News New Downtown Arena

Ramcounter

Top Member
Dec 7, 2011
4,396
5,241
Charge for what? Hotels? Attending events at the arena?

Also, it doesn't look like that the Belmont financial model is optimal

They have a higher green fees for non Henrico residents. As someone who is not a Henrico resident I can’t really argue since they use their tax revenue to subsidize the course.

I am not sure you can criticize the Belmont municipal golf course financial model and be pro new arena. Per your link, Belmont was supposed to be paid for by users but the course only made a profit once since 2000 ($5,429 in 2008.). That leaves the county to subsidize what is intended to be a self-sustaining operation.
 

Violet Ram

Top Member
Jan 29, 2015
1,317
2,458
They have a higher green fees for non Henrico residents. As someone who is not a Henrico resident I can’t really argue since they use their tax revenue to subsidize the course.
I was asking what you would have RVA charge nonresidents.

I am not sure you can criticize the Belmont municipal golf course financial model and be pro new arena. Per your link, Belmont was supposed to be paid for by users but the course only made a profit once since 2000 ($5,429 in 2008.). That leaves the county to subsidize what is intended to be a self-sustaining operation.
I'm not sure I see the comparison. A municipal golf course is not the same as an arena. One is, by comparison, a low investment into a competitive market with fewer barriers to entry. The other operates within an oligopoly with insane upfront costs.

Second, I think a public golf course and an arena are meant to accomplish different goals. A golf course doesn't really improve the immediate area. It is, by nature, something that is secluded. An arena is intended to be part cornerstone within a community.

Finally, where did anyone claim that the arena would be paid off by ticket admissions or that the arena had to be independently self-sufficient. That would probably cause the arena to fail as it would compel the arena to charge higher rates and drive away activity from the area. The intention is to let the growth in the area that is attributable (I know some will debate that growth would is attributable to the arena, but that's a different argument) to the development of the arena. Let me put it another way. Would you abandon a mutual fund comprised of 50 assets if one of those assets was running a loss while the other 49 were increasing in value and more than covering the one 'loser'? I'm not saying the arena project is guaranteed to succeed, but I am saying that you can have a successful project without a component of the project generating revenue.
 

Ramcounter

Top Member
Dec 7, 2011
4,396
5,241
I was asking what you would have RVA charge nonresidents.
I think $3-5 would raise some significant revenue assuming the attendance projections are true. Also, it would be in line with what Henrico charges city residents to play Belmont.

I'm not sure I see the comparison. A municipal golf course is not the same as an arena. One is, by comparison, a low investment into a competitive market with fewer barriers to entry. The other operates within an oligopoly with insane upfront costs.

Second, I think a public golf course and an arena are meant to accomplish different goals. A golf course doesn't really improve the immediate area. It is, by nature, something that is secluded. An arena is intended to be part cornerstone within a community.
I think the comparison is reasonable for a couple of reasons. Both provide residents a way to spend a few hours for enjoyment. Both require large upfront costs that need to be covered. Finally, I assume Belmont had financial projections that showed how it would not cost the county money via subsidies like this arena plan. What did the county miss, along with a bunch of other localities who had similar projects, that caused the project to not be able to pay for itself?


Finally, where did anyone claim that the arena would be paid off by ticket admissions or that the arena had to be independently self-sufficient. That would probably cause the arena to fail as it would compel the arena to charge higher rates and drive away activity from the area. The intention is to let the growth in the area that is attributable (I know some will debate that growth would is attributable to the arena, but that's a different argument) to the development of the arena. Let me put it another way. Would you abandon a mutual fund comprised of 50 assets if one of those assets was running a loss while the other 49 were increasing in value and more than covering the one 'loser'? I'm not saying the arena project is guaranteed to succeed, but I am saying that you can have a successful project without a component of the project generating revenue.
IMHO This is the gray area comes into play because you can’t tie development to the project like golf course green fees. Personally I wish they have done a new RFP without the arena when the TIF secondary impact zone expanded to the current size. If it showed the development of the area does in fact need an arena for the development to occur then it would be an easy sell for folks like me. The city could have also made the case that it is a public need like a park or school and had it voted via a ballot initiative.

I get your loss leader concept but I am hesitant because of how many of these type of projects turn into money incinerators is spectacularly long. The comically bad ideas that were built but failed spectacularly would be funny if the affects weren’t so horrible of the residents.

 

Mistachill

Top Member
Apr 20, 2009
16,599
27,138
I think $3-5 would raise some significant revenue assuming the attendance projections are true. Also, it would be in line with what Henrico charges city residents to play Belmont.


I think the comparison is reasonable for a couple of reasons. Both provide residents a way to spend a few hours for enjoyment. Both require large upfront costs that need to be covered. Finally, I assume Belmont had financial projections that showed how it would not cost the county money via subsidies like this arena plan. What did the county miss, along with a bunch of other localities who had similar projects, that caused the project to not be able to pay for itself?
Every project has budget projections. How many are even remotely accurate? There are so many factors that are extremely hard to correctly forecast or just can't be predicted. Of course, there are some that are just dumb ideas from the start, but I suspect many are just best case, overly optimistic projections.
 

BaNgMyPrOgRaM

Top Member
Insider
Mar 27, 2009
18,540
10,205
Why can't the city and the counties and fur come together with a vision and replace the Robins Center with a 20.000 'home court on West Cary street or somewhere in Hugenot?
 

rvaram

Top Member
Mar 26, 2012
2,843
4,508
Almost everybody I talk to thinks it's ridic to put 70 blocks of downtown tax dollars into a stadium with no tenant when the schools buildings are so decrepit. The "deal" that there will be money for schools is the same thing as the Redskins deal will create all kinds of jobs. It's just another Rva BS/corrupt deal. Any benefit is all way down the road and everything has to be perfect. In Henrico language .. ha ha ha fools!

Over half of the "private development" associated with the "deal" has nothing to do with a new arena. It's BS. If those deals make sense, bring them! But then the boys don't get paid, and ain't that what it's all about? Examples: VCU building, the VCU student housing, the apartments on Broad, the mixed use building East Grace. All of them have zero to do with a Coliseum Ze-Ro. The market is there or not. Come on, man.

There are a couple/few folks who really push this thing hard here.

What I want is this.... IF you're for this deal post straight up that you have no direct or indirect financial interest in the deal. Just disclose. Right up front: "I have no financial interest or planned finanicial interest." That's it. Say it. I will: I have no financial interest or planned financil interest.

Easy peazy.

Fact is, while there are a few people who will be for a new arena at whatever, the vast majority of folks thinks this is total BS. Fix the schools buildings where kids are basically pissing in buckets. What is this? 1860? But ain't no consulting fees for schools' buildings (actually there are, given the giant cost overruns and 5 vs 3 to be built for the huge meals tax increase). The people actually aren't that stupid. Pledging your downtown for 30 years to get a new arena to make Tom Farrell feel good and pay off his cronies is BS given this city's issues.

It shoud be a regional deal anyway. Raise the hotel tax regionally, and even more closer in, to raise the money. Boom. The attendance is 1/3s anyway so it's fair. But the boys might not get paid that way.

Rock it out.

So disclose, and get it on!
I have no financial interest or planned financial interest in the new coliseum deal. I'm a city of Richmond tax payer and I'm tired of hearing that we can't do anything except spend more money on schools when we already spend more per student than just about any other city/county in the state. I don't care for the jmu duke Stoney but the coliseum deal isn't as raw as many make it out to be. Dwight Jones is a crook and the redskins deal was shady, I think this is better. End rant. Go rams!
 
Apr 28, 2009
1,347
1,564
I agree that no matter what The City of Richmond does, there are always going to be those who just want to hate on the city period. Any opportunity they get they will bash the city. I said it before...I wonder how many people who like to chime in on the affairs of the city even pay taxes or live in its boarders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderRAM

Wolfpack Ram

Top Member
Apr 21, 2009
10,804
18,298
I agree that no matter what The City of Richmond does, there are always going to be those who just want to hate on the city period. Any opportunity they get they will bash the city. I said it before...I wonder how many people who like to chime in on the affairs of the city even pay taxes or live in its boarders.
Many of us don't live within its borders for an obvious reason. This debate, along with the Diamond debacle are clear examples of why. Regarding taxes, anyone who pays for food within the city limits is paying taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mistachill
Apr 28, 2009
1,347
1,564
Paying taxes with no vested interest. Totally different. You can choose to pay or not. You can eat in the county or spend in the county. It is a choice. Property tax is not an option. Paying the taxes on cars and real estate is non negotiable. I pay taxes when I eat in the county but I don’t chime in on how the county runs it’s affairs and trust me...the decisions that are made in the counties are by far from being perfect.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2, 2014
1,614
2,115
If VCU is not involved in some way shape, or fashion, nothing will get done as far as this project goes. Example pointed out earlier...The Diamond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaNgMyPrOgRaM

Ramcounter

Top Member
Dec 7, 2011
4,396
5,241
Every project has budget projections. How many are even remotely accurate? There are so many factors that are extremely hard to correctly forecast or just can't be predicted. Of course, there are some that are just dumb ideas from the start, but I suspect many are just best case, overly optimistic projections.
What I can’t understand is the country can be littered with so many examples of these projects turning into money incinerators and yet the politicians keep trying them. The Cincinnati Bengals stadium is yet another example of a project that makes me shake my head.

The stadium's annual tab continues to escalate, according to the county's website. In 2008, the Bengals' stadium cost to taxpayers was $29.9 million, an amount equivalent to 11% of the county's general fund.

Last year, it rose to $34.6 million—a sum equal to 16.4% of the county budget. That's a huge multiple compared to other football stadiums of the era that similarly relied on county bonds for financing. Those facilities have cost-to-budget ratios of less than 2%.
 

Mistachill

Top Member
Apr 20, 2009
16,599
27,138
I agree that no matter what The City of Richmond does, there are always going to be those who just want to hate on the city period. Any opportunity they get they will bash the city. I said it before...I wonder how many people who like to chime in on the affairs of the city even pay taxes or live in its boarders.
Even if you don't live within the city limits I think everybody who lives in the metro area would be affected. So I don't think this is a conversation limited to only city tax payers. In fact, I wish the counties were willing to contribute to a new coliseum, but based on the new stadium experience that will never happen.
 
Last edited:

Ram14

Top Member
Insider
Jun 20, 2011
12,252
24,933
Why would the cities and counties trust The City of Richmond with investment of 10's of millions of dollars, they have an awful record of poor fiscal management. That is why I support this route as without it nothing will get done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderRAM

BaNgMyPrOgRaM

Top Member
Insider
Mar 27, 2009
18,540
10,205
Man that is so sad for a city I've loved so much! Can a neighboring county buy the land and make their own thing happen?