Monthly Archives: January, 2018

Over 1/3 of Albemarle’s Entrance Corridors Are Illegal

By. Neil Williamson, President

On January 16th, 2018, both the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission went into to closed sessions “to be briefed by legal counsel related to a zoning overlay district”  — we now know what that was about.

The Free Enterprise Forum has learned that eight of Albemarle County twenty-one Entrance Corridors fail to meet the state requirements for such designation.  Some of these have been in violation since inception in 1990.  This revelation, made by staff, calls into question the legality and enforceability of any ARB conditions placed on properties along the eight illegal entrance corridors.

First a little background:

On October 3, 1990 Albemarle County held a public hearing on the proposed Entrance Corridor Guidelines [and the Architectural Review Board].  In that hearing, Mr. Andrew Dracopoli raised concerns about the proposed ordinance:

“is concerned that the ordinance has “sprouted wings”.  It seems like almost every road in the County has become a part of this ordinance whereas when it originally came up, it had only five or six roads.  He would like to see it scaled back to just major roads.”

Today, almost 28 years later, Mr. Dracopoli is proven correct.

According to county staff, during a routine preapplication meeting, a question came up regarding the posted speed limit on the entrance corridor.  Staff researched the issue and determined both the speed limit and that the roadway was not an “arterial street”.

Virginia Code §15.2-2306 enables localities to establish entrance corridor districts encompassing parcels contiguous to arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and to designated historic landmarks, structures, or districts within the county

This revelation, led staff to research each of the current twenty-one entrance corridor designated roadways and found eight did not meet the state “arterial” requirement.

To their credit, staff has prepared a resolution of intent the Board of Supervisors will consider in their February 7th meeting.  The purpose of this resolution is to revise the Entrance Corridor Ordinance removing those roadways that do not qualify as arterials.  The following roadways will no longer be under ARB jurisdiction (nor ever should have been)

Non-Arterial Corridors: Avon St Ext (Rt.742), Barracks Rd (Rt.654), Irish Rd (Rt. 6), Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Rt.53)

Corridors with mixed classifications:5th St and Old Lynchburg Rd (RT. 631), Louisa Rd (Rt.22), Richmond Rd (Rt.250), Stoney Point Rd (Rt. 20)

The Free Enterprise Forum has written extensively about overreach at the ARB – including our 27 page report:  Eye of the Beholder – Albemarle County’s Architectural Review Board’s Mission Creep. While we understand the goals and objectives of the ARB and the Entrance Corridors, we believe Albemarle has, since 1990, vastly exceeded the intentions of the enabling legislation.

Today we see many positive signs as Albemarle staff is looking to do the right thing by repealing the illegal designations.  Perhaps now, as a community, we can look to limiting ARB purview to the five or six roads Mr. Dracopoli mentioned in his 1990 testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credit: vancouver.mediacoop.ca

 

Advertisements

Groundhog Day in Fluvanna?

By Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors’ budget calendar begins in earnest when the calendar flips to February. The county administrator will present a budget proposal that will kick off the vast majority of discussion the supervisors will have regarding the fiscal year 2019 budget.

groundhog day gobblers knobPredictions of actions by this, or any, governmental body can be as reliable as Punxsutawney Phil, but there are times that early session decisions truly foreshadow future votes.

The last few years the board has been able to hold the Real Estate tax rate steady. This year the supervisors had a budget work session in December to help steer staff as Steve Nichols, the county administrator, prepares his budget proposal.

Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) and Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District), the two left leaning supervisors, told Nichols they were ok with a slight raise in the tax rate if necessary. Booker even saying a $0.92 per $100 assessed real property rate was ok. Currently the rate is $0.907.

Patricia Eager (Palmyra District) and Don Weaver (Cunningham District), the two right leaning supervisors, advocated for low as possible. Eager even suggesting a decrease in tax rate.

A decrease in the real property rate will be difficult because the county will begin paying for the Zions Crossroad water project and trying to decrease business related taxes to help jump start development in the ZXR area.

The past four years, Mike Sheridan (Columbia District) has been the one to bridge the gap between the two sides. Last year during a work session Sheridan even suggested the $0.907 tax rate where the supervisors ended up.

In an interesting sign during the 2018 organizational meeting, when nominations for chairman started, Booker quickly nominated Sheridan with a second from O’Brien. Booker has advocated multiple times for a roving chairship after she lost the gavel two years ago.

Sheridan, abstaining from the vote, was unanimously elected chairman. Then Eager quickly nominated Booker for vice chair with Weaver seconding. She was elected unanimously, Booker abstaining from the vote.

Such unanimity could be a sign of further cooperation or it could be a sign of lines being drawn with a budget season just ahead.

Nichols will present his budget on February 7 at 7 p.m.

——————————————————

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS®and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Onwardstate.com

 

Greene Supervisors Decline US 29 Residential Rezone

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Significant public policy issues including affordable housing, economic development and commercial capacity were all part of Tuesday night’s Greene County Board of Supervisors’ rezoning public hearing. A standing room only crowd as well as several media outlets were on hand to hear an unsuccessful rezoning request and, then if rezoing were approved, a request for a Special Use Permit.

Back in December the Greene County Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Morris opposed) to recommend approval of the Mark-Dana Corporation request to rezone of a tract of 8 acres in Ruckersville from B-2, Business to R-2 , Residential.  The current owners of the property are John and Wanda Melone of the Melone Family Trust who plan on selling the property to the Mark-Dana Corporation to be developed.

Greene County Planner Stephanie Golon presented the rezoning application identifying the property as just south of the Blue Ridge Café and the Ruckersville Antiques Gallery on Route 29 South. The 8 acres requesting to be rezoned sits to the west of 7 acres (farther away from Route 29), both parcels owned by the Melone Family Trust.

Golon mentioned that the parcel is located at the south end of the area identified as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The feedback from the departments in Greene County did not have any concerns other than the school system – Schools Superintendent Andrea Whitmarsh responded that the Ruckersville Elementary School was at capacity already and the addition of 105 apartments would add to the overcrowding.

clip_image002

Andrea Whitmarsh

Projected residential growth of the county is expected and is part of the schools justification for expanding the school system. However, the development could generate up to $1.2 million in tap fees to access the public water system.

clip_image004

David Koogler

Next David Koogler, chairman of the Mark-Dana Corporation,  gave the Supervisors some background of his company. His mother, father and Sister – Dana – operate the company that was started in the 1980’s when President Reagan signed low income housing into law. They have done similar projects in Virginia and Texas and they live in Grottoes, VA.

Jack Melone, one of the owners of the property, then addressed the Board. He explained that the parcel was originally zoned Agricultural, the front part then was rezoned to B-2 and later the county changed all of the zoning to B-2.  Melone stated that this rezone to B-2 has brought about a significant tax increase for him and his family.

The hearing then was open to the public with 12 people commenting and all but two asked that the Supervisors decline the rezoning with the major reason being that it would be take away from business property along Route 29. However, Simon Fiscus Director of Skyline CAP spoke in favor of the project as a way to provide more low income housing for the county.

Several of those opposed to the project agreed that low income housing in Greene County is needed, but not in this location – a prime business location. Others opposed the rezone since the county has already signed up for large expenditures for a water supply and school expansion. The consensus was that adding more people would aggravate both of these issues.

The other issue made by Bill Gentry a realtor with Jefferson Land & Realty in Madison in favor of the rezone was that commercial development looks at rooftops to determine if there is enough demand to support their business. He cited the Lamb property that has set vacant for decades and other parcels that have similar situations. The rezone and the proposed development would help attract more development.

clip_image006

Bill Gentry

The meeting then shifted to a discussion amongst the Board members. Supervisor Bill Martin asked Golon if the access to the parcel being considered would be through the frontage rather than by some connector in the rear. Golon indicated it is planned to access through the front of the property. Martin further stated that he supports affordable housing and Greene County needs it. However, this property is better suited as B-2, Business.

Supervisor Dale Herring agreed that the property should stay B-2 and that in the long run – 20 to 30 years – the property will better serve the county as currently zoned. Greene needs affordable house, but somewhere else.

Supervisor David Cox brought up another issue that he is not in favor of split zoning and that this would go against developing a business district. The Supervisors unanimously agreed to not approve the zoning request.

At this point Chairperson Michelle Flynn asked Koogler if he wanted to pursue the Special Use Permit.  Koogler said no but he asked to address the Board. He stated that this is the third parcel he has brought before the Supervisors in Greene and all have been disapproved. He stated that his company’s projects do attract businesses. His final request was – would the county please point him to a parcel that would meet the approval of the Supervisors so that his company can bring affordable housing to Greene County

clip_image007

Alan Yost

Hopefully Greene County can have Economic Development Director Alan Yost and the EDA help identify a viable parcel for this development. As for the specific parcel of Melone, he has previously stated that the tax burden of the property is not sustainable for him. While the county may want commercial development on the parcel – Melone he has tried for years to develop it with business developers, unsuccessfully – he may have to find another way to dispose of the property.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Cville PC Paradox — Build Less & Increase Affordability

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Charlottesville Planning Commission seems to believe it is above the immutable economic law of supply and demand as they draft a Comprehensive Plan revision calling for affordable housing while reducing the ‘by right’ building height (and capacity) across nine of the City’s thirteen zoning districts.

If this draft moves forward, it fundamentally shifts the planning paradigm and will likely cause significant harm not only affordable housing but also the overall economic vitality of the City.

Please let me explain.

A 2016 Comprehensive Housing Analysis study conducted for the City by Robert Charles Lesser & Company (RCLCo) found:

The Charlottesville region should not be a supply-constrained market.  However, two key factors are creating supply challenges within the City limits and in the close-in areas of Albemarle County and will continue to drive up home prices and rents:

  1.  Limited land available for new development within the City and close-in areas, driven both by the City’s small land area and built-out character and Albemarle County’s restrictive growth areas.

  2. A large affluent population that desires city living and can afford to pay higher prices for housing compared to the market today, which will continue to drive up land prices, home values and sales prices.

These two market impacts clearly are pressures on either side of the supply/demand curve.  Finance guru Al Erbam defines supply and demand succinctly:

The law of supply states that the quantity of a good supplied (i.e., the amount owners or producers offer for sale) rises as the market price rises, and falls as the price falls. Conversely, the law of demand says that the quantity of a good demanded falls as the price rises, and vice versa.

Given this reality, if the City wants to address affordable housing it would seem like it would be advocating for an increased supply of housing product in their Comprehensive Plan Update.

Per state code, all Virginia localities must review their mandated comprehensive plans every five years.  The goal of this review is to encourage localities to think beyond the near term and create a twenty year community vision. This document generally includes chapters regarding land use, economic development, population projections, affordable housing and environmental issues. While these chapters often have competing priorities, the goal is to provide the locality a guide for future development.

The 2018 Comprehensive Plan, as drafted, significantly reduces the residential carrying capacity of Charlottesville thus increasing price pressures on both existing and new residential and commercial units.

The Charlottesville Area Development Roundtable (CADRe) recently sent a letter to City Council and the Planning Commission outlining their concerns with the proposed nearly citywide downzoning.

The Planning Commission has not publicly stated the specific goals and planning principles informing their proposed changes in the City’s land use and zoning.  Their work thus far … appears to show a determination to “downzone” our downtown and virtually all of our urban mixed-use corridor areas.  Reducing building height and hence buildable area, would create impediments to addressing the City’s housing and workplace shortages, including the affordable housing shortage.

The CADRe letter included a most helpful chart graphically depicting the reduction in by right and “bonus” height compared to the current zoning regulations.

cville downzoning height chart

One portion of the Comprehensive Plan that we have not yet seen is the capacity analysis for future growth.  It will be interesting to see how this version’s capacity analysis (with these reduced heights) compares with the 2013 Comp Plan which stated:

Adding the by-right calculations together, staff finds that the City’s current zoning could accommodate approximately 10,000 additional residential units, or roughly 25,000 additional residents.

All of this ties into the 2013 Comprehensive Plan goal that stated in goal 5.5

Revise the Future Land Use Map so that it represents the desired vision for the City’s future,  Pay special attention to increasing the supply of affordable housing, increasing employment opportunities for all citizens, and encourage the development of mixed income neighborhoods throughout the City. Emphasis added – nw

The City Planning Commission can’t completely ignore the law of supply and demand.  Given the proposed downzoning, the commission must be transparent that its objective of restricting heights will reduce the city’s residential AND commercial carrying capacity. The economic impact of these proposals must be quantified to understand their import.  We believe these changes will harm the economic vitality of the region and significantly reduce housing affordability across all zoning districts.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes reducing existing regulatory barriers and, at a minimum, maintaining the existing allowable heights is the best path forward to improve housing affordability across all price points.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credit: 425business.com

Authentic Charlottesville Optimism?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Yesterday (1/18) afternoon I (and 3 others) spent four hours watching Charlottesville City Council work through issues related to public engagement [the meeting continued into today].  Expertly facilitated by Allison Linney of Allison Partners, the afternoon discussion was authentic, reflective, emotional, and remarkably raw.  In the end, this government skeptic saw rays of optimism from this contentious conversation.

Please let me explain.

Anytime there is a change in any board or commission, there is a shift in the organizational dynamic.  In the case of Charlottesville City Council, they not only changed two councilors, they also changed the group’s leadership electing the two new members to be Mayor and Vice Mayor (mainly defined as meeting roles).

The five member Council met along with City Senior Staff Leadership at historic Morven Farm in Albemarle County.  Beyond the opportunity to restructure the timing and location of meetings, the topic of “Public Engagement” dominated the afternoon.

Councilor Mike Signer was brutally honest in his assessment of how he (and the previous Council) attempted to enforce the February 2016 Council Meeting Procedures.  He outlined the rationale that generated the rules in the first place and indicated he found enforcing the rules to be difficult.

council2018-2

Heather Hill

Councilor Wes Bellamy spoke passionately about Council wanting to have people come to the meetings and then when they do come and they don’t speak a  certain way or act a certain way we don’t like it.  He indicated that in the coming year they will be dealing with difficult issues.  He said there are racial undertones in the ‘civility’ campaign and the proponents are really looking to squelch voices that make people uncomfortable.  He also indicated that when you tell folks how to act you come off as being better than them.

Equally passionate was Vice Mayor Heather Hill who wanted to discuss the toxic environment that has been created at Council meetings that is resulting in people not willing to attend the meetings.  In addition, she mentioned a desire for councilors to come to each others defense when they are being verbally attacked.

Bellamy suggested that the public reactions to council are an expression of years of citizen frustration with the City and that the City needs to change.

Councilor Kathy Galvin took exception to the idea that a raucous City meeting was a good thing.  She was forcefully adamant in  her opinion that all people should have the opportunity to speak and be heard and if the audience is booing when a speaker (whether it is a councilor or a member of the public) it is a violation of the First Amendment.

council2018-5

Nikuyah Walker

Newly elected Mayor Nikuyah Walker framed the discussions differently.  She indicated the issue was ‘Public Engagement’ and asked poignantly which is more important public or our engagement.  She wanted the focus to be more on what the public wants to say and less on how council responds.

Reading back over my meeting notes it is hard to say why the conversation left me optimistic.  I anticipate my optimism is rooted in the fact that it is very clear this very different City Council is going to do things differently.  I believe the raw, authentic dialog that I witnessed between Councilors is far better than ignoring deep interpersonal issues and philosophical differences.  In the end, I think the meeting changes discussed likely will increase public interaction. The fact that they are committed to revisiting this decision in sixty to ninety days is equally refreshing.

Yes, this is a different Council with different meeting rules.  It is way too early to say if the proposed changes will make for better meetings; but this cynical observer sees value in Council’s diverse philosophical positions, their passion, and their willingness to challenge established norms.

Only time will tell if this optimism is well founded.  Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credits: City of Charlottesville

Greene PC Recommends Rezoning To Fix Split Zoning

By Brent Wilson, Field Officer

A “Split Zone” sounds like a complex defensive pass coverage for one of the upcoming NFL playoff games but in zoning parlance split zoning is when a single parcel has two different zoning designations.

Thomas Morris owns such a parcel that is currently split 5.14 acres R-1, residential, 3.47 acres A-1 Agricultural.  Morris came to the January 17, 2018 meeting of the Greene County  Planning Commission requesting all of his parcel be rezoned to A-1, agriculture.  This change would allow subdivision of the parcel and permit mobile homes.

The parcel requesting the rezone is in the western end of Greene County on Snow Hill Road off of Bacon Hollow Road (Tax Map 46-(A)-43B). The reason for the request is to be able to rent two additional mobile homes in addition to the current two units onto the 8 acre parcel.  Mobile homes are not a permitted dwelling unit in the current R-1 zoning.   Although, Morris plans on only adding one additional mobile home at this point he wants to have the ability to rent two.

clip_image002

Stephanie Golon

Planner Stephanie Golon presented the request to the Planning Commission explaining that the rezone will allow Morris to place one mobile per two acres and that the A-1 zoning in this location is in synch with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner John McCloskey commented that the property was originally zoned R-1 many years ago but there has been no development and therefore rezoning to A-1 doesn’t reduce the density of the parcel.

Chairman Jay Willer commented that the zoning can be changed in the future if needed. At that point the motion to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors was passed 4-0, since Commissioner William Sounder was absent from the meeting. The January meeting was also Commissioner Ron Willams first Planning Commission meeting.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Who Answers Greene County 911?

By. Brent Wilson Field Officer

Greene County’s first 2018 Board of Supervisors “organizational” meeting included mundane, but important items such as a review of the calendar, committee assignments, review of bylaws etc. — until the Matters from the Public agenda item cam up.

Two speakers addressed the Supervisors about the reassignment of the E911 system from the Sheriff’s Office to County control. The first person to speak was Greene County Sheriff Steve Smith who provided his version of events that occurred in December to take the operation of the E911 system away from his department.

clip_image002[4]

Sheriff Steve Smith

Smith said that on the afternoon of Tuesday, December 19th – right before the Christmas holiday – he received an email from Greene County Administrator John Barkley stating that the E911 department was being reassigned and responsibility taken away from the Sheriff’s Office and transferred to the Emergency Service Department headed by Melissa McDaniel.  Smith reported this was done with no advance notice to the Sheriff’s office.

This action prompted an agreement be signed on Wednesday, December 20th be given to allow dispatchers (who no longer report to the Sheriff) to work in the Sheriff’s office. After this approval was attained, Smith contacted Barkley to ask who had approved this change and he was told that the Board of Supervisors initiated the change. Smith then contacted a supervisor and was told that this was initiated by Barkley. Up until this time Smith said he had been told by the Board of Supervisors that the E911 function wouldn’t be separated from the Sheriff’s duties.

Smith concluded by requesting E911 responsibility be returned to the Sheriff’s control.

The second speaker from the public, Bob Young, also addressed the E911 function. His concern was related to the change is assignment being done in closed session of the Board. He indicated that he felt that the public deserves to know why the change was made and asked that each supervisor indicate their comments and decision in public session.

As a practice, the Greene County Board of Supervisors only receives matters from the public at each meeting and does not make any comment related to those comments at the same meeting.

In a related item later in the meeting under “Information issues”, the Supervisors heard from County Attorney Ray Clarke who reviewed the scope of what can and cannot be discussed in executive session.

For now, the Supervisors have shifted the responsibility from the Sheriff to the Emergency Services department for handling E911 calls and determining what department should respond to the call – Sheriff, fire, or rescue.

Most citizens of Greene County want to be safe, have a responsive fire department and a rescue squad that gets them to the hospital in an emergency and that the E911 system is run efficiently and at a reasonable cost. And they probably don’t care who supervises that process, just make it happen.

The current Emergency Operations Plan posted on the county website on page 169 lists first the Director of Emergency Services. http://www.greenecountyva.gov/forms/documents/emergency-services/1205-public-copy-county-of-greene-eop-all-hazards-2/file

This is just the latest of conflicts between the elected Sheriff and the elected Board of Supervisors; some ending up in court. Much like the School Board, the Sheriff’s office is designed to operate outside of the Board of Supervisors.  The relationship, and the relationship with all constitutional officers, is one that needs to be managed well by all involved.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Parking Is Driving Charlottesville’s Future

By. Neil Williamson, President

See the source image

Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center

Prediction: In 2056, Charlottesville’s Market Street Garage and City Hall Complex will be razed to make way for a new Hotel and Conference Center.

There are two distinctly different paths to this prediction, economic dislocation/collapse [think Detroit 2013] or a capstone of a visionary community investment program – interestingly, parking will be a leading indicator on the City’s direction.

Please let me explain.

The City’s recent decision to abandon their parking meter “pilot program” makes good sense in the short term but the long term issues surrounding parking are significantly larger than a few on street meters.  Currently, the existing garages are effectively full, with greater than 350 potential parkers on waiting lists for the opportunity to buy a monthly parking pass.

Commercial development activity continues in downtown with four prominent parking demanding projects currently in the pipeline. Conservative estimates place the new parking deficit [parking demand less parking provided] created by these developments to be 844 spaces [(386) Charlottesville Technology Center, (213) West 2nd Street, (160) Dewberry Hotel, (85) Vault Virginia].

If there is a future parking deficit exceeding 800 spaces based on projected demand, what would be the cost of building a parking deck to meet that need? It is widely accepted that structured parking costs roughly $25,000 a space to build (absent land costs). Thus, just the construction cost for an 850-space garage would be $21.25 million (absent land costs).

Last week, I had an over simplistic epiphany regarding the future of transportation. With the advent of self-driving cars (which will be a reality sooner than we realize), “park and ride” parking lots will be replaced by more efficient and less land demanding “ride and park” lots surrounding more walkable business and commercial districts. The car will drop you at your destinatSee the source imageion and drive to a nearby, but not too close, parking area.

This no longer science fiction and will completely rework the highest and best use of the land within the business district and increase the value of parcels currently too distant to serve as parking alternatives.

The average life of a parking deck is 50 years; with this pending innovation of self driving cars, the need for close in parking is reduced so how should Charlottesville deal with the next 33 years of market parking demand exceeding supply. The easy answer is build more parking but make the building flexible for reuse.

Progressive parking experts are now contemplating designing parking buildings with the clear vision of conversion to mixed use buildings later in their useful lifetime. By designing parking decks with higher ceilings, roughed in plumbing mains and central elevators (rather than on the corners). The infrastructure investment is higher than building a standard deck but it serves as insurance that the investment is not lost as demand shifts from parking storage to office/residential space.

If we accept that there is a parking deficit (for the next 30 years), what should be the role of the City in remedying this situation?

Option 1 – Charlottesville City Council could choose to do nothing.  Parking availability could go from bad to worse as downtown employees and customers are forced into mass transit (if available) or parking further from employment centers.

Option 2 – The City could build a lot on the recently acquired Guadalajara/Lucky 7 lot.  Based on the current political reality, I fail to see Charlottesville City Council showing the leadership vision necessary to spend $21+ million to address this clear and present danger to downtown economic vitality.

Option 3 – Charlottesville could enter into a Public Private Partnership (3P or PPP) on the Guadalajara/Lucky 7 lot.  The PPP Knowledge Lab defines Public Private Partnerships as:

a long-term contract between a private party and a government entity, for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility, and remuneration is linked to performance. PPPs typically do not include service contracts or turnkey construction contracts, which are categorized as public procurement projects, or the privatization of utilities where there is a limited ongoing role for the public sector.

The PPP option would require a challenging, lengthy process (likely 3+ years) to seek and identify appropriate partners, develop mutually beneficial agreements including financing options all prior to construction.

Back to our prediction:

If the Charlottesville selects the ostrich method of Option 1, the downward economic spiral that was exacerbated by the events of August 12th will continue.  Enterprises see the City failing to address the paring infrastructure issue and flee the City to locations in Albemarle County (Shops at Stonefield, Fifth Street Station, Reimagined Albemarle Square, Peter Jefferson Place, etc.) or elsewhere with ample free parking. This exodus would significantly reduce Charlottesville’s vitality, as well as its real estate and sales tax revenue.

The loss of revenue creates a reduction in City provided services; resulting in a citizen revolt and resignation of City staff and City Council.  After a special election, a new City Manager is hired and recommends (and council agrees) to sell off the City’s real estate assets (City Hall and Market Street Parking Garage) to raise much needed revenue.  The buyer gets the property for a song, demolishes the existing structures and builds a 15 story hotel and conference center (with parking deck).

or, in an alternative reality

https://i0.wp.com/www.savannah.com/wp-content/uploads/Aloft-Savannah-Hotel-Rendering.jpg

Savannah Aloft Hotel

Charlottesville chooses either Option 2 or Option 3, as well as other investments in the community. Enterprises and neighborhoods thrive, tax revenue continues to climb as the City’s business and residential density increases; autonomous cars and an enhanced transit service reduce the need for structured parking downtown.  As an economic development catalyst, Charlottesville chooses to move City Hall to the Strategic Investment Area (SIA).

The City enters into a Public Private Partnership with a developer to raze the Market Street Garage and City Hall and construct a seven story conference center hotel.  The four star hotel fronts on the Downtown Mall and the newly branded “Uber” Pavilion.

Both paths of these paths seem to end in the same place but the courage of City Council making long term infrastructure decisions drives the successful community while a lack of such vision creates economic uncertainty and possible municipal failure.

Charlottesville future will be decided by those in power at present.  Parking, and other municipal decisions, will determine which path the city travels.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credits: Savannah.com, Tripadvisor.com