What, No Bronx Cheers for the Stadium Story?

The August 23, 2004, edition carried a column by James A. Bacon, "Shockoe Jocks." The column did receive one correction (below), and one substantive criticism, which we would have published had we been able to obtain permission to do so. The others were, astonishingly, positive.

War Cry from the Braves

I appreciate the article, but wanted to point out one inaccuracy to your reference in the following excerpt from your article... "Richmond's current ball field, on the edge of an industrial park, rates a two or three -- on a good day. Visitors to the Diamond have nowhere else in the neighborhood to go. They park, watch the Braves lose, and drive home."

Thought you would be interested to learn that the Richmond Braves are currently in first place and have sent eight players up to Atlanta during parts of this season.

Toby Wyman

Assistant General Manager

Richmond Braves Baseball Club

toby.wyman@turner.com

Thanks for Keeping an Open Mind

Good for you! I am not yet a fan of the downtown ballpark, but I see advantages. Difficulties have to be overcome. But you have the grace and good sense to look at the issues and weigh them dispassionately, unlike many who have made themselves heard on the subject. As you point out, there are a lot of false impressions of the proposed park. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

John W. Bates III

McGuire Woods

Richmond

jbates@mcguirewoods.com

Check out Chattanooga!

I enjoyed the piece -- and your change of heart -- on the proposed Shockoe Bottom ball park. Chattanooga's BellSouth Park is a perfect example of the small park downtown approach. About four years old now, it is shoehorned in against the Tennessee River and the downtown freeway, with a big net stretching down the third base line to keep foul balls off of windshields! The city demolished an outdated vocational high school to clear the site.

In a recent visit to Chattanooga, my home town, we drove past the park on game night, and happy fans were streaming in from all directions. There is zero parking at the park. They run a "Chattanooga Lookouts" trolley through town before and after games to cart fans out to their parking spots. While it came after much of the area was developed, it seems to be an important piece of the thriving riverfront (Imax theater, huge aquarium, and restaurants everywhere).

Eugene Derryberry

Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore

Roanoke

Gene_Derryberry@gentrylocke.com

Get With It, Richmond!

Thanks for covering this "hot" issue. I agree that the proposal has a lot of merit. And, after the problems with the field at the Diamond, Richmond needs to get "with it" and move this proposal forward. Our community is at risk of losing the R-Braves.

Your article is on target and very timely. Good job.

Bill Stafford

Richmond

wmstafford@comcast.net

Consider Me Converted!

Excellent article on RBI: I began reading it as skeptical as you were and finished as a believer.

Then there was this piece, which referred to the Richmond stadium story as well as a column about the proposed Performing Arts Center, "Alms for the Arts," July 26, 2004.

I'll Take the Arts Center over the Stadium, Thank You Very Much!

So what if VPAC will require additional funding for its lifetime? Can you name one city aspiring to greatness that does not have a symphony, ballet, theatre and supporting arts? That's the price of a Place in the Sun. Too long, Richmond has had to deal with inadequate stage houses and poor acoustics. A lack of funding for this vital entertainment complex will mire the city in continuing mediocrity.

Besides, as I understand it, Richmond, Henrico, Hanover and Chesterfield will be doling out half a million each on an annual basis to keep the MINI ballpark in operation. That's governmental support, is it not?

And why would they want to trade 12,500 seats for 7,500? ... Richmond's proclivity is to build everything too small.

Your weekly missive always make me think, and for that, I thank you. Now, about the cost of driving and human behavior...

I seriously doubt that we are collectively smart enough to solve increased driving mileage with local land use policy. You have probably read [the August 9, 2004] Washington Post front page about those deciding in favor of 1+ hour commutes. The article makes a seemingly valid point that the aggressive land use policies of Loudoun County have exacerbated the problem instead of contributing to the solution. Surely, we need better land use planning, but the real question is HOW to do it. I would rather bet on an economic solution than government wisdom.

In that vein, I advance the following, no doubt unpopular proposition as the best hope for real change in America's driving habits. Put a dollar-per-gallon tax, phased in at $.10 per gallon per year over 10 years, on gasoline and diesel fuel. If that's not enough to convince us to reconsider buying Hummers & 500 hp play toys, choose not to commute for an hour plus each way, and generally pay heightened attention to the cost of driving, then keep on adding $.10 per year until it does change behavior. We Americans do not seem ready to accept that oil is a finite resource, but we understand everyday economics pretty well.

Martin Lightsey

Specialty Blades, Inc.

Staunton

martin@specialtyblades.com

Thanks for the Cool Statistics!

Thank you for the thoughtful article on Transportation and Land Use. It is like you are the preacher and I am the choir, and while I didn't learn a lot of new information, you delivered the information so clearly I was moved to say amen.

Your calculations from the statistics -- $10 billion, $13 billion, and $30 billion for the cost of gasoline, the cost of ownership, and the cost in time -- was very innovative and that did teach me. Thanks.

My only suggestion would be to put the numbers into some kind of perspective. What is $10 billion, $30 billion? Relate it to what we spend on Education or what we pay in Virginia Income Taxes or something like that.