Save Richmond

For once, Save Richmond and the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial page agree on something…

It’s time for the City of Richmond’s Planning Commission to stop dicking around and pass the Downtown Master Plan.

On Monday, the commission will meet (yet again) to either pass or fail the plan — which was conceived through a highly-inclusive public charrette process (read all about that here) — OR it will postpone its recommendation (yet again) for reasons that are appearing more and more political and tactical than deliberative.

And the conspiracy theorist said: “Hmmmm….?”

The DMP draft has already been extensively vetted (take a gander here), and the fear is that, like all of Richmond’s previous Downtown plans, this people-first proposal will be whittled down even more, leaving only the wishes of VCU, the “Metro business community” and big development pie-in-the-sky.

John Sarvay at Buttermilk & Molasses offers up his assessment of the Big Stall:

Blame the delayed vote — and a potentially longer delay — on a final push by several of Richmond’s major corporations, who remain concerned about the plan’s recommendations on their property. In a recent email to Robert Mills, chairman of the planning commission, Venture Richmond’s executive director outlined those concerns in a last-minute pitch for a series of changes to the plan:

Berry writes, in part:

“The draft plan still shows the elimination of the Reynolds Metals manufacturing plant in Manchester [Page 4.31,32,39,40]. The plant itself employs about 500 people, and Reynolds Packaging employs over 1,000 people in the region. We should not send a message to these employees, and to the new owners of Reynolds, that they are not wanted. The draft plan proposes to redevelop the site with a “parking garage to provide needed parking, lined with habitable spaces to create a pedestrian-friendly street frontage” (4.31-32). I’d suggest that the master plan show the plant as is, and not refer to it in derogatory terms ‘…in one instance, an industrial building has agglomerated four urban blocks, interrupting the street grid…’ I’d suggest that the jobs and the economic vitality provided by that plant, which has been there about 70 years, is far more important than restoring the street grid.”

Oddly enough, I was just part of a discussion not a month ago with several members of Richmond’s corporate community about conversations with the plant’s new owners about it being acquired by the city, the operations being moved and the street grid and canal access being restored.

Berry’s other concerns were all raised in the public session earlier in July — the plan’s recommendations for 7th Street adjacent to the Federal Reserve Bank [Page 3.31]; the illustrative 10th Street overlook where a Dominion power sub-station currently sits [Page 4.27]; and the proposed signature building at the north end of the Manchester Bridge [Pge 4.28].

These are issues that have been discussed and negotiated for months — which makes the last-minute play for revisions a bit annoying. Berry’s argument on almost every point is that the proposals in question are “not realistic.” I’d expect nothing less from a visionary document.

Monday’s planning commission meeting is the political equivalent of a fourth down. All eyes are on the commission — Will they go for a first down, or will they punt?

If you can’t make the 6PM start time, or if you are unable to squeeze into the impossibly small 5th floor Conference room that the commission scheduled for this important open meeting at City Hall, Envision Richmond has an online petition that you can sign in support of the plan.

Update: Today, Venture Richmond’s Jack Berry out a note clarifying his letter to Robert Mills and the Planning Commission, and reiterating his own support of the proposed Downtown Master Plan:

“I read your blogs. Just want you to be clear. I support the plan and hope it will be approved tonight.

In my email, I was simply making one last suggestion to change four site specific recommendations in the plan. Keep in mind that the Reynolds plant I’m talking about is the Manchester Plant on the south side of the river (the mother ship), not the site adjacent to the canal, which has been the subject of recent conversations you referred to in your blog. The Dominion issues (sub station and signature building) are minor tweaks that would do no harm to the plan. I’m simply trying to get us to a point where everyone, including downtown’s biggest employers and biggest property owners, can ALL support the Plan. The Plan has a much higher probability of actually getting implemented if EVERYONE is on board. Ideally, we want all the stakeholders, including property owners, preservationists, concerned citizens, etc. all pushing for its implementation. If we pull that off, we might have a coalition that would be strong enough to get the City to implement the Plan’s most important elements, including acquisition of property for public access to the river, two-way streets, pedestrian priority, etc.

We’re very close to success on step one, adoption of the Plan, but the real test will come later when we find out whether the City feels any urgency to actually do what the Plan says. So let’s stay together on this.”