The Downtown Plan: It Is the Plan that Has No End

Richmond's Downtown Master Plan sailed through City Council last week with an 8-0 vote, and like many plan advocates I let out a breath of relief that concerns about one or two proposed developments along the James River didn't derail the entire 15-month process.

I exhaled too early.

Last week, I got a copy of City Councilman Bruce Tyler's proposed amendments to the plan; Tyler allegedly wanted to kick the whole plan back to the Planning Commission to make significant changes to the plan's language. He ultimately voted in favor of the plan, but apparently sees the amendment process as a way to trim the plan's sails at the tail end of the political process -- avoiding the public process entirely.

I hadn't done more than skim through Tyler's proposed changes before today, when I got a phone call from Style Weekly's Chris Dovi. Dovi wanted my thoughts on Tyler's proposed amendments to the plan. I unloaded.

Here are some of those thoughts, and a few others:

• I'm still happy that the plan passed Council. I'd much rather have 70% of the best master plan the city's ever developed than see the entire thing derailed by politics.
• I continue to wonder about the handful of developers and politicians who waited until the 11th hour to slip behind closed doors or politic in sparsely attended public meetings to advance their interests. The first 12 months of the process were fairly above board, and extremely bottoms-up driven. The last three months stink of politics as usual, which is awfully disconcerting.
• Why is Tyler, whose district doesn't bump against the downtown plan boundaries, so hidebound to see significant changes in the language?

A few of Tyler's specific proposals really get my metaphorical goat. I hope that Council plans to vote them one by one so that the entire elected body can be held accountable for changing the city's philosophy on public land. Here are a few key proposals Tyler is circulating:

Page 3.13 paragraph 1: Remove the sentence: “Where possible, additional waterfront park land should be acquired and made available for public use.”  Add the following sentence in its place: “When access to the river cannot be negotiated with property owners eminent domain should be considered to create continuous trails to connect existing parks.” Reason: Currently, we have over 550 acres of park land in the city.  Acquiring additional park land is not required.  We need to allow responsible development that will allow for access to the river.

"Additional park land is not required"? Tell that to the Parks and Rec Master Plan, which calls for the city to acquire 554 additional acres of land for parks -- including riverfront property.

Page 3:13 paragraph 2: Remove the following sentence: “Mayo Island should be acquired by the City, physically overhauled, and promoted as a public place.” Add the following sentence: “Public access to a portion of the river from Mayo Island should be negotiated with the current owners. When development of the Mayo Island occurs additional portions should be set aside for public access.” Reason: Public Parks without purpose become urban wastelands.  A good example of this is the Great Ship Lock Park. This park is connected to the river but because there is a lack of development, one does not feel safe. Just the opposite feeling can be seen along the canal walk.

Page 3.13 paragraph 4: The view sheds should be defined. Reason: My interpretation of view sheds and your interpretation of view sheds may not be the same.  We need to define the view sheds so we do not have everyone saying every view shed is important.

Tyler, like a number of other plan opponents, seems to believe that development drives community. That was also the belief of proponents of the 6th Street Marketplace. I'd argue that some development drives some community. But even the canal walk, which Tyler cites as a success, has yet to fully find its legs -- the arrival of a nightlife community spawned by Toad's Place and a residential condo community have helped it immensely.

The hundreds of residents who turned out to craft, shape and champion Richmond's Downtown Master Plan were, by and large, believe that community is what shapes cities, and gives purpose to development. It will be a shame if an end run around the public process is ultimately the legacy of this amazing year of public engagement.