This is going to be a tough subject to get people wound up about and it probably won’t generate much disucssion but it should. Redevelopment is what the City of Manassas will be looking at very soon. The last of the open land, more or less, has been rezoned away. The projects might not get built until the economy gets squared but the projects are approved. There are a couple of industrial parcels out there but that’s for industry, not houses or retail projects. The challenge for the City will be how best to address this.
One of the questions I asked many of the council candidates concerned thier views on how the City should be involved in redevelopment efforts. Should we be stakeholders (buy the land and resell it) or should we change some laws to make redevelopment more attractive or should we do nothing? It is a knotty, philosophical question that has vast practical impacts. Many feel that municipalities have no business being involved in the process. Others feel that public ownership of land to facilitate development is a good thing as it allows a greater degree of control over the process – we would have a better shot at getting what we want. Some places take a middle road and tighten their development ordinances to offer some control.
It is unavoidable that something will happen, there are many properties in Manassas that are in need of overhaul and when the real estate market comes back, this challenge will be in front of us. In addition, commercial development (which a lot of this would be) helps keep residential property tax rates in check – a real bonus for our homeowners.
So, the question is what does everyone else think? Should we be involved?
As a point of clarification, I’m not asking about Eminent Domain Seizures. The property would be purchased on the open market.
January 10, 2007 at 6:31 am
I’m one of the people who think that municipalities should not acquire land to facilitate development. The City should concentrate on running an lean, efficient government and not trying to act as a developer.
The city should, and for the most part already is, doing a good job of using zoning as the carrot to attract the right amount of redevelopment in desired areas – for example, B3.5 in the old town area. This has already helped us see some new buildings down there.
January 10, 2007 at 11:17 am
I agree with Steve. Local Government should not be buying and selling land as part of a redevelopment effort. In general, government should not do things that the private sector is willing to do. There is a ton of money in redevelopment if it is done right. Government’s job should be to establish a regulatory environment that allows companies to do it right, while still looking out for the town’s long-term interests, and then let the free market take care of everything else.
City Council shouldn’t try to out-think the market. Government rarely can. Usually, efforts to do so just make a mess of things.
January 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I agree. The City should only acquire land for municipal projects, such as schools, roads, government buildings, etc. Zoning and tax incentives are the tools to lure developers and businesses to the area. To allow City Government to purchase land for the purpose of selling it to developers, or entering into some sort of “partnership” is a slippery slope to Eminent Domain seizures.
January 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm
The goal is not to make this blog about my views but to get feedback from others. However, ED seizures make my blood boil. If the gov’t needs the land for a public purpose it’s understandable (as long as the need is clear) but to take a private citizen’s property, give it to a developer and declare it to be in the “public interest” is beyond the pale.
Also, allow me to clarify that in my question, the municipality would *not* condemn the land but buy it on the open market. I’m not pushing one viewpoint above another, just clarifying.
January 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The thing that repeatedly strikes me about the comments posted here is that the emphasis is on what is theoretially correct as opposed to what is practically required. Prognostications about what is notionally correct are really irrelevant when theory is overtaken by real world events. the fact is that Manassas is the “hole in the donut,” the donut being Prince William County, which has aggressively taken on a role as commercial developer (extraordinarily successfully I might add). It would be interesting to see this discussion move forward with analysis/comment based on more tangible considerations. Theory is great, but how about reality? Based upon the majority of comments that I read here, including those of A. Harrover himself, seem to oppose direct local government participation in shaping the character and quality of economic development based on some amorphous loyaty to laissez-faire economic theory. What these same people fail to recognize and appreciate is the direct economic benefit they and their families derive from the proactively opposite direction of Manassas town and city government over the last 50 years. Should local government be in the airport business (the source of tangible and substantial economic benefit)? How about the museum business (a tangible net contributor to City coffers, based on all objective studies)? How about parks and recreation? (maybe we could rely exclusively on private enterprise to provide these amenities, rather than wasting valuable real estate and public largesse on tot-lots, sports fields and swimming pools). Please folks… reenter the realm of reality. If every municipality with which Manassas is competing for business investment already is moving aggressively to directly participate in economic development, Manassas can not fail to do the same. Most of you guys need to get out more (some international travel should be at the top of the list) to see how government commitment to quality of life can result in tangible benefits for all citizens. We all know the theory…. How about some reality-based discussion?
January 11, 2007 at 8:15 am
Tudor:
Thanks for your input. I’m not disputing that many of these things are tied together and, at some level, inseperable. I’m also not disputing that many of the things the government has done in the past were quite activist and produced notable results for our present day community.
I ask about redevelopment in the framework that I did as, in my view, redevelopment is materially different than greenfield development. Is artificially seperating the issue from many connected issues a good idea? I would argue yes. Every decision on City Council is comprised of many building blocks that are weighed against one another and this happens to be one of those blocks.
January 11, 2007 at 10:24 am
Tudor: You forgot utilities! There are PRIVATE utility companies that
provide service: of course, with higher rates and less reliability.
The basic question – how do we keep improving Manassas? Most
folks I talk with note that we have too many used car lots – would
it be wrong for the city to buy a few if they come on the market
and flip them for better – for the community- long term use?
In a perfect world – private folks would do this job but, in the real
world, that is often a long shot.
January 11, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Real Estate “speculation” with MY money(COM taxpayer) isn’t what I feel best serves the citizenry. As previous posts point out, this could have an un-intended(or prerequisite?) consequence that would be truly reprehensible.