The issue of riverside redevelopment saw some lively debate at a forum attended largely by Old Town residents and hosted by the Old Town Civic Association at Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy on Wednesday night.
Candidates debated citizen engagement and the possibility of rezoning some portions of the city’s waterfront to allow hotels. The city in January passed a plan to redevelop its waterfront, but it has not approved a proposed zoning change permitting development such as hotels there.
“I would not rezone the waterfront. You do not need to rezone to gain amenities,” said Republican candidate Bob Wood, who lives near the city’s riverside. “Council can exercise leadership over the process,” adding that council members shouldn’t constantly concede to developers and should be careful not to turn a “gem of a waterfront to generic.”
He later characterized a current Carr Hospitality proposal to put a hotel on the waterfront as “too big” and said it “defied physics.”
Fellow Republican and incumbent Councilman Frank Fannon said the plan must be improved and should be treated “parcel by parcel” to make the best decisions.
Incumbent Councilwoman Alicia Hughes, who is serving a term as an independent but is running as a Republican for the November election, said the waterfront small area plan should not cost the city $3 million. She also advocated developing “parcel by parcel.”
Democrat Allison Silberberg said she did not believe the plan was “visionary enough” and would have liked to see a small, permanent band shell in Oronoco Bay Park.
“We should pause and get it right," she said. "While National Harbor is great to some people, there are thousands of National Harbors. There is only one Old Town.”
She added later that the process should be opened up so “citizens are involved from the outset” and that she would not like to see rezoning of the waterfront.
Libertarian Robert Kraus said the city must stop giving special favors to developers and the plan should be put on hold.
Glenda Davis, who is running as an independent, said the city “tends to think within the box all of the time” and would like to see a more “creative” and “innovative” city. “There are so many options,” she said, adding that she did not see a necessity for more hotels and restaurants on the waterfront.
Democrat John Chapman said the planning process highlights the need to reevaluate how citizens are involved in creating small area plans.
“It’s not about the number of meetings we have, it’s about the quality of those meetings,” he said.
Independent Jermaine Mincey said he does not believe a revote is necessary but the city needs to reach out to the community.
Democrat Tim Lovain, a former council member who is running again, agreed that the process “could have been better” but said the plan improved over time and became balanced. He added that he had concerns with Hughes and Fannon, who both voted against the plan, saying they didn’t get involved with the details but merely voted against it.
Democratic incumbent Del Pepper reminded the audience that she was able to get her fellow council members to reduce the number of allowable hotels from three to two just prior to their final vote and that she “tried hard to reduce the density.”
Justin Wilson, also a former council member running again, said the preservation of the status quo is “not an option.” He said the city had three choices—by-right development that could have led to many townhouses, buy some of the most expensive properties in Alexandria or lastly, engage in a public-private partnership.
“I would have gone with the third choice,” he said, which offers 5.5 acres of open space and $7 million in flood mitigation.
Democratic Councilman Paul Smedberg was not able to attend the debate due to a previously scheduled work commitment. Mayor Bill Euille also did not attend the mayoral debate portion of the evening, leaving independent challenger Andrew Macdonald alone on the stage to field questions from moderator John Porter.
For more information about Alexandria's local elections, follow @alexandriapatch, @delraypatch and@WEAlexVAPatch on Twitter. Like Old Town Alexandria Patch, Del Ray Patch and West End Alexandria Patch on Facebook.
Do you have a citation or link?
In fact, we need to look no farther than just up the Waterfront, where a brand new, by-right development project is occurring as we speak: http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/articles/developer-eya-develops-luxury-waterfront-condos http://www.eya.com/oronoco/ You stated "On valuable property such as all the parcels proposed for redevelopment on the waterfront, no owner would settle for the lower level of development available by-right." Perhaps you should discuss your ROI analysis of the pro forma's of by-right development on the Waterfront with EYA.
As for Mr. Wilson's point that somehow we are worse off if we accept the existing by-right zoning -- which was approved for a reason -- I would say that this misses the real point. That more development is not necessarily going to make things better if the current level is already problematic. The role of the Council should be, through strong community-centerd public policy decisions, and negotiation and vision, to craft a plan that will result in the highest and best use of a scarce resource - land. More town homes -- which are more likely to be built then hotels -- are not going to create a more public waterfront, or one that will help sustain a historic town. Developers want to make a fair return on their investment and we want to make a lasting return for the city as a whole. If we agree to higher density without thinking long term, we are not doing our job. Mayor Euille has put developers in charge of our future and is using the by right argument (and revenue needs of other programs like schools) as an excuse to accept more development. The goal should be a plan that is right for Alexandria, and will generate revenue that sustains our sense of place and brand.
"Unlike some other development projects throughout the city, this conversion from office to residential is "by right" and does not require review and approval by the Planning Commission or City Council, according to the city’s Planning and Zoning Department. However, the building’s transformation requires city staff administrative approval of a grading plan and building permits. City staff plans to allow landscaping alterations and grading changes for creating street-level access to the lobby. “The city’s ability to require additional public benefits envisioned in the Waterfront Small Area Plan, such as improvements to Oronoco Bay Park and an art wall, is limited because of the administrative process,” according to an email from Planning and Zoning. “However, the applicant may wish to volunteer some of these improvements.”"
Great job keeping the waterfront open!
As for who has Republican support and who does not, yesterday I drove along a Rosemont Street just off Russell (between Russell and Commonwealth) and saw a home with both a Romney sign and a Euille sign out front. I was surprised at first but then after I thought about it, I realized there may well be a number of Romney supporters who also support the way in while Mayor Euille has run the city for the last nine years. Supporting both would not really represent any conflict or inconsistency.
very nice plantings, let's give them a bigger palette.
Speak for yourself. Those abandoned buildings and vacant lots were me and my childhood friends fantastic playground. It was awesome. Imagine having huge old warehouse to go exploring in. I climbed that old water tower on more than one occassion. I think I even have a box of trinkets in the attic from things I found in the old buildings.