No RFP. No Competition. No Proof. So Why Are Avula, Donald and Newbille Ready to Let the Coliseum Die?

 

Richmond is preparing to competitively bid the destruction of the Coliseum before publicly testing whether someone will pay to save, reuse or redevelop it. That isn't a minor procedural issue. It is the central failure of City Hall's Coliseum strategy.

Mayor Danny Avula says demolishing the Richmond Coliseum will “make way for economic development.”

Chief Administrative Officer Odie Donald II says $15 million in state demolition funding “pretty much ensure[s] that it’ll come down.”

Donald is already talking about a roughly 350-room convention hotel as the “sweet spot.”

And City Council President Cynthia Newbille?

Where is the public challenge?

Where is the demand for a Coliseum-specific RFP?

Where is the insistence that Avula and Donald prove demolition is the best deal for Richmond before destroying an asset Richmond can never recover?

Richmond's leaders increasingly talk as though the Coliseum debate has been settled.

It hasn't been settled. It has been skipped. Read that again - it has been skipped.

Avula Has an Answer. Where Is His Evidence?

Avula isn't publicly discussing demolition as one possibility among several.

He's talking about it as the plan.

After the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority authorized preparation of demolition documents, Avula said:

“GRCCA’s taken the next step in getting potential contractors to demolish the Coliseum.”

When Virginia provided $15 million toward demolition, Avula thanked lawmakers for funding:

“the demolition of the Coliseum to make way for economic development.”

There is an assumption buried inside those words:

Demolition equals economic development.

It doesn't.

Demolition produces an empty site.

What replaces the Coliseum, how much private investment it attracts, how much taxpayers contribute and how much economic activity it generates determine whether Richmond has achieved economic development.

Where is the comparison between demolition and renovation?

Where is the comparison between a hotel and an entertainment venue?

Where is the current market test for adaptive reuse?

Where is the solicitation asking whether somebody would purchase or ground-lease the property?

Maybe Avula has the right answer.

But an irreversible decision deserves more than the mayor's confidence. It deserves evidence.

Donald's $15 Million Problem

Donald has been even more revealing.

Discussing the state's $15 million demolition appropriation, Donald said the money:

“pretty much ensure[s] that it’ll come down.”

That should bother taxpayers.

Not because demolition is necessarily wrong.

Because money becoming available for demolition should not determine whether demolition is the right decision.

Analysis should determine the decision.

Money should finance it.

Suppose a private developer offered Richmond millions for the property and proposed renovating the Coliseum.

Would Richmond demolish it anyway because Virginia provided demolition money?

Suppose a developer offered to buy the property and assume demolition costs.

Would taxpayers still need to spend $15 million?

Suppose an entertainment company offered a credible adaptive-reuse proposal.

Would Richmond reject it because City Hall had already settled on a hotel?

Those are exactly the questions an open solicitation could answer.

Donald Already Has His “Sweet Spot”

Donald isn't merely discussing demolition.

He's already talking about what should replace the Coliseum.

A roughly 350-room convention hotel, Donald has said, would be the “sweet spot.”

Think about the sequence.

Richmond has not publicly demonstrated through a fresh Coliseum-only competition that a hotel is the property's highest-value use.

Yet the CAO is already discussing the preferred number of rooms.

That isn't starting with:

What is the best use of this property?

It's starting much closer to:

How do we execute the use City Hall already prefers?

Those are very different questions.

Donald Says There's “A Ton of Interest”

And here's where Donald makes the argument for an RFP himself.

He says:

“I’m expecting a ton of interest.”

Excellent.

Then put the Coliseum property out to bid.

If there's a “ton of interest,” exploit it.

Invite hotel developers.

Invite arena operators.

Invite entertainment companies.

Invite mixed-use developers.

Invite adaptive-reuse specialists.

Allow purchase proposals.

Allow ground leases.

Allow renovation.

Allow partial demolition.

Allow complete demolition.

Then require everyone to answer the same questions:

How much private investment?

How much taxpayer subsidy?

How many jobs?

How much tax revenue?

How many visitors?

How long until construction?

What does Richmond risk?

And what does Richmond get?

Donald says the market is interested.

Then let the market speak before the wrecking ball does.

Make Donald's Hotel Earn the Site

Maybe Donald is right.

A headquarters hotel could strengthen the Greater Richmond Convention Center and generate lodging, meals and tourism-related taxes.

Fine.

Make it compete.

Compare the hotel with an entertainment venue.

Compare visitors.

Hotel nights.

Restaurant spending.

Tax revenue.

Permanent jobs.

Private investment.

Public subsidy.

Construction costs.

And long-term economic impact.

Maybe the hotel wins easily.

Then build it.

But calling 350 rooms the “sweet spot” isn't economic analysis.

Put the plan against competing ideas and prove it.

President Newbille: Where Are You?

Avula is mayor.

Donald is CAO.

But Richmond also has a legislative branch that's supposed to provide oversight.

It's president is Cynthia Newbille.

And on one of the most consequential and irreversible downtown-development decisions Richmond has faced in years, Newbille should be far more publicly demanding.

She doesn't have to support saving the Coliseum.

She doesn't have to oppose demolition.

But she should demand that Avula and Donald prove their case.

President Newbille: Where is the RFP?

Where is the demand for a fresh Coliseum-specific market test?

Where is the demand for comparative economic projections?

Where is the public questioning of Donald's hotel strategy?

Where is the insistence that Richmond determine what the private market might pay before taxpayers help destroy the asset?

Newbille holds the Council president's gavel.

Use it.

Silence Is Consequential When You Hold the Gavel

This isn't about whether Newbille likes the Coliseum.

It's about oversight.

Avula has indicated a demolition solicitation could move forward pending necessary approvals from City Council.

That means Council isn't powerless.

And Newbille isn't a spectator.

She should put Avula and Donald on the record.

Ask them:

Has Richmond sought current proposals specifically for the Coliseum property without predetermining demolition?

Which arena operators have been contacted?

What would renovation cost today?

Has adaptive reuse been seriously tested?

Could a private developer assume demolition costs?

What analysis proves a convention hotel produces a greater return than competing uses?

How much public assistance could the hotel require?

And the simplest question of all:

If Donald expects “a ton of interest,” why aren't we asking interested developers what they would do with the Coliseum before we destroy it?

Those shouldn't be questions only citizens are asking.

They should be coming from the Council president.

Council Is Supposed to Be a Check, Not a Cheerleader

Richmond City Council isn't supposed to be Avula's supporting cast.

Council exists to scrutinize the administration.

If Avula says demolition means economic development, demand the numbers.

If Donald says 350 rooms are the “sweet spot,” demand the analysis.

If Donald expects massive developer interest, demand an open competition.

If the administration says renovation isn't viable, ask:

Who did you ask?

And if City Council allows demolition to proceed without demanding those answers, Council owns the outcome too.

Once the Coliseum is demolished, oversight becomes little more than an autopsy.

Bagby Brought the Money. He Didn't Prove the Case.

State Sen. Lamont Bagby helped secure the $15 million demolition appropriation.

He has said:

“The Coliseum served us well.”

And:

“Now, it’s time to turn the page and that space needs to be developed.”

Maybe.

But “turn the page” isn't an economic-impact analysis.

Bagby represents constituents in both Richmond and Henrico.

There is nothing improper about that. It is simply relevant political geography.

Richmond and Henrico also compete economically.

For visitors.

Hotels.

Restaurants.

Entertainment spending.

Businesses.

Development.

And tax revenue.

Bagby has responsibilities across his district.

Avula, Donald and Richmond City Council have a specific obligation here:

Protect Richmond's economic interests.

Before eliminating a Richmond entertainment asset, show Richmond what it gains.

What events has Richmond lost since the Coliseum closed?

Where did they go?

Where did those visitors spend their money?

What could a renovated venue recapture?

How does that compare with the proposed hotel?

Maybe the numbers favor demolition overwhelmingly.

Then show the numbers.

Bagby brought Richmond $15 million.

That's an accomplishment.

But obtaining demolition money proves Richmond can afford demolition.

It doesn't prove Richmond should demolish the Coliseum.

The Coliseum Didn't Create This Mess

Avula has said:

“I’ve lived here for 26 years, and this part of the city has never been activated.”

That's a curious indictment.

The Coliseum didn't close itself.

It didn't leave itself vacant for years.

It didn't devise Navy Hill.

It didn't fail to execute City Center.

Government did.

Maybe the Coliseum has reached the end of its economically useful life.

But Richmond shouldn't use years of governmental paralysis as evidence that the building itself caused the paralysis.

Demolishing the physical evidence of failed redevelopment isn't the same thing as successfully redeveloping downtown.

An empty Coliseum doesn't activate downtown.

Neither does an empty lot.

This Isn't About Nostalgia

Forget the concerts.

Forget the basketball games.

Forget the graduations.

Treat the Coliseum purely as an asset sitting on valuable downtown land.

The case for an open market test becomes stronger.

Before destroying an improvement, a competent property owner asks whether it has residual value.

Before spending public money on demolition, a competent government asks whether private money could accomplish the same objective.

Before selecting a future use, competent leadership compares alternatives.

That's not nostalgia.

That's asset management.

Richmond Is About to Bid the Wrong Question

Here is the absurdity at the center of the whole debate:

Richmond is preparing to competitively determine who should destroy the Coliseum before publicly demonstrating that it competitively determined whether destruction is the best option.

Apparently competition matters when choosing the demolition contractor.

Why doesn't it matter just as much when deciding the future of the property?

Before Richmond asks:

Who can tear this down?

It should ask:

Who can give Richmond the best deal?

That's the RFP Richmond needs.

Put Avula and Donald's Plan on Trial

Issue a fresh Coliseum-specific solicitation before demolition.

Give qualified developers 90 or 120 days.

Allow:

Renovation.

Adaptive reuse.

Arena operation.

Hotel development.

Mixed-use development.

Partial demolition.

Complete demolition.

Purchase.

Ground lease.

Require proof of financing.

Require construction estimates.

Require requested public subsidies.

Require projected tax revenues and jobs.

Require operating plans and timelines.

Then compare the proposals publicly.

If Donald's hotel wins, build it.

If demolition wins, demolish the Coliseum.

If nobody wants to renovate it, say so.

If renovation is financially absurd, prove it.

But if someone is prepared to invest serious private money in preserving or repurposing the Coliseum?

Richmond needs to know before demolition.

What Does City Hall Have to Lose?

If Avula is right, an RFP helps him.

If Donald is right, an RFP helps him.

If their hotel strategy is clearly superior, competition will demonstrate it.

If the Coliseum has no economically viable future, competition will demonstrate that too.

So what does City Hall have to lose?

Perhaps the market produces a better idea.

Perhaps somebody offers Richmond money rather than asking Richmond to spend it.

Perhaps an arena operator sees value City Hall doesn't.

Perhaps a developer proposes an adaptive reuse nobody considered.

And perhaps demolition still wins.

Good.

Then Richmond can demolish the Coliseum knowing it actually tested the alternatives.

That's called due diligence.

Newbille Has a Decision to Make

This is no longer only about what Avula and Donald want.

It's about whether City Council will independently challenge what they want.

Newbille can use the Council presidency to demand an open market test before demolition.

Or she can allow the administration's strategy to continue without publicly demanding one.

But once the Coliseum is rubble, the opportunity disappears with it.

No renovation proposal.

No arena operator.

No adaptive reuse.

No second chance.

Newbille shouldn't wait until after demolition to ask whether Richmond could have done better.

Ask now.

No RFP. No Competition. No Proof.

Avula says demolition will make way for economic development.

Donald says $15 million “pretty much ensures” the Coliseum will come down.

Donald already has his 350-room “sweet spot.”

Bagby says it's time to turn the page.

And Newbille has yet to publicly emerge as the force demanding that Richmond put the Coliseum itself through one final, open market test before destroying it.

That's not enough.

Avula and Donald want the Coliseum gone?

Prove that's the best deal.

Donald wants a hotel?

Make it compete.

Bagby says turn the page?

Show Richmond the numbers on the next chapter.

And President Newbille?

Use the gavel.

Demand the RFP.

Demand the alternatives.

Demand the numbers.

Demand the evidence.

Because Richmond can always demolish the Coliseum after testing the market.

It cannot discover whether someone would have saved, purchased or repurposed it after the building has been reduced to rubble.

RFP first. Wrecking ball last.

Anything else isn't bold economic development.

It's City Hall asking Richmond to accept the verdict before seeing the evidence.

Brian K. Telfair
Publisher & Editor | The Richmond Chronicle

Independent commentary and investigative analysis on Richmond government, public spending, economic development, and the decisions shaping the city’s future.

The Richmond Chronicle
Asking the questions City Hall would rather not answer.