Lordy be. Here we go again. There are articles, and editorials, and letters to the editor, about whether or not "Richmond," which really means the Richmond Metropolitan Authority ("RMA"), made up of Richmond, Henrico, and Chesterfield, should contribute the money to build a new stadium for the Squirrels AA team. If they won't commit to building a stadium, there are rumblings that the Squirrels will go away.
Major public reaction seems to be: "Tough noogies. Who cares what the community promised to lure the Squirrels here. Times are tough. That money should be spent on ______ [insert your favorite cause here: education/roads/downtown development]." I should also note that it appears from a very unscientific review and poll that the vast majority of the letter writers and commenters are from the counties. Shocker.
Here's the Letter to the Editor du jour:
I may not be the target audience for the Richmond Squirrels. I'm just a casual baseball fan who will go out to see the local team a couple of times a year.
This year, I went near the end of the season, when the club was trying to make it into the playoffs. The stands were not full. I also went to the first home playoff game, and again the stands weren't full. I fail to see how a new ballpark will increase attendance after the novelty wears off.
I had an enjoyable time at the game, and it didn't matter that the Diamond isn't state-of-the-art. But I will object strongly to subsidizing a new building just for the sake of keeping this or any other team.
I think people are missing the point. It's not about the Squirrels per se. It's about committing to strategic development in a specific part of the City that has the greatest possible likelihood to leverage additional private investment in the City. A successful City of Richmond is the rising tide that will raise all boats. Even though Henrico and Chesterfield will never believe that.
And by the way, my recollection is the Shockoe Bottom Stadium proposal was about exactly that, driving private investment in the area and how the cumulative effects of a new baseball stadium would benefit the City. So people who wanted a Shockoe Bottom Stadium can't talk out of both sides of their mouths, and claim in their priposal a new stadium would be an economic driver, but a few years later and in a different location, a new stadium would be an economic suck.
I'm sure this debate is going to continue. I think next I am going to lay out the reasons a stadium on the Boulevard is the right strategic investment. And if you want more background on why I felt then the Boulevard was the right place, or more accurately that the Bottom was the wrong place, there are a bunch of old posts on the topic. Go wild.
Comments