The Port of Richmond is an extraordinary asset that can contribute many benefits to the city’s taxpayers, but City Council should consider this property as valuable real estate and not as a viable river port.
Although previous City Councils have supported POR for more than 50 years, today Richmond has virtually nothing to show for the millions of dollars of city investments and other resources employed to make this port successful.
A port can be valuable if it attracts businesses, if it creates jobs, or if it contributes money to the city. Richmond has received no money from specific Port business such as shipments using the James River. No businesses have been established in this region because of their need to be near the river. In fact, the few jobs and negligible funds generated from this city-owned property are from the operation of a warehouse business that has nothing to do with the city’s huge investment in the waterfront or the fact that we have a port. City Council should consider the unfairness of its permitting a warehouse business on its property, because it competes with the many privately owned warehouses in the area. It is particularly onerous when you notice that there is more than a million square feet of vacancies in these taxpayer-owned warehouses.
City Council can determine a value of POR in several ways: from the city auditor’s analysis, by using the technique of professional appraisers and by inviting “the market” to tell it what it will pay for the property. The appraisers will consider the sales of comparable properties, they will capitalize the income generated and they will calculate the replacement cost. Then they may average the three valuations. The city could issue a Request for Proposals (RFP). Then investors, developers and companies from around the world that would be interested in a Richmond location would let us know its value.
The highest and best use of the property might not have to do with its economic development. The taxpayers might prefer to create a park or recreation area. The many schools and colleges in the region might be able to implement their programs or plans utilizing the 120 acres and hundreds of thousands of square feet of buildings and improvements. Either development may be more preferable to the citizens than other proposed projects.
The failed Port of Richmond has too much potential value to entrust it to the Virginia Port Authority or to the Port Commission. Both have had ample time and enormous resources to make the Port successful. If, at long last, this great property begins to bring benefits to the Citizens of Richmond, City Council will have performed a valuable service to the taxpayers.
B. David Peck was a member of the Port of Richmond Commission for 12 years and also served on the board of the Metropolitan Economic Development Council.
It is HIGH TIME that municipalities (as well as the state and federal government) get out of the business of BUSINESS, and allow the private sector to take over. They have taken honestly earned wages from the people, who are powerless to stop them. They have the arrogance to speak of “creating jobs,” when the Constitution does not give them this right. Instead, they tax legitimate businesses (who are also powerless to stop them) and deprive them of their Constitutional right of liberty to spend their own profits on creating new jobs. PLEASE don’t suggest that the City do anything other than sell this property. We cannot afford and do not need another taxpayer funded park, school, visitor’s center, etc.
I’d like to know why the port hasn’t attracted more business. Lord knows Richmond could use the economic activity. Studies suggest that infrastructure to support commerce is the best return on tax payer dollars. Why hasn’t it worked here? And why was Mr. Peck unable to affect this during his 12 years on the Commission?
Perhaps the ship has sailed on POR as a viable commercial port. I agree with Mr. Pecks suggestion that the property’s best use be subitted to debate and proposal. As a former stevedore at the POR (helped pay for college) I can attest to the port’s limited and intermittent activity. The city’s planning department should take the lead in arranging for an open charrett process to obtain the public’s input in an open and transparent process.
One possible consideration is that the POR property be converted into an advantageous business development zone to promote R&D in innovative technologies and products, solar and alternative energies and water resources are but a few. Research and production could coexist. Perhaps this could mirror the BioTech Park in downtown? Perhaps there is “stimulus money” available to assist in the conversion and infrastructure. A lead company engaged in legitimate new technologies might be the catalyst.
Let’s open up the process and innovate.
POR will probably hobble on for about 5 more years until the real estate market recovers, at which point Justin French or some other fly-by-night “developer” (with absolutely no development experience, no less) will be out of prison ready to take advantage of a new “Port Restoration Tax Credit” program to turn the POR into a mixed use development complete with overpriced 600 sq. ft condos, another Segway store, and a Benihana.
You should visit the ports in Hampton Roads to get an idea why POR isn’t a viable operation. Ports are highly competitive and require a huge amount of infrastructure. They need strong connections to the rest of the transportation system such as rail and truck. POR doesn’t have that kind of equipment and isn’t accessible to the larger ships that are driving their smaller sisters from the seas. Even HR struggles to maintain the channel depths necessary for the newest, largest ships.
There’s no need to look for someone to blame. Shipping has become very efficient, and therefore very cheap. It’s why it can make sense to ship things back and forth to China at the drop of a hat. An inland port like Richmond has little reason to exist. Mr Peck is right, it’s time to move on. Only if we continue to let the location sit idle should there be pointing fingers.
One need only to travel (slowly) down the twisting James River to understand why the POR has no future.
Taking goods on ships to inland ports made a lot of sense in the 19th century, but it’s just too far for too little in the 21st.
Agree and disagree with this.
Yes, the government has to be held accountable for the way it uses public land and money. Can anyone say “Center Stage”? And don’t get me started on the “Greater Richmond’ Convention Center and the airport.
On the flip side, Richmond does have a historic connection to river traffic, and who knows, given more passenger rail and rail in general, sudden and slow disasters like terrorist attack and peak oil, there may be defined reasons for keeping the sucker open with the idea that it may become more useful in the future.