Field Of Schemes

Since the whole town's talking about Richmond's new baseball field – Gottwald Park? – One-On-One, with its double-barrel focus on hot topics, must weigh in. Thus my scribblings this week attempt to answer the following questions: Is the time right to build a new riverfront baseball field in Richmond? Does Richmond – in the name of revitalization – need such a new facility?

On The Right The Possible Dream Why not give the riverfront ballpark a fair shot?

Since Bob Holland and I are both baseball fans – he's a staunch St. Louis Cards man, I'm happy to pull for the Atlanta Braves – we couldn't resist this one. As for whether I'm on the left or the right of this issue, I'm not so sure. Nonetheless, my answers to the first two questions above are no and no.

However, before I rain on the new ballpark's parade, I must say the idea itself is seductive. Hey, I'd love to go to this proposed field of schemes on the bank of the James River and watch a pitchers duel in the afternoon shadows of the skyscrapers. Timing Since the contract that has the R-Braves playing their games at The Diamond runs out in 2004, it makes sense to explore all reasonable options before inking a new deal with the Atlanta Braves organization, setting in motion a commitment for millions of dollars of improvements at the 16-year-old facility.

The metropolitan area's Stadium Operating Committee – composed of representatives from Richmond and its surrounding counties – made news when its early exploration of one option, among many, exploded onto the top of The Richmond Times-Dispatch's front page.

Although the April 27 article itself – entitled "On the Waterfront" – came on like breaking news, it was more an item about a long-shot possibility than it was a scoop. At least that's the impression I got from a conversation with 1st District Councilman Manoli Loupassi, who sits on the above-mentioned committee.

When asked who is behind the push for the downtown baseball park, Loupassi answered, "There is no push for it."

As far as how the math would work with putting a ball field on the site touted by the newspaper article – a parking lot owned by Ethyl Corp. – Loupassi indicated the concept hadn't gotten that far. In essence, he said, his committee felt it was their duty to investigate the feasibility of any number of options prior to approaching considerations for construction work at the Diamond.

A subsequent conversation with Mayor Tim Kaine was reassuring, too. Among other common-sense comments he made on the matter, Kaine decried "the throw-away culture" aspect of abandoning the Diamond. The Mayor, like most of Richmond's baseball fans, seems happy enough with the Diamond.

Kaine's view of the baseball park buzz was consistent with Loupassi's: We are a long way from building anything.

Calvin Jamison, Richmond's city manager, is apparently a vocal booster for the concept of the new stadium. He wasn't available for comment, but I'm told the fact the site pictured in illustrations accompanying the article is a lot owned by his former employee, Ethyl Corp., is a coincidence.

That's fine, and I'm suggesting no impropriety by mentioning it. Yet, I do sense there are some well-heeled penthouse players supplying a good part of the wind filling the sails of this proposal. In truth, I wouldn't mind watching a Triple A baseball game from my office window, either.

There are many needs on Richmond's construction wish list, including publicly owned buildings that actually need to be replaced. So, the ball yard will have to get in line. But if the high-rollers who eat their lunches in Richmond's utmost private clubs can figure out how to finance and build a baseball shrine adjacent to the James River in 10 or 15 years, I'll probably jump on the bandwagon with them then. Downtown Revitalization Please understand: I'm as much in favor of helping Downtown Richmond to make a comeback as anyone. But every buffed-up notion that rests on a pedestal of "revitalization" isn't a worthwhile or appropriate investment for public funds.

When I look at the taxpayers' money that's already been gambled on the belief that Richmond is soon to become a city rolling in money from tourists and major conventions, I shudder.

Here's just one reason why: Richmond's policies have systematically killed off most of its night life – theaters, nightclubs, etc. The No.1 culprit is Richmond's admissions tax. This extraordinary tax – six percent off the top, in addition to all the other taxes and fees on the enterprise – is levied on all shows that charge for admission. This tax stops promoters of entertainment cold. Simply put, it ruins the risk/reward consideration on most ventures.

The quality of the night life close to convention halls and hotels surely has an influence on most decision-makers looking to book a convention into any city. On account of the same situation, the ambitious talk of an arts district in the works sounds shaky to me. I remember all the hot air that preceded the Sixth Street Marketplace all too well.

For the first half of the 20th century, Richmond was known for its wide variety of topnotch entertainment. Then some people began to take over who wanted to stifle all that. Their reasons are fodder for another column. In any event, they succeeded.

Now it's high time to change. But merely wishing it so won't make it happen. Bottom Line Until Richmond can once again boast genuine attractions downtown, all the talk about tourists flocking to very expensive, publicly financed facilities remains just that – talk. Check out the crowd at the Canal Walk. The opinions expressed here are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of richmond.com, its management or its owners. About F. T. Rea