RECENT COMMENTS
The Battle of Echo Harbor
An email from Heather Dinkin concerning Echo Harbor has with much forwarding become an open letter to City Council 7th District representative Betty Squire:
Thank you for coming out […] to meet with all of us last week, and for listening to everyone’s comments and concerns. What sticks with me about your comments, is that you are going to “evaluate the facts”.
I would like to offer up some facts.
Fact # 1: The parcel that is proposed for the construction of Echo Harbor and all surrounding property is not zoned for residential construction. The owners bought this property fully aware of this fact. Even if zoning was changed, the the depth of the property would only allow, under current city code, a building of under 40 feet. Not 240 feet or even 60 feet. So even if City Council votes to change zoning you would need to give an enormous variance to allow construction of a building of any size.
ÂÂ
Fact #2: This property is a federally designated floodway, not a flood zone, but a floodway, which means that it floods every time the river rises, every time it rains, like now for instance, it is a swampy mess. Federal law prohibits any structure built in a floodway from impeding the flow of the river during a flood, whatever is built on it must allow the river to flow though it without slowing the water or moving it out of the way? How could the developers do this? They proposed putting parking underneath, or building a empty riser story or two under the parking. This may not even meet the Federal requirements, but remember they can’t legally build anything over forty feet even if you change zoning to suit them. Not much of a low building can be built when you need 20 feet of nothing underneath to meet federal law.
ÂÂ
Fact #3: The property itself, as stated above, is a swamp, I have spoken to several architects and they all say the same thing, it would take tens of millions of dollars to build infrastructure to support even a small building, before beginning the building itself, not to mention moving the combined sewage overflow pipes that will cost millions more to move.
ÂÂ
Fact #4: All of the above can be summed up by saying this is not a property rights issue. George Ross’s clients have no more right to put a huge condo unit on that property than I have a right to put a Wal-mart or meat processing plant on my residential lot. They can not put an industrial enterprise there because it would be too expensive to make a profit as such for the reason stated above.
ÂÂ
So, why we have to ask are the “Developers” paying for all these plans and lobbying? There is one very probable answer, they are trying to convince City Council and the people of Richmond that this is a valuable piece of property and inflate what the city will pay in compensation when the proposed parks are finally built.  Call their bluff, they are clever and Mr. Ross is just doing what he gets paid handsomely to do, but he is trying to pass off a pig’s ear as a silk purse, they have a swampy unbuildable lot and they are now trying to get you to trade them a lot of value for it or get more money than its worth from the City.
ÂÂ
These are the facts, see how when confronted with the infeasibility of the original plans they have begun the bait and switch. Don’t be fooled, they are trying to direct the emphasis off the real facts, they can’t legally or financially do what they are suggesting. The City should go ahead with the Master Plan as written, create a lasting enriching park to showcase our city’s beauty and  history, and pay George Ross’s clients fair market value for a piece of swampy, unbuildable land.
ÂÂ
Thank you for your time and attention in considering these facts.
ÂÂ
Heather DinkinÂÂ
did squire evaluate the “facts” for the oakwood project? just a lot of tim kaine double talk (i have never heard anyone complain about building demolition in richmond, t. kaine, mayor)same old bull shit from the same old bull shitters
Wow, Heather! Great job! What is Betty Squire’s position on this issue? I haven’t heard much from her on this.
The real sadness of all of this is the City is now proposing/designing plans or buildings in the EH location THAT THEY THINK ARE SUITABLE. This is not what the public wants which has been proven time and time again in front of City Council at numerous meetings and hearings…. HELLO!?
The amendments to the Downtown Master Plan and EH designs are AGAIN coming up at the City Planning meeting on Monday 20 April prior to going back to City Council for a vote on the Amendments.
We need to be at the planning meeting to say to the City the proposed designed buildings are not what we want, EH is not what we want – we want a public access park running along the entire waterfront from Great Ship Lock Park up to Rocketts View Apts all the way to Rocketts Landing.
Who is this Heather Dinkin (is she writing this just as a citizen)? She rocks.
curmudgeon- you’re right, city council thinks just because one plan came before them that it’s now their job to find a substitute plan. the real sadness is our city’s major decisions are made by a bunch of idiots.
I’ll start off with a previous quote:
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.â€
-Mark Twain
Heather makes some interesting statements, unfortunately, most of them are wrong. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
1.) This is not a swamp. Prior to the developer buying it, it was a concrete batch plant. The ground there is significantly above the water level. It is as high above the water as Rocketts is. To call it a swamp or wetland is disingenuous. It is dry as a bone….Strike one for the “facts”. (“We want a park”….In the “swamp”?)
2.) The property is zoned M-2. Pretty much any industrial use can be put there, including, M-1 and M-2:
Sec. 114-452.1. Permitted principal and accessory uses.
The following uses of buildings and premises shall be permitted in the M-1 district:
(1) Any use permitted in the district as set forth in section 114-438.1, provided that:
a. A plan of development shall not be required for any use except the following: parking decks, parking garages, shopping centers, hotels and motels, motor fuels dispensing in conjunction with other uses permitted in the B-3 district and uses with drive-up facilities;
b. The prohibition of uses outside of enclosed buildings shall not be applicable in this district;
c. No building shall be erected for dwelling use or converted to such use unless permitted by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of section 17.20 of the Charter, in which event such use shall be discontinued within ten years from the date such use is permitted, provided that a building may be used for dwelling purposes by a guard, caretaker or watchman employed in connection with the use of a building or premises permitted in this district;
(2) The following uses and any similar uses which are not likely to create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influence than the minimum amount normally resulting from other uses permitted; such permitted uses being generally light industries that manufacture, process, store and distribute goods and materials and are in general dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere, and manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment as specified of the following or similar products:
a. Food and beverages:
1. Baked goods.
2. Beverages: blending and bottling plants.
3. Chocolate, cocoa and cocoa products: processing and packaging.
4. Coffee, tea and spices: processing and packaging.
5. Condensed milk: processing and canning.
6. Dairy products: creameries and plants.
7. Fruit and vegetable processing, including canning, preserving, drying and freezing.
8. Gelatin products.
9. Glucose and dextrine.
10. Macaroni and noodle manufacturing.
11. Meat products: packing and processing, but not including slaughtering.
12. Oleomargarine: compounding and packaging.
13. Poultry packaging and slaughtering.
b. Metal and metal products:
1. Agricultural or farm implements.
2. Aircraft and aircraft parts.
3. Aluminum extrusion, rolling, fabrication and forming.
4. Automobile, truck, trailer, motorcycle and bicycle assembly.
5. Bolts, nuts, screws, washers and rivets.
6. Containers (metal).
7. Culverts.
8. Firearms.
9. Foundries and foundry products manufacturing.
10. Heating, ventilating, refrigeration and appliance supplies and equipment.
11. Iron or structural steel fabrication.
12. Nails, brads, tacks, spikes and staples.
13. Needles and pins.
14. Plating (electrolytic process).
15. Plumbing supplies.
16. Safes and vaults.
17. Sheet metal products.
18. Silverware and plated ware.
19. Tool, die, gauge and machine shops.
20. Tools and hardware products.
21. Vitreous enameled products.
c. Textiles, bedding and fibers:
1. Garment making, repair and tailoring.
2. Hats.
3. Hosiery mill.
4. Knitting, weaving, printing, dyeing and finishing of textiles and fibers into fabric goods.
5. Rubber and synthetic treated fabrics, but not including rubber and synthetic processing.
6. Yarn, threads and cordage.
d. Wood and paper products:
1. Baskets and hampers.
2. Boxes and crates.
3. Forests and wildlife preserves: public and private.
4. Furniture.
5. Pencils.
6. Pulp goods and paper processing, but not including pulp milling.
7. Shipping containers.
8. Trailers and wagons.
e. Unclassified uses:
1. Animal, poultry and bird raising.
2. Animal pound for detention only.
3. Boat manufacturing (vessels less than five tons).
4. Building materials storage and sales.
5. Bus and other transportation terminals, garages and repair shops.
6. Button manufacturing.
7. Carbon paper and inked ribbon manufacturing.
8. Chewing gum manufacturing.
9. Clay, stone and glass products.
10. Cigar, cigarette, chewing and smoking tobacco manufacturing.
11. Circus and fairgrounds.
12. Coal and coke storage and sales.
13. Concrete products.
14. Contractors’ shops and storage yards.
15. Drive-in or outdoor theatres.
16. Dry cleaning and laundering.
17. Exhibition space: enclosed or unenclosed.
18. Electric transformer stations, substations and generating plants.
19. Entertainment and recreational uses.
20. Feed and grain storage.
21. Flour and feed packaging and blending.
22. Fur finishing.
23. Grain blending and packing, but not including milling.
24. Greenhouses.
25. Ice manufacturing.
26. Industrial and vocational training schools.
27. Insecticides, fungicides, disinfectants and related industrial and household chemical compounds (blending only).
28. Kennels.
29. Laboratories and research facilities.
30. Leather goods manufacturing, but not including tanning operations.
31. Livery stables and riding academies.
32. Malt products manufacturing, but not including breweries.
33. Motion picture production.
34. Pottery and porcelain products.
35. Propagation and cultivation of crops, flowers, trees and shrubs.
36. Public utility storage yard.
37. Railroad passenger and freight depots.
38. Repair and servicing of diesel engines.
39. Repair, servicing, sale and storage of heavy construction equipment.
40. Sanitary landfills operated by governmental agencies.
41. Storage of petroleum products for distribution within the metropolitan area.
42. Support structures used in connection with wireless communications facilities, radio and television broadcast antennas and microwave relay facilities, provided that a plan of development shall be required in accordance with the requirements of article X of this chapter and in accordance with the additional requirements of sections 32-692.1 through 32-692.6.
43. Wholesale, warehouse and distribution establishments.
(3) Accessory uses and structures customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to uses permitted in this district.
(Code 1993, § 32-452.1; Ord. No. 2004-180-167, § 1, 6-28-2004)
DIVISION 29. M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT*
* Cross References: Businesses and business regulations, ch. 18.
Sec. 114-454.1. Permitted principal and accessory uses.
The following uses of buildings and structures shall be permitted in the M-2 district:
(1) Any use permitted in the M-1 district as set forth in section 114-452.1;
(2) Any use or structure not permitted in any other district, including accessory buildings; provided that no building or premises shall be used for any of the following purposes unless specifically authorized or permitted by the city council:
a. Curing, smoking, packing or storing of fish.
b. Incinerating, reducing, dumping or storing, including transfer facilities, of offal, dead animals, garbage or refuse for compensation and not as a governmental function.
c. Manufacturing or refining of ammonia, bleaching powder, chlorine, celluloid, pyroxylin and explosive or flammable products made therefrom; dyestuffs, explosives and pyrotechnics, gypsum, lime, cement, plaster of Paris, matches, turpentine, paint, varnish and fertilizer from organic materials or bone distillation.
d. Manufacturing or storage of sulphurous, sulphuric, nitric, picric, hydrochloric or other corrosive acid, exclusive of the use or storage thereof in connection with other permitted uses of buildings or premises.
e. Medical waste management facilities as regulated by and for which a permit is required by the State of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, excluding however, any facility subject to an on-site permit by rule.
f. Flea markets.
g. Outdoor shooting ranges.
h. Private penal institutions.
i. Public and private alternative incarceration domiciliary facilities and institutions.
j. Refining of tallow, grease or lard.
k. Refining of petroleum products.
l. Rendering of fat.
m. Sales, storage or disposal of used tires in bulk
n. Storage of dyestuffs, explosives and pyrotechnics.
o. Storage of petroleum products in bulk for distribution in areas beyond the metropolitan area.
As far as heights:
In the M-2 heavy industrial district, no building or structure shall exceed 45 feet in height, provided that additional height shall be permitted, except for sign structures, when all portions of a building or structure over 45 feet in height are set back from side and rear lot lines a minimum of one foot for each two feet of height in excess of 45 feet and provided, further, that no portion of a building or structure shall penetrate an inclined plane originating at the centerline of an abutting street and extending over the lot at an inclination of one foot horizontal for each three feet vertical.
(Code 1993, § 32-454.6)
Source:
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/richmondva/
Anyone want the old concrete batch plant back? Maybe a rendering plant? Concert venue? I personally like the shooting range. The motocross enthusiast is under-served in this area, I bet it would be a huge hit.
Strike 2 for the facts.
3.) The developer has a right to put any of the above uses there “by right”. Heather, on the other hand can’t, as a commercial use is not by right in a R use group.
Heather confuses the facts again….Strike 3 for the facts.
4.) Hydraulic analysis, Heather….science has it solved….go figure! Buildings are built in flood plains to allow water to flow through them.
Without going into the science of this, we’ll call this a “ball”.
Still not a good at bat for Heather.
shockoe #4, Heather Dinkin lives on Libby Terrace with her husband Bill – rather than give an exact address, I will just say that she lives in a house with a view that would be very directly impacted by Echo Harbor, were it to be built. Yes, she is writing as a citizen, but she also has a pretty direct interest in the project based on the house she and her husband own, as their view would really seriously be impacted. From what I’ve been told by someone else who lives on Libby Terrace, Squire had a meeting with some of the residents of Libby Terrace, sometime recently.
And I agree with you, “the real sadness is our city’s major decisions are made by a bunch of idiots.”
bill #1 – she did NO evaluation of facts for Oakwood, you know that – she stated very plainly at the council meeting over Oakwood that she would ‘defer’ to McQuinn, who approved of Oakwood. And hey – please, let’s not start with Kaine and O&H demolition! That’s a whole other topic/ thread.
well crd you know betty’s position is such that you get carpet burns if you believe that she gives a damn about the neighborhoods interest. you get screwed.
hey betty, think about passing out some vasoline at your next community meeting, you will get fewer complaints from the neighborhood you screw up.
Not sure what happened to my lengthy post from yesterday about this, but Heather is factually wrong on Facts 1, 2, & 3. 4 is presented first as a fact and then as an opinion, but she mixes two different ideas.
An excellent job of the distortion of the facts. Everyone has attacked Echo Harbor by their version of the “facts”. In reality, there have been very few “facts” against the project that can’t be addresses via design or engineering.
Instead of marginalizing yourself by being wrong, why not simply say, “Not in My Back Yard!” At least then, everyone knows where you stand and you don’t make yourself look like an uninformed lay person.
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Mark Twain
1. This is zoned M-2. Look at Municode and see what can be put there.
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/richmondva/
2. Her description of this site tells me she has never walked the Great Shiplock or this site. It is not a swamp. In fact, it is a very stable piece of dirt. Factually, the shiplocks have wetlands, this site does not. Funny how someone states this as fact when if they took 5 minutes to walk down the hill (via the steps that were never repaired after Gaston.) she would know she is “factually” wrong.
Structures can be located in flood lands as long as they are designed for them. If her argument held water, we would never be able to build bridges (or the marina at Rocketts).
3. Wrong again. Walk the site and show us the “swamp”.
4. Wrong again. This property is zoned M-2. Anything permitted in an M-1 and M-2 is currently allowed on the site. Heather’s home is R zoning. Anything permitted in an R zone is permitted on her house site. It’s funny how Heather makes a financial assessment for someone else. An oddly, a meat plant would be a permitted use there. Just as the rusting batch mix plant that was there a could of years ago would be permitted,
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/richmondva/
Looks like the “facts” simply are wrong in this case.
Nice try, though.
BTW, What will you do when Rocketts builds their 8-10 story building in the “bend”?
It’s quite obvious that council, the mayor, etc. don’t give a damn about what the residents want. They only want to further their own agenda… Sad that a city with such great potential is run by such a bunch of self absorbed morons.
So, #5 Libby Hill Resident, would you prefer this as the use (as you quoted – this is cut and pasted from your own email)?
“40. Sanitary landfills operated by governmental agencies.”
If not, what are you trying to get at? What is your point? That you actually like the idea of Echo Harbor? If so, please explain WHY, thanks.
Dear Libby Hill Resident, Distortion of the facts it seems is something you are familiar with.
#1- It is not “dry land” it is a designated floodplain and partially a floodway, as you well know. It doesn’t occasionally flood, it floods and stays wet when it rains. Check the GIS maps they are well marked.
#2- Yes we all know it’s zoning, that is what Echo Harbor is trying to change, why? As I stated it is not feasible for any of those uses, if it were they would put it to such. The last owner tried to get zoning changed, failed and vowed to build a 250 foot office building there, didn’t happen.
#3- The developer does not have a right to put a residential structure there period. This is my point. They do not have proper zoning.
#4- Yes of course structures could be built but they have a cost, I will make it simple, it would cost too much to make a profit. If this is not true let us see the real plans not just the pretty pictures.
These are fact, seems I am in fact batting a thousand, I did not hide the fact that I live on Libby Terrace, love the view and think everyone who comes up here should be able to continue to enjoy it. Ask the other Libby Hill resident to identify himself and I think you will find he has a direct financial stake in this project. Everyone has a point of view, sadly we have been letting Echo Harbor steer the argument to there advantage, City council does not have to change zoning to their benefit, there is a Master Plan, follow it, condemn the property and let a panel decide the property’s worth.
My point was all of the “permitted” uses are also what many of you would consider to be incompatible with our “high and lofty” residences on the hill.
Certainly when you bought your house 5 years ago, you researched and knew that the area at the river was an industrial zone? Didn’t you?
If you are concerned about “protecting the view”, you need to “beat up” on Rocketts Landing.
As far as #4, let’s see your proforma on this property. Soft and hard costs, NPV’s and ROI’s, please.
You confuse “swamp” (your words) with flood plain areas. Two completely different things. A large portion of Shockoe Bottom is in the newly revised 100 year flood plain. I don’t recall any protests about that area being developed….oh wait a minute….yeah the stadium.
I think the writer in the CHA newsletter had it correct. We have a bunch of NIMBY’s living in the Church Hill area. It’s this NIMBY attitude that has held Richmond back for years. Take a look at all the great cities with riverfront development….Montreal and Vancouver come to mind as an example. They work.
I laughed till I cried when I saw the “questions” asked of the stadium developer. Fire dept. access? How funny since Broad and 25th were closed for St. Patty’s-right in front of the fire station. Noise from the speakers? Even funnier since we can hear concerts from the Bottom now and no one says a peep about it.
BTW, my house was built about 30 years before your house was. It’s blocking a portion of my view of the river. Would you mind moving your house so I can enjoy an unfettered view, just like you?
As to the “not in my back yard” comment, this applies to worthy, community-beneficial projects, (jails, power plants, landfills, etc.) that everyone is in favor of but don’t want next door to them, your project Libby Hill Resident is none of those things. It is a project for personal gain by a few individuals, not that there is anything wrong with personal gain, but you are not entitled to a zoning change and an enormous height restriction waiver simply because you want to make money, and nearby property owner are, of course, with in their rights to object to such changes. It is not so much me saying “Not in my Back Yard” but you railing “Yes, in my Back Pocket”. The point is however probably moot, I have always suspected this project was never intended to come off, please address why George Ross is in private “please don’t discuss” negotiation with Betty Squires about what? a property trade? an early pay off without going to condemnation?
Why the secrecy? These are the issues, you have been trying to cast the argument to your own advantage all along, nice try, but how about some facts of your own. You aren’t proposing an M-1 or M-2 project, let’s discuss the actual plans. Also why buy or option a piece of property with so many Federal restrictions and a combined sewage overflow pipeline under it that you know can’t be built on without moving it at enormous cost? It makes one uninformed layperson skeptical, please offer up facts as to the pertinent questions. Of course, all of the problems with building on this site could be overcome by the wonders of modern engineering and personal favors from City Council, my question was could it be profitable to do so? Obviously the initial proposal for a 240 foot condo was to have residential density high enough to offset these cost, now that you realize that plan will not fly, how do you off set these cost. You can’t? Why not try to scare City Council into giving you a more easily developed piece of land in exchange for yours, is this the plan? Clever, but the citizens of Richmond should and most do strongly object.
Way to go Heather! But let’s add another FACT. “Libby Hill Resident” is in fact a principal with Baskerville, the architectural firm designing Echo Harbor. His area of expertise is sportscar racing tracks and facilities design as he is a racer himself (2005 Driver of the Year) which helps explain his insensitivity to the beauty and quietness of the natural wonders of this special part of our city. The other Libby Hill residents would love not to look at your NASCAR van and trailer if that would help you decide to relocate closer to RIR.
Nicely put Libby Hill. It seems too many people are making up facts to fit their positions. This smells of Rush Limbaugh on the Hill.
Thank you Heather. Keep it up please.
#12 NIMBY, If my memory holds true, though I could be mistaken, wasn’t there a corner market right next door to your previous residence in CH that you were vehemently opposed to? If I am wrong, I will stand corrected, but please carify?
Hey Church Hill, keep fighting the good fight. Do whatever you can to keep the historic, beautiful river view. Even if you lose in the end to a corrupt Council, its worth it. I know. Just check out the picture below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadrichmond/3194098039/
Libby Hill Resident is an excellent tap dancer, we are not talking about Rockett’s Landing or the stadium, those are different projects with different issues, we are addressing Echo Harbor. It is indeed a floodway not a flood plain and you are well aware of the restrictions this entails. You are very good about going in circles. All I am suggesting is that the real issues be addressed, that you are trying to dictate the terms of the argument as those in opposition are whiny NIMBYS and the developers are only out to improve Richmond is a hoot. What we do have is a Master Plan, a result of huge community effort and approved by City Council, Echo Harbor doesn’t like it and wants changes made to it to suit them. Richmond is already a great city and I love it, I believe cities like Paris, Dublin and Edinburgh which are full of parks with views of a river are the ones we should emulate, not those with walls of towers.
BTW, I have lived on Libby Hill for 18 years, and you like everyone else can walk to the park and enjoy the view, at least as long as Echo Harbor doesn’t get built.
Facts or no facts, Richmond needs high rise condos like Obama needs a cigarette. Sure it might feel good at the moment for some, but a declining housing market, an under-developed river view / access, and a financial crisis leaves us no room for these kind of greedy projects. If this building gets built, I hope the infrastructure crumbles before the residents can move in. Go build condos in Jackson Ward you lame developers, I heard there is a plot of land about to be cleared.
Richmond on James vs Richmond on Thames
John has an panaroma somewhere that is very informative.
I object to the NIMBY accusation. It is a historic view – I just happen to live near it. If they wanted to build Echo Harbor, say on Natural Bridge, I will still object to it for the same reasons.
What the heck is a “historic view”? Comparing that view to the Natural Bridge is laughable, IMO.
That’s your opinion. I think the view should be preserved.
Of course it’s my opinion. There is no fact here.
Now, as to whether the project is a good idea generally or not, I don’t know. But I think the “view” concerns shouldn’t hold anything back.
Natural Bridge is a tourist attraction they charge people money to see if they did the same here they would have the money to keep this a “historic view” trying to isolate the “view” would be expensive trying to cover all the James River
To me, the view is the issue.
Here is a historic view of Quebec City:
http://blog.l-one.jp/sakae/2008/07/my_hometown_is_400_years_old.html
Here is one of Washington, DC:
blogs.uconn.edu/2008/michael/?p=189
Here is one of Budapest:
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/photography-budapest.shtml
Here is one of Prague:
http://www.easyprague.cz/eecera2007/?level1ID=tourist-information&lang=en
Paris:
http://www.cab.u-szeged.hu/wm/paris/hist/river.html
Edinburgh:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11036236
I could go on, but you get the point. There is such a thing as a historic view. Now, Richmond isn’t any of those cities, but we surely never will be if we insist on walling off the river with Miami style condos.
My point was Natural bridge could be contained where as the James River is a little harder cover up every section of viewing space. Though It seems everyone wants to capitalize of views by building and thus blocking the view for everyone else. They tend to make plenty of money in the process at everyone elses expense.
There seem to be a few who feel that development can do no wrong and that those who hinder it are just not seeing things “correctly” but is it correct to be short sided with progress? Develop every available inch of land just to charge people large sums of money to have a near exclusive view? I am not saying that you can block everything but we need to temper the amount and style to be sure we can have the best of both Development and conservation.
It’s my understanding that the owners of the EH property will sell as is for $5M. Go to the Richmond Recreation and Parks Foundation, write large checks earmarked for the purchase of the property. Get a tax write-off. Buy the property, place it under a conservation easement, get another tax write-off. Donate it to the city. City has no money
to maintain it. Weeds grow.
What is the assessed value of the land?
Or build something nicer that does not block the view.
Developers and their shills love these either/or arguments. They don’t like intelligent alternatives because they might cost them $.
You’re right Scott. It might cost thm money. Not you, because you don’t have any on the table. It’s more fun playing monoploy with other people’s money. The land is assessed about $2M, if I remember correctly. They want to recover land costs, plus all the consultants fees, legal fees and a profit. Is council prepared to buy them out? I doubt it.
“Not you, because you don’t have any on the table.”
I am just one of those little people who pays his taxes, Ron. Why should City Council listen to one of us?
The developers bought the property with an intended use inconsistent with the zoning. They knew they would be asking for special favors. It has always been a gamble on their part, and whether they make money or not is only their concern.
On the flip side, if the development is approved, the value of properties whose views are obstructed will decline. Do you think those people will have any recourse for their lose? There is also the loss of value to the public land (Libby Park) that would be blocked by the building. None of these costs are quantifiable, but they are just as real (and of longer standing) as any financial calculation of the developer.
So, are you saying the City of Richmond owes the developers? That is is their inherit right to profit off a land purchase, even though when it was purchased they knew they could not build a high rise apartment? Since when do the citizens of Richmond owe a developer a profit? That argument is ridiculous. Council does not have a duty to buy them out. And, if the refuse to change the zoning, the developers may well be stuck with a bad purchase. That will be the consequence of their own poor planning, it is not responsibility of Richmond to pay them off.
People you act shocked that a Developer wants us to bail them out of a stupid mistake they just see other large companies get hand outs and it is not like the cities in Virginia have not changed to rules because they were supported later (bribed/kickback/boondoggle)This is what you get when you have career politicians running things.
Tiny some government agency will bail the idiots because our government is stupid that way and it is not their money so they don’t care
Keith – what evidence is there that the property values on Libby Hill will decline based on whether or not Echo Harbor is built? Not trying to be snarky – just curious.
Thanks for the support SBD, but I was really hoping we could get through this thread without the word “boondoggle” ever being used.
Well I could use graft and corruption as well but apparently people start lible suits with those words.
Dang it they stole my a Liable that is
libel
what Ramzi said
Now, that is a very interesting quote from you, “ron.” As Scott pointed out, we are also taxpayers, which is where our city council representatives (and their underlings) get the “monopoly money” that they play with.
# 38- people pay more for views. If the view is blocked, people pay less. If you don’t believe me, ask the city tax assessor. Homes with a river view receive a bump in their assessment.
Echo Harbor is an ugly building. I don’t think the development is the highest and best use of the property. If I were on the CPC or council, I would not give them a Special Use Permit, but they are property owners also. They pay taxes also. They have the same rights of redress that you do, no more, but no less. Saying “I’m a taxpayer” does not give pre-emptive rights over another citizen. In either direction.
Big meeting on this subject of City to budget the money to buy the site where EH is intended to go is on May 4th at City Hall.
YOU have to callin and sign up in advance – to speak. (804) 646 7955.
This is very exciting! I’m so glad people are paying attention, holding [or trying to] our elected reps up to the responsibility given to them! Heather, thank you so much for putting this information and assessment of information together so concisely. Well put! I wrote an email to Betty Squires yesterday expressing my view that it would be a real shame to trade in the main draw of a public park that is used and enjoyed by so many for private gains. She wrote back the same thing – that she will “consider all the facts.”
They don’t take into account that the James Floods at least by the photos they show.I guess they think they put the Flood Wall in Shockoe Bottom for kicks and giggles.
#45 – the rest of us want infill development and city with amenities.
#48 – “She wrote back the same thing – that she will “consider all the facts.†”
Kind of obvious that she’s not “considering all the voters” who have contacted her.
Just as a follow up after Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting, Echo Harbour developers by there own admission confirmed 2 of my major points, 1. that the properties is 60% floodway and would require 30 feet of parking or open story underneath and 2. that at the height compromise that the planning commission was willing to make (70 feet at the western end to 40 feet at the eastern end) they would be unable to build anything profitable. Their new plans include a 141 foot hotel on one end and condos in the middle. Such an improvement. Sometimes people make bad decisions, I think this applies to the purchase of this property by EH. Interestingly, Kathy Graziano supported amending the Master Plan on Monday night because the “city does not maintain the parks we already have” and is quoted in the RTD today as opposing another issue because we shouldn’t not be tweaking the Master Plan. She should be encouraged to be a more consistent thinker and leader.
@ 36
The City of Richmond will not owe the developers a dime unless it want to purchase the land for park.
In that case it is at the mercy of developers in terms of price.
Anything less than what the developers want and the city will find itself in a very expensive legal battle with the developers.
Also, not granting the developers the zoning change might get the city in a legal battle that the city can’t afford right now.
Actually if they want to loose every ounce of profit let the Developer sue and I hope the City will add their legal costs when the Developer loses.
The City and citizens should not be held hostage by developers.
Well since this is not park property how would effect this issue? Kathy Graziano might want to consider that changing the Master plan for this would almost negate everything they set up for the Master plan.City Council needs to stop being swayed by Developers who are looking out for themselves and no one else.