Cardinal Way: Civility Rules encourages constructive dialogue on difficult issues. We recently ran two competing essays on the proposed sports arena in Alexandria that would house the NBA’s Washington Wizards and the NHL’s Washington Capitals — one in favor, one against — and then asked readers: 1. Should the proposed arena be treated differently from any other economic development project? If so, why? 2. What economic impacts on Southwest and Southside should legislators look for when deciding whether to support the plan? 3. Would you be OK if this project went to Maryland? 4. What’s your favorite NBA or NHL team or do you have one?
If our readers are any guide, Gov. Glenn Youngkin has some work to do on the proposed deal for an Alexandria sports arena that would become home to the NBA’s Washington Wizards and the NHL’s Washington Capitals.
Last week, we ran side-by-side essays about the project — one in favor, one against.
With every other side-by-side set of essays we’ve run as part of the Cardinal Way project on civic dialogue, we’ve received roughly the same number of responses on both sides of the question.
Not this time.
Only two of the responses had anything good to say about the deal.
Now, I must caution in bright red underlined letters that this is not a scientific survey. Still, it says something that the responses this time were so out of balance. We asked those who responded to give a ZIP code because, given the geographical nature of the arena project, we were curious where people were from. The two people who were in favor were from Culpeper and Richmond. By contrast, those who were against the project had a mix of locations, some from our coverage area in Southwest and Southside, some from Northern Virginia, where we do have a lot of readers even if we don’t cover that part of the state.
Melvin Diago Journiette of Richmond said he supported the project because “it should help slow NoVa’s population and taxable income drain.” Perhaps he’s read some of our reporting on how much of Northern Virginia is now losing population, with Fairfax County losing population for the first time since the 1820s.
He and the Culpeper reader — who did not leave a name and therefore won’t be quoted — were the only ones who answered “no” to the question of “Would you be willing to lose out on the arena deal and see Maryland get it?” Everyone else said they’re fine losing that project.
One of the main objections people had to the project is they simply don’t believe the economics. Proponents say that this won’t involve any direct state expenditures because the bonds for the development would be paid back by revenue created by the project. Critics don’t really believe that math. “This is unprecedented for the Commonwealth and could have taxpayers on the financial hook for decades,” said Karen Johnson of Alexandria.
Another argument for the arena is that it and the surrounding development would create more tax revenue for the state than if it’s developed some other way — and that additional tax revenue is good for the whole state because most rural schools depend on state funding.
Suzanne Sundburg of Arlington disagreed. “Southside/Southwest will receive NO economic benefit from the proposed arena,” she said. “However, because these bonds (to be repaid over a 40-year period) are backstopped by Virginia and its taxpayers, including Southside/Southwest, and their children will be on the hook to repay a debt approaching $3 billion if this very risky bet fails to pan out.”
Justin Ranson of Stafford County said there should be more specifics about “how potential tax dollars would be dispersed beyond the immediate area.”
Susan Newton of Roanoke County agreed: “There needs to be concrete evidence to support exactly how this could work for all of the state.”
Beth Shumaker of Floyd County was against the deal but said any deal should include “better access to the internet.”
Richard Ikenberry of Botetourt County worried that it would be “too many years before possible positive revenue and benefits for the entire state” but that if a deal goes through “revenue above debt repayment [should go] to support schools and economic development in SW Va.”
Kenneth Harris of Campbell County was more skeptical that there’d be any benefit: “How could it possibly benefit any area other than NOVA?”
Another big objection to the project is that it involves sports teams. We asked readers whether this project should be treated differently from other big economic development projects, where the state often provides some incentive funding, and the overwhelming answer was “yes.”
“We should not be subsidizing wealthy people for sport teams,” said Ann Hess of Christiansburg. Proponents would say this isn’t a subsidy at all, that cities or states typically help build stadiums and arenas, but that’s part of the dispute here. “No guarantee that front end investment by VA would ever be repaid,” Hess said. “Why don’t the billionaires invest? If they don’t, why not? Maybe not such a good deal?”
Many readers pointed out that this project is already being treated differently than other economic development projects because it involves the state creating a special authority. “Virginia’s public authorities are structured to be virtually unaccountable, without meaningful oversight from elected officials or the public,” Sundburg of Arlington said.
Mark Streich of Alexandria agreed: “The city of Alexandria should evaluate it, make zoning changes when appropriate, but then let the private parties finance it.”
Harris of Campbell County was more blunt: “Since when can a business get the taxpayers to fund their folly?”
Again, this isn’t a scientific survey, just a collection of the responses we’ve received, but the proportion is quite different from what we’ve heard in the past.
We also asked readers if they had a favorite NBA or NHL team. Most said they didn’t. Johnson, in Alexandria, simply replied: “One that stays in DC or goes to Maryland.”
