At least I don't live in New York, where the debate surrounding baseball has to do with a proposed billion dollar stadium/entertainment complex for the New York Yankees. Here in Richmond, we're only chasing a project one-third the size of the nationally acclaimed Yankees -- for a team that doesn't yet exist.
And people say Richmond isn't a visionary town.
Today's Times-Dispatch lets two Richmonders frame the stadium debate. The question, it seems, isn't whether there should be a new stadium but simply where it should be. Josh Dare and Charlie Diradour each make a compelling case -- one for baseball in Shockoe Bottom, the other to continue playing ball on the Boulevard.
I was part of a small group of businessmen who sought to bring baseball downtown several years ago. At the time, we had envisioned a ballpark along the banks of the James in the shadow of the Federal Reserve Building on the site where MeadWestvaco is now building its corporate headquarters.
But was this the best venue? To find out, we retained a consultant, a national authority on such matters, and charged him with evaluating various downtown locations. He analyzed 30 different sites, and his conclusion: Not only was Shockoe Bottom the premier locale for a downtown ballpark in Richmond, it is the best site anywhere in the country.
If he is right, why has this Boulevard versus the Bottom debate been languishing for all these years, especially in light of what so many other cities have determined -- that downtown baseball spurs economic development, provides a catalyst for urban renewal, and creates an anchor for family-friendly entertainment?
The Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) owns a well-located piece of land -- with The Diamond at its center -- that has for many years served our area well as a place for families to go to a ballgame and enjoy a great evening.
The means of ingress and egress to The Diamond are obviously better than those in the Bottom. County residents, who made up two-thirds of the Richmond Braves fan base over the years, are represented on the RMA, and many of them can access the Boulevard ballpark much easier than they could the alternate site.
Richmonders -- and that term must include our county neighbors for us to truly achieve regional cooperation -- need a baseball team, and for that matter a truly great place for that team to play and for us to congregate to spend family time on a spring or summer evening.
The organic development along the Boulevard and in nearby Scott's Addition that has taken place over the past years proves that it is a place on the precipice of greatness. Let's use property we already own -- and a facility we already own -- and by citizen agreement either build a new stadium on the ground where The Diamond stands now or rehabilitate The Diamond.
The NYTimes' editorial page today tackles the Yankee's proposed stadium with a much more important question -- at what cost?
Both debates are important.
One is an emotional argument, primarily, even when it is framed in terms of ease of access or benefits to surrounding neighborhoods or jobs generated. Richmond has done a pretty good job of allowing that argument to play out -- it's essentially the argument framed by the series of public presentations delivered by the development firm interested in building a Shockoe Bottom baseball/entertainment mecca. Highwoods' presentations have been excellent PR.
The financial argument -- in Richmond -- remains superficial, at best. Superficial, I'd argue, because it has essentially been driven by two slices of data that should be suspect, at best.
The first slice of data has to do with timing. The proposal delivered by Highwoods, the proposal used in all of the community meetings to-date, is built on economic models that made sense in late 2007 -- before the economy took a sharp stumble, the housing market contracted dramatically, and consumers pulled back on their discretionary spending.
The second slice of data has to do with origin. Most of the numbers -- project scope, cost to taxpayers, revenue generated, square footage of retail and commercial and housing space -- come from the developer itself. I've seen little in the way of independent analysis, particularly analysis built on new economic forecasting.
There is some hope that the Mayor's request for new analysis is more than a delay tactic or window-dressing for a done deal. Yes, it involves the same firms that helped vet the project more than a year ago, but presumably these firms will be able to objectively factor in the economic shift that has taken place since they last ran the numbers.
And it's not as if the original numbers -- which looked at both the Boulevard and the Shockoe Bottom options -- were firmly in favor to Shockoe Bottom to begin with. Style Weekly has not been shy about its critique of the whole baseball debacle, but editor Scott Bass does a good job of explaining some of the numbers:
Their analysis found enough demand to generate $115 million in gross retail sales on the Boulevard. In the Bottom, they concluded there was demand for approximately 65,000 square feet of retail with gross sales of $26.5 million.
That’s a long way from 192,000 square feet of retail and more than $90 million in gross sales proposed by Highwoods Properties, the developer behind the $363 million ballpark development in Shockoe Bottom. While there are other components to the project, including condos, office buildings and a hotel, the proposed retail development is key to making the numbers work.
Retail sales, including restaurants, generate the lion’s share of the tax revenue in the proposal, which would be diverted away from city coffers to pay for the $70 million ballpark. The developers are projecting that Shockoe Center will generate $6.59 million retail, admissions and meals taxes annually, or more than 73 percent of the revenue needed to cover the bond payments.
The good news for the Richmond region might be two-fold.
For fans of baseball, the conversations that are happening today make a lot more sense that former Mayor Wilder's plans to throw the ballfield in a polluted tract of land along the eastern edge of Richmond.
And for fans of fiscal responsibility, there are increased opportunities for additional debate about some revised numbers -- and for a broader conversation to engage the surrounding juridictions to take place.
Perhaps when baseball returns to Richmond, it will be in a place and at a cost that makes sense for everyone in the region -- not just the developers.
