Virginia Beach partnerships prove their worth

It is of no consequence about big retail boxes on Virginia Beach Blvd. The fact is that private enterprise is just that.. private. No public money from any city government should be used to build these retail shopping outlets. The city will make money on real estate and sales taxes anyway on whatever is built. If PPV's are a legitimate "tool" then the city can pay a percentage of my mortgage. That's what your logic equates to. Besides you have a vested interest in PPV's which means guys in your business will not have to pay full fair market price for your properties, but will you still reap the profits thanks to the taxpayers dime. City government (especially VB) finds creative ways to spend any windfall profits rather than any tax benefits to us. $150K for a full color ad to The Virginian pilot comes to mind.

In May of 2004 Robert Dean, co-founder of the VBTA, earned 43% of the vote in a three-way mayoral race, which was put together in four and ½ weeks., nearly defeating Meyera Oberndorf who drew 50%. So there Mr. Barrett, so stop with your convenience talk (words that sound good, but certainly are not true!) Additionally, when are you going to come out in public and debate with those from the VBTA?

Fair enough, but your characterization of the projects to which you object at the Beach do not fit your description. Fact is, both 31st Street and Town Center have been highly valuable projects for the taxpayers. Now it is a legitimate position that the city should never engage in PPV's, but if you make that argument, you have to accept the consequences of that action. That includes another big retail box on Virginia Beach Boulevard that sends all its profits elsewhere, or in the case of 31st Street, simply another fun 'n the Sun motel (no park) that serves summer visitors and stands mostly empty the rest of the year. Frankly, the majority of citizens want a planned city that develops a strategic vision and is not timid about using legitimate tools like PPV's to get there. Now I know that majority does not include the VBTA, but frankly, every time one of them runs, they get 5% of the vote. Not exactly a majority.

Give me an example of the public services you speak of Mr. Barrett. Otherwise I have no problem with commercial real estate companies purchasing land at the fair market value from the city (if applicable), getting your zoning permits, easements, etc.. and making money on it. No problem at all. Provided it is done ALL on your dime. What I do object to is taxpayers having to subsidize part of it, or using eminent domain to seize land for private developenment for a sliver of a so-called "public park", and having taxpayers take the fall if it fails. Projects like Waterside (Norfolk's problem), The Sportsplex, The Days Inn Hotel on Bonney Road, etc.. Things that I indirectly have to pay for with taxes and fees extorted from me. That is what I object to. I feel that Will Sessoms will be the taxpayers bank to fund these "public-private ventures that government has no business getting involved in and guys in your business will be receiving end for the check.

Well Keith, you better check the talking points of the VBTA who espouse increased commercial real estate development so that the commercial real estate sector pays more of the real estate tax burden. So which is it? Do you oppose commercial real estate development which adds to the tax base, requires little in public services, and which therefore reduces the burden on the residential real estate tax payer and provides the locus for jobs for our citizens? One of our projects for which we built all the infrastructure, pays over $650,000 annually in real estate tax alone, requires no additional services, and therefore reduces the real estate tax you pay on your home. Now I am to understand that you oppose such development because we have made a profit on this development? Isn't that called cutting off your nose to spite your face?

No Mr. Barrett, Will Sessoms knows how to make sure the real estate developers get wealthy on the taxpayers dime.

Well yes, some come just for the fun 'n the sun; but we the taxpayers would receive little benefit if the hotels/restaurants/retail stores were empty the rest of the year. Instead of over 3 million visitors, we would have only a million. The difference in attracting visitors all year round is the reason we all receive a fiscal dividend from the resort. Sessoms knows that and knows that creating economic development and jobs in every sector of our economy through quality growth and development is what the majority of our citizens want. (except of course for the VBTA that wants each of us to pay higher real estate taxes and not accept any more visitors). Will knows the hard work that goes into developing community support and consensus on a course of action, and he knows that only cities that create a strategic vision and strive to improve can compete with other cities and region.

There is but one compelling magnet drawing visitors to Virginia Beach, and that is that vast blue body of water known as the Atlantic Ocean.
It is not the Hilton, the free concerts, or all the ugly hotels which tower over the lovely beach and in the evening, create ghastly shadows.

It is our oceanfront, my fellow residents of Virginia Beach. Tourists are only here for a short time, while we residents, the local taxpayers, pay the property taxes, buy the cars, the appliances, purchase the services, plumbing, catering etc. as well as everyday supplies and groceries; these are the taxes that allow Virginia Beach to operate.

Moving east. The Town Center Food Court has cannibalized the exiting, non government-subsidized businesses. Do you think Town Center has not taken away business from the wonderful locally owned and operated Lynnhaven Fish House, Neighbors Pizza or the Peking Duck in the heart of Kempsville? If you don't think so, think again. These long-standing local businesses do not get taxpayer-paid parking, nor do they use your tax dollars for extra police protection.

The Town Center developers want Sessoms in their back pockets to continue running

The 31st St. Hotel wasn't the only issue. "DEW" isn't running now.

Further Mike, you're slandering VBTA. Virginia Beach Taxpayers ALLIANCE.
VBTA has been crucial in putting pressure on council to lower property & other taxes. They advocate conservative spending rather than the wild spending on mega projects that Sessoms & Oberndorf both favor mentioned in the editorial.

VB has lost population, lost students(future labor cost), almost stunted the growth of a large employer with a tool tax, allowed compression pay problems with Police/Fire,and people can't afford to live here now. Most voters know that things have gone in the wrong direction for far too long now. Most know there's little difference between Sessoms and Oberndorf. Vote John Moss for Mayor!

A banker and a developers dream come true. Another taxpayers nightmare.

Well of course in this case, at the same time the advisory referendum was on the ballot, candidates were running for city council. The 31st Street project and the park was the main issue. If a candidate ran on support for the 31st Street project had voted against it, they would have been thrown out of office the next time around. The problem for the VBTA and their few supporters is that they got trounced in the election as the "DON'T DEW IT TEAM" failed to win a single seat on Council. Why? Because they advocate policies that would raise our taxes, cut needed and wanted city programs and services, and hurt our local economy, and most voters are smart enough to discern that.

Arrogance in government leads some to think that they can ignore the will of the people demonstrated in a referendum. A non-binding referendum would be a strong suggestion I guess, since a binding one wasn't available. I have to wonder, how many people ignore a strong suggestion given by their employer. We the people are the employers of council. In addition to ignoring the choices of the voters our council has tied up resources needed elsewhere.

VB has lost population, had declining school populations,tried to raise taxes on the city's life blood(Large Employers EX. STIHL) and erected monuments unto themselves in private games of not-so-SIM City. VOTE MOSS!

I assume this is good because it will give the city council jobs after their defeat this election. I see Mike Barrett is putting his usual pro-council drivel again. There's probably a job there for him.....also!

Those who continue to say that the city acted improperly on the results of the referendum are totally misinformed. Fact is, those who campaigned and won on their support for the 31st Street project simply did what they had promised; they supported the project. The "DON'T DEW IT TEAM" opposed the project, and they lost badly, so badly that they have not been heard from since. One member tried individually this year but already left the campaign trail for lack of support. Fact is, we have a unique opportunity to elect a leader this time, a Mayor who understands the value of commercial development like Town Center and 31st Street in reducing the pressure on the residential real estate tax base. It is time for a leader who will work for us in the public interest instead of attending every groundbreaking or community event to increase personal popularity. It is time for Sessoms.

last time you covered this you called it "Towne Center profits"

Submitted by dfwdabull on Sun, 10/05/2008 at 7:22 am.
"Town Center, CBD, Downtown" doesn't attract new customers or tourists. Its taking existing customers from other areas of the city, the net effect on city revenues is neutral, To think other wise is simply wishful fantasy, and political gobblegook.

The basic fallacy here is that, lacking involvement by the city, that prime beach front property would have remained unused and would have generated no tax revenue for the city.

Yet every other inch of waterfront property has been put to use without the city priming the pump with $31,000,000 of residential property owners taxes.

The reality is it will take a decade to get back the city's investment and just break even, when the property could have been producing tax revenues all along if the city had just gotten out of the way.

Although I like both projects you seem to have left out the fact that a lot of businesses in each vicinity has experienced lost sales. Therefore the balance sheets may not be as positive as you suggest.

So losing money is succes. I wonder how much the city lost on the 9th Street garage. If big corparations like Hilton and Hyatt want a hotel in this city the don't need incetives but they will gladdly excect them. I don't see the city handed out any money to the mom and pops on Atlantic Ave. who probabley really coul use the help.

The American people aren't always right, but we have the right to be wrong-it is not the job of our elected leaders to act like our parents while having the ability to strip others of their property as the City of Virginia Beach attempted to do in the Neptune Corner issue. What the anonomys editorial board of the Pilot fails to mention is, had these projects been a failure, it's the taxpayers who would have been stuck with the bill. Nor do we appreciate having our voices expressed through the ballot box ignored by an arrogant council who acts upon us instead of on our behalf.

The principal of voter nullification is the issue here-the people spoke and said NO. Maybe things would have turned out poorly, but perhaps not. The fact remains that remains is our leaders are supposed to represent the will of the people, not ignore it.

What can the motive be for an article such as this?? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Glad that I don't believe everything that I read! hehehe