Developing conclusions
I’m usually impressed by your coverage of local issues, but once in a while an article shows up that’s so unbalanced as to demand a reality check. John Borgmeyer’s piece on the new Rugby historic district is a case in point [“Council approves Rugby historic district,” The Week, January 24]. In researching the issue, Borgmeyer relies heavily on the opinions of real estate developer/manager Rick Jones. What Jones fails to make clear is that when the City rezoned the Rugby-Venable neighborhood back in 2003, public officials promised that protections for the area’s historic buildings would be promptly put into place. Three years and many demolitions later, that promise has been fulfilled. How real estate moguls managed to develop a sense of entitlement in the meantime is none of my business, but it is (or should be) Borgmeyer’s.
Borgmeyer and Jones leave readers with the impression that historic district status will freeze new construction in the neighborhood. In fact, the ordinance simply gives the Board of Architectural Review (and ordinary citizens) some say over what comes down and what goes up. It was with this goal in mind that more than 230 Charlottesville residents—including UVA students and faculty—signed petitions in support of the district. I assume it is this group that Borgmeyer dismisses as “preservation interests” to whom City Councilors “caved in.” Still, 230 residents seem more likely to represent public interests than a klatch of irate developers who, it’s worth noting, tend to live outside the city.
Finally, while I am heartened to learn that Jones and other developers are suddenly concerned about sprawl, I suspect their eulogy for the “great idea” of unregulated growth may be misdirected. Many empty lots in the neighborhood are likely to be the sites of new apartment buildings in coming years. And yet the sprawl will continue. UVA has some 20,000 students for whom it provides roughly 6,000 units of housing. Might this cause be more deserving of taxpayer money than yet another football stadium? I’m counting on Rick Jones and John Borgmeyer to pursue the issue with me.
Aaron Wunsch
Charlottesville
In the zone
The C-VILLE seems determined to take the developers’ part in its reporting of City Council’s debate on historic preservation in the Rugby Road/14th Street area. Why write the article from the perspective of the “baffled” Rick Jones, president of MSC? Where is the confusion here? Is it in the fact that the City modified its 2003 rezoning decision and, through a process of debate and argument, decided to reign in unchecked development? Does this process sound familiar? It’s “all politics” all the time, Mr. Jones, but usually development (read: money) gets its way. Every now and then, though, a truly good idea wins out, as it did on January 17. The
C-VILLE needs to re-examine its ability (or desire) to evenhandedly report on this important local issue.
Judith Kucharski
Charlottesville
Let’s hear it for Bluestone
Charlottesville’s big-time developers of student housing did a great sales job on John Borgmeyer [“What price history?” January 31].
Charlottesville residents—in case Borg-meyer is interested—thank City Council for its recent vote, which preserves quality of life as well as important local history. Many of us in Venable have been involved in such debates for three or more decades.
One of the developer-group problems—in addition to an unwillingness to police its own ranks—is its go-it-alone, us-against-them mindset. During the process I personally attempted to engage one of the chief developers in dialogue, only to be told to “mind my own business.” So be it.
A couple of points:
-Charlottesville has substantial tax revenues and a triple “A” bond rating.
-Sorry, but I don’t know any “townies who enjoy mocking UVA undergraduates.”
-And as far as professor Daniel Blue-stone is concerned, I hope he runs for mayor.
Dan Friedman
Charlottesville
UVA should take the lead
In your story “What price history?” you’ve left out one really big key player: UVA. Why is it that the University of Virginia seems to be sprouting massive athletic facilities and other buildings all over the place but doesn’t seem to be providing adequate student housing? It seems to me that much of the student sprawl is the fault of UVA relying on developers to provide student housing, instead of building it on-campus. If UVA has the money and resources to increase its student population by 6,000 then they should also have the money to build more housing.
Secondly, UVA should commit to not only build it, but also strongly encourage or even require more students to live in it. This should include limiting parking for second- and possibly third-year students. Anyone who drives around in Char-lottesville year-round breathes a sigh of relief once summer is here, students are gone and we can find parking, and travel freely down our streets. If our city is going to preach alternative transportation and responsible development, UVA must start being a leader by teaching students how to live and travel more sustainably.
Lastly, I’m not convinced about the tax benefits that these developments provide to the City. Students don’t use schools, but they do use water, sewer, electricity, roads and other infrastructure. The less concentrated students are within the city, the more of these resources they will consume. They also have the potential to negatively impact the aesthetic and historic quality of Charlottesville.
There are also social justice issues involved. Near UVA are many lower income neighborhoods where students play a significant role in driving up the cost of affordable housing. While it is a good idea for student-oriented developments to be concentrated as close to UVA as possible, let us not forget the option of actually building them at UVA itself.
Lonnie Murray
Charlottesville
Natural preservatives
John Borgmeyer’s recent articles regarding the fate of the Venable-Rugby neighborhood (VRN) perpetuate two major misconceptions: 1) that preservation and development are mutually exclusive, and 2) that recent decisions by City Council about the neighborhood were made in haste and in response to intense lobbying by a “special interest group.”
Developers’ claims that the new ordinance leaves them hamstrung are histrionic. Historic district designation doesn’t preclude development. It simply affords the City and its citizens some control over what happens to the neighborhood in coming decades. Moreover, fighting sprawl and promoting affordable housing for students and city residents are issues of broad public concern (and of particular importance to preservationists intent on keeping culture and people in place and not just on protecting buildings). Our community has provided student housing of many types for generations. To present interest in these issues as the monopoly of developers is simplistic.
In 2003, the City’s Planning Commis-sion approved high-density zoning for the neighborhood with the explicit understanding that a historic resource survey of the area would be likely to result in a recommendation for an “overlay district” to preserve the area’s historic character. In fact, it has taken more than two years for a zoning amendment to be proposed to establish the VRN district; many buildings have been demolished in the meantime. But the process that brought this new district into being was both democratic and open. Members of Preservation Piedmont and other city residents attended these meetings, spoke out in support of the district, and submitted petitions with more than 230 signatures—many from students and property owners living in the VRN. Those not supporting the district were free to do the same, and did, but in considerably smaller numbers. In this respect, I do not find this process “baffling” but a clear example of how our public process can work—even in spite of development pressure.
We challenge those individuals who are “hopping mad” about the establishment of the district to work creatively with the Board of Architectural Review and local design and engineering professionals to expand housing opportunities within the envelope the City has provided. This, and not further mud-slinging, seems like the best way to move forward while balancing the interests of all parties.
Gina Haney
President, Preservation Piedmont
Charlottesville
Make more than mediocrity
The Charlottesville City Council did the right thing in establishing the Rugby-Venable Historic District. C-VILLE has done a disservice in uncritically giving voice to development community fabrications about that district, especially the illusions that the historic district will mean the loss of $5 million annually in City tax revenue.
The hubris behind the vision of a neighborhood with $500 million in new building adds to the compelling historical arguments favoring historic designation. The developer vision would mean, for example, building 50 projects the size of the new Venable Court Apartments (assessed at $9,817,500 in 2006) in the district. That means two Venable Courts on every block in the historic district, stretching from University Circle to 14th Street, from Grady to Wertland. That would require demolishing nearly every existing building on those blocks and substituting 2,600 units of housing for about 7,000 students. Who are they kidding?
Preservationists have at every turn proposed accommodating new development in this historic district. They point to additions to existing houses, empty lots, parking lots, backyards and alleys as potential sites for denser development that will not destroy the existing character of the neighborhood. Preservationists envision a district where new buildings could strengthen the existing architectural, urban and historic character.
Interestingly, many valued district buildings were originally built by developers who creatively harmonized higher density with the neighborhood’s prevailing domestic character. They appreciated and respected the materials, scale and quality of the neighborhood. In 1916 James Lindsay, editor of The Daily Progress, developed the fine Lyndhall Apartments at 62 University Way. He then moved into the building. In 1928 Frank E. Hartman hired a talented architect, Stanislaw Makielski, and built the handsome Preston Court Apartments. Seventy-five years later Preston Court, along with Lyndhall, are counted among valued neighborhood landmarks—medium density in the midst of detached houses.
Sadly, there is precious little evidence today of developers hiring top architects, or aspiring to build future landmarks, or constructing buildings in which they themselves would be willing to take up residence. (Few of them are even willing to live in Charlottesville, never mind in their own buildings.) Rather than whine about the modest restrictions that come with historic districts, rather than writing fiction about lost tax revenues, local developers could perhaps more productively turn their efforts to building in a way that rises above the mediocrity of many of their most recent Charlottesville developments.
Daniel Bluestone
Charlottesville
Granting wishes
It is exciting news for the Charlottesville community that UVA has been bestowed a $4.5 million research grant by the MacArthur Foundation to study the effects of mandated outpatient treatment for mental health [7 Days, January 24].
The MacArthur Foundation is one of the nation’s 10 largest philanthropic foundations in the country, and has been a leading advocate for positive change to America’s mental health care crisis. They have funded the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, a coalition of 16 national mental health organizations, completing an action plan designed to help the federal government better align funding and other resources for mental health care services and treatment. This coalition has helped to identify gaps in mental health care, and supports President Bush’s new Freedom Commission on Mental Health. To have them again support UVA research with this award, as they did before in 2003, is an honor and a partnership in which we should all be proud.
The subject of mandated outpatient treatment often brings confusion and controversy in mental health law and policy. Residents in Central Virginia who are working for the betterment of people with mental illness are excited to hear that the University can play a leading role. Determining whether community-based services can deliver better outcomes for victims of mental illness than traditional inpatient hospitalizations is a current and lively debate with many voices. Having the involvement and participation of UVA adds a welcome credibility and muscle to the dialogue.
The mental health community in Charlottesville-Albemarle openly welcomes any participation that the University wishes for partnership, collaboration and input. At a time where Virginia state funding for services is strained, local direct care and support agencies who work with people with mental illnesses and their families are willing to become involved, educated and kept informed of the progress and highlights of the work of this study. This is an important and significant opportunity. It pertains to the very personal struggles of so many and indeed affects many lives.
All the best to John T. Monahan and the UVA Law School. Many in our community will be eagerly anticipating engaging the University on the findings and results of their work.
Pete Armetta
petearmetta@yahoo.com
Coppin’ a ’toon
I love your newspaper, but…you have got to be kidding. If you think your six choices of cartoons are funny [“Funny pages,” January 24] you need to go back to
the drawing board. Not all of your readers are adolescents.
Kent Mills
kent@kw.com
Editor’s note: While Mr. Mills might not have liked the strips we selected, hundreds of you did—and told us which one you preferred. Turn to page 33 to see our winner, Keith Knight’s (Th)ink.