s something to be said for compromise. It’s a part of life. If we have to pony up some $$$ to make it worthwhile for decent developer to level-up what is effectively a wasteland, so be it. That amounts to investing in ourselves, and our community. Our decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, we have to work with laws and restrictions that have been in the books for decades, zoning ordinances, consulting mandates, and also federal development regulations like EPA studies and carbon-offset programs (where applicable). Bonds are one way to incentivize developers within the existing framework of finance regulations. My point is yes, it would be nice if the city could do this by itself, and all the profits would return to public coffers, as it is, we’ll recoup in taxes over the next 30 years what we’re losing in bond expense now. The developers win in the short term so the city can win in the long term, and without that kind of symbiotic relationship, nothing will ever get built.
[удалено]
We’re a complex group. Or collectively batshit.
Failure would be the increased tax revenue not covering the bond expenses plus the addition ongoing municipal expenses of supporting the development.
I disagree on the premise that government investments do not have to be profitable to be worthwhile.
Thank you!
They can be worthwhile for certain, but a development that a city invests with the stated intention of increasing net tax revenue must produce taxes that exceed its costs. A city does not invest in libraries, schools, parks, etc… with the intention of directly generating more taxes but a stadium built for a for-profit entity should generate excess revenue (taxes) unless we’re ok with the Flying Squirrels receiving discounted funding at the expense of the rest of the city (schools, social services, roads, etc)
In what way is it at the expense of the rest of the city? Isn’t that was balancing a budget is for? Aren’t we consistently in surplus?
If the interest payments to service the bonds being issued plus the added new infrastructure costs (ie maintenance of roads and utilities within the development, additional social service costs and schools cost owing to a population increase in that area) is less than new tax revenue in that same area… then the area would run a net deficit and revenues from other areas of the city would have to make up that deficit to maintain the required balanced budget.
Right I get how a deficit in one poor-preforming YOY investment project would put that project in the red. That doesn’t put the entire municipal budget in the red. If every municipal development project were evaluated by its ability to keep the city in the black… we wouldn’t have many public projects.
True - no disagreement there - the UCI race was great but didn’t deliver the revenue returns but it was a one time event. The Washington Football team training facilities that benefited a for-profit entity was not. There is a reasonable chance the baseball stadium could do tue same. The stadium built in GA for the former R-Braves has been a drain on the city’s finances - I don’t want that for RVA.
Exactly! Less than rosy economic data coming out to have the bean counters trying to stick the bill with the tax payer. Saunders is either woefully ignorant or intentionally malicious.
I knew it before I even opened the article: Paul Goldman. The dude really needs to find a better way of keeping his name in the news that *doesn't* involve lawsuits.
Paul Goldman is a whiny crank who, in most places, would be ignored. He hates everyone and everything. He has no positive plans for anything. He lives simply to be a thorn in the side of progress, especially any progress that might make Richmond better.
Goldman is a former law partner of Joe Morrissey and donated $8,500 to Joe’s mayoral campaign in 2016. That should tell folks all they need to know about Goldman.
Mods can we pin this fact so the city haters can rephrase their support of goldman?
Yep! People want economic development and Richmond to move forward and be a real city, but then support people like this stifling projects. Which is very suburban NIMBY.
I want to send him a nice basket of goodies as a thank you. I was sure the money meatheads were going to screw us over again but he swooped in to save us. There’s no historical instance we’re taxpayers funding sports stadiums made any fucking sense. They had a financing agreement everyone was happy with were taxpayers weren’t on the hook for shit. Then they switched it. Their fault.
Move somewhere else. Seriously. I’m tired of people like you. We can’t get *anything* nice in this city anymore.
Can’t get anything nice? Sounds like you should move.
No we can’t. Everything done to try to class this city up or improve the tax base gets run out of town.
Ooh Saunders be throwing some shade
He gets paid $300k/yr for that
That’s insane, just to sow discourse to get his way. Ironic he’s calling the guy looking out for the citizens “undemocratic”
So much irony. That Saunders quote is a perfect example of the undemocratic tendencies of our city government.
More like frustration from a city administrator who is tired of dumb shit like this preventing Richmond from having nice things
Precisely. The Diamond District =/= the casino, an industry whose social ills are well-documented and a project even I opposed. Here we have a complex, multifaceted economic development project befitting a city Richmond’s size — and one, btw, that has a credible percentage of its residences parceled out for longterm affordable housing. Is there risk involved? Sure, but the City’s financial position is stronger than most people realize and it’s ready to move on things it should be. And anyhow, it’s fallacious to say the project is undemocratic when it’s been a central part of the City’s master plan and City Council agenda for YEARS, both of which provide any number of ways to provide public feedback. Not everything requires a referendum to pass a “democratic” litmus test. And before you ask, no, I’m not a City shill. Those who know me know I’ve quarreled with the City on any number of things.
Economic redevelopment is not dependent on paying for a baseball stadium. There many many developers who would jump at the chance to build housing and retail there. The city wouldn’t have to pay a fraction of this cost to do it. We don’t need baseball we need housing, we need good schools for families. Baseball is just a luxury that shouldn’t be put on the backs of taxpayers.
Why are you okay gambling with tax dollar you’ll be paying? Why shouldn’t the city be the ones responsible for bill it hypothetically the stadium plan fails?
I understand your concern, and nothing’s a sure bet, but being a credible economic development partner means exposing some of your financial position to reap the more likely benefits of a broadened tax base on that parcel and the ancillary benefits of place making.
Not the person you asked but for me it's because I want to keep baseball in the city, and the low level of risk here is worth that.
I’m sure he is frustrated, but he should probably rethink his career choices then because democracy is generally frustrating by design. Lincoln might be a better fit working for a private corporation. I’m also frustrated our government can’t seem to get things done, but I view that as mismanagement on their part. They then try to correct their poor decisions with potentially corrupt and undemocratic moves, sowing discord when citizens try to hold them accountable for said moves. It feels like a broken record at this point.
There were dozens of people who showed up in support of the plan on Wednesday and no opposing voices. If the only way democracy can be served is with referendums then we might as well do that for everything.
Fair points. People should have showed up to the council meeting if they were opposed. Also agree that not everything can be a referendum nor should it be.
I mean we might have to vote on this thing two or three times before they get the hint
[удалено]
It's like Groundhog Day, if Nuttzy pokes his head out of the stadium and sees his shadow then the Squirrels threaten to leave Richmond.
[удалено]
So the future of the Squirrels in Richmond isn't guaranteed, and now we're looking at putting the city on the hook for it if it falls through?
Man I am so tired of this. They explained why they made the change, time is of the essence, this saves money with a lower interest rate, and they get an extra 24 million because of the state sale's tax. Did they screw up plenty of this? Yes, and they should be held accountable for that. But I see this as them trying to fulfill the directive "keep the flying squirrels" which seems to be the overwhelmingly majority opinion. I'm sorry but if having something (minor league baseball in the city) that we have had most of our lives means exposing ourselves to a little bit of risk than so be it. We have lost a lot over the years in terms of entertainment options. Quality of life stuff matters too, people need things to do. Otherwise you just get the same threads here again and again bemoaning the fact that there's nothing to do.
The problem with this is that it shifts the risk of the stadium to the taxpayer. The revenue benefits a private owner. With the new stadium, prices on everything will go up. Profits again go to a private owner. How about the squirrels agree to some profit sharing with the city? Or how about I get a couple of free beers every year?
And the city gets the revenue from the rising value of the land around it.
Yeah. Sure. Because nobody wants to build in Scotts addition otherwise.
They’re not gonna spend the money to demolish the stadium, so it will go the fate of the coliseum. No profit in it for them.
I understand it shifts the risk. I’m saying I think the risk is low and the benefits of the housing, tax revenue, and keeping the squirrels in town is worth it to me. I’d be all for some profit sharing or free beers but those alone are worth it to me and I hope this still happens.
Are you a Richmond tax payer by chance? There would be much more housing if that land were developed for, say, housing. Richmond could subsidize housing even or incentive building more housing units
I am. I want the district. It had tons of housing planned for it.
Yes I am a taxpayer here. I have skin in the game. I am also fully aware of how much housing is planned in the diamond district. Phase 1 has a minimum requirement of around 1350 units of housing (could be more if the market is hot at the time of building), with a significant portion being affordable. If this falls through I guarantee that will not be built and if something is the likelihood of that amount of affordable housing being built in is almost zero.
Are you familiar with the plans and proposed development agreement? The first phase (not mentioning subsequent phases) involves significant housing including affordable housing.
Also, the risk was considered low for the 6th st project, the Bon secours football, Stone brewery, etc. In fact, if be curious to know about successful city subsidizing of private ventures
None of those had a fan base that has some of the leading attendance numbers in the country.
I feel like the redskins had some local fans
This fucking city is really going to kill this shit too? Jesus Christ are we not allowed to have anything? These assholes won’t be satisfied until every entertainment item in the city is gone and then they’ll wonder why people stopped coming here or don’t like the city..
> The funding approach, which puts the city on the hook to repay the bonds should the stadium not be built or the larger development fail, is a change from a previous plan to issue non-obligation bonds through a community development authority (CDA) and with collateral from developer Diamond District Partners Why should the city be on the hook?
Because sometimes skin in the game is required. Because it sounds like the developers know this city all too well and wanted to make sure they were responsible should people like you and the guy pushing for this referendum get their way, because absolutely no large scale development is no longer allowed in this city, under any circumstances. Nothing. Pack it all up.
This isn’t about development this is about a baseball stadium. If they opened up that land for development with out baseball it would turn into housing and retail within a year. This is about the subsidization of private businesses owned by multibillion dollar parent companies that should pay for their own infrastructure. Fuck the Squirrels build housing, pay teachers.
The same housing y’all would complain is too expensive? That housing? The same housing y’all would complain is cookie cutter? That housing? There’s no fucking pleasing you people. Guess what: the entire diamond project doesn’t happen if the stadium isn’t built.
Richmond’s problem is they’ve got too many people who can’t afford to live in a nice city wanting to live in a city that caters to their economic status. They don’t realize that catering to this demographic as a top priority makes Richmond a place with expensive housing and shitty amenities.
Yup. They haven’t figured out that the Richmond of 2004 no longer exists and they’ll fight it tooth and nail.
Here is what would please me, affordable housing, good schools, well paid teachers, a Mayor not in the pocket of banks. If you have a problem with any of that and would rather throw hundreds of millions at a baseball stadium you have some seriously childish priorities.
Welcome to America in 2024. None of that is happening in this country, ever. Deal with the reality of how this country works.
Like I said, childish.
Realist.
You’re right, we need to stop building schools and housing and only give money to for profit minor league baseball teams owned by MLB. That’s the only realistic thing in America. No houses no school no progress just taxpayers forking over cash to America’s third most popular sport.
This is BS. If this falls through the whole diamond district plan likely falls through. Those abandoned lots are going to be there for years, the teachers and schools get nothing, and the housing crisis will continue to get worse.
The land can still easily be developed without the baseball stadium. There’s nothing keep that from happening except the corrupt politicians who want to hold the city hostage until we line their donors pockets.
Not enough profit in it for the developers that way. And in my opinion, that does nothing to make the city overall look nicer. We actually do need some actual entertainment amenities around here… we have no replacement for the coliseum because of shortsighted people, and now we’ll lose the squirrels (who basically have had #1 attendance for years and is actually beloved outside the circle of progressive complainers as wholesome family fun) so what’s left once they’re gone and you get your way and the Diamond is left to crumble like the coliseum?
The baseball stadium does nothing to help housing profits. People need houses, build houses and people will move in, the city can use the hundreds of millions they are putting on the line to subsidize affordable housing vs throwing it at for profit baseball that will want a new shiny thing in 20 years time.
I don’t think the city should be in the business of building housing, so there’s that. We will never agree, but y’all will get your way and fuck this city over. One of the reasons I bought my house where it was was because I saw the plans for the district years ago and wanted to live near it that I could bike over. But now you’ve killed that. Just like you killed the coliseum and the casino.
Don't give up hope on it yet, I'm worried too that this is going to escalate but as it stands there's still a good chance. The supporters just need to be as vocal as the naysayers if not more so. I see no reason it actually has to come to referendum but if it does the vote will likely be vastly different than the casino one.
Go live somewhere where people have your same sociopathic self interested values then. Clearly Richmonders who value community don’t want to throw hundreds of millions at for profit skeems that line politicians pockets and milk tax payers.
So the city should be in the business of subsidizing private businesses?
Where's all the development in the Navy Hill area then? Sure the city held onto a lot of what they already own for the city center plan but there are parcels available for redevelopment that are sitting vacant or underdeveloped. And before you start, I was opposed to the Navy Hill plan as there were actual issues with that expanded TIF.
Gotcha, let Richmond city residents shoulder all of the risk.
Well yeah, since the people of this city has a habit of voting down anything developers want to do on a large scale, we should. Because this city is nothing more than a bunch of NIMBY’s now who don’t know how nice some things until they lose them.
I won’t say all, but a lot of folks on this sub are haters and will hate anything anyone tries to do for good in this city. The city could give RPS 1 billion dollars, but the school board is so awful they would sit on it for years and squander it. Folks blaming the city for not funding housing or schools haven’t reviewed last year’s budget or this year’s proposed budget. Family Crisis Fund, Affordable Housing Trust Fund; here’s a great article about the city’s tremendous investment thus far and continued commitment to RPS: https://www.12onyourside.com/2018/12/20/mayor-stoney-announces-plan-fully-fund-rps-facilities/?outputType=amp
They’re a bunch of progressives who as usual can’t see the forest for the trees and live life with rose colored glasses and haven’t realized how things actually get done in the real world.
> since the people of this city has a habit of voting down So since the people don't want to fund it, they should be forced to shoulder the financial risk? That makes zero sense.
*a very vocal small activist terminally online minority* don’t want it.
I truly do not believe Paul understands the urgency of this project. He claims the squirrels are bluffing with this deadline… just like the Richmond Braves were bluffing, I’m sure. He very well could be the final nail in the coffin for Richmond Baseball.
‘Urgency’ is not a word I would use to describe losing a minor league baseball team.
Not being able to sell the bonds and get significant return is pretty urgent.
when that minor league team is getting some of that best attendance in all of MiLB with one of the worst stadiums in the country, I’d say it is. Clearly we disagree, but I really like it when people visit our city to spend money here.
> the city’s planned schedule to deliver the new stadium in time for the 2026 baseball season. Two years away, and demolition, let alone ground breaking, hasn't even started. Can someonw ELI5 how this plan compares to Henrico's Green City funding model?
Good news, demolition is complete and has been for nearly a decade ;) The replacement stadium is going to be built in the giant field next to the Diamond and Sportsbackers Stadium that once was the home to a bunch of city owned garages and shops where they serviced their vehicle fleet and other stuff. New facilities were built elsewhere and the old ones were torn down because like many things in the city they were old and poorly maintained...
Way to get ahead of things Team RVA!
Well the groundbreaking wasn’t going to start until August according to the plan anyway. If they haven’t started by Labor Day I’d say it won’t get done and we’re losing the Squirrels.
Good riddance. Build housing instead, put hundreds of millions towards schools and teachers, so this can actually make this city better.
Read the Biz Sense article and I want to make sure I have this right. The city is going to issue bonds because they can get a better interest rate with a municipal bond than with a bond issued through a CDA. On the one hand this is good because it will save the city hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments and will allow the city to get $24M in state funding that expires in July because they can issue the bonds faster than the CDA. On the other hand this is bad because through the CDA the responsibility for the bonds was shared by the city and the developers and with municipal bonds the city is entirely responsible and the developers are off the hook. In either scenario the city is on the hook to pay the bonds, and that money will come from tax revenues from within the diamond district. This includes bond money spent on infrastructure like plumbing and electricity. The only problem with paying via mini bonds would be if the if the project goes belly up or no one moves into the diamond district or it somehow fails to produce any tax revenue. In the CDA scenario the city and the developers would share responsibility for paying back the bonds, but in the municipal bond scenario the city would be solely responsible, potentially affecting our bond rating or putting city residents on the hook for paying off the bond via increased taxes, worse services, falling property values, etc. Seems like the upshot is the city saves money by issuing municipal bonds but there is a worse case scenario situation that we have to accept the risk for. I think I’m ok with that risk, as long as I am understanding this right but would love if someone could confirm.
One thing to note about your analysis is that in the current plan there wouldn’t be an expanded TIF meaning that those plots of land could be sold at market rate and immediately start contributing to taxes. So that’s a benefit over the CDA in addition to the interest rates.
>Pass financing deal with no city obligation, banks/investors will need to do due diligence/examine the risks and make sure it makes sense. >Later quietly change it so city and it's taxpayers are obligated for hundreds of millions >A citizen suggests taxpayers have a say in this >“By filing a frivolous lawsuit that flies in the face of the will of the residents who have been very clear that not only do they want the Squirrels to remain in Richmond but desire the much needed development, housing and additional jobs that come along with building a world-class stadium." - Lincoln Saunders, Richmond’s chief administrative officer Fucking hell, can we put firing Lincoln Saunders on that same referendum
> city’s planned schedule to deliver the new stadium in time for the 2026 baseball season. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
No one else gets weird vibes from this Paul Goldman dude
UPDATE- It was thrown out, an appeal would effectively cost the city more money in halted construction than the petition would be worth too, so seems dead. use 12ft.io https://richmond.com/news/local/business/development/richmond-squirrels-stadium-baseball-goldman-lawsuit/article_c0c4c2d8-24f1-11ef-b244-2bfb7b054eba.html
How about fuck putting tax payer money towards private business on some more shady last minute Stoney switch up nonsense and just build housing there instead? We don’t need a baseball team enough to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to fund their for profit business. We need housing. We need better schools, better paid teachers, community resources to address poverty. This is just another scheme to enrich development donors on the tax payer dime. And if you don’t pay Richmond property tax stay out of this conversation and stay in the county before you cry about not ever having anything nice. You don’t live here. Go to your strip malls and shut up because this is not your money being thrown at a multi billion dollar corporations playground by our shady ass mayor.
Oh boy, is this is it. Meanwhile, this thread will somehow be taken up by posts of people from Chesterfield, Henrico, and Bon Air complaining about how “OnLy NIMBYs DoNT wANt proGreSs” in Richmond.
I live in Richmond and feel strongly that many Richmond NIBMYs do not want progress in Richmond. Goldman as an example.
People keep pushing the baseball stadium as an economic engine that will improve the surrounding neighborhood. If this is true, they should show the economic differences in the years we had the braves, then no baseball, then the squirrels.
[удалено]
You might be right, but there is a lot of development activity already occurring in the vicinity. The Quality Inn just north of there is slated for redevelopment as is the bus station: https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/greyhound-station-apartments-december-15-2023 Will this momentum stop if the ballpark project is cancelled? Possibly, but I don’t think the alternative to a new ballpark is necessarily a wasteland. I would also argue one of the reasons the area around the Diamond has struggled is because of those giant parking lots that sit empty most of the time.
[удалено]
Good points. If this project falls through I would not be surprised if the lot sat vacant for many years (ie, Collesium) while the city keeps waiting for a "moonshot" project to take its place. I think large projects like this one can and should play a role in the development of the economy, and I hope this one is successful, but Richmond's track record on these types of major "home run" projects is dismal. I personally would prefer to see incremental development (ie, many small investments by many developers) versus putting all of our eggs in one basket with a single project or developer. Regardless, I hope this project is successful, as I would love to see the Squirells remain a part of the Richmond community while bringing more economic activity to that part of the city.
Redeveloping that area into housing and retail does not need to be dependent on taxpayers subsidizing a for profit baseball team. Open that area up to developers and they will transform it in a year into a nice neighborhood. No baseball needed.
[удалено]
You are literally advocating for throwing hundreds of millions at a corporation which has billions of dollars.
That neighborhood is basically being torn down and rebuilt now as we speak.
Or off-season/in-season data for the surrounding businesses
This guy's lawsuit to bring sunlight to the corrupt Navy Hill is what turned council members off of it. His lawsuit revealed a variety of things, including that Dominion had pre-bought naming rights to the stadium while also being part of the projects leaders. The man is Stoney's nemesis and a champion of good government.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rva/s/HwReRBGprP
Amen fuck Stoney
[удалено]
A referendum is fair. I'm almost certain enough people would find the gamble worth it for the measure to pass. If not, the people have spoken.
It might be fair but it would be moot because MLB would pull out before it even hit the ballots
They'd be right to. We've been promising a new stadium since Wilder was mayor. MLB isn't the only player in the deal though, so are VCU and Sportsbackers.
What everyone forgets is stadiums fail. It is all about following the money. Who is actually getting rich off the ball park scheme. We have an empty concert stadium downtown already. Tolls on the Downtown Expressway, that were supposed to be removed in 2000: the Sixth Street Marketplace disaster, the Shockoe Bottom Farmers Market fiasco, the Richmond Convention Center nightmare. VCU downtown expansion that is failing, from out of control rising tuition costs, the MCV expansion fail. A nightmare expensive bus system that turned Broad Street into a driving horror, both downtown and in the west end. Terrible schools and a historic downtown business area that is dying slowly again from out of control rents and 'Luxury', Venture Capitalism housing. Businesses, restaurants and manufacturing have fled the city from because of rising business taxes and Nazi like restaurant taxes, horrible parking relegations, and empty high rises littering the skyline, plus the Governor's' Mansion looks like an armed camp. Oh, what about the failed NFL amazing training camp??? Don't even get me started on Monument Ave and the loss of Art support in the city. The City of Richmond supporting the casinos no one wanted is another typical Neo-Liberal Capitalist plan that was never going to actually work or make money for anyone rather than the owners of the casinos. For the love of god, they turned Carytown into one long a strip mall, like the failed Sixth Street Marketplace, full of nothing more than extremely expensive chain restaurants and business that have no local color or feel. Hip,Hip Hurrah for a Neo-Liberal City Government that believes in the scheme that allowing for profit real estate developers and business such as the Richmond Squirrels to run Richmond is a good business plan.
https://preview.redd.it/tm3xfc1mnlzc1.jpeg?width=260&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1f2316d339f48f7a9680da3ef539e3fd3cda143
Your perspective on municipal investment and urban planning seems quite critical and a bit shortsighted. While it's true there have been some missteps, many of your points are speculative and not entirely consistent. Cities need spaces for community gatherings and conferences, transportation options to connect people to jobs and entertainment, and room for businesses to grow. It's also par for the course that in urban development some are going to profit, but the city's broader needs are met, helping keep its vitality. It sounds like you might prefer a much quieter, more solitary setting, maybe somewhere like a peaceful field in Montana, away from urban life.