With mainstream media support, the Shockoe stadium debate continues, and distracts from other, more important issues.
The Richmond Greens reiterate the corporate welfare aspects of the proposal. Yes, historic tax credits (and, hopefully, someday, green building tax credits) and government incentives are different from the handouts and investment that the developers are demanding, despite how the fanboys spin it.
Meanwhile others keep trying to reframe the debate into crass money issues while ignoring the most important question- what is the best use of Shockoe Bottom? Environmental issues are circumvented also.
There are calls for referendums to settle the debate, but so far City leaders seem to be content to let the stupidity rage on.
5 comments so far
You claiming that these incentives are different does not make it so. Both sets of incentives are given because of a perceived net benefit to the community in the long run.
Rest assured that IF the Diamond were re-done (which it won’t be), there would be govt money and incentives involved in that as well — so why is the Sierra Club of the James supporting that? Seems a bit contradictory, don’t you think.
Continue to spin away if you must……..
To see a piece in the mainstream media that does not necessarily support the Shockoe Bottom stadium, go here to read “Baseball Talk: Pitching Panned” at Richmond.com (owned by Media General) — http://slantblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/pitchmen-for-shockoe-bottom-stadium.html
LOL, most of the mainstream media has NOT supported the Shockoe ballpark idea. And with all due respect, FT, I hardly think Slantblog qualifies as “mainstream media.” Although they are both slanted……..
You’ve linked to your own websites 5 times. Can you tell me why my last comment was deleted?
Which coment was that, Paul?
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>