Jump to content

eandslee

New Richmond Arena

Recommended Posts


11 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

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/

Just looked up who is in charge of the website out of curiosity, this is run by Justin Griffin, a fairly young lawyer, think U of R graduate. 

There are 248 signatures for the online petition for no coliseum.

There are a lot of details on why not, like the plan, a lot of information and calculations, etc.  

If you google "Justin Griffin no coliseum" you'll get quite a few links, a picture or 2 of him from other articles, facebook, etc., so he's committed to no.

Not sure if any of this matters or what my point is, it's just interesting to see who's behind something.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by eandslee
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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%.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Brent114
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by vaceltic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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 by CitiWalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Projects are a risk, as I've said before, and it may not happen for any number of reasons or it may.  I can't argue, I don't have the energy and type too slowly.  We differ on how we see this and I'm not invested like you are in Richmond. Maybe it won't happen and then afterwards all Richmond's problems go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.