This was initially posted as a response to a comment on a forum on the referendum issue. It's so d*mn long, I realized I probably should have just posted it as a blog post. So, here it is. Pot shots and comments welcome. I can handle it. [;)]
**********
From your post, I suspect a few things. I suspect you haven’t been in Richmond too long. You don’t seem to understand the history of the “Baseball in the Bottom” versus “Baseball on the Boulevard” debate. This issue has been raised and vigorously debated two previous times, in 2003 and 2009. In both instances, a ballpark in the Bottom was defeated by an uprising of citizen opposition, for a number of reasons. Some prefer the current location. Some oppose the proposed location in the Bottom, for a number of different reasons. Some think the Bottom should be preserved and promoted for its unique history. Some find the location unreasonable, for the parking, the accessibility, the flood plain issues, and the cost. The tax increment financing plans that were floated by “Baseball in the Bottom” proponents in the past were demonstrated to be overly optimistic, at best, pure fallacy at worst. For folks who want to see regional cooperation for a stadium, the overwhelming response was the counties, and their citizens, had no interest in driving to a marginal area of the City to pay good money to park and to see a baseball game. The current location was overwhelmingly preferred. And ultimately, the developers and politicians who were promoting the “Baseball in the Bottom” proposals backed down, but not without fierce grassroots opposition.
I do not believe Charles Samuels recommended a referendum on the issue to keep a baseball stadium in his district, as you suggest. I believe Charles Samuels proposed a referendum to ensure that citizens had a voice, and were not back-doored by the development community and the current administration, as they have been in the past. How many times have we been presented with an “option,” that turned out to be fait accompli? How many times have promises been made to the citizens, to be completely ignored? And anyone who believes there will be a reasonable debate about “options,” when this administration presents them with a done deal, is clearly lacking in both historical perspective and common sense.
You have to look back no further than the Redskins training facility transaction to see the disregard the Administration and business community have for the citizens’ opinions. The Administration made a TERRIBLE deal with Bon Secours, giving up the proverbial farm in the form of the Westhampton School property, in return for a measly $6.4M investment in a sports medicine facility that will bear Bon Secours’ name and be a profit-generating facility. This was a shockingly bad deal for the City, and most importantly, a shockingly bad deal for the School Board and the City of Richmond Public Schools. But the City Council rubber-stamped it after getting a few additional financial concessions from Bon Secours. THIS is the great deal the City negotiated on behalf of the citizens. God forbid we ever see a bad deal.
I hope we will see better from the baseball discussion, but here is what I suspect will happen. The development community is already negotiating a deal with the Administration. They will offer to build the stadium in the Bottom “for free,” with a (minor) museum or park of some sort commemorating African-American history included. The plan will be presented as a done deal to Council, who will choose to rubber-stamp it. Shocker. Business as usual in the City, where all the real deals are made behind closed doors, by the overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly old, overwhelmingly male business community (substitute Venture Richmond here, or the Greater Richmond Chamber). The Administration will trumpet its accomplishment, while the developers and business leaders laugh behind their hands about how they got the Administration, once again, to do their bidding. And who loses? The citizens.
The most disappointing piece of this to me was the pablum the six City Councilpersons who opposed a citizens’ referendum spouted to support their positions. A referendum is an “abdication of their responsibility as elected officials.” Huh? Asking the citizens in a non-binding referendum for their opinion on the issue is an abdication of responsibility? Sure don’t getthat. Citizens “don’t have enough information” to make an informed decision. Basically, they think we’re too stupid, but have the modicum of intelligence required to realize saying that don’t look too good. And referendums “should be used sparingly.” Last time I checked, they sure as heck are in the RVA. This was a big time punt by all those councilpersons, waiting to be presented with real plans, which will then allow the debate to begin. Anyone who has been around for a bit realizes the plan the Mayor and the development community want will be presented 90% down the road, leaving any opposition or alternatives at distinct disadvantage. OR, the plan may just be presented as a done deal, such as with the Redskins. No debate necessary. We know what’s best for you.
There are City Council people I expect to be shills for the Administration. And there are several I
expected much better of. For all six of you who voted “no” on the referendum, shame on you. Good thing I don’t live in your districts, because I’d be doing what I can come election time to let you know exactly what this citizen thinks of your faith in me. And to Charles Samuels, Parker Agelasto, and Reva Trammel: Thank you. Thank you for having faith in the citizens who elected you. Thank you for taking a position that was not patronizing and condescending. Thank you for believing in the people.
Comments