New Richmond Arena

[vaceltic]

3 hours ago, RiverYuppy said:

I just don't get where stuff like this comes from.  The city isn't paying for the building.  The fact that you think that or have read that just boggles my mind regarding how much disinformation about this project has been put out there. 

The city isn't paying for *ANY* development that will be owned by private developers.  In fact it isn't even paying for all of the development that it will own. 

You cannot make this argument. The arena subsidy is what carries the entire development — Navy Hill developers say this, Mayor Stoney says this, and now they’ve suckered CoStar into saying it, among others. The term they love to throw around is “Navy Hill or nothing”. Without the arena subsidy, nothing happens.

Now I don’t truly believe that at all - their rhetoric is just verbal ‘rhea, political gamesmanship, and flat out lies. It’s very clear a lot of this COULD happen without it.

I’d be curious to know if any of them are actually tallying the quoted “9,000 permanent jobs” Navy Hill is projected to generate. Is CoStar’s planned 2,000 jobs part of the 9,000? Because 1,000 are already here. I bet you wouldn’t get a straight, consistent, concise answer from any of them on that question. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by vaceltic

[wrldcoupe4]

“COULD” - there is no way on earth Costar would relocate to this neighborhood without the overall Navy Hill project.
 

There are always going to be people that are against the arena financing component and that’s Okay. 

[vdogg]

On 1/13/2020 at 6:18 PM, eandslee said:

Of course the Hampton Roads area would do this...they can’t be out-done by Richmond!  Richmond and the Hampton Roads area constantly compete against one another. On one hand it seems healthy, but in the other hand the efforts of of both to out-do the other ends up nulifiying the intented results.  The two airports do the same (although Richmond, sort of has the slight upper hand with more passengers per year, ORF has better destinations to include those to the west coast). However, because both locations has to have what the other has, neither region can supreme over the other.  As for the arena battle, the competition is going to hurt both arenas and don’t forget JPJ Arena (i.e., when a performer comes through Virginia, where are they going to choose to do their show: Richmond, Norfolk, or even Charlottesville?) - the state will be completely saturated with arenas.  I don’t see this as a good thing at all.  Not sure if all three arenas would be able to be sustained. I just don’t have a good feeling about it...at all. 

There are metro areas HR’s size that have 2 or 3 arenas of that magnitude. 2 arenas that size in the entire state aren’t going to hurt anyone. The fact is, major acts are passing the entire state by due to lack of appropriate venues. Something in the Water sold out with 35,000 tickets. EVERY hotel room in the metro was booked. The demand is there, and can easily be spread across 2 arenas between here and Richmond. There really is no direct competition. Our events will get a lot of people from NC, your events will get a lot of people from NoVa and DC. Both venues will do well.

[wrldcoupe4]

The geographic is too large for there to be any realistic expectation that the majority of people from either region would travel to the other consistently. We can both have new arenas. 

[vdogg]

You also have to think of what is contained within HR. Virginia Beach is a major tourist destination, it really makes no sense for us not to have a an arena in that area. We get a lot of events down here from national wrestling tournaments, surfing tournaments, outdoor concerts, etc. It's really a no-brainer from our end, I really don't think we're competing for the same demographic.

[wrldcoupe4]

More details on how the state sales tax revenue proposal reduces the TIF from 80 to 11 city blocks. I haven’t seen the map yet, but I suspect many parcels in these 11 blocks are currently city owned and yield $0 in real estate taxes. This preserves future increases in real estate taxes to the city’s general fund for those 69 other blocks. 

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/bourne-s-state-sales-tax-proposal-for-navy-hill-plan/article_b3e0ca2b-daae-5756-bfe9-faa4b6d09e00.html

Edited January 17, 2020 by wrldcoupe4

[eandslee]

Wow!  That’s even better than the half (~40 blocks) that I heard Levar Stoney estimate during the press conference the other day.  How did it go from a reduction of about half  to only 11 blocks?  That’s a big difference. 

[Ward Wood]

Can someone explain in very simple terms what a TIF is? A few others: who is exactly paying for the navy hill project, how many low income housing units will be removed and how many will be replaced? I feel like with that info I can stand my ground in any convo with friends. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Ward Wood

[RiverYuppy]

1 hour ago, Ward Wood said:

Can someone explain in very simple terms what a TIF is?

Imagine there is a private lot of land that is a surface parking lot in the TIF area.  It is assessed by the city at $200k.  That means the developer pays $2,400 in taxes to the city each year.

If as part of the development a new hotel gets built on that lot of land the assessment will go up.  Now the property assesses for $50m.  The property owner will now pay $600,000 in property tax. $2,400 of it will still go to the city's general fund and the rest will go towards paying of the bonds used to finance the coliseum. 

The idea is that if the Navy Hill project doesn't go through, then the hotel won't be built and the city will continue getting about $2,400 either way.

To finance the coliseum the city is going to issue $300m in bonds backed by the TIF.  If assessed values don't go up in the TIF area to pay back the bonds, then the bond holders are out of luck and have no recourse against the city.

So if the value of all the property in the TIF area at the beginning of the project is X and the value assessed in a given year is Y, each year the amount paid towards the bond will be Y - X.  The city will continue getting paid only X until the bonds are paid off or 35 years is up.

 

1 hour ago, Ward Wood said:

who is exactly paying for the navy hill project

There are many things that make up the project, such as new hotels, apartments, a new GRTC transfer station, renovating the armory, the coliseum, etc.

For the most part everything but the coliseum (including the new GRTC transfer station) will be financed by the developers of the Navy Hill corp.  The coliseum will be paid for by the city in the way described above.

There is a caveat that there are certain incidentals and external costs.  For example though Navy Hill group is building a new transfer station for free, it isn't free for GRTC to handle everything that goes along with moving to a new transfer station.  Also more residents use more city resources, which costs money.

1 hour ago, Ward Wood said:

how many low income housing units will be removed and how many will be replaced?

I'm not aware of any that will be removed.  However, there will be 280 income based housing units added within the project area.  

Also by "income-based" it means that 280 of the apartments can only go to people making below a certain income.  There is no stipulation on what they have to pay.  However, generally prices have to be dropped if you want to fill up those rooms, since you can't accept high earning applicants who would otherwise fill up the units at market rates.

At least 112 of the 280 apartments will only be rented to people making 60% of the area median income (AMI) or less.  PDF Source

From Richmond BizSense

"Filling out the development would be more than 2,000 market-rate apartments, 280 income-based housing units within the project area and potentially hundreds more elsewhere downtown that would be funded with surplus revenues and through philanthropic support. Stoney mentioned $10 million in support specifically from The Community Foundation and Atlantic Union Bank that would be earmarked for 200 income-based units beyond the project footprint."

Edited January 17, 2020 by RiverYuppy

[eandslee]

Good explanation above RiverYuppy.

My question is regarding “a bill that Del. Jeff Bourne, D-Richmond, introduced at the Virginia General Assembly to let Richmond keep a projected total of $55.7 million in state sales tax generated by the massive economic development proposal over as many as 35 years that could help the city shrink the [TIF] zone from 80 blocks Stoney proposed last August to 11.”  (From RTD: https://www.richmond.com/news/local/bourne-s-state-sales-tax-proposal-for-navy-hill-plan/article_b3e0ca2b-daae-5756-bfe9-faa4b6d09e00.html)

Assuming this passes, when will it pass?  Will it be before City Council’s vote on the NH project on 24 February or sometime after that date?  I think this is a very important point for Council to consider when the entire project is up for vote next month (makes this even more attractive).  I am assuming this will pass before the big vote.  Am I correct in this line of thinking?

Well, here’s a RBS article that just came out this morning talking about the TIF district reduction, but still does not indicate when the bill would pass. 

https://richmondbizsense.com/2020/01/17/navy-hill-developer-arena-funding-area-would-drop-from-80-blocks-to-11-with-state-bill/

Edited January 17, 2020 by eandslee

[wrldcoupe4]

Here’s the new TIF compared to the old one. Most of these blocks are owned by the city and generate no tax revenue today. (From BizSense)

Edited January 17, 2020 by wrldcoupe4

[marinog711]

Welp ... RIP

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/breaking-majority-of-richmond-city-council-asks-mayor-to-pull/article_67b88e37-c69b-509d-a8e8-378616f06f4b.html

[jbjust]

46 minutes ago, marinog711 said:

Welp ... RIP

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/breaking-majority-of-richmond-city-council-asks-mayor-to-pull/article_67b88e37-c69b-509d-a8e8-378616f06f4b.html

I really don't understand the timing of this at all.  So many good developments recently.  Why do we vote for the least of us to lead?

[Downtowner]

I honestly feel like city council should be dissolved they literally get in the way of everything. I wonder if there’s a way to bypass city council and veto there votes and let the mayor approve it. I honestly don’t even understand why we have a mayor if city council has final say in any project and anything and everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wrldcoupe4]

I heard the same thing you did. How utterly disappointing. There must be something behind the scenes politically that spurred this maneuver. 

[vaceltic]

Stony and Farrel just sound like Trumpian bullies and cry babies with their responses to this. I’m so sick of political heavyweights thinking they know best and the social media blast money they have spent trying to arm twist the public is nauseating. 
 

sorry boys, you gambled your own $20 million concocting a secretive, back door plan with zero public engagement and expected to shove it down the taxpayers throat. Richmonders are too smart for those tactics and flat out shouted out to you the real priorities when you were running for mayor. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by vaceltic

[vaceltic]

the public engagement doesn’t happen AFTER the plan is unveiled. It’s before. Hence the council’s request for the small area plan, Richmond 300, and reissuing the RFP. 

I seriously doubt there would be this much push-back had this been done at the beginning, when it’s clear the RFP process was rigged and cherry-picked for Tom Farrel’s group to win. The entire process has been illegitimate and a sham and now Stoney and Farrel want to whine about how council isn’t going along with it. Crocodile tears coming straight from their arrogance.

Edited January 28, 2020 by vaceltic

[eandslee]

Responses from Council’s buffoonery:

Stoney called the resolution “laughable,” "ridiculous,” and “selfish.” He also says the council members haven’t been vocal with their concerns prior to taking this move.

The Navy Hill District Corp. released the following statement saying in part: 

“It’s unfortunate that instead of looking for ways to improve the Navy Hill proposal, these Councilmembers are putting their heads in the sand and hoping that the City’s problems resolve themselves. We proactively sought to sit down with each of these five members to ask them for their ideas, amendments and recommendations to make this the best possible deal for Richmond, to which they have offered nothing.”

“Just as the Council’s Navy Hill Advisory Commission worked hard – it’s time for these Councilmembers to do the people’s work, because we are not going to withdraw this community benefit-driven proposal or start over. The project has been under unprecedented scrutiny for the past six months – and we have engaged residents in hundreds of civic meetings and briefings and dozens of Advisory Commission meetingse, Council work sessions and public hearings. No City process has ever been this transparent.”

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/01/27/members-richmond-city-council-ask-stoney-restart-bidding-process-navy-hill-development/

[Downtowner]

Responses from Council’s buffoonery:
Stoney called the resolution “laughable,” "ridiculous,” and “selfish.” He also says the council members haven’t been vocal with their concerns prior to taking this move.
The Navy Hill District Corp. released the following statement saying in part: 
“It’s unfortunate that instead of looking for ways to improve the Navy Hill proposal, these Councilmembers are putting their heads in the sand and hoping that the City’s problems resolve themselves. We proactively sought to sit down with each of these five members to ask them for their ideas, amendments and recommendations to make this the best possible deal for Richmond, to which they have offered nothing.”
“Just as the Council’s Navy Hill Advisory Commission worked hard – it’s time for these Councilmembers to do the people’s work, because we are not going to withdraw this community benefit-driven proposal or start over. The project has been under unprecedented scrutiny for the past six months – and we have engaged residents in hundreds of civic meetings and briefings and dozens of Advisory Commission meetingse, Council work sessions and public hearings. No City process has ever been this transparent.”
https://www.nbc12.com/2020/01/27/members-richmond-city-council-ask-stoney-restart-bidding-process-navy-hill-development/

This is why city council should be dissolved and be no more. They don’t care to compromise and meet in the middle or meet with any proactivity. It makes me mad that council gets final say. In this case I think the mayor should veto any votes that are again this project from council and build it already. It makes me sick that council won’t even try to make it work. I understand everyone hates dominion and hates people who have money but honestly who on earth else would you expect to build any sort of large scale development. You think some poor guy or some dude off the block is going to come in and say hey let’s build this but by the way I have no money to build it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brent114]

This plan was always lame and always DOA.

...A  billion dollars to rebuild existing parking decks, moving tenants from one part of downtown to another and a hockey league with teams in Wheeling and Reding (way to fill the arena).   It is a tacky farce with a ridiculous RFP. 

Richmond hasn’t missed a beat in the time that this project has been percolating.  Housing, hotel and office space is being built all around downtown.  Redeveloping this plot of land will add nothing to the momentum.  Actually it will suck the oxygen out of the development that is happening organically elsewhere.  

Bye Felicia.  

[eandslee]

25 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

This plan was always lame and always DOA.

...A  billion dollars to rebuild existing parking decks, moving tenants from one part of downtown to another and a hockey league with teams in Wheeling and Reding (way to fill the arena).   It is a tacky farce with a ridiculous RFP. 

Richmond hasn’t missed a beat in the time that this project has been percolating.  Housing, hotel and office space is being built all around downtown.  Redeveloping this plot of land will add nothing to the momentum.  Actually it will suck the oxygen out of the development that is happening organically elsewhere.  

Bye Felicia.  

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by eandslee

[wrldcoupe4]

So, no 2nd Dominion tower? 

[RiverYuppy]

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks.  Everybody on this board wants Richmond to grow.

 

19 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

Actually it will suck the oxygen out of the development that is happening organically elsewhere.

I think more housing in Richmond sucks the oxygen out of Henrico sprawling expansion more than it does from other organic Richmond developments.

1 minute ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

So, no 2nd Dominion tower? 

I'm bullish the second one will happen.  I doubt Farrel wants to be seen as using Dominion shareholder resources for what (to shareholders) seems like a petty local political dispute. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by RiverYuppy

[vaceltic]

7 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

So, no 2nd Dominion tower? 

Can guarantee some Dominion public statement released like this, if Navy Hill doesn’t happen: 

“After further evaluation of our staffing needs and corporate priorities, a second tower was determined not to be needed at this juncture. While we always look to optimize our footprint and provide our employees modern amenities in a cutting edge work environment,  a second office tower would be surplus to requirements, as current assets and locations satisfy our corporate strategy.”

Edited January 28, 2020 by vaceltic

[wrldcoupe4]

Sure would seem like a better use of shareholder resources to expand the Innsbrook campus than build a shiny new high rise downtown...

3 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Can guarantee some Dominion public statement released like this, if Navy Hill doesn’t happen: 

“After further evaluation of our staffing needs and corporate priorities, a second tower was determined not to be needed at this juncture. While we always look to optimize our footprint, we do not see a second office tower needed, as current assets and locations satisfy our corporate strategy.”

Sounds about right.