Oakwood Rising
At the moment, it seems slightly ironic that the owner of Fulton Hill Properties is named Margaret Freund. The last name means "friend" in German. But the developer has risen to the top of a lot of enemy lists around Church Hill, many of whose residents strenuously object to the Oakwood Heights project just approved by Richmond City Council over the objections of the Commission of Architectural Review.
The neighbors' objections are primarily aesthetic. They consider the condo project insufficiently gracile, and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In some respects we might incline to agree. But that objection does not override the more salient issue at hand: The project is permitted under existing zoning, which has called for multi-family use of the site for several decades.
Neighbors have complained that the developer did not give sufficent consideration to their demands. After the City Council vote, some pledged to pursue the issue in court. Before doing so, they might want to reflect on this consideration: Why should their mere aesthetic displeasure give them veto power over someone else's property rights?
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Where is Gilpin anyway?
I’m not really seeing the connection here. I thought these were supposed to be “green” condos in the $200,000 range. I can definitely see apartments spawning out of this, because no one is going to spend that much on a condo right now, but government housing? Is that really a possibility? Or is it just a metaphor? The last thing Church Hill needs is projects!
Deaf ears, and type writers, seem to abound in this area. “Mere aesthetic displeasure” is a misinformed and poorly misused analogy of the situation. It appears that no one reflects on the laws governing the Old & Historic Districts. One, that being zoning, does not trump the other.
I’m open with my statements and convictions because I am not afraid to be challenged on them. I research accordingly and strive to get all the facts before I speak or weigh in with an opinion.
It’s sad to see a reporter that can contribute so much to the daily information of his/her readers chooses to do it incognito.
The look of the development is not the primary opposition. I love how this unnamed editor and maggie freund (the developer) have made it about zoning and looks. These are not the neighbor’s arguments. If I want to paint my house I have to fill out a form, bring the color and paint chips to the CAR meeting. This developer has not produced any of the items required, instead they say we are thinking of using this material, we are probably going to go with this color,etc. Not once but 3 times CAR met with the developer including having additional outside meetings to help them craft the project to meet Old and Historic guidelines. They still failed. That’s like a teacher taking Johnny aside and saying “meet with me after class and I will not only give you the questions on the test; I will also give you the answers to the questions.“ The developer still was turned down. That shows a lack of desire (by the developer) to participate with the process. The developer knew this was an old and historic district when she got the land, but she doesn’t want to play by the rules that regular citizens have to. You mark my words this project will end up being apartments and will turn into something similar to the “Carters” that Nino Brown ran in new jack City. This project is the City’s first step to move Gilpin to Church Hill, come on the City has ten acres of land they want to develop right beside Gilpin and they need to shift those residents somewhere, next Frank Wood is going to develop a large tract of land next to this property and the city will have a new place to put those that are disenfranchised. Instead of being within eyesight and walking distance of downtown, the power brokers of Richmond want those that have less financially further away from them. This is step one. Wake Up people, the many are being manipulated by the few.
“veto power over someone else’s property rights?“ What property rights? City Council stripped unknowing residents of their property rights by making almost every older section of the city “Old and Historic” districts.
If she had property rights, we would not be having this discussion. City Council appointed CAR to enforce the pick-pocketing of residents (taxation without representation) in the O&H districts. Now, they decide to disregard what CAR says and make up their own rules.
When will people wake up to the fact that O&H designation ordinances need to be repealed?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement