When I retired from teaching in 2012, one of my plans was to work as a volunteer tour guide in Colonial Williamsburg. I connected with a group called Colonial Connections, a private entity that runs tours of Williamsburg and other nearby historic sites. This position required extensive training; I had to attend a series of classes and pass a test on the history and functioning of Colonial Williamsburg before I got my license.
One thing I remember from this experience was that the trainees in my cohort were asked to create a 5-day itinerary for a typical family visiting the area – including the historic sites in Williamsburg and other places of interest. We all diligently worked on this task, and we included a visit to nearby Busch Gardens as part of our plan. After all, kids like amusement parks, right?
After we all presented our ideas in the final class session, the trainer asked one simple question: When will the kids be able to go to the pool?
It was obvious once the issue was raised: we had all traveled with our kids, and we knew that no matter where we were, the kids wanted to swim in the hotel pool. In our effort to create a great visitor experience, we had neglected a major factor: what will make family members happy enough to return to Williamsburg a second (or more) time?
This article in today’s paper reminded me of that experience. (I worked as a tour guide for a year before moving on to other opportunities. I still have my hat.) I realized that other people are not me – that they enjoy different things than I do, and that they want a variety of options when they plan a family vacation.
Local planning commissions also recognize this as they try to re-energize tourism after COVID changed the travel patterns of millions of families. Since 2014 (long before COVID), my region has been talking seriously about building a regional sports complex to draw more tourists to the area. The current plan being considered this week by the Williamsburg City Council (and on the agenda for consideration by neighboring York County and James City County) calls for the building of a 200,000-square-foot facility in the Colonial Williamsburg Visitor Center area.
The cost of the project (almost $80 million) will be shared by the three jurisdictions in a complicated arrangement of cost and revenue sharing that I won’t go into here. One factor in the debate is cost – which has increased from $50 million as the planning process went on, and many local officials and residents are leery of this. In nearby Virginia Beach, a similar complex (which cost $68 million) is losing money, and there are questions about why a complex in the smaller Williamsburg area will succeed when the Virginia Beach project is having problems.
The proponents of the complex have explained that the project ford not have to be profitable as a stand-alone facility but would be judged by the degree to which it stimulated tourism and increased visitors to the entire area, including Colonial Williamsburg, other local historic sites, and Busch Gardens. I think this metric is a little squishy.
I have concerns about all of this – in particular, the costs of building this facility when other community needs are not being met. This article addresses the problem tangentially, although it does not discuss it in much detail.
Here’s the issue: tourism depends on the availability of a workforce willing to fill entry-level “hospitality” jobs– restaurant servers and busboys, custodians, landscapers, and clerks. Building this complex will require an additional construction workforce (also generally entry-level, lower-income labor) needed to build this complex over the next few years. The Williamsburg area lacks two infrastructure components that would support this necessary workforce – affordable housing and public transportation.
Our local housing supply doesn’t support the current workforce needs, as waiters and janitors need to live outside of town to afford rent. Once they move out of town, they need cars to get to work, because our local bus system is woefully inadequate for working people. It is a “hub-and-spoke” system that runs only a few miles outside of the city limits. My house is about seven miles from Merchants Square in the City of Williamsburg, and one bus line serves my area. It runs once an hour and will take you to the bus station in the middle of town. To get to many locations where the entry-level labor force is needed, riders must change buses and take another spoke out to their workplace. These buses also run once an hour. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the problem this causes.
The proponents of this plan tout the expected (and speculative) economic benefits. Opponents question the expected (and real) pressure on housing and transportation. Although some members of the Williamsburg City Council have questioned the starry-eyed expectations of future profitability, it seems likely that this project will move forward. The next thing I’ll expect to see is the raft of complaints about workers living in substandard conditions within sight of the residents of high-end gated communities as they make their way to shopping and dining venues, historic sights, and golf courses.
Our local paper also contains a feature called the “Last Word,” where residents can submit anonymous comments on things going on in the community. Here are a few entries (also from today’s paper) about this planned sports complex:
The “Jim Icenhour” mentioned in several of these comments is a member of the James City County Board of Supervisors. He represents the “Jamestown District” in the county; I live in the neighboring “Berkely District,” only a mile from Jim’s district. He is often the voice of reason in these debates, but I think he is outnumbered on this issue. My own supervisor, Ruth Larson, is reportedly on board with this plan.
Many of the problems in our communities seem beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. My local newspaper does a great job of reminding us that democracy is not a spectator sport and that we can have an impact on what our representatives do in our names.
Henrico County - just 50 miles to the west of you - has also just opened (this week, actually) a 200,000 square foot indoor facility, which they claim is already fully booked for 2024. (That remains to be seen.) They may have saved some money by using a defunct mall for renovation, instead a new building, but it's been under construction for five years, and is totally paid for by this county. Apparently they are counting on rentals from regional, as well as local entities, but I'm asking the same funding questions as you are, altho this doesn't promise o generate many jobs, so the housing issue is not there for this one. Sometimes it seems like some planning consultant has developed ONE answer and SOLD it to many competing local governments - to the detriment of all but the first. (And, in this case, it sounds like even the first is not making it.)
I'm afraid I agree with the Last Word comments. I worked for years in Colorado on economic development issues. Up-front expenditures are high; payback is very slow. Frequently zoning codes must be changed. Wrangles over land use can get heated. Find an area of our size and desire to create such a facility and find out what success they have had. More times than not, that success will rarely if ever exceed the expense the governmental entities put in UNLESS that entity has ALSO provided needed infrastructure, housing, and additional services. Rarely are the numbers good enough to proceed with the bright, shiny idea.