New Richmond Arena

[Brent114]

I think the article suggested investing the money in something that actually works for Richmond, the river. 

[DalWill]

9 hours ago, Hike said:

That's true and this is the spin off conversation. 

It's a conversation about why it's an idea,  but a bad idea for the river. There's no reason to move that scale of a project down to the river just because the river works. 

The river works because that stuff is not here, it's a refuge, a place to play and to breathe with the backdrop of urban behind you.  

It's understandable, is the area around the coliseum perfect, no, did the 6th street market place fail, yes.  Is the coliseum a mess and closed, yes. 

But what's different now is important.

VCU Health is moving west and that's not over, the bio-tech center is nearly full, Altria HQ, the convention center, a Marriott and Hilton all doing well enough to be there, had renovations in the last 2-4 years, Grace street cleaning up, Broad street cleaning up,  the General Assembly building, Children's Hospital expansion.  Is there any reason why this area can't grow like Scott's addition, which was warehouses, I-195 and what was the not so impressive boulevard.  It seem's like everything listed here is enough growth to say the area's bounded by Navy Hill are growing and this infill will be the connection that brings it together.  

This ties everything up.

[wrldcoupe4]

Here's an op/ed from Style Weekly. The author is not in favor of the project.

https://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/opinion-risk-factor/Content?oid=14994196

[vaceltic]

The author manages the website nocoliseum.com which goes into great detail on several subjects about why he thinks this plan likely won’t work or be achieved as advertised.

 https://nocoliseum.com/

[eandslee]

Stumbled upon this page and saw a couple different renderngs I haven't seen before.  Most notable is a rendering of the Regional Transit Hub.  I love the look of this especially with the highrise buildings above it.  Wow!  Cool!

https://future-cities.us/navy-hill/

Edited August 22, 2019 by eandslee

[Icetera]

That is one thing I keep noticing missing from the naysayers is that they are only concentrating on the stadium, not the other important components that are part of this such as the GRTC transfer and housing.

[Wahoo 07]

3 minutes ago, Icetera said:

That is one thing I keep noticing missing from the naysayers is that they are only concentrating on the stadium, not the other important components that are part of this such as the GRTC transfer and housing.

Good point.  A state of the art GRTC transfer center is crucial to building a regional BRT (and wishfully one day fixedrail) transit system.

[vaceltic]

The GRTC transfer station can be built on its own merits.  It is a reasonable use of City taxpayer money to fund a public good.  The amount of housing proposed for this development will stifle the free-market development of Manchester and the newly upzoned Monroe Park for a half-decade - areas located outside the TIF boundaries and where tax revenues go straight to the general fund 100%.

[Brent114]

Also, as of today there is still no plan to replace the Social Security offices.  They say it will stay downtown somewhere but they have no idea where or how the new offices will be financed.  This plan has never been about a public good.  

Its about a (most likely) tacky and underperforming vanity project paid for by tax payers.   

Edited August 22, 2019 by Brent114

[vaceltic]

2 hours ago, Hike said:

really, vanity project, good grief...I doubt Richmond's mayor has a vane bone in his body. I truly believe that  he see's this as good for the city and he's working thru the process as analytically as possible.  I don't  feel he's doing something to jeopardize the city & his reputation or just because it's a memorial to himself.  nope.  I've asked myself, why not just the coliseum, it'd be way less, but would it work?  I don't think so, it's the lipstick on the pig problem.  Then I ask, what's the worst that could happen, the state capital goes bankrupt, we fold up and close up shop, everyone moves and we have to get out of here, sorry, Richmond's gone now, we built a coliseum and it didn't work, the end... but then I remember, this place has survived the civil war, this is nothing. People oppose things, that's fine, it's good for the process, helps to vet things out, what doesn't kill us will make us stronger.

I disagree with your assessment of Stoney. He had an opportunity with the RFP to set requirements for multiple bidders to compete on. He even claimed he would only move forward with a deal if its good for the city. Well, that came and went with no competitive proposal.

After receiving only one proposal, he could have chosen to refine the RFP so it was less complex or break it up into pieces. Bidders for the arena. Bidders for the GRTC Transfer Station. Bidders for housing. Bidders for hotel. Instead, he ran with the only option we got and has been “negotiating” from a position of weakness ever since. It is the tail wagging the dog. Navy Hill, LLC was being formed before the last Mayoral election took place.

Since then, so much time and money has been spent by this administration to review and understand this complex boondoggle, from its own staff to Davenport & Company, the 'financial wealth management' firm the City pays to review the numbers. Just look at how many questions they had to submit on the draft proposal. I suspect much of their time since had been used to craft the best narrative possible, cherry picking the best numbers to make this sound like a financial windfall for the city. When the numbers for a 10-block TIF looked bad a year ago, they should have backed out. They didn't. Instead, they put more of RVA on the hook by making it 80-blocks. 

It is ALL about Stoney's reputation now. His political career now rides or dies on the implementation or rejection of this project as he is the public face and steward of the project. He has been backed into a corner by his early mistakes -  the time and money spent by the political elite backing Navy Hill LLC are trying to force this to happen, Richmond taxpayers be damned, because they’ve already spent $30M on architecture fees, marketing, and reaearch.  Listen to the words of Navy Hill representatives, Stoney, and his Chief of staff, when REAL Richmond residents object. They cast US as the outsiders and people stuck in the past (similar to what many on here like to state), when in fact, not one of them pays taxes to the City.

It is a bad deal for Manchester, Monroe Ward, General Fund revenues, Richmond's debt capacity, flexibility of future City Councils to change funding priorities, and ultimately the taxpayers (taxes will go up when this does not achieve the intended results). Not to mention the timing of it on the downswing of the longest economic expansion in US history should be very alarming to anyone paying attention. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by vaceltic

[CitiWalker]

 I wonder how much revenue will be generated through the sale of utilities....you know water and gas. After all people and businesses have to use water and gas. Doesn't the city charge for that? Water and gas is not cheap. Just wondering if someone did a study on that residual income. That's a lot of hand washing, toilet flushing, and cooking.

Edited August 22, 2019 by CitiWalker

[Asace88]

I’ve tried to stay on the sidelines but this is almost unbearable at this point.

Celtic and Brent, I seriously feel like this project could be projected to benefit the city $100 billion a year for the rest of eternity, rid the world of poverty and  cure cancer and you would still bash it.  There is no way you would ever support this even if everyone involved came out and said it was a good deal for the city.  

The fact that you say Stoney’s political career rides or dies on this project is ridiculous.  He is 38 years old.  It’s like you feel like he should be penalized for taking a risk and trying to create something groundbreaking for the city.  If it doesn’t work out at least he took a shot at doing something. 

Developments like this don’t just come along every day.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is everyone involved with it a vane crook looking to stuff their pockets with our money?  No.  Developers take risks and there need to be incentives for such huge risks to be taken.  These people don’t develop things like this out of he kindness of their heart.

I won’t lose any sleep if this development never happens but for the love of God I can’t stand the idea of another transformative Richmond project being lost because a bunch of Debbie Downers shout and yell about the schools and the taxpayers and offer no realistic alternatives to the plan.

 

 

[CitiWalker]

35 minutes ago, Asace88 said:

I’ve tried to stay on the sidelines but this is almost unbearable at this point.

Celtic and Brent, I seriously feel like this project could be projected to benefit the city $100 billion a year for the rest of eternity, rid the world of poverty and  cure cancer and you would still bash it.  There is no way you would ever support this even if everyone involved came out and said it was a good deal for the city.  

The fact that you say Stoney’s political career rides or dies on this project is ridiculous.  He is 38 years old.  It’s like you feel like he should be penalized for taking a risk and trying to create something groundbreaking for the city.  If it doesn’t work out at least he took a shot at doing something. 

Developments like this don’t just come along every day.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is everyone involved with it a vane crook looking to stuff their pockets with our money?  No.  Developers take risks and there need to be incentives for such huge risks to be taken.  These people don’t develop things like this out of he kindness of their heart.

I won’t lose any sleep if this development never happens but for the love of God I can’t stand the idea of another transformative Richmond project being lost because a bunch of Debbie Downers shout and yell about the schools and the taxpayers and offer no realistic alternatives to the plan.

 

 

Well said...something of this magnitude is not going to come our way often.

[CitiWalker]

I voted for Stoney because we need someone to think forward and not backward. You have to give something to get something. A project like this will bring much needed vitality to the CBD. Some people act as if there is suppose to be a guarantee. If you go after nothing then you get nothing. Up until the late 80s we had a robust  retail presence downtown.  Everyone does not subscribe to a suburban lifestyle. People want things to do within the proximity of where they live. When they built the theaters on the Boulevard I applauded it as a ingenious Idea.  People are too quick to discount the residual effects of what this can do to help the image of the city. This project is a game changer for its residents.  I hope this goes through. If not we will loose a huge opportunity to set ourselves apart from similar cities of our size. Just my two cents.                                               

[vaceltic]

I have pointed out several alternatives (and missed opportunities by the city over the past 15 years) throughout this thread. I also just pointed out several missed opportunities by Stoney to get competitive bids to make all these pieces happen and get the best deal for the city.  It’s his missteps that have forced this all-or-nothing decision to be made.  

I just went to a district meeting and asked Stoneys representative why the city is choosing to redistribute residential growth from Manchester (non Tif)  to downtown (TIF) based on Navy Hill’s own market analysis. The administrator’s response was “I haven’t read the analysis” yet she also said “I don’t believe the market analysis is accurate.”

are you kidding me? That’s supposed to give me confidence and convince me to support this?

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by vaceltic

[DalWill]

3 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I have pointed out several alternatives (and missed opportunities by the city over the past 15 years) throughout this thread. I also just pointed out several missed opportunities by Stoney to get competitive bids to make all these pieces happen and get the best deal for the city.  It’s his missteps that have forced this all-or-nothing decision to be made.  

I just went to a district meeting and asked why  the city is choosing to redistribute residential growth from Manchester (non Tif)  to downtown (TIF) based on Navy Hill’s own market analysis. The administrator’s response was “I haven’t read the analysis” yet she also said “I don’t believe the market analysis is accurate.”

are you kidding me? That’s supposed to convince me to support this?

 

Have you told her why they should re-evaluate that? Did you propose your information to them?  Did they snub you?

[wrldcoupe4]

Wait, how is the city redistributing growth from Manchester again?

Also, I’ve notice you mention the Davenport “wealth management” thing a few times. They have a large wealth management practice but also have a separate public finance practice. 

https://www.investdavenport.com/capital-markets/public-finance/

So, I guess I don’t fully understand the point you’re trying to make but maybe you could expand on that also?

Edited August 23, 2019 by wrldcoupe4

[RiverYuppy]

41 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Wait, how is the city redistributing growth from Manchester again?

He's referring to supply and demand.  An investor who might be otherwise looking to build an apartment complex elsewhere in the city might be less inclined if they see 2,600 new units coming online.

If the market demands 3,000 units be built and the city designates 2,600 go in Navy Hill, then that's 2,600 less that go elsewhere.  Creating the Navy Hill development doesn't mean the city gets to have 5,600 new units of housing.

 

I wish the city could do it without the stadium.  However, I think the value add of having a whole new very dense neighborhood is worth it.

 

My main concern is the private investment portion.  The new locks apartment building downtown cost about $60m.  One billion dollars would be 16-17 of those. I see the number of about a billion dollars in private investment, but I don't see that level of development. I would like to be better assured that we really are getting a billion dollars in private investment and not some bloated figure. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by RiverYuppy

[jbjust]

39 minutes ago, Hike said:

From the Norfolk board , see below. 

I guess it makes sense for those so opposed to something to be on the Richmond board here, where there are what,  8-10 regular, active posters at best, and to spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince , what 10 people,  of how bad a deal it is, what a waste of time and it just seems mean spirited.  I came to this board to get previews of new developments, architecture and perhaps get some inside scoop on what's going on in Richmond.   For me, that's all it is and that's all there's time for.  

Norfolk board

vaceltic - Posted 23 hours ago

Don’t worry guys, I’m fighting the Richmond Arena deal tooth and nail. Pretty pictures are great, but the financing scheme is a net loss and significant risk to Richmond taxpayers. I take issue with the lofty, unrealistic attendance and revenue projections, the fact that Richmond alone has to foot the bill (even though surrounding counties benefit), and the project costs have been incorrectly calculated at the most rudimentary level, despite Richmond hiring a “wealth management” company to review the finances. 

Don’t worry, when this fails, some corporate entity will swoop back into Norfolk proclaiming its own saving grace project that Norfolk taxpayers will be on the hook for.

 

I agree.  Vaceltic should take his arena hate over to reddit.com/r/rva 

[Icetera]

While I am mostly in support of this project I am not going to discount Vaceltic's points either and the other perspectives are needed here.  One thing that does bug me is how much the project scope has crept.  It was one thing when it was just the lots that were wasted as non-productive and non-tax-collecting city and state property, but the two south of Broad have plenty of potential outside of this project.  It does make me suspicious as to why the City Center project never got anywhere. 

I do think directing more housing to the center of the city is critical, Manchester will be alright.  I am also OK if there is not a large return on the project as long as it at least comes close to its costs.  If we built everything with an expectation of increased revenue then there would be no libraries, museums, theaters etc.

[vaceltic]

Vladimir here, infiltrating your minds through my KGB powers from my mother's basement yet again...

I actually have some good news on this project. It has been changing so quickly its enough to make your eyes go cross-eyed:

The person managing the website link below seems to have inside scoop on the plan updates. Several key components of the Navy Hill plan are likely to funded from other sources:

1) GRTC Bus Transfer Station: City claims there will be enough State and Federal money to fund this piece separately (i suspect they will use ISTEA grants, but unsure of the mechanism)

2) Leigh Street grade improvements might be funded through the State (still unclear at this point)

3) Blues Armory renovation will be picked up by the developers

So, in summary, the city investment finally might boil down to something that is digestible and understandable by city council and the citizens:

**Up to $600M for 5,000 additional arena seats (plus an unknown cost to relocate Social Services)**

http://www.rvapol.com/blog/2019/8/22/navy-hill-plan-initial-reactions

Now, for those who say I'm just a naysayer with no alternatives, here's an idea of how Richmond could spend that $600M (or $120,000 per seat) on a combination of other priorities:

1) 5000 seats or 5000 desks? Invest the money in new public schools or workforce training/technical training assets to give disadvantaged residents opportunities to develop the job skills they need to thrive in the future RVA

2) 5000 seats or 5000 units? Invest the money in 5000 new affordable housing units dispersed across the city in concentrated areas of employment, transit, and social services. Creating these 5000 units would be the envy of every coastal city struggling with affordability issues and would raise RVA to a national scale model as a compassionate and progressive place to live. This progressiveness will likely attract businesses and residents who desire to live in a progressive place - think the opposite of NC's transgender bathroom ban, when companies withheld events and threatened to leave the state

3) 5000 seats or 5000 acres? Invest the money to complete the Riverfront Master Plan. Extend the riverfront to Rockets Landing and through Manchester to Ancarrows Landing, complete the missing trail links, and improve existing infrastructure to capitalize on the beauty, recreational opportunity, and tourism that this one-of-a-kind asset brings to Richmond. 

Man, I just hate hate hate so much to bother bringing updates and alternatives to this forum. I'll go back to my hacking now.

Proshchay!

Edited August 23, 2019 by vaceltic

[Urbs42]

Think of the big picture. Richmond has experienced incredible growth over the past decade without a legit arena, and despite the shoddy state of this part of town. We don't need this development to spur growth that is going to come organically regardless. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in things to improve our city, but it seems so obvious that what is driving this particular project is a group of investors, power brokers and politicians who can cash in on it in various ways. 

Yea, it would be cool to have a new arena and retail downtown, but this is a "nice-to-have"... it's not going to make much difference either way. You know what would have a tremendous impact on this city's reputation, its citizens and those considering a move here? Improving a embarrassing school system. But there's no money to be made there, or opportunity for short-term political gain.   

 

[Icetera]

I am so tired of the schools as a scapegoat to fight anything undesired.  Throwing more money at them is not going to fix the mismanagement problem that has plagued the school system for decades now.  Also, we are building new schools.

I put all this together when the meals tax increase passed.  Keep in mind that in response, I have spent considerably less going out in Richmond (a bit more in Henrico) and am actually now contributing less to the meals tax than prior to July 2018, despite the increase.
 

From August 2018:

Since 2003, the City of Richmond's population has risen 15% (198k to 227k), while the student population has declined 4% (26k to 25k), which makes sense given the younger, child-less residents moving back to the city (US Fertility rate has dropped 14% from 2.05 to 1.76). Meanwhile the meals tax has doubled in that time-frame (added a "temporary" 1% for the performing arts center, then an additional 1.5% earmarked for one year to RPS).

Since 2010 (earliest available records), real estate taxes have increased 19% ($223 mil to $265 mil) while overall revenue has increased 10% ($630 mil to $692 mil). Local tax revenues (including meals) have increased 7% ($142 mil to $152 mil) and property taxes only 5% ($44 mil to $46 mil). In this time-frame, the City budget has increased 9% ($1.45 bil to $1.59 bil) while the Richmond City Schools' budget has increased 46% ($260 mil to $380 mil), despite a decline in student enrollment!

Meanwhile, since the meals tax increase adoption, payments to the Redskins (budgeted out of school and jail construction funds) has increased 150% ($0.50 mil to $1.25 mil)!

So why the hell does a system, that is losing demand need such a massive increase in funds unless there is serious mismanagement (as has been historically the case)?! And why is the burden always placed on the restaurant industry? Perhaps because increasing an existing tax is less noticeable to the masses than adding a new tax? Could it be possible, that despite huge increases in the budget, school funds get allocated elsewhere and facilities purposely neglected so that they can be used as a martyr for raising funds for other uses? Think of the children!

https://www.richmond.com/…/article_156a508d-f78e-5719-a479-…

http://www.richmondgov.com/CityCouncil/budget.aspx

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/…/fall_member…/report_data.shtml

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN…

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Icetera

[wrldcoupe4]

1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

Vladimir here, infiltrating your minds through my KGB powers from my mother's basement yet again...

I actually have some good news on this project. It has been changing so quickly its enough to make your eyes go cross-eyed:

The person managing the website link below seems to have inside scoop on the plan updates. Several key components of the Navy Hill plan are likely to funded from other sources:

1) GRTC Bus Transfer Station: City claims there will be enough State and Federal money to fund this piece separately (i suspect they will use ISTEA grants, but unsure of the mechanism)

2) Leigh Street grade improvements might be funded through the State (still unclear at this point)

3) Blues Armory renovation will be picked up by the developers

So, in summary, the city investment finally might boil down to something that is digestible and understandable by city council and the citizens:

**Up to $600M for 5,000 additional arena seats (plus an unknown cost to relocate Social Services)**

http://www.rvapol.com/blog/2019/8/22/navy-hill-plan-initial-reactions

Now, for those who say I'm just a naysayer with no alternatives, here's an idea of how Richmond could spend that $600M (or $120,000 per seat) on a combination of other priorities:

1) 5000 seats or 5000 desks? Invest the money in new public schools or workforce training/technical training assets to give disadvantaged residents opportunities to develop the job skills they need to thrive in the future RVA

2) 5000 seats or 5000 units? Invest the money in 5000 new affordable housing units dispersed across the city in concentrated areas of employment, transit, and social services. Creating these 5000 units would be the envy of every coastal city struggling with affordability issues and would raise RVA to a national scale model as a compassionate and progressive place to live. This progressiveness will likely attract businesses and residents who desire to live in a progressive place - think the opposite of NC's transgender bathroom ban, when companies withheld events and threatened to leave the state

3) 5000 seats or 5000 acres? Invest the money to complete the Riverfront Master Plan. Extend the riverfront to Rockets Landing and through Manchester to Ancarrows Landing, complete the missing trail links, and improve existing infrastructure to capitalize on the beauty, recreational opportunity, and tourism that this one-of-a-kind asset brings to Richmond. 

Man, I just hate hate hate so much to bother bringing updates and alternatives to this forum. I'll go back to my hacking now.

Proshchay!

To channel some dumb and dumber, So your saying there’s a chance... that you could get on board with the concept? Or saying regardless you dislike and thing finds good be spent otherwise. How would you find the other initiatives and recoup on that investment (-as the TIF development does for the arena )?

[vaceltic]

Ehhh not really Wrldcoupe, I'm still not on board with spending $600M to fund an extra 5,000 arena seats, based on all the studies and research done on the economic pitfalls of taxpayer funded arenas. I believe the city can achieve a better return on investment with its money going elsewhere to serve the greater public good. 

Since TIF has been proposed as an idea for the arena, could the city apply that in the other alternatives? Maybe, maybe not - but I think exploration of its merits warrants alot of further discussion, I'll credit the administration for that. Why couldn't the same TIF area apply to any or combination of three options or others citizens prioritize (housing, riverfront, schools)? What if the TIF idea is actually researched in an open, publicly engaging way to craft localized TIFs around neighborhood priorities? Maybe these districts are used to fund affordable housing in neighborhoods where moderate income people are being priced out? Maybe consider the TIF strategy on a city-wide scale? Richmond could allocate a very small percentage of future taxable property increases intending to periodically progress the Riverfront Master Plan improvements.  Regardless whether Navy Hill happens or not, property taxes will continue to increase across the city, so its not like future revenues aren't there to capture and allocate to many things.