Melissa Savenko's Richmond Real Estate Review

The New Shockoe Bottom Proposal - Some Questions

Well, the worst kept secret in Richmond was finally announced yesterday, when Mayor Jones unveiled his plan for a baseball stadium and substantial ancillary development in Shockoe Bottom.

I'm actually sick of this discussion.  It's been written about ad nauseum, including last week's cover story for Style Weekly.  The public is tired, having fought this plan two time - three times? - before.  And I think that is exactly what the Mayor and the Richmond business community pushing this plan are counting on.  They have won the war of attrittion by wearing the public down and being better financed.  Well, and all the back-door dealing certainly helped.  Kudos for the Machiavellian decision to announce the new plan on November 11, 2o013, and have the first City Council meeting discussion of the proposal on Monday, November 25, 2013, the week of Thanksgiving.  Shades of Redskins Training Center and Treegate.  Also kudos for getting City Council teed up to approve the first ordinance with no detailed information about the financing.  Here's my favorite quote: 

"The precise financing details have not yet been made clear, but city officials have made assurances that the new tax revenue from the development would cover the costs incurred by the city."

Kinda makes me think of Obama's promise that I could keep my health plan.  But I digress.

The plan centers around a new minor league ball park in Shockoe Bottom to replace the Diamond on Boulevard.  Included in the plan are a Hyatt hotel with a 65,000 Kroger on the ground floor, apartments, an as-yet-unfunded "Slavery Heritage site," and structured parking.  The usual suspects in the real estate development world are involved:  Charles McFarlane for the hotel, Louis Salomonsky for the apartments, and Highwood Properties for the to-be-developed future commercial component.  Venture Richmond - the front for all the major corporate interests in town - is cheer-leading, as are the Richmond Squirrels' management.  Mayor Jones' cronies have fallen in line, including Delores McQuinn, the Head of the Slave Trail Commission, who apparently believes this plan, with an unfunded slave heritage site and assurances of signage for the Slave Trail, is the best we can do on commemorating the history of the area.  None of that is surprising.  However, Charlie Diradour, the leader of the previous "Baseball on the Boulevard" movement, expressing openness to the proposal - now that IS a surprise.

I'm not going to go on about why I think this is a terrible idea.  You can go back to 2009 and my multiple blog posts on the subject if you want read more detailed analysis.  My opinions haven't changed.  But I am going to raise a few questions that I think deserve answers.  Now mind you, I think these questions deserve answers.  I really don't think we, the public, are going to get honest - or even dishonest - answers.  But I might as well ask the questions, right?  So here it goes:

1.   Where is the almost $80M the City of Richmond is going to contribute coming from?

2.  Why is there no public funding in this proposal for the slavery heritage site that is proposed?  This seems to suggest the slavery heritage project is an after-thought, to address the criticism of people who object to a baseball stadium on a site of such historical importance.  Is this true?

3.  Why is the tax increment financing ("TIF") for this project adequate in 2013, when it was determined to be completely inadequate for the similar 2009 proposal?  Put another way, how is the proposed financing different in 2013 from the failed proposal in 2009?

4.  In light of the significance of the area to the history of the slave trade in America, don't you think it is tawdry, tacky, and disrespectful to put a baseball stadium smack in the middle of it?

5.  Why couldn't you remove the stadium from the plan, and instead substitute a museum to emphasize the history of the area?  Why couldn't the additional, economic development components of the plan - hotel, apartments, retail - be centered around such a museum, rather than a ball park?  If you contend a history-centered project would not work, can you explain why?

6.  For the Squirrels, how do you as an organization intend to address the poll results that showed that 67% of fans did not favor baseball in the Bottom, and only 22% did?

7.  Again, for the Squirrels, do you believe you will have sufficient new fans/attendees coming from the areas immediately around the Shockoe Bottom baseball stadium to make up for the residents of Henrico County, Chesterfield County, and Hanover County who have said they will not patronize a downtown ball park?  If you do believe there will be additional new fan base, what studies or documentation do you have to support this position?

8.  How do you address the perceptions that Shockoe Bottom is not safe or family-friendly, especially in light of quotes like the following:

"I told my son who lives downtown to stay away from Shockoe Bottom for his own safety," Venture Richmond Executive Director Jack Berry said. "That's pretty bad when the guy who's promoting downtown feels that way."

"Shockoe Bottom Firms Urge Action to Stop Violence," May 14, 2010. 

That's enough.  I don't have the time or the energy to devote to anything longer than this 15 minute, stream-of-consciousness post.  And I don't think anything I or members of the public say are going to change this plan one iota.  The only thing that might - and I say might - derail this plan is if the public outrage over the desecration of such a significant and largely intact historic slave heritage site got so big, and so significant, that the administration and the real estate development and business community had to back down.  And I mean national level outrage, not just local level outrage. 

Here's the saddest thing, to me, about this whole thing.  I don't think it's going to work.  I think the baseball stadium piece is going to be a gigantic flop.  If 67% of your surveyed patrons are saying they ain't coming, I think that's something you should listen to.  I just don't see you replacing 4,000 fans with an equivalent number of Ledbury-shirt-and Shockoe-Denim-wearing downtown hipsters.  I mean, they might come once, to check it out.  Hell, I'll come once, to check it out, and I am the laziest person in the world about venturing out of my own neighborhood.  But if you think enough of the "Creative Class" are going to attend ball games to replace the urban and suburban families that currently are the main patrons of Squirrels baseball, I think you are delusional.  I mean, the hipsters might come once to watch a pig towed around the infield and six dudes dressed up in wigs and maid uniforms dancing to "Footloose," but I don't see them buying season tickets.

Maybe I will be completely and utterly proved wrong.  If this plan moves forward, I sincerely hope I am stratospherically wrong. I am a born-and-raised Richmonder, and I love this City, despite all its dysfunction.  I want any City development, especially something as massive as this, to be a success.  But I don't believe a Downtown ball park will be successful.  And more importantly, once we've destroyed and built over historically significant sites, there is no going back.

I believe Downtown development should be what's best, not what is expedient and not what makes the private sector the most amount of money right now.  I think Downtown development should be focused on what is unique about Downtown Richmond. That is the history, and the river.  Not baseball.

 

The RMA Parking Deck Debacle, OR Just When You're Sure the City of Richmond CAN'T Be Any Stupider, They Prove You Wrong!

O.M.G.  The one d*mn day I don't read the whole paper.  Just came across this article on the front page of the Metro Section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch: "City Wants to Take Downtown Expressway Parking Deck from the RMA."  The article literally compelled me to run to my office and bang out this blog post.  I am constantly amazed at the stupidity of the City of Richmond.  Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.

If you don't feel like reading the article, here is the very short summary.  In 1990, the City of Richmond paid for the construction of the parking deck over the Downtown Expressway by the purchase of $18.9M in Richmond Metropolitan Authority ("RMA") bonds. The City was supposed to be paid back by the revenue from the parking deck.  The RMA has not repaid the City of Richmond.  In fact, in the over 20 years since the parking deck has been open (1992), it appears the City of Richmond has not been paid one. red. cent.  The City of Richmond is owed the entire principal amount of the bonds PLUS another $15M in interest. 

So, the RMA owes the City of Richmond almost $34M.  So, what is the City going to do about this?  The City Council, by consent agenda, was prepared last night to (i) foreclose on the parking deck; and (ii) forgive the RMA's $34M debt.

Yup, folks, you heard that right.  It was the City administration's recommendation to City Council that the City take back a non-performing asset and forgive $34M in debt.  To an entity that has net positive cash flow in the millions of dollars of years a year.  [NOTE:  The RMA capital budget for 2013-2014 is $12.77M, of which $7.56M is operating expense, and $5.21M is salaries and benefits.  See Page 24].  An entity that has been jerking the City around over The Diamond, and control of the Downtown Expressway, for at least the last two years.

Clearly someone needs to teach the City administration the definition of "leverage."  Perhaps followed by a little lesson in negotiating.  I mean, we already knew they were lacking in that whole negotiating skill thing when they gave away the Westhampton School building to Bon Secours for peanuts in the Redskins Training Camp deal.  Particularly since it wasn't really theirs to give away, it was the surplus property of the City of Richmond Public School system.  Details, details!  But really, this has crossed the line from the ridiculous into the sublimely absurd.  This is the conversation I imagine taking place:

"Yeah, well, that d*mn parking deck has never made any money, but I'm sure we at the City will do a MUCH better job running it.  We'll have it generating income in no time!  What, there have been operating deficits in the past?  Hmmmm.....we'll figure it out!  We've got lots of smart people here.  Just look at how great we did negotiating the deal for the Redskins Training Facility!  We'll just let those nice folks at the RMA keep that $34M they owe us, we'll just take this parking deck and go on our way...."

Dear Mayor Jones and Administration:  Here is a suggested script for your negotiations.  Please, I beg you.  Try it. 

"Hi, RMA?  Yeah, this is the City.  We kind of have a problem.  You owe us a sh*t ton of money.  Yup, $34M.  So here is how this is going to go.  We're going to take back the parking deck.  THEN we're going to sue you for the $34M deficiency.  You have a couple choices.  You can pay us that money in nice, cold, hard cash, or you can hand over some assets, like the Diamond, and give us the remainder in cash.  Maybe we'd consider some non-cash concessions, like a contractual agreement from you to stop screwing around with us over the Downtown Expressway.  We're tired of dealing with the bullsh*t about 'regional cooperation' while you take our land, fail to compensate us, jerk us around, and treat us like the poor cousin.  Looks like you're going to have to play nice."

And City Council, you all should be absolutely ASHAMED of yourselves that this horrific provision was somehow on the consent agenda.  I mean seriously, WTH?  I know it's only a part-time job, but surely y'all or your staff could have figured out that giving away $34M was not a super idea. 

Here's what I think should happen.  City, if you want to run the parking deck, fine, whatever, I really couldn't care less.  Just try not to lose money.  But since you don't seem to have any need for that $34M, I propose that you turn it over to the City of Richmond Public Schools ("RPS"), to be split equally between capital expenditures and instructional expenditures.  That should about make up for the value you stole from RPS in the Westhampton School deal.

As always, just one woman's opinion.  Comments and feedback welcome.

 [NOTE, SEPTEMBER 25:  As a commenter pointed out, of course, the City would not be entitled to the parking deck AND $34M in cash.  The City would be entitled to the parking deck PLUS the deficiency, meaning the difference between the $34M they are owed and the value of the asset they took back.  And if the parking deck has been losing money all this time, I am having a hard time believing there is any way the deck itself could be worth $34M, or even anything close to that. However you look at it, the RMA owes the City LOTS of money.  Why wouldn't we force them to pay up?]

 

City Council Shoots Down a Referendum on the Issue of Baseball on the Boulevard versus Shockoe Bottom - What I Really Think

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.

The Washington Redskins, Westhampton School, Now the Arthur Ashe Center - What's REALLY Going On in the RVA?

Well, the Redskins are coming to town.  For a few weeks each summer, that is, for training camp, and the City of Richmond is building them a brand new training facility on a swath of land behind the Science Museum.

Now, don't misunderstand me.  I'm glad the Redskins are coming to town.  And I personally believe the selected site is much preferable to the City Stadiumsite, apparently the runner up location.  But, there is all kinds of wheeling and dealing between the City administration and others that looks curiouser and curiouser.  And frankly, the City's deal with Bon Secours is just flat out a bad deal.

Why do I think it's a bad deal?  Bon Secours is ponying up $6.4M for the new training facility, and in return it is getting naming rights and the ability to use the facility for its own programming.  Okay, maybe that is fair and reasonable;  Buy naming rights for recognition plus the opportunity to use the facility to provide your own services the vast majority of the time.  $6.4M seems like a fair price.   IF the deal stopped there. 

But Bon Secours also got the Westhampton School campus at Libbie and Patterson for a ridiculously below market long-term lease of $5,000 per year for 60 years, a whopping grand total of $300,000.  No word on whether or not there is at least a rent escalator in the lease.  [NOTE:  Real estate professionals estimate the property is worth between $20M-$30M dollars.]

THEN, apparently the City is also kicking in some additional land near Richmond Community Hospital for Bon Secours to develop for additional medical services.

Wow.  Who knew nuns could be so Machiavellian?  Or that the City was such a terrible negotiator.

Can I just say my objective evaluation of the deal is the City got screwed.  I mean yes, the City ends up with the Redskins training facility here in town beginning in 2013, for at least eight (8) years, but by giving away the proverbial farm.  And if they had enough money in Economic Development Authority bonds to fund the thing to start with, why not just go that route, take Bon Secours' $6.4M in naming rights/anchor tenant money, and raise the other $3.6M through other sponsorship opportunities, or leases for use of the facility?

For $6.7M investment, Bon Secours gets:

• Naming rights for the facility;
• Position as the "anchor tenant" at the facility, including the development of its own sports medicine and rehabilitation facility, which will presumably generate profits for Bon Secours;
• 60 year lease of Westhampton School  [NOTE:  Propererty value estimated to be $20M-$30M on the open market]; and
• Additional land from the City of Richmond to expand services at Richmond Community Hospital.

Looks to me like getting the Westhampton School property alone would have been a super deal for Bon Secours, without all the rest of the sweeteners.  Bon Secours has been eyeing that site since the School Board moved Richmond Community High School.  So have all kinds of developers who recognized what a prime piece of real estate the City was sitting on.  But whoever ended up with the property was going to have to go 10+ rounds with the neighborhood associations for the very affluent surrounding neighborhoods, who all had varying opinions on what should or shouldn't be done with the property. 

Bon Secours managed to get the dirt absurdly cheap, and present the entire deal as a fait accompli, effectively eviscerating any community opposition to the project.  Done deal, presented all wrapped up with a bow.  Nuns 1, neighborhood 0.

Of course the folks involved in negotiating this deal are pushing it as "good for the whole City."  See this opinion piece by Michael Frazier, the Chair of the committee that was responsible for site selection, and presumably somewhat involved in the Bon Secours/City of Richmond negotiations.

Others have commented on the rush to lionize this deal, such as Terry Rea on his SlantBlog.  This Richmond Times-Dispatch article details many of the objections and many of the objectors, including Bruce Tyler, Marty Jewell, Manoli Loupassi, Paul Goldman, and others.  The scary reality:  City Council is set to vote on the deal tonight, and I suspect it will get rubber stamped, no matter how cr*ppy a deal it really is. 

At the same time, the lame duck City of Richmond School Board is set to vote tonight to "surplus" several parcels of property, including the Arthur Ashe Center on Boulevard and the Arlington Road warehouse site, both very proximate to the site of the Redskins training facility.  Chris Dovi writes a great blog post for Richmond Magazine about why such a step is, at the least, concerning.  Taking the step of declaring the properties surplus means the City of Richmond administration then gets to manage the sale of the properties, with the proceeds going back to the City of Richmond School Board, not to the City of Richmond coffers.  In light of the cr*ppy deal the City cut with Bon Secours, I can't help being very concerned about the implications of this move, especially when seven (7) of the nine (9) School Board members are immune from any type of political fallout, since they won't be returning to the Board.

What if the City decides to enter into a long-term below-market rate lease with some developer for the Arthur Ashe  property, rather than selling it on the open market for fair market value?  What if the City decided to pursue its own economic development agenda, using these "surplus" properties as bargaining chips with the private sector development world in behind-closed-doors meetings?  What if big deal economic development decisions that will impact the City for generations to come were negotiated in secret, then packaged and presented as "done deals," with no opportunity for public input?  Could never happen, right?  

Oh, yeah, right.  It just did. 

Baseball in the Bottom - AGAIN! And Was Anyone Else at the Same VCU Real Estate Trends Conference?

Okay, so I haven't blogged in forever.  And I am still digging out from the work pile-up from attending the VCU Real Estate Trends Conference yesterday.  But I am fired up enough about the newspaper coverage and the post-conference scuttlebutt that I am taking 20 minutes out to blog on the topic.

So, one of the three break out sessions was titled "Economic Impact of Sports and Entertainment."  Of course, being weeks away from the national election, none of the three sessions dealt with the potential implications of the national election on the housing and commercial real estate market.  Sports and entertainment is clearly more pressing.  This is a real shocker when you consider the private market forces + Venture Richmond are pushing for a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom.  Again.  And of course, don't forget that VCU has its eyes on the former University of Richmond/City Stadium property, a choice urban core 19-acre developable parcel of real estate, for the as-yet-t0-be-announced VCU football program.  Of course the ** positive** impacts of sports and entertainment development are more important than who is President.

But my sarcasm is showing, and I digress. 

Based on the newspaper coverage I read today, the reporters attended a different conference than I did.  Here is the Richmond Times-Dispatch's coverage, "Richmond Urged to Build a Stadium Downtown."  According to the reporter, and consistent with the remarks of both the introducer and the panel moderator, "Downtown" equals Shockoe Bottom.  What the intended conclusion is, I believe, and not-too-subtly advanced one at that - Richmond really needs, four years after the SAME battle over location, a new Double A baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom.

Huh?

I've heard Tom Murphy, the former Mayor of Pittsburgh, speak multiple times now. He is a dynamic speaker and clearly a visionary thinker.   His relevance to Richmond:  During his tenure as Mayor of Pittsburgh, he spearheaded the development of new professional football and baseball stadiums, and the re-genesis of a downtown area into a "cultural arts district," in a similarly sized town, all at the same time, and with no money.  

Here's what I don't get.  Every time I've heard Mayor Murphy speak, he talks about the mistake that was made with Three Rivers Stadium, because it did not take advantage of Pittsburgh's greatest asset, the rivers.  He talks about the mistake of allowing surface parking to take over prime riverfront real estate.  He describes incorporating the river as the backdrop and creating parks and green space between the facilities and the river, to allow, and indeed encourage, the public to take advantage of the river.  Mayor Murphy speaks passionately about how the sports and arts facility development succeeded in Pittsburgh because the DESIGN was intentional. 

If you listen to Mayor Murphy speak, I have no idea how anyone could conclude that a successful Richmond baseball stadium should be located in....Shockoe Bottom.  If you track the story of Pittsburgh's success, and try to copy the formula as best you can here, the baseball stadium should be....in Manchester.

I know, I know, I've talked about baseball in Manchester before.  But it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me there than Shockoe Bottom.  The former Reynolds Metals South Plant property, anyone?

More tomorrow, when I'm less fired up, about why Shockoe Bottom is a terrible idea, why Manchester could really work, and how I interpret the model of the "urban dumbells" of sports and entertainment development, applied to Richmond's current landscape.  Let's just say in no model that I come up with does a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom make sense.  Ever.

 

 

 

 

An Editorial Supporting a Baseball Stadium Downtown - AGAIN?!?

I was out of town until Sunday, so I missed this top-of-the-fold editorial in the Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch.   Basically, the heads of Venture Richmond and the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce "rah rah!" all over the idea of a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom. 

Didn't we JUST shoot this idea down - massive mixed-use complex anchored by a minor league baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom - in 2009?  What the heck has changed in three (3) years? 

The only significant changes seem to be (i) Henrico and Chesterfield aren't going to contribute any money; and (ii) the Squirrels have offered to contribute $12M of an estimated $50M budget.

To which I say....who cares?  All of the objections to the 2009 Shockoe Bottom proposal - access, traffic, crime, lack of attendance by suburbanites, financing, parking, and impact on significant historical sites - remain exactly the same, as far as I can tell.  

Here's what I believe:  For whatever reason, the  business community that drives (almost?) all things City of Richmond-related remain bound and determined to have SOME massive public infrastructure project transform Shockoe Bottom.  Apparently waiting for organic change while fostering private development just isn't enough.  "Forget scalable investment!  We want the next BIG Thing!" The baseball stadium proposal, Version 2.0,  is just the latest and greatest "transformative" project they've gotten behind.  Cf.Main Street Station Version 2.0 (retail), Sixth Street Marketplace, Canal Walk, Convention Center, Main Street Station Version 3.0 (train station), CenterStage, Main Street Station Version 4.0 (tourist hospitality center).  Not a one of these projects has been the guaranteed success that was projected.  Only a few, MANY years later, show signs of actually generating a return on investment.

For the same reasons as 2009, I think Shockoe Bottom is the wrong place for the replacement for the Diamond.  Don't get me wrong, I WANT a new baseball stadium.  Here's where I come out on the baseball stadium issue: 

1.  Put it on the Boulevard.  Why can't it anchor retail and commercial development there?  No one can explain to me why Big Box + stadium works in Shockoe Bottom, but not on the Boulevard.

OR

2.  Put it in Manchester, on the Reynolds South Plant property, anchoring whatever retail/residential/commercial develoment they can get to come there.

Option 2...now THAT is a Big City, Big Boy transformative move, as a commenter on Charlie Diradour's Facebook page said the other day.   

Downtown Development - Does the Emperor Have No Clothes?

I knew someone would write this perky, upbeat article for me.  It comes from Work It, Richmond, and I can't remember if that is some Richmond Times-Dispatch  offshoot or another initiative from the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce, through HYPE, the "Helping Young Professionals Engage" group. 

[I personally call HYPE "Helping Young Professionals GET Engaged"," but that's just me.]

Anyway, of course everyone there said everything was "Great!," everything was 100% occupied or renting up well above expectations, rents were high, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

God bless Brian Ohlinger of the VCU Real Estate Foundation, who basically looked at the developers following his presentation and said "Stop. Building. VCU. Student. Housing."  Although in a much more diplomatic and politic manner.  No one else seems willing to call anyone on all this insane apartment development downtown.

I'm going to write more on this later, but I just had to post this article.  For now, you can see my personal opinion on the apartment building craze here.  And keep in mind my March 7, 2012 post includes a much broader geographic scope of development than Venture Richmond's definition of "Downtown" and does NOT include a heck of a lot of apartment units that were discussed yesterday.  Scarier and scarier, I believe.

The Victory Rug Factory Proposal and the Special Use Permit Process - Ironies Abound

Well, this story appeared in Richmond BizSense yesterday, only a few days after the story of the Georges versus the Snows, which I am also calling "the Tempsford Road Kerfuffle."   I was struck when I read this story and the comments, in comparison to the story covering the feud over the Snow's special use permit application to subdivide their lot. Ironies will be addressed later, most likely in another post.

The Victory Rug story outlines the dispute between the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association ("OHNA") and a developer, Guy Blundon of CMB Development, over the conversion of a commercial building into apartments.

Let me be clear on the front end. I don't know Mr. Blundon. This is not personal.  I am sure he is a lovely human being. He may do nothing but "high-quality developments wherever he's been in the Richmond area," and he may indeed have a "social conscience," as one ** cough ** commercial real estate broker commenter noted. However, what is indisputable is he does not live in Oregon Hill.

Blundon wishes to turn the old Victory Rug building into 18 apartments, with an adjacent 18 space parking lot. The proposed unit mix is one studio apartment, 6 one bedrooms, and 11 two bedrooms.

The neighborhood proposes 6 apartments and 2 single family homes, which would be supported by the current R-7 zoning.

The issues: The neighbors say the project is too dense for the urban neighborhood, doesn't provide enough parking, and they don't want more VCU students. The developer says the 18 units proposed are the bare minimum necessary to make the project work financially, and he plans to rent to young professionals.

Let's unpack this.

First, some basic facts and principles to underpin the analysis:

Oregon Hill is a dense, urban residential neighborhood of early Victorian (1890s+) rowhouses tucked between VCU's Monroe Park campus and the river.  The neighborhood was a blue-collar, working class neighborhood for families who worked in the tobacco warehouses, manufacturing facilities, and docks in Shockoe Slip and Shockoe Bottom. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the demographic of the residents for whom it was developed, there is not nearly as much masonry construction as there was in more affluent Victorian neighborhoods of the same period, such as the Fan and Jackson Ward. Much of the neighborhood housing stock is frame.  Consequently, the property values have traditionally been lower than in other neighborhoods immediately proximate to VCU, most notably the Fan.

Oregon Hill has already suffered some serious urban planning damage from the creation of the Downtown Expressway, which cut a swath right through the middle of the neighborhood.  The historically African American neighborhood of Jackson Ward suffered as well.  I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say these neighborhoods bore the brunt of these massive development projects because they were poorer and minority, and did not have the clout of their more affluent neighbors, such as the Fan.

In the last _____ [10? 15?] years, Oregon Hill has transitioned from a predominantly owner-occupant residential neighborhood to become a residential neighborhood with an unusually heavy influx of VCU students and other renters.   As in any college community, in the areas surrounding the university, there are tensions between the home owners and the student renters.  Think noise, parties, drunkenness, petty vandalism, and trash, plus tons of extra cars.  And VCU's rapid expansion (over 20,000+ students) and transformation from a commuter college to a true residential urban university means there are very real growing pains exacerbating the typical "Town vs. Gown" challenges.

I think one could fairly argue that Oregon Hill, and the property owners of Oregon Hill, have born a disproportionate share of the burden from the creation of the Downtown Expressway and the expansion of VCU.

[NOTE: I'll have to validate this later with some citations. This post is getting too long as it is. But especially in the Trani era, VCU did pretty much as it pleased in its insatiable march to expand its footprint. VCU expanded into the neighborhood, despite the OHNA objections, and despite previous representations from President Trani himself. Remember the controversy over tearing down historic stables? Or the construction of the VCU gym at old city Stadium? The Carver neighborhood is now suffering the same fate].

So, with that background and underpinning, let's unpack this Victory Rug proposal.

1. The likely tenants will not be "young professionals," as Mr. Blundon claims. Let's be realistic. There is a strong likelihood they will be VCU students.
2. 18 parking spaces is not enough space to accommodate all the project's residents. That's one space for each UNIT. However, you should be calculating car needs based on BEDROOMS.  So, that would be a need for 28 parking spaces.
3. Are there REALLY 18 legitimate parking spaces? If these parking spaces look anything like spaces I've seen in some other urban deals, and aren't even appropriate for a compact car, as indicated by one commenter, that is a legitimate concern raised by OHNA.
4. Commenters claim that Mr. Blundon was told BEFORE he purchased the property that the neighborhood association would oppose a project they considered too dense. I presume there were discussions about what "too dense" meant. If that is indeed the case, then I agree with the commenter that says Mr. Blundon now can't fall back on some position that 18 units is the bare minimum that is financially feasible. He knew the risks.

People may not believe me, but I am actually pro-development, and especially urban infill development. I think recycling old buildings is the greenest thing we can do. Creating appropriate living spaces in urban areas means - theoretically, at least - eating up less greenfields with sprawling suburban development.

BUT, I also believe residents and particularly home owners have the right to oppose any development in THEIR neighborhood that requires a special use permit. If the OHNA says this development is too dense, and has legitimate, reasonable, and rational reasons why, the City Council should give the neighborhood association's official position great deference. I mean, really? How dare these commenters essentially suggest, if not outright say, that the people who live in this area and own their own homes should be grateful that this developer is going to come in and put up some shiny new apartments? 

 Here some examples:

"It seems like this property could potentially bring better residents to the neighborhood than those who currently reside in the unkept rowhomes."

"...[f]rom my perspective, a new small apartment would be better than what is there now…a run-down vacant commercial property. Richmond on a whole seems to run into this a lot. The people who live in the neighborhoods have a vision for what they want but not the financial ability to do it. Is it worth it as a community member to allow the improvement of your neighborhood even if it doesn’t necessarily match your vision?"

Condescension, much? I guarantee these commenters don't live in Oregon Hill. They are also probably the first people who would be jumping up and down if any such project were coming to THEIR neighborhood. Shades of Tempsford Lane.  But my disdain for the attitude expressed by those commenters will need to be worked out another day.  For now, what to do about the Victory Rug project?

Maybe there is a middle way. How about compromise? I understand that it has to work financially for the developer.  And I know I haven't seen a pro forma.  But the property owners in the neighborhood have to live with the results long after the developer is gone, and have deeper and detailed insights into what the true day-to-day issues are going to be.  In the interest of trying to be creative, here are some ideas:

• If it's really supposed to be for single professionals, how about 18 one bedroom units? That makes it more likely that there is only one car per unit. Not a perfect solution, but worth a discussion.
• If the developer intended for it to be for young professionals, make it an age-restricted community. No one may occupy a unit unless they are 25 or older.
• I believe the area is zone for parking.  So you can't legally park on the street for longer than an hour without a parking sticker.  So, how about as a condition of special use, make the apartment tenants ineligible for a parking sticker?
• Can you give your apartment dwellers a discount or a credit if they certify that they are car-free? Maybe that's the wackiest idea yet, but if you are trying to reach a compromise, maybe we have to throw out some nutty ideas.

 What do y'all think?

The Tempsford Road Kerfuffle - I Can't Believe This is News - Only in RVA

In yesterday's Metro Section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the paper decided to cover the sad, sad story of a property dispute pitting neighbor against neighbor in a tony,  south of Cary Street neighborhood, further described in the article as "near the Country Club of Virginia."  Clearly, it was a slow news day for the Times-Disgrace.  Or perhaps the Georges have friends on the editorial staff.  Who knows.

Short version:  Page and John George, a Realtor and developer, respectively, are opposing their neighbors' attempt to subdivide said neighbors' current 3.7 acre lot into a new 1.5 acre building lot and a 2.2 acre lot with the existing home on it.  The big deal:  The new building lot will be adjacent to the George's property line, and anything built on said new lot will interfere with the George's currently pristine views.  I love the pictures, with the Georges staring pensively off into the distance next to white poles marking the battle....in mean, the property line. 

Did I mention that the neighbors seeking to subdivide their own land are Former Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow and his wife, Carolyn?  The Snows have applied for a special use permit, as required by law.  Their application is moving through the process, and the City Planning Staff has recommended approval of the application.  It appears the neighbors who don't much like that possible result have taken their case to the court of public opinion. 

My favorite quote in the whole article has to be this:

****

Bill Chapman, who also lives on Tempsford, said he opposes the permit because he does not want to set a precedent for subdividing lots in the neighborhood, which is located near The Country Club of Virginia.

"One of the things that attracted us to the neighborhood is the size of lots … and the lack of density, and we want to preserve that," said Chapman, a developer.  (my emphasis added).

****

Yeah, you have a real density issue there.  1.5 acres, 2.2 acres - whooee! Wouldn't want these folks to be living right on top of one another, now would we?

And is it just me that finds it absolutely hilarious that the complaining developer is currently constructing a ginormous 15-unit condominium complex on the corner of Libbie and Guthrie, in a primarily residential area of small Capes and ranch homes, tearing down several small houses in the process, after going through a special use permitting process to get the necessary approvals?  Whatever happened to that whole "he who lives in glass houses..." thing?  Pun definitely intended.

 I have an idea.  If Messrs.  George and Chapman continue to oppose the Snows' application, I respectfully suggest they agree to forgo the special use permitting process themselves in their own development projects.  Seems fair to me, sauce for the goose and all that good stuff.

Now, does anyone mind if we get back to real news, like the foreclosure crisis, or average folks struggling to make a living, or students graduating with exorbitant amounts of college debt?

 [NOTE: After a quick check of public records, it appears that both Messrs. George and Chapman own lots that are.....1.45 acres.  Yup, that's right.  Smaller than the new 1.5 acre building lot the Snows are proposing to subdivide.  I swear, I could not make this stuff up if I tried]. 

Richmond School Board Proposes Cutting IB Programs and Governors School Slots - Now THAT Ain't Smart!

More budget hoo-ha between the City of Richmond School Board and the Mayor's appointed Special Task Force. If you haven't been keeping up, the short version is this. The City School Board proposed a budget that has a $23.8M shortfall. In other words, they want to spend $23.8M more than they have been allocated. Mayor Jones is [understandably] irritated with the Board, since they are asking the City of Richmond to fund that $23.8M shortfall. He contends the School Board is responsible for finding a way to operate within their means, and coming up with cuts to make the budget work.

The School Board refuses. Mayor Jones appoints a Special Task force of independent educational and business leaders to look for ways to cut the budget. Yvonne Brandon, the Superintendent of City of Richmond schools, proposes certain ways to cut costs, including:

• Eliminating school sports
• Eliminating the International Baccalaureate ("IB") program
• Cutting the City's available slots at the Maggie Walker and Appomatox Governors Schools in half
• Furloughs
• Pay cuts for staff
• Layoffs

Of the proposals, the second and third items, eliminating IB and cutting Governors School slots, is just plain stupid. These are programs that raised the level of educational offering to the children we tax payers are paying to educate. The IB program is academically rigorous and requires application and acceptance. The Maggie Walker Governor's School is considered one of the best, if not THE BEST, high schools in the Greater Richmond area, even when put up against the private school powerhouses.

Personally, I think these "options" for budget savings are on the table in an attempt by the Superintendent and the School Board to create a huge public outcry, and to force the Mayor and his task force to give in to their demands for another $24M. Maybe I'm too cynical, and that's not their goal. But suggesting the elimination or limitation of the most academically rigorous and respected options in the City system - how does that make ANY SENSE?

The beneficiaries of the school system are supposed to be the students, not the teachers and staff. If the only options to balance the budget are furloughs, pay cuts, and/or layoffs, or more preferably eliminating staff and teachers by attrition, that's what the School Board should do. Don't eliminate outstanding programs, creating fewer academic opportunities for all Richmond kids. That's just plain dumb.