15 Responses to “proposed constitutional amendment could have heavy local impact”

1. posted by Daniel at November 5, 2006 8:46 pm :
   

   Thanks for posting this. I was just trying to understand this one and I wasn’t really sure what it would mean.

2. posted by Rick at November 6, 2006 12:40 pm :
   

   If I understand this correctly, the key word is “new”. Existing structures are already covered. So saying yes would allow governments to provide tax breaks for new structures

   (and improvements) located in conservation, redevelopment, and rehabilitation areas. Correct?

   Well, this is a tough one. I am absolutely all for rehabbing these wonderful old buildings. But when they are just not “rehab-able”, wouldn’t it be a good thing to have incentives for folks to build new structures on that land to bring up the neighborhood? New buildings in historical zones must follow certain guidelines to maintain the integrity and look of a neighborhood.

   I need to give this one some thought. I can see the good in both sides.

3. posted by Bob at November 6, 2006 1:30 pm :
   

   Has the current exemptions for rehab/renov only led to an increased tax-burden on existing homeowners? IMO, no. In the long run, the exemptions on new development will lead to greater revenues due to the fact that these exemptions typically have a sunset. The Washington Post and other media outlets are encouraging Virginian’s to vote yes on question 3. So am I.

4. posted by new to the Hill at November 6, 2006 2:42 pm :
   

   Stop the press! Church Hill residents are anti-development!?!

   My family just moved here this summer and we are learning a LOT about our neighbors’ feelings towards growth and development. No new grocery stores, no new restaurants, no new ballparks, no new neighbors (especially if they are condos – hisssss….)

   It’s becoming more than predictable and less than credible behavior. We saw grown adults bicker, groan, and wince like children at the last CHA meeting. A number of folks should be ashamed at the way they acted and treated the speakers.

   This amendment authorizes the General Assembly to authorize a locality (like the City of Richmond) to broaden the use of tax abatement programs beyond its current restriction limited to only restoration credits. For instance, after the amendment passes, the City could use tax abatement for a wealth of projects designed to improve the City, from redevelopment of the public housing projects with a developer to a town square shopping park like Stony Point.

   But not to worry; I’m sure the developers will know better than to bring any progress near our neighborhood.

5. posted by Not So New at November 6, 2006 4:33 pm :
   

   What kind of progress is it to destroy what’s already here and what people came here for to begin with?

   Without getting into that, the amendment is an invitation for poor projects and political corruption. It will encourage things to be built that can’t stand on their own. Much like the Nolde Condos.

   And what projects do you think will get such preferments? Maybe ones where the developers are close to/willing to make accommodations to the politicians involved?

6. posted by john m at November 6, 2006 4:36 pm :
   

   What kind of progress is it to destroy what’s already here and what people
   came here for to begin with?

   I was typing my response when he said it better. We don’t need to offer any incentives towards demolition, the city is doing that all too well as it is…

7. posted by john m at November 6, 2006 4:38 pm :
   

   …. and let me add that I love the new houses back my way. Check out short Q Street, or the intersection of 22nd&R Streets, or the the 1200 block of 24th Street and see what Better Housing Coalition has been doing.

8. posted by 100 word minimum at November 6, 2006 7:15 pm :
   

   If you’re new to the Hill, you may not realize that Church Hill looks as good as it does thanks to local resistance to developers and their initial (usually awful) proposals.

   For example, the initial proposal for The Market involved tearing down the Superior Building and converting those city blocks into a big box store. Because of neighborhood resistance, the building was preserved and the area looks better for it. I expect the Superior Building residents, with great views of the river valley, would agree.

   The initial proposal for Nolde was to convert the building into a very large number of very tiny apartments and to add no parking. So the extra 300 cars? The developers said they would just park on the surrounding streets. Go to 26th and Broad and see if you can find room for 300 cars. That proposal was blocked and the developers had to come up with a plan for fewer, larger apartments with off street parking.

   With this sort of pattern, is it any wonder that local residents fight development? If the developers want to meet with less resistance, they simply have to offer better proposals.

9. posted by bob at November 6, 2006 7:52 pm :
   

   But what about that monster on E Leigh St that’s still for sale?

10. posted by john m at November 6, 2006 7:54 pm :
    

    That’s not a BHC house, is it?

11. posted by j at November 6, 2006 8:34 pm :
    

    I’m all for this amendment. It would allow tax exemption (or more likely partial tax exmption for a set number of years) to encourage growth in areas that need it. This is a tool that is deparately needed for certain areas. It just boils down to whether or not you think public officials have the common sense to use it effectively. I hope that they would not use this option on any building worth saving. But I don’t think we need to save every shack and outhouse at the expense of revitalizing areas that deperately need it. Just because a building is old does not make it worth holding on to. I take ACORN’s view on this amendment with a grain of salt. It’s like getting an opinion on gun-control laws from the NRA.

12. posted by Celeste at November 6, 2006 8:45 pm :
    

    I like Bob’s comments - the existing abatement for rehab/reno has not hurt anyone and having the ability to offer incentives for new structures would probably help. I didn’t realize the Washington Post had weighed in on this. What I find curious if why ACORN is weighing in on it and encouraging a negative vote.

    My sense is that, if an historic district is put in place, the only new structures would have to be in keeping with the existing structures. That’s the way it works in the St. John’s Old and Historic District. I’m aware that there is currently a move afoot to expand that historic district, and I would hope that it happens sooner rather than later, as that would really encourage only compatible building in a good portion of the area. For those not in an historic district with the restrictions that it imposes on new structures - well, that’s one more reason to be really involved and active in your neighborhood, AND to support local elections. In Virginia, land use falls to the locality - and that means to City Council, eventually, in most cases, when land use is being questioned. (And yes, I’ve been supporting Reggie Malone’s campaign, but I’ve not spoken to him about this, these are just my thoughts. I think if I asked him he’d probably say he supports what the district wants). Again I’m curious as to why ACORN is against it.

13. posted by Celeste at November 6, 2006 8:49 pm :
    

    j, I agree with most of what you wrote, just wanted to add that I was thinking more of vacant lots being filled with something - I wasn’t focused on this amendment as affecting existing structures so much. There are so many vacant lots here (and more being created way too often, it seems).

14. posted by Bob at November 7, 2006 12:23 pm :
    

    I just don’t understand the opposition to this ammendment. As Celeste notes above…it isn’t as though extending the exemptions to new projects will circumvent existing procedures (read planning and zoning….need for SUP’s etc.) Rather it will give municipality’s another tool to use towards attracting investment. Yes…I understand that not all investment is wanted…but does that mean that we (CH Residents) don’t want ANY investment…either in or around us?

15. posted by Bob Stokes at November 8, 2006 11:34 am :
    

    My educated guess is that ACORNs resistence stemmed from the fact that a tax credit for new construction basically eliminates the competitive advantage of restoration vis a vie the tax credit for historic preservation. They fear (and possibly correctly) that this will result in tear downs as there is no longer any relative tax advantage to restoration. I am sure they acknowledge that the empty lot problem could be addressed by this policy, but they might have seen the trade off as too burdensome to their principal mission as a preservation group. While not privy to their discussion on this topic, I would also think that there may also be a bit of organizational survival instinct at play here, as they have a business line or two in the area of restoration tax credit consultancy.

    Last year I wrote the Council president proposing such a policy, which had worked in other cities to jump start a rather moribund housing development trend in central cities. I did so recognizing certain issues with this policy: Tax credits have an inflationary effect on housing prices. A recent study in Phila. found that sellers/developers were capturing the capitalized value of the tax credit in their sales price, plus a 15% premium! (compared to a matched set of property transactions where the tax credit was not in play). One might say that the recent hyperinflated real estate market caused this, no doubt it had a absolute effect, but if the matching was done right, market conditions did not have a comparative effect. I would add that this phenomena occurs for all tax credit programs, including restoration. One can see on the horizon a major downward correction in housing prices in neighborhoods that have disproportionate levels of tax credit properties. As long as everyone keeps in mind that this leveraging policy of tax credits has worked at affecting redevelopment in general, then it does not seem too bad of a policy. While we have heard complaints about housing values rising (and the associated tax burdens), this is a far more acceptable outcome than a serious decline in property values.

    The issue of tax fairness is also raised by ACORN. This is akin to flying on an airplane, where folks all paid different prices for the same trip. All I can say to this is that I have lived in other cities where there was absolutely no fairness in property tax levys. At least here, they seem to keep up with the market.

    There is also the question of whether such tax credits work as effective leveragers in down markets. One would think that all things being equal, this policy should only really be used in stagnant markets.

    Anyway, this has passed, and I am sure that both supporters and detractors alike wish to facilitate quality developement and infill, while not creating a situation where historical structures that otherwise would be restored, are now torn down. This act merely allows local governments to craft tax policies to effect tax credits on new construction. How it is crafted would be of great import right now.

Leave a Comment