Comments on: Council to Vote on Manchester Parking Projects Tomorrow

By: Hills and Heights » Opposition to Manchester on the James in RTD - Richmond, Virginia

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:32:37 +0000

[...] was discussed here when the vote was going down last week and now the RTD is covering the debate as well. Council [...]

By: Ben H

Ben H — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:03:10 +0000

The vote was 8-1 in favor of the stimulus projects. Reva Trammell was the lone dissenting vote.

By: Carolyn Paulette

Carolyn Paulette — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:57:21 +0000

This stimulus money is supposed to be used for loans “only to qualified, private, non resident development” according to an email I received from a member of Council. No apartments, no parking deck needed so how can this deck qualify as a non-resident development?

The special use permit for the Manchester on the James Apartments expires at the end of June–they have had almost 2 years to start construction. Will this money and the construction of the parking deck qualify to extend the Special Use Permit? There has been a lawsuit between the original owner and the developer, Crossland. Also, the original owner of the property made a $5-6000 donation to a Council member who supported this project.

Opposition from Springhill and Woodland Heights was ignored. They needed only 4 no votes to defeat the project. They received 3.

Richard, most people don’t know about this vote. You could keep it on the home page.
Get to the Council Meeting at City Hall tonight, 6 pm.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:31:00 +0000

I also commented on the matter on my blog here. I'm not against smart, well-thought out development, but this is the wrong kind of development. It's a project the developer themselves aren't willing to do; is it likely that city council is better at real estate speculation than the professionals?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:27:06 +0000

Thanks so much for following this story. Residents of the Springhill neighborhood appreciate it greatly! We’re trying to get the word out ourselves:

http://springhillrva.org

By: Urgent: Development Rears Ugly Head Again « SpringhillRVA.org

Urgent: Development Rears Ugly Head Again « SpringhillRVA.org — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:02:49 +0000

[...] More info from Hills and Heights, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and a government site on Recovery Zone Facility bonds under the American [...]

By: Stuffa

Stuffa — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:41:27 +0000

Given the current state of the real estate market as well as the economy, throwing federal $$ at this private, speculative development project would be a ridiculous, logic-defying waste of taxpayer’s money.

By: Ben H

Ben H — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:57:09 +0000

It is not smart development, it is a monolithic monstrosity that takes the Springhill neighborhood’s density level to Manhattan like levels. I don’t care for ugly, vacant lots either. However, that is preferable to me than to build a flawed and inappropriate project that will quickly degrade into something worse.

As for the lots, they have an owner. It’s his responsibility to maintain the lots. Apparently the excuse is he shouldn’t be held responsible for his property so let’s allow him to develop whatever he wants on the land. City Council spoke of a “gateway” project for the Southside. This project by no means qualifies for such lofty status. The neighborhoods of Springhill and Woodland Heights spoke loudly and eloquently against this project. Now federal funds (our tax dollars, or the tax dollars of our future generations) is going to be used to ram through a project that had so much public opposition?

I am by no means a NIMBY or a BANANA person, but the resurrection of this project on the backs of taxpayers reeks of political powers in bed with developers, leaving the voice of these neighborhoods unheeded and ignored.

I encourage anyone who wants to know more about the history of this project to do a little research. It’s not a pretty story.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:35 +0000

I support the projects that this stimulus funding is intended to help 100% (and No, I’m not developer. I’m just a citizen who wants to see the City Move Forward and embrace positive change). Positive, smart development should be welcomed. Change by definition is not a bad thing.

Have never understood why Richmonders oppose change so strongly. I have absolutely no idea why anybody would want to preserve the hideous vacant lots on Cowardin just south of the Lee Bridge. That area has always been an enormous eye sore and an awful introduction to the South Side.

Currently, there are 3 vacant, unattractive lots just south of the Lee Bridge. They contain 1) trash filled, unmaintained woods 2) a billboard for a strip joint 3) the most hideous graffiti shack in the country and 4) Weed overgrowth, etc. I have yet to hear a single argument that makes me understand why we would want to preserve that ugliness on Cowardin and oppose smart development in an urban area that desperately needs more population density.

Thanks for reading and please remember that not all South Siders want to prevent development along Cowardin, in particular.

By: Ben H

Ben H — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:57:43 +0000

Unfortunately, this is a brazen attempt to resurrect a highly controversial and contested project by using public funds to feather the beds of private enterprise. I find it sad that public money to the tune of $4.5 million dollars would be used in such a crass manner when the schools of Richmond are crumbling and a wonderful concept the Patrick Henry School is in need of money for rehabbing as well. What a slap in the face of the citizens of Springhill, Woodland Heights, Forest Hill and Westover Hills who so vociferously opposed the Manchaster on the James project. Now we are faced with the potential that significant public funds will be used to ram through a fatally flawed project.

Ben H