The Downtown Plan: Flynn Weighs Back In

If things go as planned -- which they haven't so far -- the Richmond Planning Commission will hear more comments from the public this Monday, July 7, and then vote two weeks later on July 21 to advance Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan to City Council for their consideration.

Just in time for election season.

A year into the process, which launched last July with a series of public discussions that drew hundreds of interested Richmonders, I asked the city's Director of Community Development, Rachel Flynn, to reflect back on how the development of a new Master Plan for downtown Richmond has gone.

She started with the positive.

"I think what's gone really well is that it has been an incredibly inclusive process and a very public one," she said. "It has been about the community, which is what our department is all about -- we're not the Department of Individual Development, we're the Department of Community Development."

But she's quick to acknowledge some mistakes and miscalculations, as well.

"In hindsight what I should have done is gone slower," Flynn said, "because for some in Richmond it was too much, too fast, too soon."

She was referring to the initial time frame for the Downtown Plan's development, which the department originally hoped to move from public brainstorming to City Council approval in the span of four months.

"Sometimes you just need to let things ripen," Flynn continued. "It wasn't a lack of reaching out, but the reaching out just didn't work in every case. I guess I was used to this from my time in Lynchburg, but in hindsight that was over a span of eight years and here we tried to do it in four months. The push back we got was inevitable, I recognize now."

The irony is not missed on Flynn.

"Usually bureaucrats get blamed for taking too long to do things," she noted with a chuckle.

Apparently, that is less of a problem with the bureaucrats back in charge.

Since the plan was delivered to the Richmond Planning Commission for its review, revisions and approval last November, the Department of Community Development's fast-paced plan has slowed to a crawl.

A public hearing was held at City Hall in December, followed by a series of neighborhood meetings in January and February. While Flynn values and appreciates the additional public outreach, she's not sure much changed as a result.

"In my view ... we didn't hear anything different in those meetings," she said. "Nothing major that shifted the plan, or the boundaries, the basic initiatives, none of that changed."

The extra time did provide space for opposition to the draft Downtown Plan to emerge in a more focused manner.

"What was also going on was that private interests like New Market, Dominion Power, even our traffic engineers, started coming out more in private -- going directly to staff or going directly to Bob Mills (chairman of the planning commission), not in these public hearings, and saying 'We want this stuff.'"

Flynn pointed at Dominion Power as an example. Dominion owns a surface parking lot along Cary Street between 8th and 9th streets that the Downtown Plan identified as a gateway to the city. As traffic comes across the Ninth Street Bridge into the city, there sits the lot.

"We really saw it as an opportunity to create a landmark building, to develop the site in a way that really created a nice gateway," Flynn said. "Well, Dominion said they wanted that language taken out. The reason is that they want to build a parking garage there, and I just couldn't disagree more. If we're going to have a better city, the long-term view says to do it right, and do it right now. The quick and cheaper way is to just put a parking deck there and kill the street."

Another example is New Market, which represents Ethyl Corporation and a large swath of river front property near Tredegar. Flynn says the maps and the language in the plan has changed and evolved as a result of New Market's requests -- and the lawyers continue to ask for changes.

The Department of Community Development has also spent a lot of time at the table with Virginia Commonwealth University, and while a number of changes have been made Flynn doesn't seem interested in compromising core elements of the Downtown Plan. VCU's medical campus development essentially turns its back on East Broad Street.

"The plan is clear that Broad Street is the street," Flynn said. "It's our Pennsylvania Avenue and VCU is making Marshall Street their main street."

"VCU has said to take out everything in your plan that doesn't line up with our (VCU's) Master Plan. We said no. The public wants something different on East Broad Street," Flynn said. "One of the big issues is West Hospital. The public said emphatically, 'Do not tear down West Hospital.' Trani was opposed to that. The compromise was that we changed the language  -- that the city and VCU would explore every opportunity with West Hospital, which at least keeps the conversation open."

When Flynn looks back over the past year, she says she has mixed feelings.

"At times it has been very rewarding, and at times very stressful. But it comes with the territory. When you put yourself out there, people are going to say things," she said.

It's her passion for creating community that pushes her forward.

"It's so wasteful for us not to be maximizing our river front," she said. "It drives me crazy that we're just letting it go to waste. Yes, there are a few naysayers, but I want a beautiful city -- not some place I am embarrassed about. Why shouldn't our citizens have the most beautiful city possible?"

The Richmond Planning Commission will hear one final round comments about the proposed Downtown Plan from the public this Monday, July 7, from 6:30 until 8:00 p.m. in the 5th floor conference room of City Hall at 900 East Broad Street.

Comments

[Lynn]

This is so discouraging. And so interesting about what this period of further review was really about. What do you think will happen?

[John]

Because I'm a fool, I'm inclined to believe that the dragged out process truly was a bureaucratic slowdown -- the planning commission found itself spun up by the pace set by the plan, and by the very aggressive and ambitious vision. I think they genuinely wanted to make sure the public had been heard, and in doing so created space for developers and others to gather themselves and start bogging things down. I don't think it was intentional but the planning commission has almost killed what I believe really was a public vision for the city's future. What will happen? The commission will make sure New Market, Dominion and VCU are fully satisfied with the revisions -- and then pass it on to City Council. And City Council -- with all of its members' political donations from the development community -- will push the Department of Community Development to strip out key content. We'll end up with a better plan than the city has ever had, but a dramatically castrated version of the exciting vision set by the public last summer. That's my somewhat cynical take on what happens when leaders lead around mediocrity and compromise.

[Don]

John: I took a look at the sour, pained faces of the commissioners at that first Planning Commission public meeting and knew that these guys were never going to contradict VCU and developers and listen to the public. You could see it on their puckered-lemon faces that this Democracy stuff was unexplored territory and quite worrisome to them. It seems to me that any other commission of its kind would be happy to know exactly what it is that citizens want and expect - but Mr. Mills' quotes about "is this a master plan or a map of the public's desires?" said it all, as if the "public" was this amorphous thing that represented "otherness." Those who really run the city (the many factions of the "business community") normally shun public debate and input — I can provide example after example — all except in this one case, when it was in their best interest to play drag-ass. Since Mr. Mills made it seem as though Richmond actually resided in a country called VCU, it's hard to believe that this stall was inadvertent. I say that it was obvious and convenient. It conveniently allowed the developers enough time to get their opposition to the Downtown Master Plan together and cash in their considerable political chips. But the politicians and insider-planners stand on a dangerous precipice here, as the conspicuous watering-down of the DMP will serve as the strongest signal yet that we are a dysfunctional, minor league city fueled by regressive, "top down" thinking and insider logrolling; one that is easily bought and rather cavalierly sold; one that doesn't give a hoot about the quality of our collective future or the common good.

[Scott Burger]

I sympathize with Flynn. Unfortunately, it was pretty obvious that the traditional City leadership, the ol' Richmond Renaissance gang, were not going to let the citizens' downtown master plan move forward. Eugene Trani, despite the latest of his arrogant messes, still runs this two-bit town from his corporate, faux-ivory tower (aka VCU Presidency). I know this is going to sound like just more campaign noise, but its really not. Paul Goldman helped make it possible for Richmond- all of Richmond, not just the 1st district- elect a strong Mayor. The mayoral election may be the best hope we have of a some real democracy in Richmond. If you want the downtown master plan to succeed on behalf of Richmond citizens, I suggest taking a long look at the mayoral candidates and figuring out who you want in charge- and feel free to ignore the TD polls.

[Another Downtowner]

It strikes me that the obvious contrasts between the plan as envisioned and the pushback from parties who only consider their narrow interests is a good thing. I think the post does a terrific job of showing Richmonders just who doesn't care about the potential of this city. The key is to find ways to have candidates and the public be reminded of just what is at stake over the coming months. I've never handed out leaflets before, but maybe now is the time to start.

[John]

Thanks for the comments, all -- I hope you and others show up Monday to share your thoughts with the planning commission, the community development department, the media and the community via the relatively unrestrained weblog coverage afforded by the Internet. I occasionally try hard -- in this piece in particular -- to put information out there pretty cleanly and without a lot of editorializing. Like Another Downtowner noted, when you read the timeline the facts sort themselves out pretty clearly. And while it's hard to discern intentions (though Scott and Don both make strong points), it's not hard to interpret outcomes. The outcome of the Downtown Plan is, at best, at risk. And the blame falls most squarely at the feet of the planning commission. Too bad they're appointed.

[Paul]

The DMP comes with NO funding, NO accountability and NO economic or ecological impact study. It is a feel good excercise for cynics and activists. If you don't get your way you can blame the usual suspects having your cake or eating too.

[Scott Burger]

So which are you, Paul, a cynic or an activist? Because I saw you come and speak at a few of the DMP meetings. I have a copy of 1975's Richmond Streetscape, A Program of Walkways and Public Places For Downtown Richmond. "Recommendation Three: Sixth Street, between Broad and Grace, should be given over completely to the shopper through the creation of a retail mall incorporating the two adjacent department stores." Pretty hilarious stuff if you can get past the bad taste left over from the millions wasted on building, maintaining, and then knocking down Sixth Street Marketplace. If you have not seen it, John, you are welcome to borrow it. My point is that these plans come and go, the consultants usually get paid and then sometimes things actually happen- for better and worse. Regardless of whether you are a cynic or an activist or both, its not a bad idea as a citizen to put your two cents in. Seeing how we live in Trani-ville and not Richmond, I am pretty cynical about it. But like John, I still hope something good and meaningful can come from this, something that does not just resemble another white elephant for "the shopper".

[Paul]

"So which are you, Paul, a cynic or an activist?" Both I think, but on different subjects. I'm a cynic about those with the loudest voices who are the quickest to judge anybody with the means build something downtown. I'm a cynic about a plan which would set aside the most valuable development property in the city for a park which is already underfunded and understaffed. I am an activist for bringing jobs and residents back to Richmond. I am for breaking down the archaic barriers between city and suburb. I am for a unified school system where neighborhoods have more influence and power over their schools. I am for restoring the city and downtown as the central hub of the metropolitan area. I am for making downtown a safe, attractive and accessible, walkable place.

[Paul]

p.s. I have talked to a number of people who are reluctant to venture public opinions on this subject for fear of being dragged through the gutter. There are plenty of people out there who would like to see waterside development, enjoy an afternoon of shopping and dining by the river or take their family or out of town visitors to an accessible riverside park. The closest we have to that right now is Brown's Island which is nice enough, but difficult to find, park nearby and once you get there, what do you do if there isn't a concert? A mixed use development where people would live, shop, visit and walk by the water doesn't exist in Richmond and doesn't exist in the DMP. Cities all over the world take advantage of their waterfront. Here it is considered criminal.

[TOm]

How is a condo building for 200 people with possibly one restaurant "mixed use" and how can people strolling along a narrow path next to a behemoth building benefit? And will Echo Harbor allow us regular citizens to park there? I doubt it. FYI, Brown's Island is privately owned and another example of the City giving away prime time to private interests (granted, it was many years ago). So why should we repeat the fallacy of that and do it again just a mile down the river?

[steve]

Large amounts of money and time was spent developing this DMP (I am assuming well over $100,000 but nobody seems to want to discuss that little detail) and yet it didn't occur to Flynn that perhaps the entities that owned property involved should be included in the process. She is snide about those who do not buy into her plan without question and had the audacity to look for a venue to be heard. She taps into the base fear of Richmonders - business as usual and back door deals - to cover her own monumental mishandling of this process. This process has been antagonistic from the start. Any position that conflicts with what is set forth in the DMP is viewed with contempt and the tired "this is the people's plan" mantra is marched out. There has been little room for dissenting view points - reputations are smeared and dissenters are damned. To lay this debacle at the feet of the Planning Commission is to have been successfully distracted by red herrings. The Emperor Flynn has no clothes. The DMP is strongly supported (including by me). If it fails it is because of lack of leadership and experience in Community Development to bring a plan that is desired and needed to a community that is anxious to embrace it. To assume a plan with this potential impact could be marched through the system in four months, without even bothering to get buy in from those directly impacted, demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of basic government process. We need leadership that has experience and understanding working in a true large urban environment. We need leadership that can the city where it needs to go, not someone who has an on-the-job learning curve. Too much time and money was wasted before Flynn realizes she isn't in Lynchburg anymore.

[John]

Point of clarification: I tracked Flynn down for this interview; she hasn't initiated any of the conversations I've had with her, her team or Dover-Kohl. Say what you like about the political clumsiness of the DCD (most of which I'd be inclined to agree with you about), but it's the only group involved in this process who has consistently been willing to speak on the record about the Downtown Plan.

[Tom]

I agree and disagree with you, Steve. No one from the business community or affected property owners spoke up at any of the initial meetings last summer. They waited well into fall and winter to object to language and certain designations. Hardly a peep was issued from them at first. Why, I wonder? You are right about the 4 month window being too short, though. But this process did not have to take more than a year, which is what will happen before it even gets to a vote. But the city moving towards what it sees as a public good, as long as owners are compensated, is not depriving owners of anything and benefits the city as a whole in the long run. That is just something people aren't used to around here. Which is pathetic.

[steve]

John: In my opinion, Richmond cannot afford any more "political clumsiness" particularly regarding something as important as the DMP. This process isn't rocket science, however, it needs deftness and finesse to see it through. Alienating key players out of the gate guarantees a long, drawn out process - it may guarantee its failure. To expect those with vested interest to roll over because this is "the people's plan" is at best naive and at worst clueless. I applaud DCD's willingness to discuss the DMP plan on the record. As a government entity I am not sure how else they should respond. My point is, we need someone with vision and enthusiasm AND the political finesse to usher Richmond into a new and exciting future. We need more than a good plan, we need a DCD that can make it happen. Again, blaming this debacle on the PC or CC is being short sighted and only guarantees we will continue to spin in these circles for decades to come.

[John]

Steve - Politics is clumsiness. You make some very good points, but you should be making the same argument about how the mayor has failed the DMP, how the planning commission has failed, how the City Council has failed -- as well as how the Department of Community Development has. There is not a lot of innocence on stage if you're willing to critique this process honestly. Yes, Flynn and the DCD misread the political will and alienated some developers. And as Tom points out the developers didn't get in the game until they realized that the old ways of protecting self-interests weren't working. And the planning commission has stalled and hemmed and hawed on this for months. The political leaders in our community continue to wait for the politically expedient moment to weigh in. If you want to throw the leadership gauntlet down, be fair and call everyone involved in this process out for their failures. There has been more than a year for all of the stakeholders to weigh in -- and staying on the sidelines for 10 months, and then crying foul in the last inning is nothing more than a demonstration of politics at its worst. Call Flynn out on her leadership failures if you want, but don't provide cover for comparable failures on the part of the other key influences in this increasingly absurd drama -- Wilder, the planning commission and City Council have all passed in equal measures when it comes to leading, championing or honestly sinking the DMP. Having been an advocate of this plan for 12 months, I'm beyond discouraged by the overall lack of leadership by all of the players.

[steve]

Tom: I agree and disagree with you as well. I agree this should not be such a long, drawn out process. However, I lay it at the feet of very poor execution - not just the unwillingness of people with vested interest. Taking of property by government (with compensation) does potentially deprive the property owner - is your home really worth only the assessed value to you (I can tell you mine is worth much more to me)? Respecting ALL of the players in a process is critical - whether you like those players or not. Look, I am not a shill for Richmond big business - quite the opposite. However, I think you have to be realistic about the players you are dealing with - again, whether you like it or not - if you genuinely want to make progress and move forward. If the objective of this DMP process was to prove that VCU/DP, etc. were going to protect their interests first and foremost, then the exercise was a success. If the point was to get the city AS A WHOLE moving in the same direction, for the overall good of the city, in my opinion it was a dismal failure. I suspect objections weren't raised early on in the process because strategies were being put in place on how to respond. That should not be a big surprise, these are big businesses we are talking about. I agree with you that Richmond is not used to an inclusive process and yes, that is a shame. However, the process has started, lets keep it going. Being inclusive, however, means including those that don't necessarily agree with you. There is a lot of room between "us" and "them" - this should not be an all or nothing proposition. That is what I view as the failing in this process. This antagonistic approach does nobody any good in the end. It may make the statement people want to hear but it really does nothing towards achieving substantive goals.

[Tom]

Well said, Steve. respecting all the players is important. The City's job and the planners job is (generally) to do what they think is best for the people in the City. We know that VCU and the state can do whatever they want with their land. Is it so awful to let them know we might disagree wtih them on certain plans? And as to VCU specifically, they complained and the planners adhered to their suggested changes. That hardly seems antagonistic to me.**** DCD has led the way, like I said in a way we are not used to. They are putting out ideas that aren't automatically quashed in the boardrooms. That is good for us. That is called dialogue and stating your opinion, which sounds good to me. If your "antagonistic approach" was correct, why then weren't the power brokers antagonistic to the public when things like 6th St. marketplace and other gems enacted. We were told then they were the saviors of downtown, weren't we?**** John is right in his comment that the regular powers got in later once they realized the usual approach wasn't working. They have their voice too, but they are also not used to an open public process and having it sway opinion and policy. That is new to them.**** However, taking of property/changing its use and compensating for property are not the same thing. It happens all the time but this is not a case like Kelo v. Supreme Ct. where a city condems land for a general economic benefit and tries to pay only a fraction of its worth. No, this is about laying out two visions. There are many competing visions - Obama v. McCain, Yankees v. Red Sox, Hatfields v. McCoys.****Like I said, we are just not used to having more than the vision we are told to accept. It's good to have a choice and debate.

[tyrone]

Note - Repost from another Comment (seems like this is where it should go...) The whole DMP process has been a delicious romp, hasn't it? The Planning Commission should be patted on the back for taking their time to review this legal document and making sure that all sides are represented. The PC has a responsibility to protect private property rights; well, so does Flynn's office, but she doesn't particularly care about property rights because they just get in the way of things. (Many readers/commentors on this blog don't either, but unfortunately for them, property rights are here to stay - if they don't like the idea of property rights, they can move to Mainland China.) "Looks like another Flynn basher..." you might be thinking - and you'd be correct. Flynn needs to take a hike along with Wilder, and I don't mean a hike along the James River trails. Flynn blew a chance to exercise true community leadership; instead she chose divide-and-conquer, and it backfired, and it brought out the worst in her. Flynn shot out of the gates with her "looking out for the public" mantra while attacking the PC, VCU/MCV, Ethyl, and anybody else in her way. (She did the same thing in Lynchburg, too, but that's another story.) She attacked chairman Mills right out the chute, using a nasty and bogus "conflict of interest" to smoke screen citizens from what was really going on. (For the record, Mills' firm would have a better shot at getting the renovation design work - not new-hospital design work.) She inacurately makes the public statement: "The public said emphatically, 'Do not tear down West Hospital.' " While some of the public did say that, some of the public also said the exact opposite, emphatically at that. Citizens stated publically in the newspaper and at the public charrettes and at public hearings: MCV has the right to determine the future of West Hospital, and if MCV believes West should come down to make way for a world-class hospital, then that's what should happen. A true leader would have acknowleged both sides - not chosen one side and publicly bashed the other side. It's a very simple ideological difference between the two sides - but a huge difference - and that difference is why the PC has to take its time. Flynn portrays this delay as something sinister, but the reality is the PC has an obligation to approve a plan that is as fair to everybody involved - including the people who actually own property. Flynn could have taken a different approach from the beginning, one of meeting with property owners, meeting with PC, one of building concensus - but that's not her style. Instead of being a leader, instead of building concensus, Flynn took a passive-agressive approach: whined like a female victim of the old boy network, then stabbed from behind with her scorpion's stinger. Case in point: she snuck in changes that negatively impacted both Ethyl's and Mayo Island's property rights, and set the city up for law suits. When did she sneak in this additional language? why, the very morning of the last public hearing. Tch Tch Tch! Should have seen her squirm in her seat at that public hearing - looked like the Martin Agency was filming a commercial for those new wedgie-free panties. Hopefully, we're in for relief. Hopefully, the next mayor will appoint a new Director, somebody who has vision, but has a different approach to carrying out that vision: an approach that doesn't turn "vision" into "di-vision" - which is exactly what Rachel Flynn has done!

[Anonymous]

Talk about antagonistic. And paranoid. And.....

[John]

Well, we almost managed to have an entirely civil discussion with varying perspectives without anyone throwing in a bunch of personal invectives and ad hominem attacks.

[Paul]

Meanwhile, a couple of thousand words later, hmmm? My feelings are this is an end round of the electoral process. If we want to rewrite the charter again and have government by charet(sic), the proceed and change the charter once more. The DMP is a wish list and a political axe. It's a pretty picture that draws a box around the James River and cripples the city economically. Who suffers? Well first the poor, who have been abandoned by all races, including their own. Is the DMP a bad thing? No, not necessarily. Done right it should be based in reality, it's impact. It should respect all opinions and seek them out. It shouldn't be used as the political bat that it currently is. The goals for this city should be safety and opportunity. Accomplish those two things and miracles will happen.

[Anonymous]

John - if you can provide translation for the last assertion that the DMP as written hurts the poor the most I would appreciate it. ??? Is the DMP a bat, axe, or a wish list? Which one of those instruments was 6th St. Marketplace? Arts Center? Convention Center? CDA? Is there a Rosetta Stone DVD set I can purchase to translate this?

[John]

Paul - 1) We have a government comprised of an elected Mayor and City Council, and staffed by professionals who bring varying degrees of competency to the table, but state law insists that processes like the Master Plan development be open and somewhat transparent -- and while this has been the most inclusive and transparent process in the history of Richmond, to characterize it as populism run amok is disingenuous and silly. 2) All master plans are wish lists. They are visions of what could be, and guides for future development. 3) How a plan that emphasizes a healthy blend of commercial, residential and retail downtown cripples the city, I'm not sure. I also don't get the off-hand racial abandonment issue you raise. 4) The primary goal of the Wilder administration (and maybe the only thing Wilder should get any points for) has been safety. And I'd argue that this Master Plan creates more opportunity (Echo Harbor and Mayo Island issues aside) than anything on the table right now.

[Paul]

John) Apparently we disagree, which I'm sure we're both OK with. Anon) Undermining the tax base, chasing away jobs and preserving the last stretch of developable land along the river for the few instead of the many does hurt the poor, nothing to do with race. It's a equal opportunity discriminator. As far as safety is concerned, we have miles to go. Who in their right mind would let a loved one walk down Grace St at night or invite a tourist or guest for a stroll down Broad? I live it daily and that perhaps is where my cynicism comes from. I never saw Mayor Wilder walk down Broad until I invited him and the news media at the same time.