Bear with me, but I have a terrible knot in the back of my right shoulder that neither heat nor medicine nor water can seem to unlock.
Political differences can seem that way as well. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, the problem just seems intractable — sometimes because the players want to make the problem intractable, and sometimes because the problem is just difficult to untangle. As the father of four daughters and a now-expert in the hairbrush, the temptation to apply the Gordian Knot can be overbearing at times.
Perhaps even convenient.
Which brings us to the tricky question of Mary’s Landing — a 63-unit development whose neighbors are shocked at both the speed and scale of the project. City staff seems at pains to figure out what they have done to earn the ire of what the political midgetry near City Council call “the pitchfork people” (they actually do, folks) while the speed at which the city has moved on Mary’s Landing — and the players involved — is raising eyebrows.
One of the key items of contention here is the concept of a UDO or Unified Development Ordinance combined with the federal Opportunity Zone Program to help recover on capital gains. None of this is nefarious. In fact, it’s precisely the kind of overlay one would want to see over — and one hates to use this term with anything related to Fredericksburg — blight:
Of course, anything that requires something more than what the zoning strictures outline has a process by which all new development must follow — various review boards, planning commission, and so forth until it meets the court of final review in either a board of supervisors or Fredericksburg City Council.
Mary’s Landing poses a unique question though. At present, there are only 36 individual lots. Where the disagreement primarily lies is whether or not the city lots are firmly in the old 1880s Victorian-era layout and whether that governs, or whether or not the present density limits apply?
If so, and the developer can indeed build 63 new lots by-right? Then there is ultimately only one development czar:
Chuck Johnson, director of Community Planning and Building.
Combine that problem with the speed of this project between the deed of sale from Mary Washington Hospital to FXBG Opportunity Zone LLC (with unknown backers and investors) to the deed of gift to Mary’s Landing LLC (also with unknown backers and investors) over a span of nine weeks?
Of course there are going to be questions.
Now Fredericksburg City Planning is going to have a response along the lines of what else should they have done? The public notice was issued, letters were sent, meetings were attended. Apart from a steak dinner and a sizzle reel, what more is local government supposed to do to inform the public? What more are they obligated to do?
Turns out, public consensus — not unanimity, but consensus — is a tricky thing to keep. Once lost, we have well-worn political processes which help us sort out good ideas, turn back bad ideas, and help us discern between the two. After all, are any of us smarter than all of us? I’d hope not.
Getting to Yes vs. Low and Slow Consensus Building
That having been said, you want a development czar for any opportunity zone in order to improve urban blight — and especially the scale of Princess Anne Street and the former Mary Washington Hospital complex.
Yet the UDO isn’t the problem per se, nor is the federal tax credit opportunities. Certainly there is a great deal more that localities can do to reduce the fiscal impact on developers so that these higher costs — estimated by one prominent developer to be upwards of $40,000 per new home — are not passed on to either renters or new homeowners.
The wider problem of communication and miscommunication seems to be part of the issue.
Critics of the Mary’s Landing project are indeed correct when they point to concerns about stormwater management and whether Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is going to have a say in the matter. Critics are further correct to ask whether the project meets the goals of the so-called Maker’s District (really guys?) much less alleviating traffic concerns rather than introducing new ones. Does the project meet concerns for green space? Will 63 new townhomes bring 63 new families with 2+ children each? Where will they play? Will the developer proffer any of this — at present, the answer is a firm no — or will an already hard-pressed Fredericksburg City taxpayer discover yet another burden to shoulder?
Which brings us to the trickier question as to why Mary’s Landing LLC is doing this project and not one of the Fredericksburg area’s more prominent developers — especially when there is a sticky problem over whether the zoning map overrules the 1880s city layout map.
Far be it from me to speculate, yet if I were the kind of person who knew that there was legal precedent where the zoning ordinances did indeed supersede the 1880s city layout map? Then I most certainly would want to test those waters with an LLC behind another LLC first and see precisely how far one could go.
Should this small project pass? Then the entire former Mary Washington Hospital tract with its collection of former medical buildings would be a much more attractive prospect for larger developers — especially with the approval process being devolved to a mere administrative hearing per Fredericksburg’s own UDOs.
Or it could be that the same developer who built out behind the old Shoney’s on Rt. 3 with townhomes is now — with a new City Council — fast-tracking a project in the most prime part of the City of Fredericksburg in a matter of weeks where most projects require months.
How Mary Can Still Stick the Landing
Of course, I have not come to write a mere jeremiad against all things changing my beautiful hometown. Far from it — I come in peace. What’s more, there are several things worth noting in all of this that are worth keeping in mind as the community conversation continues to move forward:
- No one seems generally opposed to the Mary’s Landing project. Personally, I have no idea who Mary is and what she landed there — but the idea of revitalizing and turning the Maker’s District (for the love of God, please come up with a better name guys) or Canal Quarter or whatever into Fredericksburg’s answer to Richmond’s Scott’s Addition? Green lights all around.
- Most everyone seems to agree that the communication for this project has been sub-par (and it isn’t City Planning’s fault). In fact, once upon a time, the local newspaper would have run a story weeks ago, involving the public and preserving the best of intentions for all parties. Sadly, the Free Lance-Star no longer has the resources. That’s precisely why the Fredericksburg Advance now exists — to resurrect and nurture the public square where these debates can play out. Is the demise of local journalism anyone’s fault at City Hall? Absolutely not — but it does demonstrate that letters and yard signs do not constitute a public conversation.
- Property rights matter. Lest this be misinterpreted as a screed against developers and property rights, property owners have every right to build on their property by-right as they see fit. Consequently, there are a thicket of other considerations — roads, schools, wastewater, playgrounds, green space, VDOT, DEQ — who also exist to protect other ancillary rights we all share in common, and the best way to explore those intersections is by talking — not plowing over the public.
- The “pitchfork people” epithet: Fredericksburg citizens should know that there are a handful of people ensconced in your local government who commonly call you “the pitchfork people” whenever their interests bump up against your own. Perhaps this is more well-known than not, but a culture of lowering one’s shoulder and bulldozing one’s opposition? They may call it “non-partisan,” but it always means they want what they want — and to hell with you. Start asking about that line and who keeps using it. You won’t be surprised.
- Mary’s Landing LLC moved awfully quick. Apart from a handful of people, they moved as if they thought it would sail through rather quickly. City planning will point to their own Technical Review Committee and show an administrative process that worked. Critics will point to an already existing process through the planning commission.
- This isn’t about Mary’s Landing; it’s about zoning and viewing a project in isolation. If this project were approved, it would mean that density would be defined by the 1880s city layout, not the present zoning ordinances. That’s it — that’s the entire ballgame. If approved? Then the UDOs effectively permit development to move through city planning by-right. If fought? Then the zoning ordinances prevail and while by-right development still survives (as it ought) any improvements will have to go through a more rigorous process.
- There are no bad guys in this — yet. City Planning is probably wondering what more they could have done to inform the community. The speed by which this LLC inside an LLC inside another LLC moved — and by the way, who are the investors? — certainly alarmed folks. Yet if Mary’s Landing proves to be a stalking horse for a larger, wider project which suddenly discovers itself the beneficiary of new rules? That would be a problem indeed.
One of the great lessons I learned in the political process was that communication neatly replaces miscommunication every time. Much like a tight muscle or a cramp, the best way to resolve them is rarely through brute force much less hacking off a limb — but by means of gentle persuasion, some heat, some attention, and when the knot unlocks it is glorious.
With regards to Mary’s Landing LLC? The project itself isn’t controversial; the process could very well become controversial. Handing it off to the Planning Commission for the intensive community conversation we deserve isn’t a bad play. In fact, it might get folks where we want to be sooner than later.
Things that begin well tend to end well.
Low and slow is the order of any true progress.
City planners would be well advised to slow down and consider projects holistically through consensus rather than the narrow and so-called non-partisanship of those who view every objection or concern as a pitchfork. City planners should be more sensitive to the idea that local journalism broadly isn’t the same as it was twenty, ten, or even two years ago. In short, the public narrative isn’t just absent, it appears to have been abrogated in favor of speed. That should concern any defender of good government.
The UDO is a wonderful tool built from consensus. Don’t let the wrong sort of people ruin the opportunity for short-term gain.
TIMELINE
For those worried about the timeline and its speed, here’s the best version as I can muster:
2023
August 21: FXBG Opportunity Zone LLC formed via Buck Law Firm. The City of Fredericksburg employs an opportunity zone program for “two designated tracts comprise all the land west of U.S. 1, in addition to a small section east of U.S. 1 in the northern part of the City between the canal and river.”
December 14: Mary’s Landing LLC formed via Mark Doherty, who is listed as owner/co-founder of Investment Lending LLC in Fredericksburg.
2024
January 8th: Dan Webb with W.W. Webb and Associates submits their Major Site Plan.
January 12th: 33 adjacent property owners were informed of the project via direct mail.
January 19th: Signs went up along the boundary of the Mary’s Landing project. A public notice was posted to the City of Fredericksburg website and a public hearing scheduled for February 20th.
January 23rd: City Council is briefed on the project by staff during a work session to discuss land use review.
February 1st: The Canal Quarter Neighborhood Association invites 140 members of the community to a special meeting to discuss the Mary’s Landing project.
February 20th: Jim and Susan Pates send a five-page letter detailing their concerns about the Mary’s Landing project to planning director Chuck Johnston.
February 21st: City staff forwarded public comments to Mary’s Landing LLC for further consideration from the developer. Fredericksburg’s Technical Review Committee rejects the site plan and requests a revision. As of the end of April 2024, no new site plan has been submitted.
March 17th: St. Patrick’s Day happened. Zero leprechauns harmed.
April 1st: City staff issues a nine-page memorandum to City Manager Tim Baroody outlining the Mary’s Landing LLC project as it stands presently.
SHAUN KENNEY is a columnist for the Fredericksburg Advance.
