During her three years as the city’s planning director, Flynn has cultivated stalwart friends and ferocious enemies. But an exchange at a recent Planning Commission meeting has three of City Council’s nine members calling for her resignation, and a fourth signaling that she’d be open to the possibility.
The brouhaha started when, during an April 20 Planning Commission meeting, members asked Flynn to look at new language offered by the developers of Echo Harbour, a proposed condo development along the river below Church Hill.
Flynn responded, “We’ve been talking with these developers for three years. We don’t agree,” according to a Richmond Times-Dispatch report. “We’re not compromising anymore. If you want to compromise with them, go ahead.”
Flynn has long advocated that the city buy the land and turn it into a park to preserve the view from Libby Hill and boost property values for nearby homeowners. Legend holds that the view reminded William Byrd II of the River Thames from a similar hill in Richmond upon Thames, west of London. He named this city Richmond.
The developer says it intends to go ahead with its project, and that Flynn’s office has intentionally obstructed its plans to move through the city approval process.
After consultants visited the city in July 2007, more than a year of public comment ensued until City Council adopted the downtown master plan in October 2008 with the understanding that it could be amended. On April 20, the Planning Commission was working through a final batch of amendments to the plan.
Critics of the process say those remaining amendments stem from the undue influence of private landholders and developers kept alive by public officials in a position to benefit from them — such as Planning Commissioner Bob Mills and City Councilman Bruce Tyler, both architects whose firms do business with some of the landholders most upset by the master plan. Before his election to City Council in 2006, Tyler met with Flynn on behalf of his firm, lobbying for the Echo Harbour project to go through. (In two separate opinions, the city attorney’s office has opined that neither man’s situation presents a conflict of interest.)
Last week’s outburst from Flynn and the reaction from some politicians brought things to a head.
“The mayor makes the decision with regard to who’s in charge of community development,” Tyler says. “I would respectfully ask him to consider what she has done and respectfully ask her to leave.”
For those who have been watching the drama unfold, Tyler’s scolding Flynn is hardly new. The two have butted heads all along, but public admonishments of Flynn from council members Marty Jewell, Reva Trammell and Doug Conner are new to the mix. Last week, Conner, who also sits on the Planning Commission and serves as chair of council’s land use committee, sent the mayor a letter calling for her resignation.
“I think what she did was appalling, utterly appalling,” Jewell says, adding that he plans to send his own letter to the mayor this week.
Trammell “finds [Flynn’s] conduct unacceptable and she needs to be disciplined if not terminated,” the councilwoman said in a statement through her legislative aid Henry Meese.
Flynn’s supporters are equally vocal, particularly among civic activists and local bloggers. Envision Richmond, a residents’ group, has formed to support passage of the new master plan and enactment of its recommendations, and the Better Housing Coalition just named Flynn Community Revitalizer of the Year at its annual community leadership awards. The incident inspired local blogger John Sarvay, who’s been following the ins and outs of the planning process, to compose a post entitled, “The Downtown Plan: Why I Love Rachel Flynn.”
Sheila Sheppard, coordinator for Partnership for Smarter Growth, a Richmond-region education and advocacy nonprofit, calls Flynn “a beacon of competence and a beacon of visionary thinking and practical, commonsense leadership.”
“Community support for Rachel is stronger than ever,” Sheppard says. “Citizens across the city are grateful for her leadership and being able to navigate the political scene. The downtown master plan is the best thing that’s happened to Richmond in a long time.”
Council President Kathy Graziano, along with Vice President Ellen Robertson, have taken a hands-off approach with Flynn — emphasizing that Flynn reports to the chief administrative officer, not to City Council.
Flynn is no stranger to conflict. In her previous job as planning director in Lynchburg, the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s ever-expanding Liberty University was a frequent combatant, leading the late Falwell to condemn her from the pulpit.
“This is Lynchburg, Virginia. This is not Moscow, Russia, or Beijing, China, or Havana, Cuba,” he said in a nationally televised sermon five years ago. “And Rachel, if you wanna live there, go on and live there, but leave us alone in Lynchburg.”
Mayoral spokeswoman Tammy Hawley says that the administration does not comment on personnel matters. In an interview prior to the election, Mayor Dwight C. Jones said good-naturedly that he and Flynn had met only once, “and she interrogated me.” Once he took office, Jones endorsed the findings of the downtown master plan as part of a series of new initiatives.
Fred: I never heard anyone advocate taking the Echo Harbor land EXCEPT by paying just compensation, as required by the Consitution. I'm not sure why you think people are advocating seizure of property without compensation.
Refusing to grant a rezoning from industrial to residential without following Master Plan policies is not a regulatory taking. You yourself pointed out that there are plenty of industrial uses that are allowed by right. The reasonable use of the land has not been taken away. It's the speculative use that is being denied, but the developers are trying to bamboozle the public into thinking this case is something it is not, in order to curry sympathy. No court would ever find that there has been a taking here, and the developers know it. They took a gamble and are losing. Hence the PR campaign and political shenanigans on their part. That's all they have left.
Sunday, May 10, 2009 9:26:43 PM by Constant Reader
I wish someone would make an offer. Otherwise, there's always "eminent domain."
Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:52:08 PM by j
So what would the owner charge the city to buy this property to be openly appreciated and enjoyed by iby all of our citizens....does anyone know?
Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:24:22 PM by Wilma
Oh, Fred.....Please come home to the Stone Age. Mr. GotRocks has been calling. He wants to put you and Barney in charge of offshore drilling. He really likes your slogan: "Drill, Baby, Drill"?
Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:23:37 AM by Fred Flynn-stone
Constant Reader's posting illustrates the problem: many people simply do not understand fundamental private property rights. Condos won't happen in the Grand Canyon because the US government owns the land and has established a national park. The Echo Harbor land is privately owned, and whether or not the "civic activists" like it or acknowledge it or even know it, there is a "bundle of rights" associated with the property. In particular, since the property is zoned M-2, there are numerous heavy industrial operations that are currently permitted "by right", such as poultry slaughtering, hospitals and parking decks. As Jeff E. pointed out, this industrial site lies between Rockett's Landing and Tobacco Row, both former industrial sites.
One reason so many people do not understand the basics of private property rights is because those rights are not taught in school. Thad Williamson teaches at University of Richmond - in the "Leadership" school, no less. Google him, and you'll find his web page: he is a self-acclaimed "civic activist". My guess is he teaches his students this flavor of activism.
Ask any World War II veteran what he thinks about government taking private property rights without compensation.
If the mayor and city council want to make a public park out of private property, they have to compensate the owner - THAT IS THE LAW.
Friday, May 08, 2009 10:37:38 PM by Constant Reader
"The view argument is weak at best..." Excuse me? That kind of non-thinking would make it acceptable to build condos in the Grand Canyon and casinos on the Skyline Drive. Or a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom. Now I know why they say "God Save the Commonwealth" in courtrooms.
Not everyone’s idea of access is the same thing. Bike paths and canoe access aren’t as sexy to a 70 year old as they are to a 30 year old. Not everyone likes to fish or to get wet. There are some, I suspect, that would like to dine and shop along side the river. Echo Harbor would add R&R options for non-outdoors folks. The city should focus its rescores on the Canal Walk, the Great Ship Lock Park and points north of downtown ( Brown’s and Belle Islands, North Shore, Reedy Creek, Texas Beach, Pony Pasture). We have great “extreme” access to the river as it is. Its time to add some leisure options to the mix. The “view” argument is weak at best. So a few landowners will derail a development that can provide more access to the river for our city’s people by cloaking their self-interests in the idea of saving our city’s namesake and making the river accessible? How is limiting ways to enjoy the river providing more access? How is a building built upstream from the beloved (and industrial) cure in the river insulting to our name?
While I believe Flynn has been a great asset to the City I disagree whole-heartedly with her stance on Echo Harbour. Those advocating turning this into park land are completely ignoring the realities of the City's financial situation. We don't have the money to purchase this land much less develop it into a park. Parks are wonderful and Richmond has a plethora of them but they are revenue black holes. The City currently doesn't spend the money necessary to maintain the ones it has (see James River Park and it's three full time employees) so expecting it to take on another one is ridiculous. Richmond has preserved its riverfront better than any most cities I've seen. Some of it needs to be used to bring in revenue and that is the case with Echo Harbour. It's a key piece to the puzzle, helping to fill a large gap between Tobacco Row and Rockett's Landing. Once the Capital Trail is completed it will create an east-of-downtown riverfront destination for boaters, bikers, diners, and walkers alike and that means lots of money for the City.
Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:48:42 PM by Fed Up
You and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell seem be of the opinion that Flynn is, if not, the anti-Christ, then at least his sister.
Get real, man. She is neither as good nor as bad as people are making her out to be. That said, the lady doesn't deserve to be treated this way. No one deserves this.
I admire her courage. Just because I think she is right on this issue, doesn't mean I agree with her other stances. But on this issue, she is exactly right.
I credit Mr. Wilder with much of the staff turnover and tumult that has infected City Hall. And, just because Dwight Jones IS NOT Doug Wilder, that doesn't mean he is a good mayor. He's just different and from the looks of things, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Jones' silence on this matter and that of Graziano is deafening. No matter how one looks at this, it is shameful. Utterly shameful and sad.
Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:53:12 PM by Anonymous
Rachel Flynn was brought to Richmond as a clone of Doug Wilder, with the "I'm always right" and "how dare you challange my opinion or approach" attitude. Talented, experienced, and well-respected staff in Community Development either left or were forced out when unwilling to parcitipate in her underhanded attacks. Flynn's unwillingness to accept the concept of policy set by a Planning Commission composed of ordinary citizens leaves her in good company with the likes of Wilder. I say, throw the bully out of the playgound and let her take her tantrums back to Lynchburg
Maybe we should ask some of the former and current employees in the Department of Community Development what its like to work under Ms. Flynn. There has been constant turn-over since her arrival, not to mention the removal of several dedicated and knowledgeable public servants. There was stability, a level of confidence and an environment of coperation between the staff and developers and citizens undergoing the development process at all levels. I say good riddance!
----------------------------- HWH
Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:09:35 AM by T. Lawrence
It's really not so complicated, folks. The legal method for turning private property into a public park is for the city to buy it from the owner. If the city and owner can negotiate acceptable compensation - great but if they can't, the legal alternative is to condemn it, and go to court to figure out the "just" compensation. But in either case, the city winds up owning the property, and the city winds up compensating the owner. Mayor Wilder floated the condemnation concept to the media and the public (and even butted heads with Flynn on the concept, according to Style).
However, that legal process is not how Rachel Flynn operates. Her approach is to roadblock any development - but without recognizing the owner's rights, and without compensating the owner for the taking of those rights.
There are numerous problems with her approach, not limited to the following: a) it is unproductive. Until the city takes ownership, the property will be an old cement factory and an eyesore, and will not be used by the public.
b) it is morally and legally "Wrong". Her approach is no different than stealing from the owner. The Constitution of the USA and the Supreme Court require "just compensation" to the owner - Flynn proposes absolutely no compensation.
c) it is a dangerous precedent. Once the city starts taking property rights without compensating the owner, and is supported by people who don't understand basic property rights law (or really care, as long as it is somebody else's property being taken) then stuff hits the fan. What will you do when the city wants to take something from you without compensating you for it?
The mayor and city council must decide: a) will the city buy this land? or b) will the city approve a reasonable conversion from heavy industrial use to residential. Once they make that decision, they pass the orders down the flag pole. But roadblocking a reasonable development plan into perpetuity is neither fair nor legal. Nor productive.
Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:31:27 AM by Constant Reader
Thank Goodness someone has the stones to stand up to the Developer Boyz and their hired lackeys. Rachel Flynn and Umesh Dalal are THE bright lights in so-called city government.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:52:00 PM by mechenvy
Land speculators say their profits are justified because they take the risks, but here is a risk not turning out the way they planned and suddenly a public servant who stands up for the real citizens of this city needs to be fired? We cannot continue to privatize profits and socialize risks and stand idly by while the hypocrites who are in the pockets of the power elite call this farce a democracy. The city should condemn the land and drive the hardest, blood-from-turnip price possible on behalf of taaxpayers, and smile and say "It's not personal, it's just bidness."
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:26:14 PM by Anonymous
I agree, this is not about Rachel Flynn who is just doing her job. This is about doing the right thing for the long term health of the city, our citizens and visitors. Protecting the river and its views is the the right thing. I challenge the region, corporate and government, to go hire any top urban planner in the country and ask their opinion about this Echo Harbor....it is a no brainer.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:25:25 PM by Fed Up
Hall of Shame Nominees:
For Mendacity and Amoral Politicking beyond the Pale: Bruce Tyler, Marrty Jewelll, RevaTrammell and Doug Conner.
And, for their Equally Offensive Spineless Silence: Dwight Jones, Charles Samuels, Chris Hilbert, Kathy Graziano, Ellen Robertson, Betty Squire
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:28:06 PM by Anonymous
Bruce Tyler has no shame, he attempts to line his own pockets through his smug, disgraceful performance in office. What has he done to help his First District constituents or anywhere else in the City?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:18:34 PM by Anonymous
Rachel Flynn is not the issue.
Those guys who bought that riverfront property knew full well that it was located in a flood plain (duh) and not even zoned for residential development.
So why are they crying about "property rights" as if they are being cheated out of something?
The entire City would greatly benefit from a beautiful riverfront park as part of the Downtown. Le'ts not dilute the fundamentals of the Downtown Plan!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:15:53 PM by jde
Rachel is a city planning expert who we are so fortunate to have in Richmond. I got involved in caring about our downtown because of her enthusiastic and inclusive approach with the master planning process. Our biggest problem today is that someone of Rachel's caliber was not here 20 years ago and we are paying the price now. Cities like Baltimore, Chicago and Portland are so much further ahead than we are because they get it the water is our most precious resource and public attraction - it needs to be preserved for the public at large not the few greedy developers who will be building for just the elite few and blocking the views and use for the everyone else. If these developers are so for the "greater good" of the city, than why don't you go develop on the parking lots and other prime downtown spaces where the city needs your development. The James is a gem that belongs to all of us and thank goodness someone like Rachel Flynn is here to fight for us and make sure it stays that way. Go Rachel and THANK YOU!!!!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:11:40 PM by koolhaas
You think the blocked view is the worst part of this project? You all should pay a bit more attention to the ground. They're separating pedestrian traffic from vehicular because of restrictions on building in the floodplain (this is a large generalization, but essentially, occupied floors for business and residences have to be in elevations deemed safe for occupation by FEMA). Dock street is a story to a story and a half lower than acceptable elevations per code. When you start separating uses like this, you can generate dangerous/crime ridden, much less, unattractive spaces that kill the street presence of dock street before it ever had one (try walking on the dock street side of the River Lofts garages at night for a taste test).
Basically, all that can be built here is either a tall condo on top of a parking deck, or a nice, pretty, liberal, gay-marriage loving park space.
To answer James below re: the southside... You'd better invest now so you can make money like ole' Bruce. Some of the best sites for potential development in the city are in the southside. Manchester's already overflowing with yuppies.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:36:41 PM by Matt
All of Flynn's detractors posting here have some sort of vested interest ($) in business as usual, I guarantee you that. How else to explain why you hate her so much? She certainly hasn't hurt the average citizen in any way, shape or form. If anyone has any specific information to the contrary, let's hear it.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:44:45 PM by blt
Speaking of integrity, Bruce, how much money do you and your architect buddies stand make from ousting Flynn? Have you no sense of decency, Sir?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:29:53 PM by pbj
Rachel Flynn has no integrity. She has no ethics and she has no sense of right or wrong. Those of you touting the great "stand" she is taking have no idea what she is. Do you people honestly think this issue has developed in a vacuum? This is just the last straw in three years of atrocious behavior. Flynn has done a lot of damage in this city. As far as I'm concerned she can't leave fast enough.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:37:41 PM by Constant Reader
Oh, and shame on Amy Biegelsen. Buying into all this and not giving Flynn a fair shot at answering her detractors.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:35:13 PM by Constant Reader
Hurrah for Rachel! Grrrlll ..... has more integrity in her little toe than the combined amounts in all her detractors! Bruce Tyler stands to make direct profit from this venture and Jewell, Conner and Trammel ill no doubt reap campaign contributions. Wake up, people! These folks are worse than Wilder at his weirdest and wildest. Sheeeshhh........what a shame....
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:41:55 PM by JJames
For those accusing Flynn of being obstructionist, what projects are you thinking of besides Echo Harbor? Yes, she's not willing to compromise on that one for good reasons. But where else? If you look at the bigger picture, including what's being built now and the ways in which the downtown master plan has been revised from its first draft, it's clear that Flynn is quite capable of compromise.
I agree that the city should move forward with acquiring this property and get it over with. Part of the reason for Flynn's exasperation, I think, is that the city has left it to her to take care of the situation without real support or leadership.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:55:16 PM by Anonymous
How in the world does Bruce Tyler think there is not a conflict of interest here??? We already have two ugly condos blocking the river and I think lot of them are not really being lived in. The city attorney hired is by council right? And where is some leadership by the Mayor. That guy keeps one amazingly low profile. An inept, corrupt bunch of "leaders" we have elected here. Nothing will ever change here!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:31:13 AM by cw
Flynn is an incompetent blowhard who cloaks who lack of experience and ability in controversy that takes eyes off of her inability to actually get anything done. It's great to have a "vision" but it is vital to be able to capably implement that vision. She creates roadblock - the same roadblocks she created in Lynchburg - she demonizes the "bad guy" and glorifies her "cause." That is all well in good in RachelLand but Richmond needs to move forward, and needs to move forward now. Her job is more than one dimensional - and aside from stirring up controversy she doesn't seem to have any other skills. This downtown plan could actually be implemented by someone who knows what they are doing. It is way over time to boot her to the curb.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:28:38 AM by john
Rachel Flynn doesn't deserve the dignity of a resignation. She should be fired right now, just like she should have been fired back in 2007. Q: Why now? A: Her behavior at the last Planning Commission Meeting was an embarrassment, and a perfect example of her so-called "leadership". Q: Why in 2007? A: She publicly "questioned" (weasely politik-speak for "lied about") a conflict of interest for the Chairman of the Planning Commission - when she of all people knew that none existed. Wilder appointed her now that he's gone, she needs to be gone. Mayor Jones should just appoint her replacement and be done with it.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:02:14 AM by Fred Flynn-stone
Flynn acknowledges 3 years of talking to the Echo Harbor developers - and still no compromise! WOW - Job Well Done! I bet she's proud. Here are just some of the legally permitted "by-right" uses currently allowed on the Echo Harbor site: storage of dead animals, garbage poultry slaughtering sanitary landfill manufacturing of explosives, fertilizers aluminum fabrication parking garages adult bookstore, motion picture theater, and massage parlor hospitals parking deck funeral homes - the list in the Zoning Ordinance goes on and on! Considering that converted industrial buildings and sites have driven the downtown resurgence, it is no stretch of the imagination to do the exact same with this worn-out cement depot. If the Mayor and City Council absolutely want to preserve a view and build a park for the public, then they should proceed along the lawful path to do so: negotiate a purchase of the land at market value, or condemn it and settle compensation in court. But if they desire a reasonable alternative to the permitted industrial uses, they should send somebody besides Flynn - three years of her "my way or the highway" leadership has only stirred up controversy, much like the Mayor who appointed her.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:58:00 AM by Jason
James - I'm making "We Don't Need A View" bumper stickers as we speak. It's gonna look great next to the "Drill, Baby, Drill" sticker already on your SUV.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:57:29 AM by Matt
Nice over-the-top hyperbole there, James. But why is the difference between quality growth and no growth so hard for you to grasp? No one is advocating no growth for the city, least of all Rachel Flynn (ask her whether all those parking lots should be built upon), and the Partnership for Smarter Growth is hardly an anti-growth organization. Please explain why you think it is.
I for one don't think developers are evil and I don't know anyone who does. Many have done great work in the city and we need them to do more. But we need them to be respectful of the surroundings and the priorities of the people who already live here, which is what the master plan is about.
In reality, how much is that extra height, which is the real issue, going to generate in tax revenue per year$50,000 to 100,000, maybe? Big deal. That is not going to solve the revenue problem, and it's not worth selling your soul over. Who knows, the loss of the view may knock more than that off the real estate values on Libby Hill. Those are the type of tradeoffs that the vested interests would rather not talk about.
So 3 (potentially 4) Council Members want her resignation because she said she and the Echo Harbor developers "don't agree?" There is no way that is grounds for termination.
Rachel is standing up for what should be the priority of this city: Making the riverfront an area that all citizens, not just a few, can enjoy. She has tremendous public support because she included so many city residents in the conversation and development of the Master Plan.
Rachel is a voice of Richmond citizens, and losing her would be a massive loss for the city and the region.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:18:58 AM by james
Rachel Flynn is an uber-liberal anti-growth community planner. If you told her she had the choice of revitalizing a block in the middle of the southside shooting gallery or approving a project that could bring $200 million and 1,000 jobs to the city, she'd choose the shooting gallery. All one needs to know to figure out that she's got to go is her biggest supporter is the anti-growth Partnership for Smart Growth. This is not the Northeast, Rachel. Maybe with your views you ought to go back there where your opinions will be more reasonable.
Most of you people posting here don't get the concept that the city runs on tax revenue, and in order to obtain tax revenue you have to have growth. Ellen Robertson and the Finance Committee are bleeping their pants right now because the city is so short of revenue and has no place to get any. They don't have a place to get revenue because of people who think developers are more evil than Charles Manson and that stopping growth is what the city needs to do. Echo Harbour will bring hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue to the city. It's jobs and revenue the city needs. We don't need a view.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:15:26 AM by downtowner
It's a shame that competence and principles have no place in city government. The city will never move forward in the current environment.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:57:36 AM by JJames
I second Scott's motion. I'm stupified that there can be such blatant conflict of interest (Mills and Tyler especially) and just because the city attorney says "no problem" it's swept aside. If Richmond has any chance of making the downtown plan a reality at some point, we need someone like Flynn. It's only because of her that regular residents have started to have any say in what's happening in the city, and we need more of that.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:30:26 AM by keep flynn
Mr Conner recently invited a number of developers to a fundraising breakfast - where do you think that will lead him when a developer asks for a zoning exception to make a project viable. We need to put the brakes on all of the 'Special Use Permits'. If there are areas of the city that are improperly zoned then we need to have a comprehensive study of instituting rezoning. Otherwise, if you buy a property that doesn't let you do what you want then you have made a bad business decision.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:06:20 PM by ky
I second that Burger and add Trammel to the list.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:57:37 PM by Scott Burger
I respectfully ask Planning Commissioner Bob Mills, City Councilman Marty Jewell, and City Councilman Bruce Tyler to resign.
Citizens are tired of the "Leave No Developer Behind" act that seems to be their mantra. Jewell in particular has turned his back on his constituents too many times.
