Shockoe Center Q & A
There are a lot of questions floating around about the proposed Shockoe Center development. The office of Kathy Graziano Richmond City Council President has passed a 28 page, 40 question Q & A (Shockoe Center pdf) to the Hills and Heights blog to share with the community to try and answer some of these questions. These questions cover everything from the vision of development, funding, and includes the list of the Shockoe Center development team and the contact person for different areas of responsibilities.
Sample Q & A from the document:
1. What is the Shockoe Center Development?
A. Shockoe Center is a public-private partnership designed to transform the Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom area by investing in a three-phase strategic economic development vision.
The vision for Shockoe Center is designed with three guiding principles:
- Develop a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as an urban, mixed-use town center concept largely within the constraints of a FEMA-designated flood plain
- Incorporate the site’s unique cultural and historic heritage and
- Minimize the city’s cost and obligations
2. What are Shockoe Center’s anchor elements?
A. There are at least three signature features, or anchors, in Shockoe Center. They are:
- Historic Main Street Station and Train Shed
- The rich historical legacy of Shockoe Bottom, from the Slave Trail and Lumpkin’s Jail to the 17th Street Farmer’s Market, all of which will integral parts of Shockoe Center.
A minor league ballpark so uniquely designed to fit into the historical fabric of the surrounding neighborhood it could only be in Richmond’s Shockoe Bottom
Haven’t we been over the ballpark issue a million times, and haven’t the CITY residents said time and time again that we DO NOT want a ball park in shockoe bottom? I don’t care what the COUNTY residents want, because they’re not PAYING FOR IT. Our taxes are already through the roof, they never lowered the restaurant tax from 11%, and our real estate taxes are the highest in the metro area.
NO STADIUM IN HISTORIC SHOCKOE BOTTOM.
You mean the historic Shockoe Bottom that is home to Velvet, Element, Tiki Bob’s and The Lounge? Fine historic establishments!!
im tired of the dumb richmonders that wan the city to die. its time for the city to grow. there is NOTHING,….i mean NOTHING in the location where they want to build this stadium. Its a abanadoned parking lot and a bunch of buildings that are not only eyesores but the cost the city money. and shockoe bottom is not that historic….its full of 2bit clubs and abandoned buildings… its time for richmond to stop being a “big town” and become a “Small growing metroplex” There is no reason for charlotte N.C. or Jacksonville Fla. to be bigger than richmond,….they hold no importance in history and people move their from richmond because there is nothing to do here.
From today’s RTD
Neighborhood and community groups interested in meeting with project leaders can call (804) 775-2184, ext. 104. The group also is getting ready to launch a Web site that will allow people to ask questions about the project, said Peter Boisseau, who is handling communications for Shockoe Center.
Annoyed – I think you might be mistaken about “haven’t the CITY residents said time and time again that we DO NOT want a ball park in shockoe bottom”.
There seems to be majority of city residents that DO want a ball park. There have been numerous threads on all these neighborhood blogs and the debate is heated, but the trend does seem to be in favor of the ball park.
1st off, I really don’t care about baseball. But I really like what a baseball stadium can do for a town. Before living in Richmond, I lived in Boston near Fenway Park. There was so much nightlife, so many restaurants and so many mixed-use properties in the area that even when baseball was not in season, there was so much other ‘stuff’ to do and the area was always packed! Yeah, traffic was bad, and so was parking, but is that really a good argument??? IT IS AN URBAN AREA! If you want a parking space, move to Midlothian and only visit strip malls! I LOVE the CITY, I LOVE WESTOVER HILLS! Guess what, I have to park on the street, sometimes a ways from my house becase there is limited parking. Do I care, NO!!! It is all part of living in the city. Let’s finally put Shockoe on the map and make it the hallmark of our city. Rather than the trashy unsafe area it is now!!!
I think what’s attractive about this particular project is that it’s not just a ballpark. They’re bringing other development into the area that could really improve it. It’s not just a baseball diamond with concessions, but plans for commercial and residential development.
I still don’t want to pay for it with my tax money.
Listen very carefully to what they say- Their talk of bonds does not mean the City will not be left holding the bill. Their talk of having a team to play is not a guarantee.
Scott, we pay for Oregon Hill with our tax dollars. Four years ago, opponents said we didn’t need to go forward with a city-assisted development in the Bottom, that the private sector would handle the development. Today we hear critics saying the same thing. By all means, let’s make sure that we know excatly what the city exposure is for the bonds, let’s know exactly the amount of infrastructure cost to the city. But don’t get hung up on the $365 million figure. That’s the total investment estimated for all parties. Even if the city were completely responsbile for the ball park bonds, that’s $60 million, plus 8-12 million for infrastructure.
It’s not possible that the mayor and council will have enough time to thoroughly vett this project before the developer-imposed deadline of March 1. But that dosn’t mean this is a bad project.
“Scott, we pay for Oregon Hill with our tax dollars.”
I would wager you the City gets far more tax money out of Oregon Hill than it puts in, that is, when VCU is not trying to take over everything. We also pay for Forest Hill, Granite Hill, and Spring Hill with our tax dollars, if you want to go down that road.
But this discussion is not about Oregon Hill, its about the public paying for baseball. Its about a pitch from a bunch of developers. Where’s the pitch for fixing our school buildings, that are still ILLEGAL for not complying with federal law?
And yes, to be more specific, I still regard their pitch as off. As I said before, I question their ability to pay public debts and have a team. You offer no real rebuttal. I don’t like the idea of these guys setting the timetable either.
If I understand the proposal (always a risky assumption) stadium debt repayment comes from the increase in sales tax from the newly developed areas, which will be developed with private dollars. City would pay for infrastructure, which has to be done before any developer comes in. City gets increased RE taxes, about $290 million of investment, as opposed to the $150K a year the area is currently paying. That’s about $3, 451,000 annually, money for schools, police, etc. Don’t take my word for any of this. Check the documents, make sure I am accurate about this. But don’t look at this as a ball park proposal. The ball park is a stormwater management tool that is the sweetener. This is a real estate development, and should be judged that way.
Ron, there are still a lot of if’s in the rosy picture you paint. Namely, the big ‘if’ is if the bond payments come in. We have been sold too many questionable schemes like this – the Broad Street CDA for example.
Green roof, non-impervious sidewalks and parking lots, street trees are better, cheaper, urban stormwater tools than a baseball stadium. Will the Shockoe proposal incorporate some of these?
I agree with all those points. Whatever development, if any, ever comes to the Bottom must take into account the stormwater issue. It does not have to be an athletic field; it could be a park. How about bagging the baseball, put a greenspace in the middle and develop around it, city still paying for the infrastructure? Oh, the buildings also have to have a method of exit above the 100 year flood plain level.
“Whatever development, if any, ever comes to the Bottom must take into account the stormwater issue.”
I am glad we both agree on the stormwater issue. You know, I really like the idea of daylighting Shockoe Creek, the natural stormwater flow. Imagine a nice green walk along the creek, complete with some restaurants and retail on ground level. It could be a much more pedestrian friendly canal walk, that could connect to the larger themed Canal Walk.
The amount of misinformation being generated is astounding. The ball park site is largely outside of the 100year floodplain. An examination of the actual FEMA maps shows that all of the stuff within the Bottom are largely the same as on the previous FEMA map. The change is that the area of study was extended upstream. The only new flood areas in the ‘project area’- which seems to morph daily – are the Lumpkins Jail site (where they no longer show a proposed high-rise) and the MCV partking lots north of Broad St., which has been excluded from the project dropping itr from 22 acres to 19 acres. The ballpark provides no access to buildings on the far side of the railroad tracks. The FEMA study area used to stop at Venable St; it now extends to the upper reaches of the Shockoe drainage basin. There are flood hazard areas as far upstream as Hermitage Rd at the CSX tracks (adjacent to Todd’s Lofts, Battery Park, Brookland Park Blvd. at Cannon Creek, and Shockoe Creek all the way up to Mechanicsville Pike. The Shockoe Creek floodplain has changed dramatically; the Shockoe Bottom floodplain area has changed little, the floodplain immediately adjoining the ballpark is essentially unchanged.
The rebate of 3 1/2% of the state’s share of the sales tax (the other 1/2% is already dedicated to transportation funding) is only a part of the public finance. The project will also receive all city sales, meals, and real estate taxes, above current levels, attributable to the new developments. The plan also calls for the city to acquire for the Authority the private property in the project footprint and donate the city’s currently owned property. Acquisition through eminent domain is possible. Note that the bproposal calls for financing with 30 year bonds. What is the economic life of a ballpark? The Diamond was hailed as state of the art when it was opened in +/- 1986; it was obsolete in 22 years. Fortunately, the bonds financing it were 20 year bonds, so the ballpark was paid off before the end of its economic life. I suggest that 20 year bonds would be more appropriate for this scheme. 30 year bonds benefit no one other than the bondholders.