Read on Twitter
So it seems that @Richmond300 is the talk of the town today. I gave a public comments at the land use committee a few weeks back so I thought I’d share some thoughts
First, to clarify @RichmondForAll’s position on the plan, we think that most of the plan is good and we are excited to see it guide our city for the next few years.
Our members participated at all stages of the process. They will continue to do so. We take the position that all people should be encouraged to engage at all stages of the process, including the council vote.
However, RFA works closely with a lot of other orgs in the city that have serious concerns about the “Inclusive Housing” section of the plan.
Here is PSG with their take: https://twitter.com/SmartGrowthRVA/status/1312136448263376896
We support the development of an affordable dwelling unit ordinance (like PSG is calling for) as outlined in the plan, we think this is necessary to fulfill the demand for affordable housing for folks making less than 50% of the AMI.
But Mark Olinger the City Planning Director has indicated that the planning department intends to “zone to plan”, without getting too in the weeds, this sort of takes the teeth out of an ADU and takes away the city’s negotiating power for privately developed affordable housing
Another troubling aspect of the plan is the use of TIFs on the pulse corridor, see here for @MrLegacyJones take: https://twitter.com/MrLegacyJones/status/1328750381946576898
It seems curious the city is using TIFs on the Pulse Corridor when TIFs are supposed to be for underdeveloped areas. The Pulse Corridor is some of the most valuable land in the city, so this has the potential to turn into another tax capture scheme (see Navy Hill) for developers
We also want stronger commitments from the city that if they sell public land that there will be significant affordable units set aside for folks making less than 30% of the regional AMI.
IMHO the biggest flaw in R300 is that it endorses RRHA’s plan to demolish all of the public housing in the next few years. Public housing clearly needs to be reinvested in, but the RRHA plan is seriously flawed and has actively excluded good-faith resident participation.
See here for the joint letter from VPLC, LAJC, and CVLA: https://vpm.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/VHJP%20Comments%20on%20RRHA%20Plan.pdf
A lot of the chatter that I am seeing online is also about Oregon Hill asking for a residential land use designation. Increased density in the city is generally good, but I would invite you to read the Wayne Commission report. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/vcu_books/3/#:~:text=58%20p.-,Description,the%20Richmond%20Federal%20Reserve%20Bank
In 1967, VCU’s original plan was to gobble up Oregon Hill. These attempts (the last of which i think was in the 2000s) have repeatedly been pushed back by residents.
The university’s current master plan does not indicate that the public entities of the university intend to redevelop the neighborhood, but VCU’s foundation has demonstrated that it will quietly convert surrounding neighborhoods into university property.
The increase in the height requirement will likely not result in more affordable housing for neighborhood and city residents.
Instead, this land use designation and the resulting zoning will more likely result in more low quality student housing and VCU campus extensions at the direct expense of existing residents.
I also find it kind of sus that council is voting on this plan before the new council is sat. We just had an election and I think it should be up to those electeds to adopt the document that will guide them for their entire term.
Richmond has an eviction crisis. We have a housing shortage (especially for people below 30% AMI). We have to get this stuff right, and it’s okay if that means a deep process of deliberation. There’s no question Richmond 300 expanded community input dramatically.
We also started from a very low baseline, and we’re working with a rapidly shifting landscape. https://twitter.com/teevirus/status/1333823011569479682
Ultimately, there needs to be space for conversation, all the way to the final vote.
