OPINION: DEBATING THE FUTURE OF RICHMOND NEEDS NEW RULES

Is it possible to debate an idea without debating the person presenting the idea?

I was listening to Marc Lamont Hill’s first in-depth interview following his firing from CNN[1] and he was asked if he liked debating on CNN because the debates were constructed as hot-take debates that often were reduced to personal attacks and name-calling. Marc answered that he did enjoy debating on CNN because he enjoyed debating the idea and he always tried to separate the idea from the person.

What an amazing concept! I know that I would be better served by this approach. I can only imagine that Richmond would be better served if more Richmonders took this approach, too.

I’ve been reflecting on the concept of debating the idea and not the person for the last 48 hours and  have come to a few personal observations 1) I try to debate the idea on all debates involving the future of Richmond and trying to do so has allowed me to maintain relationships on many sides[2] 2) When a debate goes beyond debating the idea, I easily lose my composure and ability to objectively reason 3) My attitude on the idea can be bias based on who’s making the argument, and because of this bias towards the person making the argument, I’m truly not debating the idea objectively, which is a failure on my part[3]. 4) If I care about the topic than I’ll debate the idea, if I just want to win, I’ll debate the person.

I’ve also come to realize that, when it comes to projects in Richmond, I often spend my time focusing on the wrong questions. What I mean is that I’m often down in the weeds of a debate – when I should be taking a few theoretical steps back and deciding on one or two larger questions.

Take the bubbling debate surrounding the Navy Hill project[4] , the economic development project presented by NH District Corp, who’s led by the CEO of Dominion Resources Tom Ferrell. The principal talking points of the project include a new 17,500 seat sports arena (to replace the Richmond Coliseum), the largest hotel in city-limits, 2,500 new housing units[5], a new entertainment space (Blues Armory), and retail and restaurants. NH District Corp, and Mayor Levar Stoney, is selling that the project will be done without causing any pain to the city residents, without creating any new tax burden, and without disenfranchising any low and middle-income residents.

There is already swirling social media debate on websites, blogs, radio shows, all dedicated to questions within the proposal[6] such as: is there enough minority job creation? Or enough affordable housing? Or who is truly going paying this project? Can the project deliver on all of the proposed promises?

These questions are: in the weeds questions; they debate details. What’s missing by being in the weeds is the bigger question: Is economic development the right path to address the city’s problems of the growing wealth gap, affordable housing stock, and public education funding?   

What is clear, is that Mayor Stoney believes that we must identify areas of Richmond that can be developed to increase our landlocked tax base and use that increased revenue to improve our city. And this all has to be done without raising taxes[7].

If you remember, Mayor Jones tried to do this exact thing with Shockoe Bottom, with a lot of the same development advocates intact, just replace baseball stadium with Coliseum. The Shockoe project ultimately failed because the development side underestimated the citizen pushback for developing over the slave burial ground.

There are people much smarter than me looking at this very question but I tend to lean in favor of development, not because I’ve done a lot of in-depth research (or any research at all) about the best way to improve the city; I tend to lean yes to development because the gaps are visual. I see the blight in Shockoe Bottom. I’ve been going to the Diamond/Squirrels Nest since I was born[8] and it’s miserable. And don’t get me started on the Richmond Coliseum, all you have to do is go and you’ll see that dramatic improvements need to be made.

That is not to say the entire radius around the Coliseum is a wasteland, or all of Shockoe needs to be bulldozed down. One of the early problems I’m starting to see coming from the communications side of the Navy Hill project is the description of the current area as a wasteland. Even if they believe that they need to find more respectable language because the area has history and with history comes with a lot of deep emotions regarding what happened to Navy Hill community throughout the years.

More importantly, I’m not saying that economic development is the only path to improving our city. I know that it is a way but the truth is that Richmonders, for the last few years, have been sold limited options to improve the city’s tax base and services and they all lean-to economic development: develop Shockoe or nothing, develop the Coliseum or nothing. I’m not saying reinvent the wheel, I’m just saying is that people are already in the weeds, and by being there you’ve already conceded the larger fundamental question of is economic development the right way to go about improving the city.

This brings me back to the point of this post: when debating the future of Richmond, there is not enough objective debate on either side. There is not enough debating the issue. Why is this? My guess is because anything associated with Richmond is associated with history, and anything associated with history is associated with tortured emotions[9]. Facts are starting to have less and less to do with whether a project is supported. Again, I continue to go back to the fact that there is no Navy Hill proposal to actually review, and yet, people are fighting at a level that is getting personal and downright nasty (in some circles).

The Navy Hill debate is a microcosm of just about all Richmond debates.  You can almost always stack up how the debate is going to go based from who’s lining up on what side.

What I’d like to see happen is 1) A real plan is presented[10]  2) that plan be analyzed by anyone who dares take on the challenge 3) City Council host a series of public meetings, in their districts, with NH District Corps, to ask and review any questions about the actual proposal . 4) City Council debates the project and vote on the plan.

I think something close to the steps that I laid out will ultimately be the process for Navy Hill. You can’t overstate the role of City Council in this process. Also, you can’t overstate the role of the media and active citizens. Council is the only official check on the project but the media and active citizens can have a major impact on the outcome, whether you are for or against it. I’ve heard suggestions of a citizens review board, with real authority, to go along side City Council. I’m not there yet. I do believe Council has the ability and authority to do their jobs. They are elected by their communities to represent the people’s will. If they are unable to do so, they should be voted out. And if they need a commission of citizens to do their job, my honest guess is that they are not looking for input and feedback as much as they are looking for cover [11].

So, can we debate ideas in Richmond without it getting emotional, personal and nasty? That remains to be seen. My suggestion is to start with self. You can’t control other people’s actions, you can only control yourself. And you can’t expect others to act in a manner that you are unwilling to act yourself. Debating in a respectful tone will not solve a dispute. No, there will be winners and losers, feelings will be hurt, friendships will be ruined, people will get publicly dragged on social media, etc. etc. etc. but if you’re truly debating the issue, there is a better chance that everyone walks away willing to come back to the table on another issue. And let’s face it, in Richmond, these plays tend to repeat themselves, with the same players.

#WESEEIT

[1] I can’t say 100% but, right now, Marc’s firing seems like some BS to me.

[2] These varying relationships are often not understood by those on opposing sides but that’s their problem, not mine. I like my friends.

[3] It’s amazing to me how many people don’t realize they are doing this. They change their debate based off of who said what and if they like the person that made X argument. This happens from national politics to sports debates to Richmond debates, it’s crazy.

[4] This is also called the Coliseum project or the North of Broad Project or the bring back the Roughriders project (I made that last one up).

[5] 680 units are being marked as affordable housing. What’s your definition of affordable? Pay close attention to this as the project moves forward.

[6]We really don’t know the actual proposal because the Navy Hill project has not been released to anyone.

[7] Mayor Jones (before Stoney) and Mayor Wilder (before Jones) all believed this too, this is not a new concept.

[8] I’ll be 40-years-old this month and the Diamond has been horrible since I was 10.

[9] and PTSD, and racism, and Jim Crow, and white supremacy, and slavery…I could go on.

[10] I can’t overstate this enough, as of now, there is no plan is presented. NONE

[11] See the Monument Avenue Commission. They didn’t care about the recommendations, Council just needed a better reason to say no.