I've largely stayed away from the "Where to put the ball field?" discussion -- in part because I've been exceptionally busy, and in part because I have somehow managed to remain relatively uninformed about the issue. Also, baseball is dull.
But I have to admit being intrigued by today's release of the sort-of-long-awaited report commissioned by Richmond's mayor, and the accompanying media coverage.
The Times-Dispatch promises its online readers full coverage tomorrow, but Style Weekly and the local TV stations were all over the story today. Let's begin with coverage from WWBT-12's Rachel DePompa, who focuses on the study's finding that the project is much more financially appealing with the City of Richmond backing bonds for the construction of a new ball field and a $363 million development in Shockoe Bottom:
The mayor says he likes what he sees, but he's not ready to say yes to the 363 million dollar Shockoe Center proposal.
"Many stars have got to line up in order for the project to go forward," said Mayor Jones.
According to the study, the proposal to put office space, shops, hotels and a baseball park in the bottom will most likely need help from the city in the form of credit support. But if the city backs the bonds, the city's cost will drop from 80 to about 60 million dollars.
"We have a cap on what we can carry our debt up to and so it's going to be very critical that we make the right decision as what we want to increase debt. Cause once we do it. It's done," said Richmond City Council Vice President Ellen Robertson.
But it's Style Weekly's Scott Bass who calls foul after viewing the instant replay:
The most significant finding by the consultants -- which included Davenport & Co., Economics Research Associates and Chmura Economics and Analytics -- is that financing the ballpark without credit support from the city is “highly unlikely.”
That in turn, led the consultants to recommend the city set aside $56 million in capital spending, or about 10.7 percent of the city’s $520 million proposed capital spending budget from 2009 to 2016, to secure the bonds that would finance the ballpark.
If the city decided to offer its credit support, the consultants concluded, then the “proposal would be highly feasible.”
But that’s not exactly the plan that Highwoods Properties, the project’s chief developer, has been promoting over the last eight months. That plan promises they could sell bonds and build the ballpark without the city’s financial support – a rewards-only scenario that makes a ballpark in Shockoe so much more appealing than rebuilding on The Boulevard.
Paul Kreckman, a senior vice president at Highwoods, and co-developer Bryan Bostic, head of the proposed baseball team’s ownership group, have preached for months the virtues of their free ballpark, which they promised would catalyze economic development in the Bottom without costing the city its debt capacity.
In fact, when Style asked Kreckman in February why it wouldn’t be better to rebuild the ballpark on the Boulevard, he explained that it would cost taxpayers too much. “I would much rather see the city spend its debt capacity on schools,” Kreckman said. “If the revenue stream from Shockoe Center isn’t sufficient from this project to pay the debt service and to repay the bonds, [bondholders’] security is the ballpark, not the taxpayer. ... I would much rather the city be in a position to preserve every bit of its debt capacity."
This raises all sorts of questions -- not only about whether the Highwoods proposal is a good deal for the city, but also where Mayor Jones and City Council ultimately stand on the issue.
Jones' own comments at today's press conference (courtesy of Style Weekly) provide some indication that he's prepared to play hard ball with Highwoods to get the best deal possible for the city. Jones calls Highwoods' proposal "a potentially transformative project" and goes on to bundle any forward movement on a ball park in Shockoe Bottom with three critical considerations:
- The incorporation of GRTC's proposed transfer center as part of a "transit-oriented, mixed-use town center" in the Bottom;
- Alignment with future opportunities for high-speed rail capacity linking Richmond with Washington and other East Coast metro areas; and
- "Clear plans" to preserve the history and African-American cultural heritage of the Bottom.
Still, as Council's Ellen Robertson and Style's Scott Bass both infer, the real issue is where the city should invest its financial capital at this critical moment -- or whether by upping the ante, Jones will be able to provide long-overdue resources for Richmond's crumbling schools and create an economic catalyst in the heart of the city simultaneously.
Maybe Jones will be able to create former Mayor Wilder's "City of the Future" after all.
