Jump to content

Hampton Roads Military Developments

vdogg

By vdogg
in Hampton Roads

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply
urbanvb City

urbanvb

Posted
Posted

Yeah, well they met this afternoon and agreed to do it. That was the reason for the meeting to discuss doing this. But, these sure were some high priced condos going in there - from $795k! :o . One could see why the city council would be hesitant not to approve this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Yeah, well they met this afternoon and agreed to do it. That was the reason for the meeting to discuss doing this. But, these sure were some high priced condos going in there - from $795k!  :o . One could see why the city council would be hesitant not to approve this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the problem is if they decide to pack up and move they just lost another project because of the navy. This is a no win situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hoobo Burg

hoobo

Posted
Posted

Of course the bad news is the city had to cough up $7 mil to do this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm reading $15 million.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Corporate handouts are one thing, since companies pay taxes on earnings and their property, but handouts to the government? What kind of circular logic is this? I understand that Oceana is a $600 million dollar behemoth but the city does not get any tax revenue from the enterprise or from the 6000 acres it sits on. Isn't $15 million put to better use by incubating local companies or using it to lure a national or multi-national looking for a regional office or high-tech production facility? What makes less sense is there was a motel, a fine restaurant, and a fast-food joint on the property. Redeveloping it into a condominium on the otherhand is a no-no because of the revised AICUZ. CItizens complained when VB sold itself to developers. Well, it looks like it'll sell itself to the Navy and may hurt potential development in the process. What's next, not developing the Dome site, the Rudee site, or Lake Ridge/PA Commons because jets fly over them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

I'm reading $15 million.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Corporate handouts are one thing, since companies pay taxes on earnings and their property, but handouts to the government?  What kind of circular logic is this?  I understand that Oceana is a $600 million dollar behemoth but the city does not get any tax revenue from the enterprise or from the 6000 acres it sits on.  Isn't $15 million put to better use by incubating local companies or using it to lure a national or multi-national looking for a regional office or high-tech production facility?  What makes less sense is there was a motel, a fine restaurant, and a fast-food joint on the property.  Redeveloping it into a condominium on the otherhand is a no-no because of the revised AICUZ.  CItizens complained when VB sold itself to developers.  Well, it looks like it'll sell itself to the Navy and may hurt potential development in the process.  What's next, not developing the Dome site, the Rudee site, or Lake Ridge/PA Commons because jets fly over them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I have to agree with you on this dude. But this should have been taken care of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Actually the Beach plans to spend $182 million total to buy land around Oceana! Insane!  :o

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah i was reading that. I don't think Oceana pumps that much money into the economy to justify that kind of investment for the city. The navy is still going to close it due to age down the road anyways. I hope this does work for them though. But like I have said they should have done this a long time ago and yes I do think the city should have stopped or limited development around the base if they were planning on being so dependant on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vdogg Megalopolis

vdogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah i was reading that. I don't think Oceana pumps that much money into the economy to justify that kind of investment for the city. The navy is still going to close it due to age down the road anyways. I hope this does work for them though. But like I have said they should have done this a long time ago and yes I do think the city should have stopped or limited development around the base if they were planning on being so dependant on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, there has got to be another way. I'm not sure I want $182 million dollars ciphoned out of city coffers like this. It feels like blackmail. I think we should only invest enough money to keep Oceana til the next round of BRAC and give ourselves time to draw up a good contingency plan. It may be time to let this bad boy go if it's gonna cost all this. Keep in mind that this is $182 million in addition to lost revenue from development that will now no longer be allowed to occur due to the new regulations. We're fast approaching the break even point with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Yes, there has got to be another way. I'm not sure I want $182 million dollars ciphoned out of city coffers like this. It feels like blackmail. I think we should only invest enough money to keep Oceana til the next round of BRAC and give ourselves time to draw up a good contingency plan. It may be time to let this bad boy go if it' gonna cost all this. Keep in mind that that is $182 million in addition to lost revenue from development that will now no longer be allowed to occur due to the new regulations. We're fast approaching the break even point with this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is alot of tax revenue down the tube. Its going to close eventually and the city needs to see that and be very prepared for this closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urbanvb City

urbanvb

Posted
Posted

Yes, there has got to be another way. I'm not sure I want $182 million dollars ciphoned out of city coffers like this. It feels like blackmail. I think we should only invest enough money to keep Oceana til the next round of BRAC and give ourselves time to draw up a good contingency plan. It may be time to let this bad boy go if it' gonna cost all this. Keep in mind that that is $182 million in addition to lost revenue from development that will now no longer be allowed to occur due to the new regulations. We're fast approaching the break even point with this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. It helps it will be bought over a period of 20 years but still. Think of all the lost revenue taxes and such that could be had. This land will not generate anything for the city. And as you stated this is probably only for a short amount of time until the BRAC decides to close this base which I believe will happen sooner than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sugoiben Whistle-Stop

sugoiben

Posted
Posted

This land will not generate anything for the city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing immediate anyways. If the city were to invest $182 million into something that doesn't have any immediate payout, they could do much worse than buying land. If and when the base does close, suddenly the city gets a hold of Oceana, and already own lots of land around it. Much, much easier to properly and wisely develop stuff like that, as opposed to if it were owned by lots of random individuals. Course, that thinking waaaaay long term there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Nothing immediate anyways.  If the city were to invest $182 million into something that doesn't have any immediate payout, they could do much worse than buying land.  If and when the base does close, suddenly the city gets a hold of Oceana, and already own lots of land around it.  Much, much easier to properly and wisely develop stuff like that, as opposed to if it were owned by lots of random individuals.  Course, that thinking waaaaay long term there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hopefully I hope that is the case and will be a positive outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper Burg

Viper

Posted
Posted

Oceana

Cecil

Viper's numbers are on.  Was Cecil really closed because of encroachment?  Or was it because the Navy was trying to consolidate its East Coast fighters onto one base and Oceana being closer to most of the Atlantic Fleet's carriers made more logistical sense?  I hate to say this, but BRAC and the Navy appear to have made the wrong move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Enchroachment had nothing to do with Cecil's closure. It was all politics. At the time, Oceana was beginnign to get enchroachment issues already and it came down to closing either Oceana or Cecil. Virginia lawmakers pointed out that Oceana was part of a Special Operation at the time that they claimed could not be moved to another so Cecil was closed.

The Navy has repeatedly stated that closing Cecil was a huge mistake and that is why BRAC is taking this option so seriously.

Someone asked if Cecil could handle the Super Hornets? Where do you think half of those Hornets came from? ...Cecil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Enchroachment had nothing to do with Cecil's closure.  It was all politics.  At the time, Oceana was beginnign to get enchroachment issues already and it came down to closing either Oceana or Cecil.  Virginia lawmakers pointed out that Oceana was part of a Special Operation at the time that they claimed could not be moved to another so Cecil was closed.

The Navy has repeatedly stated that closing Cecil was a huge mistake and that is why BRAC is taking this option so seriously.

Someone asked if Cecil could handle the Super Hornets?  Where do you think half of those Hornets came from? ...Cecil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

didn't you already type that up? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper Burg

Viper

Posted
Posted

Basically but I've learned from my own forums that with lengthy threads, posts easily get overlooked or they join in after it's originally posted. I've learned to accept it and just repost...usually making the point a little better like the first was practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rusthebuss Metropolis

rusthebuss

Posted
Posted

Basically but I've learned from my own forums that with lengthy threads, posts easily get overlooked or they join in after it's originally posted.  I've learned to accept it and just repost...usually making the point a little better like the first was practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

k

so what do you think about this area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper Burg

Viper

Posted
Posted

k

so what do you think about this area?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like Fl much better. I spend much more time here on the peninsula than in South HR so I don't know as much of the immediate area around Oceana. Google Earth and the few trips I've made that way give little doubt to the crowded location it's in though.

My biggest plus to the area, 4 lane roads with dual left turn lanes. Something was thinking way ahead when they paved those roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.