The Downtown Plan: If You Break It, Clean It Up

You've got to hand it to Bruce Tyler, who I could identify in a lineup, but who I barely know. I mention that because the following two paragraphs are wrapped in supposition, but probably true.

Almost two years ago, Tyler was one of a handful of Richmond political leaders present and awake during the kick-off sessions for Richmond's Downtown Master Plan, at the time under development. Later in the process, the Councilman from the First District made a point of dodging tough questions about the Master Plan by noting that his district wasn't directly impacted.

Apparently, the residents of his district with a vested interest in a more private, less public downtown Richmond reminded Tyler that the bread isn't made with butter. Someone has to butter the bread for you. And if someone is buttering your bread, they probably want something in return.

Introducing the Third Round of "Let's Water Down the Master Plan."

In case you weren't watching, Round One happened when the bottoms-up plan -- developed through the interesting convergence of public ideas and professional planning expertise -- landed on the doorstep of the Richmond Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found itself caught between its best intentions and its most embedded habits. It opened its Monday afternoon meetings up to the public, and then freaked out when dozens of people actually took off of work to attend. It scheduled a series of neighborhood-by-neighborhood discussions on the plan, creating a time suck that lasted several months and resulted in the reinforcement of many of the original good ideas in the plan. And after six months of high drama, the Planning Commission exhaled -- and punted the plan to City Council. Just in time for Council's summer vacation. Score a point for bureaucracy.

Round Two was the convergence of bad calendaring and microgovernance -- members of the City Council were set to chip away at key components of the plan until they realized that state law gave them 90 days to act after the Planning Commission passed the document. Without realizing it, Council had run out the clock. But in the process of figuring out how to stall the plan, Council discovered that it could simply approve the plan -- and offer up amendments later, amendments that would then bounce back to the Planning Commission and create the political equivelant of a Perpetual Motion Machine. As hundreds of people crowded Council chambers last fall, that august body passed the Downtown Master Plan with a whimper.

Tyler wasted no time in tabling his amendments. Those amendments come up tonight at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers on the 2nd Floor of City Hall. The amendments would instruct the Planning Commission to consider a series of amendments to the plan, including amendments to portions of the plan relating to viewsheds, street and alley closing, waterfront access, development standards for the former Tarmac (Echo Harbor) property, stormwater management, Main Street Station and state-owned property.

Any amendments approved tonight would result in the Planning Commission scheduling yet another public hearing on proposed changes.

Here's how some of the longtime supporters of the Downtown Master Plan are positioning the issue. We'll start with Scenic Virginia:

Councilman Bruce Tyler (1st District) introduced several pages of proposed amendments for consideration. While many are relatively minor in nature (and could have easily been addressed prior to passage of the Plan), several strike at the very heart of the Plan that Richmond's citizens have so strongly supported.

 

On Monday evening, City Council will consider these proposed amendments. If passed, they could indeed do great damage.

 

Scenic Virginia -- having participated in the process since the beginning -- strongly urges Richmonders to insist that several key items remain in the Plan. In particular, we are most concerned about threats to the following items:

1. Preservation of the historic panoramic viewshed of the James River from Libby Hill Park.
2. Creation of a riverfront park along the James east of Downtown to provide an amenity for citizens and tourists, while enhancing the historic view from Libby Hill Park.
3. Creation of an Architect of the Commonwealth, a state-level position.

This Master Plan was historic in its engagement of Richmond citizens. City Planning staff received hundreds of comments and worked to incorporate good ideas into the Plan. Our Planning Commission toiled tirelessly for months and properly vetted the components of the Plan.

It's unfortunate that we have to revisit this process. Now is the time to start implementing this citizen-supported Plan -- not to chip away at the heart of it on behalf of a handful of special interests.

We need to preserve language that supports a public park and access along the James River, preservation of our historic viewsheds, and proper consideration of stated-owned property in downtown Richmond.

ACORN (the Alliance to Conserve Old Neighborhoods) also feels a bit of passion on the subject. Here's their take:

1. RETAIN THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITAL in the plan for ALL state-owned properties in the DOWNTOWN area
2. DO NOT ALLOW FOR EROSION OF OUR HISTORIC VIEWSHED by allowing a narrow scope of interpretation as suggested by the proposed amendment
3. DO NOT ALLOW FOR DENSE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE RIVER for the former Tarmac Property.  The Master Plan called for this area to be a public park for all to have access to the James River.  Not only would development of this site deny public access to the River, but future development could harm Richmond's significant historic viewshed from Libby Hill Park

For me, the bottom line is that the residents of the City of Richmond have a clear example of a process that worked -- painfully, slowly and imperfectly -- coupled with a City Council that has an opportunity to make a clean break from the past.

City Council should reject any amendments to the plan that are not supported by the planning professionals in the Department of Community Development -- and then it should get out of the way and let the process of transforming downtown Richmond continue.