Alexandria — To the Editor:
Having recently questioned the Gazette for its silence on the ongoing saga of Hunting Point aka The Bridgeyard, I was happy to see the coverage on the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed clubhouse there. I would take issue with some of the article’s content, although I will limit myself to two items in particular here.
First — there was no mention of City Council Resolution 2501 adopted on May 22 2012 in the context of the pending sale of the property by VDOT. It reaffirmed — yet again — the supposed importance of the Point as a source of affordable housing in the city, and to that end, declared to prospective owners that the existing zoning requirements would continue. As reported in the Gazette’s article, the clubhouse proposal required a further reduction in the zoning requirement on open space, which was already non-complying by way of the age of the buildings.
I made repeated inquiries with the council, to see if they would stand by their own resolution, and inform the Planning Commission of that. I received no substantial response — not from the mayor, nor the vice-mayor, nor any of the other members. Apparently, the resolution was just one more exercise in empty rhetoric on the subject of Hunting Point, and the plight of affordable and workforce housing in the city in general.
The Planning Commission did not even discuss the issue at its meeting, despite my having raised it with the members as well. I subsequently asked City Attorney James Banks for his opinion as to what the legal aspects might be of the conflict between the resolution and the commission’s approval, and was informed that since both the council and commission are his clients, he could not discuss the matter with me. A follow-up request as to which government attorney’s office might be empowered to review the matter was refused as well.
Second — Robert Kerns of Planning and Zoning is quoted at the end of the article saying “There’s a balance between improving the property while maintaining the affordable housing commitment.”
The “affordable housing commitment?” That is news to me and most all of the former and current residents there. I am aware of some residents being priced out early on in Laramar’s tenure with substantial rent increases for largely unimproved apartments that match what Laramar is currently seeking for fully renovated apartments. I am also aware that the residents in general face rent increases of 20 to 80 percent for the fully renovated apartments. Building 1204 had become half a ghost town when I left. Is that what Mr. Kerns means by “the affordable housing commitment?”
It is true that the buildings suffered from a decade’s worth of neglect by VDOT, and that Laramar did undertake some necessary upgrades to the plumbing and windows. But most of the final phase of renovations that has resulted in the issuance of “vacate” notices to residents has nothing to do with Mr. Kerns’ imaginary “balance.” It has to do with clearing the way for installing up-scaled kitchens, baths and the like, designed solely to increase the rents that Laramar can achieve — the clubhouse being the latest and most egregious example.
But of course, none of this is really a mystery. It’s simply another variation on the theme played out in the city from Beauregard to the Waterfront. The city’s leadership has plainly cast its lot — and the city’s — with hyper-development wherever it can, for the attendant increase in tax revenue of all kinds and the higher disposable incomes. The toll that policy is taking in so many ways appears at best to be acceptable collateral damage to them.
Jim Mercury