Echo Harbor meeting tonight on Southside
A meeting tonight that may be of interest:
By far the more interesting meeting tonight will be an event organized by the Greater Jefferson Davis Area Civic Association and the Richmond Crusade for Voters that is being billed as a forum with Echo Harbour Developers.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:30 PM-8:00 PM
Southside Community Service Center
Southside Plaza
4100 Hull Street Road
Richmond, Virginia 23224For more information please contact Civic Association President Carrie Cox at (804)743-1636
This is an efort by Marty Jewell and Bruce Tyler to make it appear that the African-American community supports EH. The two have become a team in supporting Bruce’s client.
Church Hill, Councilperson Marty Jewell is determined to sell off your view of the river.
Sigh. If that is true… I don’t know what to say. And with all due respect I must say that I simply don’t understand how City Council allows Mr. Tyler to vote about this issue at all as a Councilman. He is a Principal with architectural firm directly involved with the project. How in the world can he be fair or do anything but directly support this project from his position?
I say develop – yes. But develop in a different manner than proposed by this massive high rise.
I don’t recall “paying” for the view shed anywhere along the river, so how could it be “sold”?
Should we institute a “view tax” as some localities have considered? We could use it to fund “the view”.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/14/142026.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/09/realestate/view-tax-outrages-a-connecticut-town.html
Lest we forget, the owner tore down the rusting structures that were there. And while we are on the “view”, how about the 3′ tall grass in Libby Hill and the 2′ tall grass on the cobblestone road leading to Poe’s Pub. Guess we’re not looking too carefully at the view.
I will be attending this meeting tonight as an interested guest, to see what is going on and how it is going to be discussed. I will provide a description to all tomorrow as to the procedings and any outcomes.
PointCounterPoint, I don’t think the Echo Harbour people tore down anything. Those buildings were gone by the time they bought the property.
Cadeho, you are correct, the seller tore the structures down in an effort to clean up the site and make it more salable.
It definitely sends a signal to anyone who wants to build something new. Never tear down anything until you have all approvals in place to build your new structure. The cement towers that are still there is a good example.
The meeting on Southside was typical for any association civic or home owner’s association meeting. Echo Harbour did its typical 30 min. presentation that they have done at CHA and other meetings in the City. It was not a debate and following Mr. Thebold’s presentation, folks were encouraged to check into the facts and circumstances surrounding Echo Harbour – before making any decisons.
Curmudgeon #5, I’m interested in your report about the meeting, hope you attended.
crd #9. As stated earlier it was the standard sales presentation by Echo Harbour with typically predisposed sales-pitch data and eye-wash poster board pictures. Some pictures taken a mile away and at unrepresentative angles, so as not to show the real impact on the River and City. Example: they cut off the high side of their building and only showed the Eastern 95ft. side of the building and not the Western side at 150ft., (when viewed from Libby Hill – I wonder why?).
I could go on – but they are shaping the story from their point of view to sway the public and City Council. If nobody disputes or challenges the sales pitch or accepts it hook, line and sinker – it might appear to be a good idea. Unfortunately it is not – and thus it is the burden of the citizen public to be diligent, self-educated and aware of the ALL the unprejudiced facts and circumstances.
It’s worth reading Wil Jones story from 3-4 weeks ago about some of the engineering hurdles still to be faced. Still unresolved are two major CSO lines through the property that would need to be relocated, a major water line that would need relocation, fire department access issues, and flood displacement questions to be addressed by FEMA. I understand that the use permit cannot even go to the planning commission as long as these questions are outstanding. Tyler and others are trying to get the use permit granted and address these ion the plan of develkopment, completely contrary to normal practice.
Curmudgeon #10, thanks for the explanation. I posted my comment when your #8 wasn’t visible yet, it must have been awaiting moderation. And thanks Sundagger for the additional details. Can they actually get a use permit approved without the train lines, water line, fire dept. access and other FEMA stuff being addressed?
Actually Sundagger, it IS being held up contrary to normal practice and that’s why Richmond is way behind the surrounding counties in bringing new businesses to the area.
Businesses need to know their projects can follow a reasonable time line so they can open or bring a product to market. That is not possible in the City. Consequently the jobs and tax base go to the county. It’s great if you live in the County as commercial tax base pays the bills-not residential. Bad if you live in the City and you are stuck paying the tax bill of lost projects.
When property is rezoned in the surrounding counties, a schematic master plan may or may not be presented. Engineering issues are resolved in the design and engineering stages. Issues regarding utilities, streets, safety and technical performance issues are typically noted in the re-zoning case as, “subject to the resolution or satisfaction of XYZ”.
Hiding behind these “requirements” is delay tactic at best. This is a bad tactic as businesses see what happens in Richmond and chose to locate elsewhere.
There is a big difference between creating policy and enforcing policy. Elected officials create policy and are elected to make the “tough decisions”.
City administrators are supposed to enforce the policy of the elected officials. If they want to create policy, they should run for office.
Here’s a link to a video recording of the meeting.
http://richmond-telegraph.blogspot.com/2009/09/echo-harbor-presentation.html
Echo Harbor Presentation Sept. 1, 2009 from Silver Persinger on Vimeo.
I’m just prepared to just good planning practice by what happens in Henrico or Chesterfield. If the goal is to approve anything, then fine,. In Richmond, your method would be have the council approve a special use permit or rezoning on a conceptual basis then count on the plan of development to iron out the details. The POD does not come back to Council; it is purely administrative decision. So the final decision, for or against, would be governed by staff people who report to the mayor, for better or worse.
At any rate, I think the staff ought to have the mandate of making certain the th developer is in compliance before the decision goes to the planning commission or council. To do otherwise deprives the plannning commission and the council of the bet possible information.
First line shjould read “I’m just not prepared to judge…” can’t type at this hour.