Baseball in the Bottom - Can't We All Just Get Along OR FanGuy, Play Nice!

Jeesy, peasy, puddin' n'pie!  I'm back from a lovely vacation in Costa Rica, and I'm trying to catch up on current events in the River City, including some major proposals with real estate implications, like the Shockoe Bottom baseball stadium proposal.  While checking the blogosphere, I came across this posting by F.T. Rea suggesting a referendum on baseball in the Bottom.

Now, I personally think the most important element of this post is the comments, and the generally (IMHO) deplorable tone of the debate.  Folks, personal attacks, sneering sarcasm, and condescension don't help you make your case.  Can't we just debate the topic reasonably and rationally?

I think the referendum suggestion is an interesting one.  I think outside review of the developers' proposal, particularly digging through the projections and financials, is also reasonable.  [NOTE:  I DO wish the review didn't require $100,000 price tag, paid by the tax payers.  But c'est la vie.]

AND, here's the biggie:  I absolutely agree that someone else besides the developers should be part of the debate and analysis.  I think independent opinions should be sought from other similarly-sized communities that have invested in new baseball stadiums and academics who have studied the financial impact of baseball stadiums on tax revenues and community redevelopment.  I think it is the responsibility of our elected officials to get these independent opinions and to share them with the community to the same extent and degree that the developers are sharing their case in favor of the baseball stadium in the Bottom. 

Face it, folks.  The developers are trying to make a persuasive case FOR their proposal.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, that's their job.  But we as a community need to dissect their proposal, take it apart, turn it around, pore over the projections and the figures, and make sure we have a firm understanding of all the pros and the cons BEFORE we commit to a project that is going to be here for a long, long time, and the success or failure of which we are going to have to live with.  More importantly to me - you don't get a "do over" with a historic area. 

You don't get the historic neighborhood back if this goes down the tubes.  There is no easy exit strategy for a failed single-purpose sports facility.  I also think we need to make sure we understand and are OK with what we might be giving up in the Bottom - potential heritage tourism, anyone? - in order to have a baseball stadium. 

At the end of the day,  if the community clearly understands the pros and cons of the Bottom stadium proposal and the majority in the community think the reward of a baseball stadium and the potential for ancillary development is worth the potential risk of failure or forgone alternate opportunities for that area, then so be it.  Bring on the bulldozers, I say.

But right now, but for the blogosphere and some local media, I think we're only hearing one side of the story.  And that needs to change.  City Council, time to step up and earn your pay.

Comments

[la jolla california real estate]

Real estate agent buying a property, renovating and selling it -- tax implications??

[Melissa Loughridge Savenko]

Dear Paul H:

Your comments weren't rude, I think they were very helpful, actually. I think you and I and even FanGuy have more in common than it may seem at first blush.

I consider myself on the fence about baseball in the Bottom. I am not rabidly opposed to it, but I am more than a bit suspicious of the full-court press we, the community, are getting from the developers, and the fact that the underlying evidence supporting their proposal hasn't been made readily available - such as on a simple website or Facebook page - well, that doesn't help. Let me wade through the materials on my own, don't tell me what the data says and expect me to buy that as the gospel truth.

The reality is it is the developers' job, to "sell" the project. The simple fact is developers do deals to make themselves money, NOT to do the best thing for the community. In an ideal world, a deal that works for a developer, that generates sufficient profit margins, is also great for the community. But sometimes that is not the case, and it is the community's responsibility to be actively engaged and to vet the proposal to ensure its own interests are adequately aligned with the private money-making interests pushing the proposal.

I also want to go on record as saying I think extremism from EITHER side is unproductive. That was my main point in the "Can't We All Just Get Along?" post - let's dial back the rhetoric, and talk like grown-ups. I am not at all saying it's only the pro-Bottom folks who have been guilty of ad hominem attacks. BOTH sides bear their fair share of blame for the letting the discussion go off the rails. But let's let bygones be bygones and talk about the proposal on its merits. Let's raise the level of discourse and be able to say to one another "Hey, you and I disagree on what the best solution is, but that's OK. Here's my argument and supporting evidence. I hear your argument and supporting evidence. I choose to respectfully disagree with your position."

And, hey - I freely admit I'm not perfect. I fell off the polite wagon in an exchange with FanGuy at least once that I can recall. Clearly I'm not nearly as funny as I think I am, and I should leave the satire to Jeff Kelly of Tobacco Avenue.

Providing the hard data would be good. Having Davenport and other entities review the assumptions is good. Let's debate the proposal on the facts and the merits, and EVERYONE try to play nice with one another.

As always, thanks for taking the time to comment. MLS

[Paul Hammond]

That should read "Having just uninvited myself"

[Paul Hammond]

You too! Haven't just uninvited myself from Slantblog for lack of hospitality, your comments regarding FanGuy come at an interesting time. Fanguy relishes a good fight and so do I. We may approach it differently but we essentially in agreement regarding the stadium issue.

I have avoided personal attacks on anyone, but have been singled out on a number of venues with ad homonym attacks by a number of individuals. In general the most vociferous opponents treat supporters like stooges, fools or anonymous reps for the developers, which makes it easy to avoid a rational discussion of the pros and cons.

I agree there are at least two sides to this issue and I know which side I'm on and don't pretend to be anyone other than myself. I can understand why FanGuy gets pissed, but I advise that he doesn't respond in kind. It just provides fodder for unfriendly opponents.

I also disagree that only one side is being presented. On the community blogs there are the same three or four people choking the conversation with sarcastic, off topic and downright insulting comments, while pro stadium folks generally try to argue the benefits and their geniune beliefs.

There are also at least two blogs that have been consistently hostile, which is their perogitive and Style Weekly has been published one or two articles a week in opposition to the shockoe bottom site and sports development in general.

So yeah, we get pissed, someetimes with good reason, but that's not going to carry the day. It's the benefits to the community that this has to offer that matter and I and many others believe this is important to Richmond. So while I don't think you have been unfair, I also don't think you have your facts straight. I hope that wasn't rude as it wasn't intended to be, but I am pissed, sorry.

[Melissa Loughridge Savenko]

FanGuy:

I singled you out only in the title line, and frankly thought you might be flattered, under the "all publicity is good publicity" theory, and also that you might find my reference slightly humorous, of the tongue-in-cheek variety of humor. However, it appears you take yourself V-E-R-Y seriously and are not a big proponent or fan of humor - my apologies, I shant make that mistake again.

Perhaps I was unclear - I intended the statement about the deporable tone of the debate to extend to ALL the folks who were engaging in personal attacks and sneering sarcasm. I meant to gently suggest that everyone engaged in that behavior might want to re-evaluate their tone. I personally find verifiable facts, data and reasoned, rational arguments more persuasive than slinging around aspersions and nasty names.

But perhaps the on-line "debate" has sunk too low to be re-tooled. If that's the case, it is too bad, because in my opinion, the blogosphere is serving an important role. Carry on.

[F.T. Rea]

Melissa,

The tone of the comments under the post you mention is not so different from those under any number of posts about the baseball stadium issue at various blogs in recent months.

There have been longer and more heated discussions at Church Hill People's News, River District News, etc.

The same thing has happened to articles by STYLE Weekly and other periodicals.

The cloaked and bitterly partisan style of FanGuy's ilk has been seen in lots of stuff that's been aired out in Virginia's political blogosphere in the last few years.

[FanGuy]

I find it interesting, and telling, that you single me out in this with nary a word about the ugly tone of folks like FT Rea or Scott Burger. LOL. Perhaps you have not kept abreast of all of the latest on-line rantings and are ill informed on recent developments, given your recent time out of the country vacationing in exotic destinations far, far from Richmond.

Speaking of ill informed, that reminds me, have you bothered to attend a presentation yet?

And p.s., we all pretty much agree that the proposal should be independently evaluated. I haven't heard anyone say the City should just rubber stamp things. I have, on the other hand, heard people say that the City should dismiss this out of hand w/o independent evaluation.