Love her, hate her or have no opinion about her, one thing's for sure -- you can't argue that Richmond's Director of Community Development hasn't made an impact on local politics with the process for a new Downtown Master Plan her department introduced almost two years ago.
The extremely public process, which has stepped alternately on the toes of the state, private business, Virginia Commonwealth University, and individual residents, ran into the rather inflexible wall of governmental bureaucracy early in 2008. It has spent the better part of a year being chipped away at by politicians and developers.
In the process, Rachel Flynn has somehow found herself in the center of a debate about the role of government officials, the motivations of politicians and the desires of developers.
Style Weekly recently wrote about Flynn's collision with several members of Richmond's City Council, who apparently feel the director might want to decrease the volume of her public advocacy and host more coffees with private developers.
This week, two readers respond. One speaks with a degree of authority about the appropriateness of Flynn's advocacy. Architect Sanford Bond once served on the very Planning Commission that has been a significant speedbump in the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan, and writes:
As reported May 6 (“Flynn’s Last Stand,” News & Features), it seems that the developer and certain members of City Council and the Planning Commission want us to believe that the planning department, led by its director, Rachael Flynn, is unreasonably obstructing the approval of the development of the property. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The city would not stand in the way of the property being developed in accordance with its existing zoning, M-2. However, the developer bought the property with full knowledge that his proposed residential development did not conform to that zoning and that he would require a rezoning in order to do what he wanted. In fact, it seems that he has applied not only for a rezoning but also for a special use permit because he does not even want to conform to the height requirements of the rezoning. Unfortunately, it seems that he made a rather imprudent decision to assume that he could do whatever he wanted.
Getting this development right is something in which the whole community has a stake. While the owner’s interests should certainly be taken into account, rezoning and special use permits must reflect the public’s interests before private interests. I think it is entirely appropriate, even essential, that the planning director weigh in on the debate on behalf of the greater good for the whole community. Flynn’s sound professional judgment, detailed knowledge of good planning practices and clear vision of Richmond’s future will enable city policy-makers to make the right decisions on Echo Harbour. Far from being condemned as an obstructionist, she should be commended as a strong and principled advocate for the public interest and Richmond’s future.
