Jump to content

eandslee

New Richmond Arena

Recommended Posts


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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, vdogg said:

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.

I get it and do understand this, it's when there's a decision that's bigger than one area. Here's a couple of  scenarios that I can easily see.  "Big band" says, we're playing Virginia, which location, NCAA regional tournament says,  we're taking it to Virginia, which location?  

Added new thought - these are good options to have and great for Virginia and for both regions, just to be clear, I'm not in the camp of no arena for HR, I want the best for them too, just looking at how scenarios could play out.  

Edited by Hike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by wrldcoupe4
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Ward Wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by eandslee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2020 at 9:35 AM, vdogg said:

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.

vdogg  - we saw you had a leg up with the surfing tournaments , well,  we may match that and have our very own surfing tournaments, your move.  Of course I'm being sarcastic, how strange we were just talking about this and comparing notes, differences about each region and then this development pops up.....just bizarre to think we'd have a surf park, sounds pretty cool though.  

https://product.costar.com/home/news/shared/1230183726?fbclid=IwAR2G7Xd6finUOwU0hJTpEgjd3rEalYG96WGT1zPQ3X4tmdkR8Y8td-dClps

Edited by Hike
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, marinog711 said:

Yeah, good grief, stupidly, I thought this time would be different.  The same idea was brought up that gets mentioned on all big projects, get regional help from the counties. I think I know how this will go,  ask the diamond.

Edited by Hike
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing all the last minute details, to me, I heard details that solidify the project.

What members heard.

"Most of the things that are being put on the table have not been finalized or materialized and I question whether all of the deliverables and promises that have been put into the proposal last minute will actually come to fruition,” Lynch said.

“To me, what it looks like and I think what people are thinking, is it looks like a bunch of Hail Mary passes, and where was that stuff in the summertime? Where was that stuff before?”

Edited by Hike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVA has come a long way, we have a lot of developments that are moving the needle, but it looks like we may not be getting the icing on the cake. 

bb70eac921877fbfc5e7e34cd0b6ef5f.jpg

Edited by Hike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by vaceltic
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these things and then resubmit a new solicitation and then we'll review that one and we'll let you know how you did, it's a circular firing squad.

"The council resolution requests that the administration complete a small area plan, conduct “robust” public engagement, complete appraisals of the city-owned land in the vicinity, and do an assessment of the infrastructure. It requests that after taking those steps, Stoney issue a new solicitation for redevelopment of the area."

3 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Stony and Farrel sound just like 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 been using to arm twist the public is nauseating. 
 

sorry boys, you gambled $20 million on Creating a secretive, back door plan you concocted with zero public engagement and expected to shove it down the public’s throat. Richmonders are too smart for those tactics.

No public engagement, that's funny,  my Hanover resident boss found his way to 2 of them and city council over the last several months. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by vaceltic
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tired and nothing good happens at night, when the sun comes up tomorrow,  it'll be a new day,  no really, it will...

Tom Farrell is not new to resistance, this fight may not be over, it may not be voted on in February like we hoped, but it's not over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.