Shockoe Bottom Is the Best Place for a Ballpark: Yes or No

Finally!  A point-counterpoint debate on baseball in Shockoe Bottom!  Up until this point, I believe all the public debates and community meetings have been show cases for formal presentations of only one side of the argument, either for or against.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch is hosting a Public Square this upcoming Tuesday, May 12, 2009 from 7:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.  To my knowledge, and I might be incorrect on this point, this is the first head-to-head debate between the development team proposing a new baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom and the community-based opposition to the Shockoe Bottom stadium proposal.

Here are the details:

• WHAT:  Debate, "Shockoe Bottom Is the Best Place for a New Ballpark:  Yes or No"
• WHEN:  Tuesday, May 12, 2009 from 7:00-8:30 p.m.
• WHO:   For:  Paul Kreckman, Vice President, Highwoods Properties, and Brian Bostic, Chairman, Richmond Baseball Club;  Against:  Charlie Diradour, Lion's Paw Development Company, LLC, and Jean Wright, Attorney and Historic Preservation Advocate
• WHERE:  Richmond Times-Dispatch Headquarters, 300 East Franklin Street

I'm glad we finally have both sides of the debate, going head-to-head.  I will admit that I personally haven't been very motivated to go see a developer proposal.  Here's why: in the practice of law, there are two types of writing you have to master, (1) objective writing; and (2) persuasive writing.  Type One is what you do when you are summarizing the facts in a case file for your boss, who is not going to read the actual file, only the summary.  In that situation, it is your job to present all the facts and information in a neutral, objective way.  Type Two is what you do when you are arguing your case to the court, or in a brief, or at the negotiating table.  In that circumstance, you are advocating and advancing a particular position.  Most of the meetings to date have been the Highwoods and Baseball Club people presenting their case, i.e., making a persuasive, not an objective, case.

That doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with Highwoods Properties and the Richmond Baseball Club making a persuasive case IN FAVOR OF their project.  It's just that I personally don't choose to put much stock in that type of presentation.  I want to see the cold, hard facts.  I want the primary source data.  I want to see the projections, financial and otherwise.  I want to reach my own conclusions based on the underlying information.

So, I have not been to one of the many developer-only presentations.  But I plan to be at the May 12, 2009 Richmond Times-Dispatch Public Square with bells on.  I think the point-counterpoint debate format is AWESOME, and exactly the real-time testing of the arguments for and against this project that we as a community need to have on this very important development issue.

So DONT MISS IT.  As I used to say circa 1986, "Be there or be square!" [bad pun COMPLETELY intended]. And see if you can drag yourself through some of the primary source data before you show up.  It will make for a better and more reasoned debate all around.  Here's a link to the Shockoe Center website, www.shockoecenter.com, and a blog post with a previous consultant report attached.  Hope to see you May 12!

[NOTE:  Per a Richmond Times-Dispatch "Happenings" blurb in the Monday paper, the report commissioned by the City of Richmond, analyzing the financial projections contained in the Highwoods proposal, was released to the Jones administration this week.  It would be wonderful if that report could be released to the public in advance of the May 12, 2009 debate.  Since we, the taxpayers, paid $100,000+ for the thing, I can't see any justification for a delay.]

Comments

[Paul]

Hope you can make it Melissa, and report on it.

[FanGuy]

I support the Bottom development because it makes otherwise unusable downtown land usable, fits into the other improvements made downtown (canal walk, broad street, tobacco row) creates a contiguous downtown, and capitalizes on existing infrastructure like existing parking garages that sit empty after 5pm, and the bars and restaurants that already exist in the Bottom.

For those reasons I would NOT support a new ballpark on the Boulevard in any way, shape, or form. Studies have shown that is not the best use of the Boulevard space, 50 years of history has shown that baseball on the Boulevard will not have any stimulant effect on Boulevard development. Building a new ballpark on the Boulevard would be building a ballpark just for the sake of having a ballpark, and THAT I do not support. Shockoe Center is not just about baseball. It's about improving a part of town that needs help, and doing it in a way that overcomes the area's problems (flood plain).

Building a new park on the Boulevard would cost the city far more than the Shockoe Center project, which is why no one has come forward with a proposal. It simply doesn't work there.

[Melissa Loughridge Savenko]

Well Paul, I don't think that sounds like a very open-minded opinion, although you are certainly entitled to it! [;)] I wonder, though - is the proposal really keep the Diamond, or new Shockoe Center? Don't the folks who advance the Boulevard location advocate a new stadium there? Just asking.

As always, thanks for taking the time to comment.

[Paul Hammond]

Well of course Yes. It's not even a contest.

Baseball fits Shockoe Bottom like a hand fits a glove.

The Diamond is a desert, depressing and without charisma.

[Melissa Loughridge Savenko]

FanGuy:

I appreciate the comment. I think it's clear both sides are advocating a position. I personally think it is up to the audience to decide which position has more merit. It's just like a jury trial - it's up to the members of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. That includes taking into consideration possible self-interest. I just hope everyone will keep an open mind, and that the debate is rational, and reasoned, and measured. I think that is the best thing for the community.

[FanGuy]

Don't get too excited. This debate is developer versus developer. Ask yourself why Charlie Diradour is so motivated? Why he has spent $$$ on huge signs and a website? Just a concerned citizen? Yeah, right.

And if his debating is anything like his writing, I don't expect Diradour to be ready to discuss too many "facts."