Glassoul

Here in Montr

That sentence makes no sense. Unanimous indicates that ALL would be in favour, not just a majority. Light Rail is cool, as long as it doesn't disrupt vehicular traffic too much. It is also a bit of an eye sore with all the poles and hanging wires. The real benefit would come from having it connected from downtown to the strip, however.

Hockey has strong loyal following, but it is more regional than national (in the U.S). Go to a market like Detroit, Philly, or Denver, etc and there is very strong support for hockey, but in warmer climates it obviously suffers. Its terms of measuring its popularity, its kinda how NASCAR used to be a mainly southern oriented sport. Anway, the problem with all of the major sports is that they are pretty much expanded all they are going to expand and so the only way you are going to get a team is through relocation, which doesn't come up very often. What happens then is that cities get into bidding wars with one another over how large a subsidy they are willing to give a team owner to choose them over the competition. Which is fine, if you argue for it soley on the basis of having a local pro-franchise to root for and to help instill a sense of community spirit. However, the use of massive subsidies to lure pro-sports teams is almost ALWAYS argued on the basis having a positive economic benefit, which study after study including one released just a week ago, debunks. They have consistently shown that whenever a city or other government gives these huge a$$ handouts, there is little to no effect economic benefit to the locality, just a redistribution of resources. In fact, in many cases, there is a negative cost-benefit. So why would you want $350 million of your tax dollars (and lets' face it, at this point the only way HR is going to get a pro-sports franchise is to offer these kinds of subsidies) to go to some rich team ownership, who will consistently hold the mantle of threatening to move the team to another city over local governments head as a means to get even more incentives to stay put? Which will certainly happen in a small market like HR... and it never ends. Every 25 years Norfolk will be forced to pony up the vast majority of money for a new stadium or risk losing the team. Look what Shinn did with the Hornets, what happened with the Expos under Jeffery Loria, the Raiders moving back to Oakland under Al Davis, how the Nordiques, Jets, and Whalers got screwed in the NHL, etc. the list goes on and on. It happens because cities are competing for a percieved economic benefits of having a pro-sports franchise, at least that is what they argue when they take it to the tax payer (in addition to being a populist measure for the politicans). So if you want the team for the sense of community or your a big sports fan then fine, but those arguemtns are very rarely the top selling point for giving your tax dollars away.

Not commenting on the second sentence, but I've seen some comments recently that suggest the high increases in defense spending on items not directly attributable to the cost of the current conflicts is coming under pressure. That would mean salary increases for the military and other development projects could experience smaller growth. That's a worrying sign for the local economy, but not cause for a crisis. The reason people are/were speculating, refinancing, etc. is/was because of long-term interest rates, which when accounting for inflation, are still .25-1% for a majority of borrowers. So in effect the cost of borrowing money until recently was negative. Also, real estate is viewed as a safer investment than stocks because the likelihood of a house and property losing a majority percentage of its value is virtually zero (baring some large unforeseen event, such as a terrorist attack... or New Orleans), and historical trends point to this as being fact. To a lesser degree of reasoning, the U.S population is also still growing at a healthy margin, and those people will have to live somewhere. You're right when you say there are some places that are further out there in terms of being on a bubble than others, such as Boston and New York. However, Virginia as whole is in a better position than some of those places because of high government spending and a girth of large companies around the state that do not experience the large degree of volatility of the economic cycle. HR will likely within the next 12-18 months experience a downturn in the single family housing market, but I would however, expect demands for condos to not be as affected by a downturn, because the demographics and reasons for their purchase are different than the single family home buyer. As well, one of the reasons the fed is moving up rates in a very openly communicated and predictable manner is because they are trying to deflate the bubble in some areas without popping it. Of course, if inflation were to continue to accelerate due to high-energy prices, the fed's hand could be forced and they might have to make some larger increases. Also the issue of debt is an interesting one you point out. Consumer debt is at an all-time high in absolute terms, but if you look at the total debt burden (government, individuals, and non-financial companies) to GDP ratio, the U.S has approx. the same as it did 20 years ago. Higher interest rates will also encourage saving, and/or paying off of debt, specifically things like credit cards, student loans, etc. As well, the percentage of Americans who own a home is about 70% now, the highest it has ever been. So its not a matter of poor people getting shafted as you assert, because a: they still rent by-in-large, and b: if you meant to say lower-middle class are getting priced out of the market, then that is 'quasi-true'. What actually happened is that lower interest rates induced many lower-middle income people into the housing market from renting, and some got in by assuming variable rate and riskier type loans. But if someone takes it upon himself or herself to buy a house under risky terms rather than rent, then it’s the responsibility of the person buying to make sure they can afford it in the long-term. Will some of them be forced to sell their houses when the interest rates go up? Sure, but again, unless they were seriously stupid and paying multiples of 5+ for their homes, the rates of increase in payable interest on a monthly bill will not result in the majority having to sell. It will however, mean they will be in an unenviable position with regard to other budgetary considerations, but that’s the sacrifice they choose to make for owning a home. Finally, those who did refinance or purchase with a variable rate mortgage or some other more risky type still only make up a moderate percentage of the total lending market (though that percentage has grown in recent years), and for another year or so will still be paying less than most fixed rate borrowers. The lesson there is not to buy a home costing more than 3 times your total yearly household income. If you pay anything more than 3x, then your having to cut back other things, like vacations and other property. And if you haven't by now refinanced to more favorable terms, now would be the time to do so, though you'll likely loose a couple grand in the short-run. In fact, the recent increases in long-term rates might be a reflection of people doing just that. If on the other hand however, you do nothing and proceed to lose your house because you were spending 50% of your paycheck on the mortgage before the interest-rate rises, well then that's your fault for doing something really stupid, and then failing to correct the mistake when you had ample opportunity.

Bah, no reason to waste money on an arena. There are far more interesting things that can be done with that money, and should be done with that money. Where is the new court building being placed exactly? Are there any renders of it yet?

It's funny that this has come up now, because I thought about saying something earlier. Most people in Portsmouth don't like it being refered to as P-Town.

Yes, all batteries lose their ability to hold a charge over time. Even a rechargeable one, even if it's not in use much.

Baseball is my favorite sport as well, but for anyone to argue that there is a substantial economic benefit to an area when a city/state has to provide substantial portion of the funding doesn't understand economics. It is as someone else said, more a matter of civic pride. Look at the battle in New York city, the mecha of pro sports, where the Yankees (I don't understand why they want to leave Yankee stadium anyway), Mets, and Jets can't get new stadiums, especially enlighenting for the latter, since that even has the added value of a tie-in with New York's Olympic bid. The reality at the moment is that if HR wants a major league franchise, then they are going to have to fork over some serious cash, and I think there are much better uses of the city's capital and borrowing credit. Russ, I doubt very much that there would be strong public support for Norfolk to pony up $250+ million for a new stadium. Have a clear referendum on it. We'll see how strong the public support in Norfolk is for a pro franchise. And be careful what you wish for. Jeffery Loria is an asshat, plain and simple. When he arrived in Montr

Good. More power to them then. Just ask anyone in Montr

The theory goes 12 months of events packed into 12 weeks, and the biggest partying of all is this coming weekend, when the Formula One race comes to town. The entire downtown seems to shut down (some parts literally do, even though the race is not in downtown), and everyone gets into the event. Where I live you can hear the F1 cars screaming by on the circuit. An awesome sound indeed.

Age: 25 Birth Place: Portsmouth, VA Grew up: Portsmouth until I was 8, then spent the next 15 years in and around Western Branch in Chesapeake. Current Residence: Moved to Montr

I had a really long response typed out, but then thought better of it as not being the appropriate place to discuss it. Suffice to say that Montr

J'habite

Thanks for the great pictures Willy. Looking at those pics of Ghent and oddly enough the NIT terminals, was truly the first time in 18+ months that I have felt homesick.

Once the terminal is completed, I think you'll see a couple of new ships come in for sure, but it will take Nauticus' marketers to work hard to keep expounding the virtues of the HR area to make it work in the long run. The cruise industry is notoriously fickle with their ports of call, so keeping a fresh supply of new lines or ships coming is very important to the long term profitability of the terminal.

Except that Olde Towne is in Portsmouth.

A bit more good news for Portsmouth. Lindab to move U.S. headquarters to Portsmouth and invest $6 million. (Though most of their staff is already in Portsmouth, the remainder from CT will be relocating there over the next couple of years, and they will be adding about 60 jobs to the 120 on the payroll now. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...4492&ran=220315

Actually Tidewater is the geographic area east of the Piedmont (Richmond) extending down South from the Northen Neck. So yes, Tidewater include the Pennisula as well as the Eastern Shore.

I think one of the biggest issues would be what would you call the combined city? Both the Norfolk and Portsmouth names have historical reference because of each cities history, and because the names themselves are historically significant to their founding and founders. On a brighter note for Portsmouth, they have reopened a 7 story hotel downtown, and will soon have shops and a restaurant on the first floor. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...4468&ran=209862

Well if it can handle the 757 and DC-10, then it probably should be able to handle the 787 at least. However, like I said before the 747/777/A380 aren't supported and likely won't be because there is no market for them in Norfolk.

Right now, the current main runway at NIA is not long enough to support a 747. I'm not sure if the new runway understudy is planned to be capable of that. They probably haven't even decided. It would be difficult to do given the proximity of the interstate and river (which the current runway already juts into). Besides, I don't really see a demand for having it 747/A380 capable. As for other planes like the 777 and 787 and whatever Airbus rivals that, I don't know. OT: But speaking of airplanes, that new 787 is one pretty piece of machinery. Certainly the nicest looking commercial jet developed yet. There is an enviornmental study being conducted right now ( http://www.norfolkairport.com/pressoffice/eis.shtml ) about adding a second runway to handle additional traffic. People have to realize that the amount of red tape that airports must go through to expand is mind blowing. When they talk about enviornmental impact, their not just talking about cutting down trees or more exhaust fumes. Here is a list of all the things that considered when doing an EIS: 1. Noise 2. Air Quality 3. Water Quality 4. Wetlands 5. Compatible Land Use 6. Socioeconomic Impacts 7. Coastal Resources 8. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) Lands 9. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources 10. Floodplains and Floodways 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 12. Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste 13. Secondary (Induced) Impacts 14. Natural Resources and Energy Supply 15. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts 16. Farmlands 17. Wild and Scenic Rivers 18. Construction Impact Needless to say this takes a lot of time to analyize. And that's just to the EIS. Then you have the public hearings which are always fun, security concerns, airline concerns, etc. etc. After all that, then you can begin the process of financing and designing and building. In another post I pointed out, it took Detroit almost 20 years to build a new airport even on existing airport land. As far as the Isle of Wight is concerned, I believe when the Virginia Department of Aviation first talked about updating the NIA masterplan (as is required by FAA rules when traffic hits 60% of maximum capacity), they are required by law to look at alternatives. If it proved for whatever reason that it was not possible to build an additional runway, one of the alternatives was to relocate the airport to the western part of Hampton Roads. However, this is looked upon as an option of last resort, because moving the airport there is going to cause a helluva lot of problems on it's own. First off, people from Virginia Beach, Eastern Parts of Norfolk, and Southern Chesapeake aren't going to want to drive 1+ hours to the airport. Neither are the tourists... As well, all that extra traffic is going to overwhelm the already overrun mid-town and downtown tunnels, and increase congestion on 664, increasingly the travel time even more. Can you imagine trying to catch a flight that departs in a window of within 3-4 hours of the morning and afternoon rushhours? It'd take you 2 hours to get there from eastern HR. Secondly, if you haven't noticed, there are several large commerical parks located near NIA. They are there for a reason... Those companies aren't going to be too thrilled with having to possibly move (and wait for construction of a new office park). I think you're going to see the VDA and NIA make every attempt to make sure that the second runway is built. Looking into my crystal ball, I say it will be completed in 2014. As for the terminals, the second terminal isn't even completely leased, and there appears to be room to expand that terminal even more if necessary.

Heck they don't even have to do that. They (and all the cities in HR) could just consolidate some services, like Firefighting, Police, water systems, etc. That would save the cities a lot of money, some more than others admitedly, but in the long run, even VA BCH would benefit from a more sucessful Portsmouth.