A New Charlottesville Parking Chapter?
By. Neil Williamson, President
Back in January, we spoke out regarding the long term parking problem the City of Charlottesville is choosing to ignore.
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].
Then this past week, Charlottesville cut a settlement with Charlottesville Parking Center owner Mark Brown to operate both downtown garages for 16 years. The Daily Progress Editorial this morning (7/31) suggests “Parking Deal Buys Relief at Least for Now”
As a matter of public policy — that is, providing parking for those who visit or work in Charlottesville and ending the uncertainty over whether parking would be reasonably available — the settlement has merit.
So the question is parking “a matter of public policy” and does the City have a responsibility to provide parking for those who work or live downtown?
Charlottesville enacted a parking action plan (January 2017-January 2020) that may remain as current policy but has been largely ignored by City Council.
Currently, the Charlottesville Planning Commission is considering their long term (20 year) comprehensive plan for the development of the City. Other than the inclusion of the Parking Action Plan internal to the 2016 Economic Development report, the draft comprehensive plan is silent about parking.
A portion of the Bonus Height/Affordable Housing Financial Analysis prepared by the Form Based Codes Institute and Partners for Economic Solutions was presented to City Council earlier this summer and included specific parking construction costs.
Parking is a major cost factor, averaging $5,000 per surface space, $20,000 per space in an above-ground parking structure and $32,000 per space in a below-ground structure. Surface parking is the least expensive option, by far, but it consumes a great deal of land
If we accept that there is not land space available for an 844 space surface parking lot in Charlottesville, the we can project the cost for “solving” the projected parking shortfall will be between $16.8 million and $27 million dollars.
The long term parking shortfall, and Charlottesville’s ostrich like response to it, creates at least two likely outcomes:
1. The City does nothing and the parking shortfall results in development projects (or existing businesses) failing due to lack of parking for employees or customers.
2. The City recognizes the need for significant parking investment and dedicates significant resources to it. How they might pay for such an expenditure is unclear.
One thing is clear, ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
An idea that has been discussed is to require by code that any business with more than 25 employees has to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan annually. This is a written plan on how the business would mitigate their effect on parking and traffic congestion. It might include employee incentives to use transit, carpool or bike to work.
Planning for the future parking needs, the Planning Commission is uniquely positioned to aid in this endeavor as it seeks to revise the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Free Enterprise Forum calls on the Planning Commission to draft a new chapter on Parking ad clearly state if the city is accepting the responsibility for providing parking or not. This document is the clearest place to state this critical public policy.
Or they can choose to remain silent on the issue – either way it is a choice.
Stay tuned.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: City of Charlottesville, Community. curiosity.com
Charlottesville Needs Strong Voters
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
The current question floating around Charlottesville City Hall centers around the concept of a strong mayor or a weak mayor form of governance. While a majority of Council is seemingly disposed NOT to deal with this question now, the discussion is continuing. In 2010, The Free Enterprise Forum advocated for such a discussion [Does Charlottesville Want To Elect A Strong Mayor?]. Today, we continue to believe the mayor discussion is healthy and useful, but it must also include the idea of a strong voter.
Please let me explain.
Today, each Charlottesville City Councilor is elected At-Large and then the Council votes amongst itself who will serve as the Weak Mayor. Rather than focusing the question of mayoral power, what if we instead focused on increasing the power of the individual voter. The time has come for ward representation on City Council.
Changing from an at-large to a ward system is not a new idea. In the late 1970’s there was an unsuccessful effort led by the NAACP. Republican City Councilor (now radio host) Rob Schilling pursued such a change in the mid 2000s. In 2006, several different maps of potential wards concepts were created by the City.
Local blogger Blair Hawkins who has tracked this issue for many years links at-large elections to dilution of minority representation on council:
By itself At-Large is not enough to oppress blacks if blacks are 52% of the population. You need Annexation of white suburbs to dilute black power. Since the late 1800s black population has been fairly steady in the old town, called the inner city today. Under the Ward system, annexations would not matter much because the inner city would still have a representative on Council. Under At-Large the 80% whites determine all decisions and all discussion.
In February, Charlottesville Tomorrow hosted a panel discussion regarding the future of Charlottesville governance. Joan MacCallum, the first woman elected to the Lynchburg City Council in 1978, spoke about their shift to the ward system:
“Until 1976, all seven members were elected at-large,” said MacCallum, “In that year, Lynchburg doubled its area by adding portions of Campbell and Bedford Counties. Both of these areas were overwhelmingly white, and it was recognized that this action diluted the black vote in Lynchburg.”
Lynchburg switched to a ward system to ensure there would be at least one African-American on Council.
MacCallum said the combined system has served Lynchburg well.
“We recognize that we do have a large black population, and it was necessary for them to be recognized,” MacCallum said.
To be clear, we do not believe the ward system is a panacea to all that currently ails Charlottesville. We understand that many localities that have ward systems often complain about the number (and expertise) of candidates. We are well aware of the turf battles that such representation can create. In addition, we recognize the significant legal obstacles that exist to making this change.
The Free Enterprise Forum still believes you can have an elected Mayor AND Strong Voters (ward system).
We suggest an even number of ward elected councilors (4,6,8) and an at large elected mayor, who is also a member of Council. We tend to believe neither extreme (Strong or Weak) is the exact fit for Charlottesville and a hybrid will likely develop. Over the next few months, we hope the discussion will focus on how to get all of the citizens reconnected with Charlottesville and reengaged in the political process.
A good first step would be putting the elections more directly back into the hands of the governed.
Strong voters make strong cities.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: City of Charlottesville, Blair Hawkins, Politicalpolicy.net
Does ‘Social Justice’ Fit in Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan?
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
Last Tuesday (6/26), the Charlottesville Planning Commission heard from a large number of citizens calling for their Comprehensive Plan process to have more public engagement, to be informed by the recently released housing needs assessment, to directly address racial inequity and to include ‘Social Justice’ throughout the document.
From my Twitter (https://twitter.com/NeilSWilliamson ) notes:
Andrea Massie tells
#Charlottesville Planning Commission she supports additional community engagement asks for the comprehensive plan to focus on race. “The planning maps were drawn in the 1950s to segregate our community. There must be an intentional effort to undo this”Annie Stump tells
#Charlottesville Planning Commission of her support for additional Comprehensive Plan Community Engagement. Housing Needs Assessment is a great first step. Calls out racial inequity in housing. We should be judged by how we serve our most marginalized.Brendon Hassler
#Albemarle resident tells#Charlottesville Planning Commission of marginalized, historically oppressed communities that have a severe lack of trust with the government regarding Comprehensive plan outreachLena Seville asks for housing policy to address a long history of discrimination in the
#Charlottesville Comprehensive PlanAnna from
#Albemarle bemoans the lack of organization. Suggests that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to be difficult for normal folks to read so developers can push mixed use instead of#AffordableHousing
Virginia code § 15.2-2223 clearly delineates that each locality’s Planning Commission shall draft a comprehensive plan:
making a comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.
The code provides a non exclusive list of plan elements including:
D. The comprehensive plan shall include the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.
‘Social Justice” is not a required element, but does it belong in the plan?
Perhaps it depends on your definition of Social Justice.
- The equitable distribution of advantages and disadvantages in society?
- The proportional distribution of advantages and disadvantages as it relates to effort?
- The redistribution of resources from those who “unjustly” gained them?
- The equal distribution of opportunity?
- A virtue?
The Pachamama Alliance provides a concise background on Social Justice:
Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor. Because of the stark stratifications between wealthy and the poor during this time, early social justice advocates focused primarily on capital, property, and the distribution of wealth.
By the mid-20th century, social justice had expanded from being primarily concerned with economics to include other spheres of social life to include the environment, race, gender, and other causes and manifestations of inequality. Concurrently, the measure of social justice expanded from being measured and enacted only by the nation-state (or government) to include a universal human dimension. For example, governments (still today) measure income inequality among people who share citizenship in common.
In 2015, Ashland Virginia’s Senior Planner Garet Prior penned a thoughtful post “Planning’s Role in Social Justice” calling for the industry reconsider their role and recognize their ethical responsibility to advocate for social justice.
Prior highlighted how activist planning philosophy impacted 1970s planning:
History teaches us the necessity of taking intentional steps to define our role in public service, or else we allow the entrenched powers to direct our purpose, thus making us a tool in continuing the status quo.
During the feverous pitch of the last Civil Rights Movement, in 1965, planning professor Paul Davidoff — who coined the term “advocacy planning” — instructed that “Planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value neutrality.” Norman Krumholtz illustrated this concept as planning director for Cleveland in 1975 when he set the department’s overriding goal as “providing a wide range of choices for those Cleveland residents who have few, if any, choices.”
The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the concept of developing a wide range of choices as long as those choices continue to respect property owner rights. Prior’s argument goes further to suggest planning departments should be philosophically charged with advocating for specific outcomes rather than “opportunities”.
In his argument, Prior used the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) code of ethics for direction:
“We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs” (emphasis added).
If we are in a true pursuit of equitable outcomes for racially and economically disadvantaged groups, then history informs us that advocacy — more than an urge — will be required.
To fulfill this ethical call to advocacy, we need to better understand how change occurs. We should begin with a process of self-identification to be aware of our values, beliefs, and biases. In working with others, we need to understand that trust is necessary and will only be acquired through time. We need to get out of the office and form intentional relationships with underserved populations. . .
. . .As tensions around social inequities mount, now more than ever planners need to fulfill our ethical values by taking intentional action to advocate for equitable justice solutions. Inaction will only aid in continuing these broken systems because, as Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”
This is a significantly higher level of advocacy than we see as appropriate from staff – the Free Enterprise Forum believes that the elected and appointed positions should be moving their planning philosophy forward and the professional staff should be following their lead.
We completely agree there is a responsibility on the part of planning commissioners and elected officials to actively seek out the opinions of those who are often under represented/underheard in our community. This information, combined with all the other data that has been collected, should be considered.
Considering all of the above and the state mandated goals of the Comprehensive Plan document, The Free Enterprise Forum believes that while ‘Social Justice’ is an important element to our community conversation but should not be a separate chapter in Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Icarus, Municipal Hubris, and Tourism
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
By. Neil Williamson, President
When you are traveling outside of Central Virginia, where do you tell people you are from?
Do you say “Free Union”, “Albemarle County” or do you say, “Charlottesville”?
Seemingly an academic question but it is one that is at the heart of the current governmental coup of the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB).
According to an April 25th Daily Progress article by Chris Suarez:
In December, former Albemarle Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Diantha McKeel sent a formal notice to [Then CACVB Executive Director Kurt] Burkhart that said the county intends to terminate an existing organizational agreement on June 30.
The letter says the city and county’s elected officials had been discussing the CACVB’s “limited focus and reluctance” to promote locally owned wineries, breweries and distilleries, history and heritage tourism and ecotourism, as well as specific activities such as bicycling, hiking, canoeing and kayaking.
“We feel destination development is currently lacking,” the letter says. “Although the targets for hotel vacancy rates are important and currently successful, their vacancy rates and other directly related indicators should no longer be the primary driving metrics.”[Emphasis Added-NW]
The friction between CACVB Executive Director Burkhart and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors had been simmering for several years. [Burkhart retired earlier this year]. While Burkhart touted hotel occupancy rate data; focusing on proving the return on investments in tourism using economic models showing $6 or $7 benefit for every dollar invested, supervisors questioned the methodology of these models and noted the large number of hotels in the City.
In addition to Burkhart not filling funded positions quickly and maintaining a large fund balance, the root of much of the concern was focused on the belief that Albemarle was not being promoted enough in the marketing of the region.
This “Municipal Hubris” has been gong on for over a decade. I recall when the latest logo redesign [left] was competed several years ago, it was a requirement that Albemarle be in the logo and then there was a concern regarding the different size font. Then there was a discussion, I am not making this up, that it was not alphabetical.
According to www.Merriam-Webster.com
To the [Ancient] Greeks, hubris referred to extreme pride, especially pride and ambition so great that they offend the gods and lead to one’s downfall. Hubris was a character flaw often seen in the heroes of classical Greek tragedy, including Oedipus and Achilles. The familiar old saying “Pride goeth before a fall” is basically talking about hubris.
So what does Charlottesville City Council think about this internal branding conflict. We believe the answer can be found between the lines of Councilor Kathy Galvin’s polite answer quoted in the Suarez article:
“What happens next (including whether or not a city/county CACVB committee persists and I remain the city’s liaison with the county) is a matter, in my view, to be decided by the City Council,” Galvin wrote. “I will be raising that question at a City Council meeting in May.”
At the end of the May 21st City Council meeting, they selected Councilors Galvin and Signer to represent Council in the CACVB reorganization work; but there was no further discussion beyond the appointment.
To review, the proposed CACVB Executive Committee would control all aspects of the organization and would consist of one member from the City Council and the Board of Supervisors; the city manager (or a designee); the county executive (or a designee); a tourism or economic development official from the city and county; a University of Virginia representative; two industry representatives, one each appointed by the city and county. All but three of these members sit on or answer to either the City Council or the Board of Supervisors.
Considering the many conflicts and concerns between the City and the County right now, I anticipate the jointly funded marketing of regional tourism objectives to be an area where the city (and county) end up walking away from the “new deal”.
The result will be duplicative efforts (though they will claim collaboration), inefficiency and a lack of accountability. Tourism will become a division of each locality’s Economic Development departments and lack the import and independence it enjoys today. In addition, we see further weakening of the required nexus between tourism and line item expenditures. Transparency is lost.
Perhaps a brief review of Greek mythology [Daedalus and Icarus] could prove helpful prior to moving forward with the dissolution or dismemberment of the CACVB.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credit www.frederickmordi.wordpress.com
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Free Enterprise Forum 2017 Top 10
By. Neil Williamson
Well, 2017 is the year many in Central Virginia would like to forget. Beyond the far reaching ramifications of the year when Charlottesville became a verb on the national stage, The Free Enterprise Forum remained focused on monitoring local government, reducing regulatory burdens, promoting market based solutions, protecting property rights, and encouraging economic vitality.
None of this could be accomplished without the generous support of our donors and our regular readers. Thank you. As we embark on our fifteenth year of operation,we remain vigilant, and “pleasantly” persistent.
Each year, we select the top ten blog posts for our year in review. There were many other blog posts that reached honorable mention status. I would be remiss if I did not thank our Field Officers Brent Wilson (Greene County) and Bryan Rothamel (Fluvanna County) for their significant reportage in 2017.
With apologies to the now retired David Letterman, here are our Top 10 posts for 2017:
#10 Albemarle’s $52 Million Rain Tax Department December 4, 2017
Farmers count on rain to feed their crops; Albemarle County is counting on the Rain Tax (AKA Storm water “fee”) to grow government with a 10 year budget that exceeds $52 million.
#9 Charlottesville’s Paid Parking ‘Canary in the Coal Mine’ ? March 14, 2017
While it is heartening to see Charlottesville position parking meters as a “pilot” and only a part of the parking solutions considered.. . Available parking is the life’s blood of most small businesses.
… The Free Enterprise Forum hopes the City Council will pay attention when the canary stops singing – local businesses (as well as the jobs and taxes they generate) will be at risk.
#8 The Wizard of Oz and the Rio/29 Small Area Plan March 1, 2017
Over the years, some have considered the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Woodsman and the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz to be less than perfect heroes – I beg to differ I find them to be the best kind of heroes – those that must work together to achieve a goal.
Today, (3/1) as the Board of Supervisors considers the innovative Form Based Code land use planning for Rio/29 small area plan I believe this unlikely trio could provide important guidance
#7 Frederick Fleet and Charlottesville’s Form Based Code Charrette Sept. 7, 2017
….Considering the current [Charlottesville] climate, I am reminded of Titanic crewman (and survivor) Frederick Fleet who was on duty when he saw a black mass ahead of the ship. He struck three bells and telephoned the bridge. Though the ship swung out of the way, he watched as an iceberg scraped the starboard side.
The Free Enterprise Forum is ringing the bell.
We fear this ill timed, but worthy, Form Based Charrette exercise will be met with a similar fate.
It is a shame.
#6 Fixing Charlottesville NDS Engine Light February 16, 2017
If you have ever driven with a “Check Engine” light illuminated, you have an idea of where Charlottesville’s Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) Department has been for some time.
Everyone (land owners, neighborhood associations, developers, etc.) agrees that something is seriously wrong but no one knows specifically what it is or, perhaps more importantly, how to fix it – until now.
#5 Albemarle Economic Development X Files March 29, 2017
Albemarle County says that it is in favor of economic development. The former County Executive Tom Foley went so far as to say it is a “new day in Albemarle” regarding being open for business. A couple of supervisors have even gone on the road attempting to drum up public support for economic vitality.
I find myself thinking of the 1990’s science fiction series the X-files where two FBI agents, Fox Mulder the believer and Dana Scully the skeptic, investigate the strange and unexplained, while hidden forces work to impede their efforts.
Just as Fox Mulder in the X-Files, I want to believe Albemarle, but the facts keep getting in the way.
#4 Changing Charlottesville Philosophy to YIMBY July 25, 2017
…This is not a development problem, it is a political problem, and it exists nationwide.
I recently reviewed the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) San Francisco platform and I believe there are many parallels to Charlottesville….
We believe that San Francisco has always been, and should continue to be, an innovative and forward-looking city of immigrants from around the U.S. and the world. San Francisco is not full, and the Bay Area is definitely not full. Ours is an inclusive vision of welcoming all new and potential residents. Anyone who wants to should be able to afford housing in the Bay Area.
#3 Hindsight Report Asks ‘What If?’ August 1, 2017
…The Hindsight Report indicates that over the study period (2001-2016), Albemarle County received, from the study area, over $277 million in local tax revenue compared with the $212.9 million revenue sharing payments made to the City of Charlottesville (+$64.1 million).
….Had Charlottesville been successful in the annexation and the revenue sharing agreement not been in place, the City would have received $304.7 million in tax revenue from the study area during the study period compared with $212.9 million in revenue sharing payments from Albemarle County (-$91.8 million).
#2 A Tradition Like No Other–Albemarle Again Seeks to Ban Golf April 5, 2017 and
Sunny Day? Albemarle Prohibits Greens, Endorses ‘Green’ April 24, 2017
….By our back of the envelope calculations, rural recreation is an economic driver in the community representing nearly 2,000 jobs and an annual payroll of $40 million dollars. In addition, rural recreation is a part of the fabric of Albemarle County. The Free Enterprise Forum asks you to abandon this folly and utilize your limited staff resources to meet real needs of the community.
#1 Sayonara Shucet March 31, 2017
Late yesterday afternoon (3/30), the embattled Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC) named former Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Commissioner Philip Shucet as their new Chief Executive Officer.
In our three years of observation, we have grown to appreciate the charming manner in which Shucet manages (some might say manipulates) meetings and their outcomes…. As a facilitator extraordinaire, he has stayed true to the “Shucet Six” we first identified in 2014…. for now we say Sayonara Shucet, we wish you fair winds and following seas.
————————————————————————————–
But most of all THANK YOU, the readers and supporters of this blog and our work in Central Virginia. Without your generous support, we would not exist, thank you!
BRING ON 2018!
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.
Rudolph the Form Based Code
Testimony to Albemarle County Planning Commission December 18, 2017
Created by Robert Lewis May; Adapted by Neil Williamson, President
Rudolph the Form Based Code
You know Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use,
Urban and Rural and Multi-Family and Historic
But do you recall?
The most hyped up zoning code of all?
Rudolph the Form Based Code
Had a most prescriptive, aesthetic design
And if ANYONE ever fully understood it,
They might even say it shined
All of the other zoning codes
Used to laugh and call him names;
They never let poor Rudolph
Join in any Euclidian Land Use Games
After a long, contentious, municipal meeting,
The tired elected official came to say
Rudolph with your building forms and street standards so tight
Won’t you spark our anemic economic development tonight
Then how the other codes despised him,
As they shouted out with mock glee
Rudolph the Form Based Code
“The rest of us are history”.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson
———————————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credits: Mass.gov, Placemakers.com,
Who Will Decide Election 2017?
By. Neil Williamson, President
One day left. Mercifully.
Citizens and candidates alike look forward to the end of the election season. As one local incumbent described the process, “There’s two ways to run, unopposed or scared”.
Unfortunately, this election we have many seats running unopposed. This is not an indictment of the candidates running, The Free Enterprise Forum strongly believes contested races make better candidates. Simply put contested elections make candidates explain and defend their positions thus making the public better informed and generates better policy after the election.
Not to be ‘Johnny Raincloud’ but the weather report for Election Day 2017 looks pretty gloomy; this generally suppresses voter participation.
By virtue of reading this post, you tend to be one of the more engaged community members. By now, you likely know who is running for local office in your locality. Hopefully, you know where they stand on issues that are important to you and you have selected the candidate that best represents your views.
Here in Virginia we like elections so much we hold them every year. This year is an “off-year” election meaning there are no Federal offices on the ballot but there is a gubernatorial race. By means of contrast the 2016 presidential election year saw 72.05% statewide voter turnout compared with the last “off” year the 2013 Gubernatorial election turnout of 43.0%.
Based on early absentee voting and historical averages, the Free Enterprise Forum anticipates the 2017 statewide election turnout to hover near 40%. Locally, the lack of multiple contested races may hinder turnout. We do not believe it will exceed 50%.
Credit: Rassumsen Reports
It is not a leap to predict roughly half of registered voters likely will not vote this cycle. Therefore, regardless of the locality, this year’s campaign will come down to which campaign motivates their voters to show up at the polls.
Get Out The Vote, known in the ‘biz’ as “GOTV”, campaigns have been underway by the major parties, and special interest groups, for a number of weeks. Likely voters are being contacted via mail, phone, and in person by party operatives and candidates. Historically, this type of “ground game” can make the difference. Over the years, we have seen the amount of shoe leather candidates put into the campaign can have a higher return than signs and advertising in many of the local races.
Every vote matters as evidenced by several recent close elections. In the 2013 Samuel Miller District Race in Albemarle County, Liz Palmer on a Board of Supervisors contest by 874 votes. The same year, Jim Frydl won his Greene County Supervisor race by 33 votes. In 2011, Supervisor Davis Lamb won his Ruckersville seat by just 15 votes (with 41 votes going to a candidate who had dropped out of the race).
Typically turnout elections favor those candidates with well defined and energized constituencies. While there are a multiplicity of local constituencies with varying levels of organization, the question of election day is which of these constituencies are both motivated and energized. Put succinctly, what half will show up?
The Free Enterprise Forum is a non partisan public policy organization, as such we embrace elections as the political marketplace for ideas. We sincerely thank ALL the candidates who are making the sacrifice to run for public office. We strongly encourage everyone to make your voice heard by voting.
The candidates have done their job by running now it is up to you – Polls will be open Tuesday from 6 am to 7 pm.—VOTE
If you do not know where you vote, click here for your polling place.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
—————————————————————
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded non partisan public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County. For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Photo Credit: http://dracotempest.deviantart.com/art/Johnny-Raincloud-609304000
Greene Supervisors Hears Five Year Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
It makes good common sense to hope for the best but plan for the worst. For Virginia localities it is more than common sense, it is mandated by state law.
In response to this requirement, Billie Campbell, Senior Program Manager, and Wood Hudson, Planning Manager, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission addressed the Greene County Board of Supervisors at their first meeting of October (10/10). They presented a draft of the 2017 Update of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan . The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 set out requirements for State and local governments to update their plans every five (5) years.
The purpose of plan is prepare for natural disasters before they occur and it covers all jurisdictions in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District – Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Louisa County, Fluvanna County, Nelson County, and the towns of Scottsville, Stanardsville, Louisa and Mineral. The first plan was approved in 2006, then in 2012 and it is now due to be updated by December 17, 2017.
In August a draft of Regional HMP was submitted to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) who will then forward it to FEMA for their review and comments and once they have approved it, each jurisdiction must adopt the plan.
According to the draft plan:
Natural hazards tend to be low-probability, high-impact events. One year could be mild with natural
events scarcely interrupting communities, while the next could be literally disastrous. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to make an effort to minimize the damage and loss of life caused by disasters when they do occur. Hazard mitigation is one component, along with emergency response and post-disaster recovery, to the larger strategy of dealing with the human impacts of natural hazardWith more people living in areas susceptible to natural hazards, the costs associated with such hazards have been steadily increasing over time. The localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (the Counties of Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson, the City of Charlottesville, and the Towns of Scottsville, Columbia, Stanardsville, Louisa, and Mineral) are impacted by variety of different hazards. In order to lessen the growing cost of disaster recovery on the localities and minimize the disruption of business during a disaster, there is a growing need to mitigate the impact of known hazards. Through proper planning and the implementation of policies and projects identified in this Hazard Mitigation Plan, the region and the localities can reduce the likelihood that these events will result in costly disasters.
The Hazard Identification and Analysis section of the plan describes natural hazards which pose the greatest threat to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Hazards are profiled in terms of prevalence, intensity, and geographical scope. The section includes a description of the hazard as well as analysis based upon historical and scientific data.
The specific areas of the plan are:
-
-
-
- flooding and dam failure
- winter weather
- wildfire
- temperature extremes, drought and landslides, and
- tornado and earthquakes.
-
-
The plan calculates a risk factor for each event within the TJPDC study area.
Within each category are specific actions recommended to be taken that include describing the hazard, potential mitigation, lead responsible entity, estimated cost, funding method and the time period of the issue.
Campbell asked that the Board consider making the resolution supporting the plan. All of the supervisors supported the plan but wanted to wait until the second board meeting of the month to allow time for them to review the proposal. The request was deferred until the October 24, 2017 meeting and it is hoped that the Supervisors will approve the resolution at that time.
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 www.freeenterpriseforum.org
