Referendum is the answer

The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Public Square program on Tuesday night was on where to play professional baseball in Richmond. Today, what was said at that forum still has tongues wagging. Proponents of the Highwoods Properties/Richmond Baseball Club plan to build a baseball stadium said that their opposition was made up of mostly old people who are ill-informed … even selfish.

Wow!

http://fdhub.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/referendum2c.jpg

To read more about it go herehere and for background — here.

Professional baseball isn’t being played in Richmond this summer. Those who follow local news to do with baseball know that a Double A team, currently situated in Connecticut, is heading here next year.

Surely, that’s good news to Little Leaguers in the metro area.

The last time Richmonders didn’t have a local team to pull for was 1965. That was the year between the Richmond Virginians’ departure for Toledo and the arrival of the Richmond Braves. In 1966, the R-Braves took what had been the Atlanta Crackers’ slot in the International League, because the Milwaukee Braves relocated to Atlanta.

This time around the process of putting a minor league team on the field has been more complicated than it was in 1966. Over the last decade a number of proposals have surfaced that would have moved professional baseball to other parts of town, even to the suburbs.

In 2009 the matter seems to have boiled down to two distinct options in different parts of town:

  • Refurbish The Diamond/or build a stadium in the same part of town
  • Build a new stadium in Shockoe Bottom

Yet, after watching the Braves leave town, at least somewhat out of frustration with Richmond’s squirrelly moves, our City Council is still struggling with what to do. Mayor Dwight Jones doesn’t want to be wrong, either. Where to play baseball has become a political issue of such magnitude that it’s time for something to break the spell.

Well, at the Fan District Hub, we have a solution — it’s called democracy.

Although it’s not easy in Virginia, it is possible to have the voters weigh in where elected officials fear to tread.

It took studies and a campaign and eventually a citywide referendum, in 2003, to get rid of the old weak-mayor system in Richmond. Now voters in Richmond elect their mayor directly. Put plainly, Richmonders opted for pure democracy, without modifiers, when they got the chance.

Once the General Assembly saw the eye-popping results, which overwhelmingly called for the change, Richmond’s City Charter was amended. Mayor Jones, who once opposed that same change, now seems OK with it, too.

It says here, the question of where to play baseball should be put before the voters in much the same way. A non-binding resolution could be placed on the ballot in November.

Obviously, prudent Virginians don’t want a string of frivolous ballot issues to clutter up every election. But sometimes the only way to settle something is to let the people decide.

City Registrar Kirk Showalter tells me there’s not much real extra expense to the taxpayers to run such a referendum, when there‘s already an election taking place.

In my view, the voters of Richmond will turn out in droves to put the kibosh on the plan to build in Shockoe Bottom. But maybe I’m wrong. Either way, putting it on the ballot will provide political cover for Jones and other elected officials.

Maybe it should be a three-way choice: The Bottom; The Boulevard; Who cares? Baseball is unimportant!

Hey, some of the people who are opposed to the baseball stadium being built in Shockoe Bottom don’t understand every angle of the financing. That’s true. But calling them “dolts,” or “selfish,” or “ill-informed,” as some boosters for the Highwoods position have been wont to do, isn’t helping Kreckman, et al.

To be skeptical about the projections of the would-be developers isn’t the same thing as being against young people, or being backward, as was suggested by some of the pro-stadium-in-the-Bottom .

The politicians at the forum saw voters. And, way more than half of those voters were not buying what Kreckman and Bostic were selling. Politicians can do math.

This Public Square forum may well be remembered as the tipping point — the night the worst idea for developing Shockoe Bottom began to shivel like a wicked witch doused with a bucket of water.

A referendum will put and end to all the talk about a Shockoe Bottom baseball stadium.

Posted in Civic Groups, Features

10 Comments.

  1. My issue with a referendum, is that we have elected representatives for a reason. I expect City Council to know if City $$$ is being put on the line or not, and vote according to the City’s interest. Both sides cite studies about the existence or lack of municipal benefit to public funding of stadiums. They should be able to make the best judgment based on the information. Personally, I want my money going to improving city services rather than a stadium. However, if they feel a stadium partially payed for with diverted tax funds will bring more money for city, it won’t disrupt the environment, and the social/cultural hub Shockoe Bottom is… I won’t be a naysayer just because. If Velvet gets bulldozed, I won’t shed a tear. On the otherhand, the riverwalk is a great peaceful oasis in that part of town, and places like Canal Club are one of the metro area’s few vibrant music outlets.

    David S. @ May 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am

  2. The cost of the proposed stadium is just outrageous, I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about that. Most stadiums in the Eastern League cost between $4 and $10 million, with the exception of the parks in Harrisburg, PA and Akron, OH that each cost $30 million. Now here come Bostic and Highwoods telling us we need to buy a $70 million stadium!?!? More than twice the cost of the most expensive stadiums in the league?? For AA baseball??? It just makes no sense.

    If a referendum on this happens, it should ask not just about the location, but also if we’re really comfortable buying the most outrageously expensive AA ball park in America.

    (By the way, why aren’t the teabaggers protesting this thing? I can’t think of a more perfect example of bloat and wasteful government spending.)

    Stuart @ May 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  3. David S: No one trusts this city council to do anything other than protect the same old political contributors and the developer class.

    For example: At first the city put in protections that would have halted CenterStage from coming and asking for more money from the city. This was done to mollify critics of the project. A few months later, thanks to council, those protections were taken out.

    Why is that important? CenterStage’s private fundraising is now falling way short of projections. Guess who will make up the difference? The taxpayers.

    I don’t have to tell you what the council is currently doing to the citizen-led Downtown Master Plan in order to kowtow to one condo developer.

    This is why a referendum on the ballpark is the only way to go. You cannot trust this city council to do the right thing with the public’s money and resources — or even to take public sentiment into account. Just look at their record.

    Don @ May 19th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  4. If it’s on the November ballot, I’d be willing to bet the Shockoe site would win handily, thanks to the combination of gubernatorial turnout and what I assume would be a very shiny and expensive marketing campaign from the developers.

    I’ve said it elsewhere, but Boulevard supporters would probably be better served by making a case *for* the Boulevard, instead of a case against Shockoe. Is there some hidden potential to the Diamond that I’m not seeing? Because I’m honestly curious how you guys think it would be better than it was before. What’s going to be different this time?

    I’m not trying to be a troll, but I’m honestly curious, mostly because I never felt the Diamond was a very enjoyable place to watch baseball.

    So what, exactly, is your best case scenario for the Boulevard?

    Omelette @ May 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  5. Whoops, I said “honestly curious” twice there, didn’t I?

    Well, that’s just how honestly curious I am.

    Omelette @ May 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  6. I think the Diamond benefits from:

    1.) Pre-existing infrastructure. It’s already a stadium ready resource. Renewal, refurbishing, rebuilding; any plan for the Diamond will already be at least that much easier to complete. It’s location is not contested, the traffic patterns are established– simply, the land is already prepped to house a stadium. It’s the most reasonable location by default.

    2.) Boulevard area attractions. Proximity to the Movieland theaters, Science Museum, and Children’s Museum make the area a logical place for family oriented developments.

    Mayor Dwight left an interesting footnote to the Shockoe plan: In his comments to the latest feasibility report he mentioned the inclusion of a GRTC transfer station, but, more importantly, it’s (the development’s) compatibility with high-speed rail. I feel that if we are going to be hedged into a new stadium development, wrenching as many transportation improvements as possible out of the plan would be a tempting compromise (It seems that the only convincing argument for the Shockoe stadium is not the stadium, but what promises to built with it.).

    R @ May 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  7. Omelette,

    You may be right. Perhaps the best strategy for those preferring the Boulevard would be to sell its advantages.

    But for me that just wouldn’t be how I got to this point in the story. You see, mostly I am flat against the Shockoe Bottom Center concept. I believe it is the wrong way to use that land. The slavery market museum concept, the high speed rail and the GRTC plan are good ideas.

    And, at this point it looks to me like the developers and Bostic have been less that forthright about what they’ve been up to.

    As far as the Boulevard is concerned, mostly it isn’t Shockoe Bottom. Refurbishing or building anew there would bring regional cooperation back into the picture. A lot of supporters for the stadium in the Bottom don’t put much value in regional cooperation, but it looks to me like they just blow off anything that stands in their way.

    Because Richmond is an independent city, not in a county, better regional cooperation is vital to Richmond’s future. The counties won’t get on board with a stadium in the Bottom.

    Minor league baseball is not waxing in our culture. Only the best-run franchises make any money.

    Counting on AA baseball to be a much bigger draw than the AAA R-Braves were is a reach. It’s surely not something that Richmonders want to take but so much of a risk on, money-wise. Especially when schools and general infrastructure needs are looming.

    In my view, if it is a two-way question, Boulevard or Bottom? the Boulevard would win by at least a 2-to-1 margin.

    But if a third option is added — no public funds for baseball! — well, I’m not so sure how it would turn out; a lot of people could care less that there’s no professional baseball being played in Richmond this summer.

    FTRea @ May 21st, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  8. I agree that Bostic and co. are overselling the baseball aspect of the plan, when the most compelling part to me is the whole package itself – which, if the stars align, could unlock the whole downtown area and finally bring downtown to life again. They should be talking about baseball more as a spark plug than an engine.

    Dwight Jones seems to get that, and is more focused on talking about how we get Shockoe humming with everything working together – GRTC hub, highspeed rail, slavery museum, ballpark and restaurants/retail. He doesn’t paint pie-in-the-sky fantasies of baseball saving everything; it’s just part of the overall plan.

    That plan, of course, is pretty audacious, but I think the only way you can do something like that successfully is in one massive swoop.

    So I think the future *potential* for the Shockoe site, though a gamble, holds far more promise than the best case scenario for the Diamond site.

    Movieland is pretty walkable, but the Science Museum, R? Really? Richard’s strip club is closer than that. Hell, even Kitchen 64 is a hike with all the Interstate traffic.

    So the Diamon site is cheaper, sure, but I just don’t see what it can become. We’d just have baseball again for the sake of having baseball.

    Omelette @ May 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 am

  9. Although Richmond’s penchant for mismanagement tends to emphasize the range of possibilities occurring in the column labeled “worst-case scenario”…

    Just to speculate, on a scale of 1-10 (Worst-to-best-case scenario), where would you predict/peg either development at its’ completion? I don’t see either stadium plan as returning anything greater than a 4-6 in terms of satisfaction of stated goals. Baseball stadiums are limited use facilities with narrow possibilities, narrow audiences— ok. I just want a proper transportation system. If the baseball stadium fails in every regard, just let the transportation be stellar. If the city doesn’t botch that part of the equation, we’ll be in a good position to level the stadium in 25 years and build a new one somewhere else.

    Movieland > Museums
    I would suggest that suburbanites never venture anywhere without their car; Movieland and the Museums are really within 5 minutes of the stadium in this context.

    R @ May 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  10. Related:

    http://fdhub.net/centerstage-needs-sunlight/#comment-151477

    I do think the Boulevard site needs to be more than baseball as well. Movieland is great. Where is our Dave & Buster’s? Where is our paintball?

    Will Boulevard include a VCU satellite campus?

    In addition, where is the City’s emphasis on sustainability? More street trees? Where are the solar and green roofs? Green pavers for parking lots? Bike lanes? We might eventually get a Broad Street BRT or streetcar, but will it tie into a Boulevard one that goes to Byrd Park, the museum row, Movieland, the Diamond?

    anonymous @ May 26th, 2009 at 10:42 am

3rd Column

Once Upon a Vine