search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
CENTRAL VIRGINIA


The arena of politics The hotly debated $1.5 billion Navy Hill plan dies


by Gary Robertson


tory — the potentially transformative $1.5 billion Navy Hill downtown redevel- opment plan that would have included the state’s largest entertainment venue — col- lapsed in mid-February amid sound and fury as seven of Richmond City Council’s nine members refused to approve the plan. Council members instead asked Mayor


A


Levar Stoney to issue a new request for proposals for the Navy Hill project, this time including more citizen input on the arena issue and a full appraisal and assess- ment of the existing Richmond Coliseum. The failed Navy Hill proposal, revealed to the public and City Council last August, included a $300 million, 17,500-seat arena to replace the now-closed Richmond Coli- seum, as well as a luxury hotel, 1 million square feet of commercial and office space, more than 2,500 apartments and 260,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. CoStar Group, a commercial real estate


analysis company based in Washington, D.C., announced in January it would double its Richmond workforce to 2,000 and move to a 400,000-square-foot build- ing in Navy Hill if City Council approved the project. And VCU Health System upped the ante, saying it would add an office building and hospitality space to the proposed project. Ultimately, a majority of city council-


ors, who had heard from hundreds of sup- porters and opponents over six months, said they were not prepared to support the deal proposed by NH District Corp., a public- private partnership of area business leaders and philanthropists led by Dominion Energy Inc. Chairman, President and CEO Thomas F. Farrell II. The councilors cited financial worries as well as concerns about the project’s lack of transparency. Had the Navy Hill project been


approved, the city would have taken out $350 million in nonrecourse bonds to fund


Rendering courtesy NH District Corp.


historic vote on the biggest economic development proposal in the city of Richmond’s his-


A rendering of the Navy Hill project


than 500 homes in Navy Hill, displacing about 1,000 families. The Rev. Ben Campbell, a Richmond


spiritual leader and expert on poverty and race, says he’s heard many community members question whether the wealthy business leaders who touted the Navy Hill redevelopment — particularly Farrell — “are benevolent or have ulterior motives.” “I tend to view them as benevolent,”


Campbell says. “I know these people personally. But it is definitely a paternalist action by a very few wealthy people that feel, in some sense, that they would save the city. What seems not to have been learned over the past 50 years is the futility of this kind of salvation.” S. Waite Rawls II, a former banker


and recently the president of the American Civil War Museum Foundation, has a far different view.


the arena, with a special tax district divert- ing future sales-tax revenue from the state to pay back $600 million to bondholders over the next 30 years. Navy Hill developers promised to source $900 million in private funds for the first phase of the arena’s construction. Proponents painted a picture of future


prosperity at no risk to city taxpayers. But some city residents questioned the need for the arena and the project’s funding mechanism. In December, the nine- member Navy Hill Development Advisory Commission appointed by City Council to review the proposal concluded that “the Navy Hill project poses a risk to [the] city General Fund and school funding,” and a majority “did not find the publicly financed $300 million arena a sound and reasonable public investment in the redevelopment of downtown.” Richmond’s own history also played a


role; the name Navy Hill comes from what once was a prosperous African American neighborhood in the same location as the proposed development. In the 1950s and ’60s, highway construction obliterated more


www.VirginiaBusiness.com


“One thing that strikes me is that there is no one else who could pull off a project this big — not the city, not any one current developer. It takes a group of community- spirited people with the means and know- how to do it,” Rawls says. Stoney was a solid champion of the


Navy Hill proposal. Navy Hill, he says, would have


produced 21,000 jobs, including 9,000 permanent positions, and would have produced needed revenues for city schools and minority businesses while creating “a catalyst to increase funding for education, housing, transit and other core services.” With such a full-throated endorse-


ment, “Stoney and the Stoney administra- tion have risked a lot of political capital,” endangering Stoney’s re-election campaign this fall as well as his aspirations for higher office, says Richard J. Meagher, a political science professor at Randolph-Macon Col- lege who writes the blog RVA Politics. Despite the outcome, however, the


Navy Hill project was Central Virginia’s biggest project announced in 2019 — and is likely to influence the city’s future.


VIRGINIA BUSINESS | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140