Green light shines on Diamond District

Continued from A1

Before the vote, the council was told that Richmond will gain a largely risk-free, transformative development that will create a small town on the property and enable the city to finally build a new minor league baseball stadium.

The council, which did not seek an independent financial analysis, was told the big project headed for the property on Arthur Ashe Boulevard is a grand slam that will bring home employment opportunities for city residents, $1 billion in new revenue to the city over 45 years and an impressive, well-designed mix of offices, retail stores and an 11-acre park along, with several thousand apartments and homes for all incomes.

Just as importantly, council was advised, Black businesses comprise 45 percent of the development team that also has agreed to a 40 percent goal of inclusion for Black- and minority-owned business in construction and future opportunities.

“This is a project that will impact the entire city,” Council President Michael J. Jones, 9th District, said as he joined his colleagues in endorsing a development initiative that was first conceived in 2005 by then-council leader William J. Pantele.

Building a new stadium has been a city goal for at least as long, with at least two previous attempts failing.

City’s moral authority

But one unanswered question is whether the city will have to attach a moral pledge to back the bonds that must be sold to raise the money to build the stadium. Though not legally binding, a community’s attachment of a moral obligation to a local revenue bond is designed to reassure buyers that their money would be repaid and that other funds would be appropriated to prevent any losses or default in promised payments.

The cost of the baseball stadium that is to anchor the Diamond District is projected to be $80 million, according to Leonard Sledge, city director of economic development.

And another $25 million must be spent to rebuild the current Sports Backers soccer and track stadium owned by Virginia Commonwealth University that occupies seven crucial acres, at a new location, Mr. Sledge told the council.

To raise the money just for the baseball stadium, he said that $118 million in 34-year bonds will have to be sold to investors, with additional bonds needed to be issued to cover the cost of the Sports Backers’ facility.

Those tax-exempt revenue bonds are to be issued through the city’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) or through a community development authority (CDA) that is to be established, Mr. Sledge said. The city would never be on the hook to repay those bonds, Mr. Sledge said.

Two financial experts whom the Free Press consulted, John Gerner and Paul Goldman, believe those bond offerings will be rejected without the city’s moral pledge to prevent a default.

Better known as a political strategist, Mr. Goldman said that Richmond, like localities across the country, “get everyone excited with the rosy description of the great project that will result. But bond buyers are not impressed by that,” he said. “They want a clear assurance they are going to be repaid. And they aren’t about to take a city’s word for it.”

Mr. Goldman said that the bond buyers have plenty of options, and he expects the stadium bonds to languish without a council vote attaching a moral obligation.

After all, he noted that the EDA and CDA have no real money of their own. If the city refuses to be involved, bond buyers will refuse to invest.

Then and now

Both he and Mr. Gerner expect a repeat of Richmond’s experience from 20 years ago when the city created the Broad Street CDA to sell $67 million in bonds to pay for improvements to the Downtown streetscapes.

Just as now, Mr. Gerner, a consultant on leisure and entertainment projects in this country and other parts of the world, noted that, in 2003, council initially was told that the city would never be responsible for the bonds, which were to be paid off with revenues from parking garages.

But seven months later, the city’s administration led then by City Manager Calvin Jamison was back before the council pleading for approval of a moral obligation pledge after investors refused to buy the bonds otherwise.

The council approved the moral pledge after being assured “it would only be used if a dire situation happened,” Mr. Gerner noted.

The CDA “soon failed, even before the Great Recession began” after the parking revenue estimates proved faulty, Mr. Gerner continued. During Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ tenure, the city terminated the CDA and took over the bond payments to prevent a default.”

Mr. Gerner pointed out in his response that the stadium bond financing plan is far more speculative. “The current stadium financing plan assumes that the bondholders will buy revenue bonds based on speculative development with no existing payment stream to rely on,” he said.

In his view, “that is risky and different from the Broad Street CDA bonds that had existing parking revenue for support or the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority bonds that use hotel tax revenue or even the Navy Hill financing plan that used future incremental property tax from existing Downtown properties.

“I could not find an example of another municipality that used such an approach,” said Mr. Gerner, who was a key figure on a committee council created to analyze the Navy Hill project financial structure.

“A common approach is general obligation bonds” that pledge the full faith and credit of a local government, he said. Sometimes, he said, such bonds are backed by an irrevocable letter of credit from a major bank or financial institution, an approach he said the Richmond EDA adopted in the early 2000s to sell revenue bonds. “Henrico County also used this approach,” he said.

Wilder urges firing of state diversity official, VCU president

Continued from A1 have sent an inquiry to Attorney General Jason Miyares questioning whether Mr. Brown’s statements, and the changes he and Gov. Youngkin have made to the office, disregard the statute, obligations and process the role was created under.

Gov. Youngkin had previously defended Mr. Brown’s statement on Monday, saying that the push for diversity, equity and inclusion place focus on “equal outcomes for anyone at any cost” over equal opportunity, and had led to a situation where “excellence has been subordinated to equity.”

The Governor’s Office echoed that position in a statement that rebuffed Gov. Wilder’s urging, and said that “Gov. Youngkin will continue to advance equal opportunities — not equal outcomes — for all Virginians.”

“This is too important of an issue to succumb to those seeking to cancel Chief Brown for challenging the groupthink of the progressive left’s pursuit of equity at any cost.”

Gov. Wilder’s response to Gov. Youngkin’s earlier defense of Mr. Brown was blunt: “I don’t think Gov. Youngkin has the experience or the knowledge or the wherewithal to be considered anywhere near an expert relative to diversity, inclusion or racism in Virginia.”

Gov. Wilder’s issues with VCU, meanwhile, are just the latest in a long line of confrontations and criticisms of the college, where he serves as a professor and namesake for its School of Government and Public Affairs. Last year, he briefly sued Dr. Rao and three other VCU officials for $5 million over actions that he alleged damaged his reputation.

Regarding the recent payment made by

VCU Health, Gov. Wilder stressed the need for transparency and outside examination by the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission of the college’s decision. The $73 million payment had been given to a developer that had threatened to sue VCU Health over the failed redevelopment of the former site of the Public Safety Building in Downtown Richmond.

In a statement, VCU Associate Vice President Michael Porter defended the payment as an unfortunate but necessary choice made to avoid greater financial problems down the line for the university, and one that was made without relying on university funds or state revenue.

“We agree with Gov. Wilder that this financial outcome is disappointing,” Mr. Porter said. “But by late 2021, construction and other challenges made it simply impossible to build the original project.”

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse

Continued from A1 dismissed by Mr. Trump for years.

She nodded as the verdict was announced in a New York federal courtroom only three hours after deliberations had begun, then hugged supporters and smiled through tears. As the courtroom cleared, Ms. Carroll could be heard laughing and crying.

Jurors also found Mr. Trump liable for defaming Ms. Carroll over her allegations. Mr. Trump did not attend the civil trial and was absent when the verdict was read.

Mr. Trump immediately lashed out on his social media site, claiming that he does not know Ms. Carroll and referring to the verdict as “a disgrace” and “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.” He promised to appeal.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, shook hands with Ms. Carroll and hugged her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, after the verdict was announced. Outside the courthouse, he told reporters the jury’s rejection of the rape claim while finding Trump responsible for sexual abuse was “perplexing” and “strange.”

“Part of me was obviously very happy that Donald Trump was not branded a rapist,” he said.

He defended Mr. Trump’s absence, citing the trial’s “circus atmosphere.” He said having Mr. Trump there “would be more of a circus.”

It was unclear what, if any, implications the verdict would have on Mr. Trump’s third presidential bid.

He’s in a commanding position among GOP contenders and has faced few political consequences in the wake of previous controversies, ranging from the vulgar “Access Hollywood” tape to his New York criminal indictment.

His GOP rivals were mostly silent after the verdict, a sign of their reluctance to cross Trump supporters who are critical to winning the presidential nomination.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, one of the few vocal Trump critics in the race, said the verdict was “another example of the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump.” Ms. Carroll was one of more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual assault or harassment. She went public in a 2019 memoir with her allegation that the Republican raped her in the dressing room of a posh Manhattan department store.

Mr. Trump, 76, denied it, saying he never encountered Ms.Carroll at the store and did not know her. He has called her a “nut job” who invented “a fraudulent and false story” to sell a memoir.

Ms. Carroll, 79, sought unspecified damages, plus a retraction of what she said were Mr. Trump’s defamatory denials of her claims.

Jurors also heard from Jessica Leeds, a former stockbroker who testified that Mr. Trump abruptly groped her against her will on an airline flight in the 1970s, and from Natasha Stoynoff, a writer who said Mr. Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while she was interviewing him for a 2005 article.

The six-man, three-woman jury also saw the well-known 2005 “Access Hollywood” hot-mic recording of Mr.Trump talking about kissing and grabbing women without asking.

The verdict comes as Mr. Trump faces an accelerating swirl of legal risks.

He’s fighting a New York criminal case related to hush money payments made to a porn actor. The state attorney general has sued him, his family and his business over alleged financial wrongdoing.

Mr. Trump is also contending with investigations into his possible mishandling of classified documents, his actions after the 2020 election and his activities during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Mr. Trump denies wrongdoing in all of those matters.

The jury awarded Ms. Carroll $2 million for Mr. Trump’s sexual abuse and $20,000 in punitive damages. For defamation, jurors awarded $1 million for Mr. Trump’s October statement, another $1.7 million for harm to Ms. Carroll’s reputation and $280,000 in punitive damages.