Should the City Council approve the agreement between Virginia Beach and United States Management to build an arena at the resort? Yes or no. Why or why not?

I say No

The Beach in my opinion will never attract big league teams to make a home here using the arena. However it will add to the traffic congestions. I'm also against moving the memorial. The "Beach" is losing its attraction for people who just want to get away from big cities.

I say No

Two primary reasons, first the traffic will be horrendous. Second, we should not use Chinese made steel in any construction project nor should we accept financing from any Communist country.

I say No

I have been a resident of Virginia Beach for 20 years. Overall the trend for the City has been pretty good in my opinion; although there seems to be some bias to many project sponsors that appears to be without regard to infrastructure and resident issues; biased to the City seeing more revenues. Been an experienced investment banker for almost 30 years that has funded numerous projects throughout the US and been involved in overseas projects. Further, have also been a bankruptcy turnaround specialist court appointed by federal judges to unwind failed projects. I say this as a qualifier of expertise behind the opinion. I am quite surprised how little is tasked to project promoters to mitigate burdens on infrastructure, much less certain objections by the tax payers. Notwithstanding very little disclosure on the concrete infrastructure issues (highway, roadway, parking, etc.), I still haven't been able to figure out the financial feasibility of this project and whether we will end up with a white elephant or potentially worse a foreign partner if their is a failure.

The first red flag I see is why a US bank syndication is not interested in this project. This of course begs the question why a Asian financier is so anxious; usually interested in higher profile cities - we're not a Miami; maybe they think we could be an Atlantic City? It is unclear what the terms and conditions are to the financing of the deal, which I believe should be made fully public for comment for a period of not less than 60 days. Simple metrics seem to indicate that this facility will have to generate very significant cash-flow to meet a huge $200 million debt and candidly I do not see it. Areas that have 3 times the population, notwithstanding the transient nature here, have been unable to come to the same conclusions as these folks appear to have.

In closing, I have seen little in details and specificity that area residents concerns can be dealt with without massive condemnation of property, overstretching of already stressed resources, or alternatively imposing on spreading the stress out around the City. We see how well that worked years ago for the July 4th festivity and trucking people in from Pendelton. Secondly, I think the public should see the Financial Feasibility Study given to the lender (and I hope the City Officials) to see what the true assumptions are from a economic stand point. I do not believe they are achievable and ponder, without bias, having a Chinese investor owning major asset in the City of Virginia Beach that controls a property with little accord to certain protections if they are not anticipated upfront. I say this in pragmatic words. Over (40%) of my business dealings today are overseas; much in Asiatic countries. I understand this world. We need to be cautious and there needs to be full transparency in fainest to residents & taxpayers; none of which I have really seen.

Respectfully,

K. L. Malmgren

I say No

I can think of 51 reasons why the arena shouldn't be built, and only one reason to have it built. That one reason to have it built is to increase our never ending taxes! With this arena deal, the citizens of Virginia Beach are being dealt a bad hand.

I say No

The massive arena is being put in the wrong location to make it convenient for tourist but a traffic nightmare for residents

I say No

about 16 years ago we bought a nice single family house on 16th street worth about a half million now. it's located near the proposed venue between mediterranean and baltic avenues. the area and people are quite to our liking. the rest, traffic, jet noise, car stereos and beach concerts have taken some getting used to but most of the year it's quite pleasant. I'm on the civic league and support the police on precinct advisory, although have been absent for a while in that regard. beside the obvious traffic and neighborhood trash problems we currently have and even more, foresee, i think the amount of noise is going to make the area much more intolerable. I also believe we will see a drop in property values and higher crime. I have lived in 3 large cities with arenas and the area around the arena is the last place you want to live. those areas tend to degenerate and i have lived long enough to see the before and after. all in all i think this will not be a family friendly area. furthermore the project speakers were not very reassuring about much of anything and sounded like salesmen making a pitch. finally, i also spoke with a number of people in old beach and shadowlawn (businesses i patronize) and others for their opinions. I could not find one person happy or even mildly accepting about this arena. most all said the city will do whatever, they never listen to us anyway and the like. which is why only about 15 people showed up at the civic meeting. I did however hear a lot of negative complaints at the project meeting from many of the approximately 300 there. yours respectfully, kevin pyne and karin stamy

I say No

I support an arena, but just not where it is proposed. We should be promoting regionalism w/ this sort of project! That said, I'd like to voice my concerns:
1. What NEED are we trying to meet by erecting the arena? I don't recall an arena on any vision plan for the city.
2. In April 2013, Chinese based CMEC closed a $1.2 million contract w/ lawyer and then Delegate Terry Gilmore to protect it's interests in building a VA Beach arena by helping them lift US sanctions imposed on them by the Busch administration in 2002. CMEC is to be THE prime contractor for the arena (which is dictated by the unnamed Chinese lender). It had these sanctions levied by the US Government due to proliferation of materials for chemical and biological weapons to Iran under the Iran-Iraq Act. It was also sanctioned during the same period for supplying nuclear-capable missles to Pakistan, in violation of the international non-proliferation accord. China fought to get these sanctions lifted over a 10 YEAR PERIOD! So why did former governor Gilmore get involved and why did the Commonwealth help partner USG up w/ CMEC before the sanctions were ever lifted? I was intrigued w/ this because of China's interest in investing at a local level, rather than getting back "into the game" at a state or federal level. I still believe there are more dots to connect here...
3. USM revealed it's lenders to the city attorney and finance director early in the negotiating process, but , as of today, that lender remains "unnamed". The city hired a 3rd party to review the lender's financial capability to perform and provide the loan. Why, then, has this info not been made public?
4. The use of Chinese steel is a concern. As recently as last year, Chinese companies were found falsifying the chemical composition of their steel just to get it on the market. Any welder will tell you the quality of the steel definitely matters. Quality, in this case, means impurities which equates to safe construction. If, as stated in the open forum, certain products from China are "generally used for projects like this regardless of whether China is financing it or not", according to USM, then why is that a specific contingency on this deal? It looks as if we don't agree to that, it would be a deal breaker... RED FLAG! The lenders "like the idea of exporting their products to the US", so says USM, but I prefer that our elected officials take a stand for the USA and erase that part of the deal.
5. From what I take away from all of this, the city is on the hook if the developer defaults along the way. The lender, in China, not our elected officials, gets to decide what happens next to PRIME property at OUR oceanfront! RED FLAG!!
In conclusion, I would like to hear what EACH individual council person has to say about the DETAILS of the deal.It would have been helpful to have this info before tonight's meeting. There are 3-4 folks that we routinely hear from outside of chambers. I applaude Council Person Henley for coming out against voting on this deal until USM secures the loan(s) and also wants the lender to be publically named. Most of the rest of City Council appear afraid to make their thoughts about some of the nitty gritty details public. That's a shame...and a disservice!

I say No

Poor infrastructure will need to be modified and extended; all at taxpayers expense. Congestion will be increased. Noise will be increased. The character of the area will be changed forever.

I say No

I concur with preceding commenters who have already pointed out some of the issues associated with this proposal: City financial liabilities associated with the project (incentive payments, lease terms, debt service, tax increase, necessary infrastructure), competing municipal planning & development priorities, length of lease, traffic management, parking, underutilization of current SevenVenues and other sites, foreign financing, etc. Add potential municipal planning overreach via Town Center Phases V and VI, VA ViBe!, the Cavalier deal, and the on-going pursuit of Light Rail. Before laying out $76.5M of taxpayer's money (or $424M if one commenter’s figures are accurate), I want to know what USM and the City’s plan action and milestones are for ensuring sustainable utilization of the arena once it's built? What’s USM’s business plan and marketing strategy to achieve and maintain minimum operating standards, to wit: “meet any one or more of the following: 1. Minimum annual paid attendance of at least 450,000 at Ticketed Arena Events, 2. An annual minimum of at least twenty (20) Ticketed Arena Events with paid attendance of at least 7,500 per Arena Event (Exhibit F, Minimum Operating Standards, Draft Deed of Lease)? With a projected completion date of 2019, will the years 2021-2024 see the City financially inherit a facility whose minimum operating standards (aka economic viability) that cannot be sustained? I also noticed that, on page 5, paragraph 3.(b) of the Draft Deed of Lease, there's a provision that the “Landlord [City] will receive, at no cost, eight (8) premium tickets to every Arena Event and (if constructed) four (4) parking spaces inside the Arena for use during every Arena Event to park passenger vehicles driven to an Arena Event by the holders of the eight (8) premium tickets referenced above for such event. In addition, Landlord shall have the right to use one sky box/luxury box/suite in the Arena designated by Tenant for an Arena Event to the extent any sky box/luxury box/suite remains unsold for such Arena Event (a “Premium Facility”).” Might be standard verbiology for these types of leases, but from a taxpayer's perspective it seems like a pretty sweet deal for someone in City Hall.

I say No

More than $3M from VB taxpayers to fund the project!
We taxpayers have financially buttressed town center during its early growth. It is time to stop.