The more we learn about the proposed Coliseum development in Downtown, the more we don’t like it.

We are skeptical about the figures and arguments trotted out to convince City Council and Richmond residents to support the $1.4 billion plan. And we question the assumptions used by project proponents, led by Dominion Energy CEO Thomas F. “Tom” Farrell II, and backed by Mayor Levar M. Stoney, in claiming it will be a success.

For example, project backers claim Richmond needs a new 17,500-seat coliseum to attract major acts and to stop the current 47-year-old arena’s yearly $1 million drain on taxpayers. 

But as Free Press staff writer Jeremy M. Lazarus reported in the Nov. 29-Dec. 1 edition, a study by the city’s consultants, Hunden Strategic Partners, found that the Richmond Coliseum averaged more events per year than Virginia’s four other indoor arenas combined from 2013 to 2018. The Coliseum also hosted more events than larger arenas in Greensboro and Raleigh, N.C.

So why does Richmond need a new Coliseum? Why wouldn’t a less expensive renovation or makeover be adequate, particularly in this time of tight money? Why tear it down and start over? 

When it comes to the Coliseum plan, proponents claim the development of a new arena, a new convention center hotel, office buildings, restaurants, 2,500 new housing units and renovation of the Blues Armory into a food market and entertainment venue will create thousands of construction jobs, 9,000 permanent jobs after construction and generate $1.7 billion in new tax revenue for the city.

We remind our readers that these are only projections with flimsy underpinnings by consultants and others hired to make the project look appealing. What if the project doesn’t proceed at a pace expected? What if inflation and costs are higher than anticipated? What if the economy isn’t as robust as what these numbers are based on? Will the resulting jobs and tax revenue be as rosy as proponents state?

Richmonders are experiencing firsthand what happens when a project is oversold. Just look at the bill of goods sold to the City Council and Richmond residents with the Washington NFL team training camp on West Leigh Street. Earlier this year, city taxpayers learned that we are stuck with an $11.25 million bill to pay off the debt on the 6-year-old building over 15 years. Why? Because the training camp, including the building that is partially occupied by Bon Secours medical offices, is failing to generate enough revenue to pay for operations and to pay off the $8.85 million the city advanced in 2012 to develop it.

Imagine what could happen with the $1.4 billion Coliseum development despite all the promises and glowing projections. Outsiders examining the stated numbers say the project will generate an average of only $9.4 million in new tax revenue annually over 30 years for the city, not the average of $40 million a year that the mayor has touted. That’s a major discrepancy.

Unfortunately, proponents also are using certain African-American community leaders, including Virginia Union University President Hakim J. Lucas, Virginia State University President Makola M. Abdullah and Richmond NAACP President James “J.J.” Minor III, to parrot the arguments they have put forward — that private financing will be used for the development; that the developers will receive no special tax breaks or incentives; that private investors will take the hit if something goes wrong; that the project is committed to investing $300 million with minority-owned businesses; and that the project will contain 680 units of affordable housing.

“Affordable housing?” some Richmonders have asked. “Affordable for whom? What exactly does affordable mean?” 

We believe the public has a right to know roughly what Mr. Farrell and Mayor Stoney mean by “affordable housing.” Roughly how much would rents in the redeveloped area be each month? And what tenants would get those places? Virginia Commonwealth University students? Medical and dental students living Downtown? People from public housing? Low-wage workers? Who would benefit from the label “affordable housing?”

We also are quite uncomfortable with Mayor Stoney’s resistance to City Council creating a commission or bringing in experts to review the plans. And we don’t like Dr. Lucas, Dr. Abdullah and others stating that any review by City Council and residents must be done quickly to avoid any additional costs added by fluctuating markets, steel prices and other uncertainties.

This is a $1.4 billion arrangement in which the City of Richmond would be handing over the vision, leadership and development rights of a major swath of Downtown to a private entity — Mr. Farrell’s Navy Hill Foundation and its for-profit arm, Navy Hill District Corp. The plan should be thoroughly examined by the concerned residents of Richmond and the City Council, regardless of Mr. Farrell’s and Mayor Stoney’s time schedule.

What we find most troubling about the project is that any new real estate tax money generated within an 80-block area in Downtown, which would include the new development, would go at least for the next 18 years to pay for the new, larger Coliseum, rather than being put in city general fund coffers to pay for education, school construction, police and fire services and infrastructure repair and improvement. 

That, we believe, is a major drawback. It shortchanges the significant and urgent needs of Richmond’s 24,000 public schoolchildren and puts on the backburner what should be the city’s No. 1 mission — to improve or replace the dozens of decrepit school buildings and to boost the educational quality of Richmond Public Schools.

We believe an improved public school system is essential to the success and future prospects of our Richmond Public Schools students. An improved RPS also will draw new businesses, residents and investment into our city.

City officials must be honest with the taxpayers about what the priorities are in Richmond — schools or a plan that certainly will enrich private interests. 

Downtown development should not be about what is best for Mr. Farrell and his friends, but what is best for the city and its residents, including its schoolchildren, while analyzing all of the city’s needs.

It is said that change without insight, consideration and introspection is just chaotic movement. Richmond cannot afford any more chaos.