It’s Time For A Permanent Resolution On Countryside

Posted by Chris Berry on August 7, 2008 in Local Politics, Roanoke Valley

It appears that Countryside is about to receive a five year reprieve from the threat of development. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, the future of the golf course remains uncertain. The Roanoke Times recently ran an editorial supporting the plan for a five year lease that allows the city to revisit the development issue once the housing market is stronger. This is a foolish position, and the citizens of Roanoke should demand a permanent resolution rather than another stopgap measure.

The Times position is based on their assessment of the need for additional housing in the city. The only reason that any recent development has taken place around Countryside is the golf course. Once that is taken away, Countryside becomes a very undesirable site for residential development. Upscale residents of the type the city so desperately hopes to attract are simply not going to buy homes surrounded by the airport and 581. Given the lack of upscale amenities in northwest Roanoke, and the generally lower performing schools, it’s a safe bet that upscale home buyers will stay away in droves, regardless of the condition of the overall housing market. The fact that no developer was willing to invest in the plan after the initial RFP should be ample evidence to support this conclusion.

Among the fundamental principles of modern urban planning are the discouragement of suburban sprawl in favor of revitalization of older neighborhoods, and infill development closer to the city center. The city of Roanoke already has plenty of older neighborhoods in desperate need of revitalization. The project at Miller’s Hill could have been a shining example of what’s possible in Old Southwest, but it appears the city has essentially abandoned that project. Unfortunately, they have also abandoned the handful of early buyers who bought into the plan, and are now left holding the bag.

We constantly hear about the need for additional recreational amenities in the city, and council seems hell bent on building an amphitheater without regard for the fact that our other performance venues are grossly underutilized. Countryside is already a great recreational amenity, and it makes no sense to destroy it. Unfortunately, the cloud of uncertainty that has hung over the course for the past several years has discouraged anyone from investing in it’s upkeep. The course is now in need of at least $1 million in capital improvements, and no operator or management company is going to invest that kind of money without a long-term lease. Five years is simply not an adequate period of time to recover their costs and make a profit. This means the condition of the course will only continue to decline unless the city is willing to make a long-term commitment to it’s preservation.

If you enjoyed this post, please bookmark it to help new readers find it.

Print this Article
Return Home

3 Comments on It’s Time For A Permanent Resolution On Countryside

By Valerie on August 7, 2008 at 11:38 am

A new manager at Countryside in the last few months has done a much better job of maintenance. Of course, without a firm commitment on extending the lease it remains minimal. Go figure, it is raining and they are playing golf with umbrellas. Have you ever done that, Chris?

I did get a sense of “movement” in the direction of permanency at the briefing Monday especially out of Councilman Nash who as you know is a member at Countryside.

There was spin by the administration but the spinning was no as exuberant as in the past. Let’s face it you can only spin so much until the jig is up.

At August 18th, 7:00 PM Council meeting I will ask again for the $55K that is the result of an acre sale of Countryside (2nd & 3rd fairway) to be earmarked for golf course maintenance. This is the TRANE building expansion. It is only fair if you are selling a piece of it to apply it toward improvement of the course that is not covered in the operating agreement with Meadowbrook (or other).

By Chris G. Muse on August 9, 2008 at 11:14 am

$55,000 will do nothing to solve any of Countryside’s problems. Yes, it is a beginning but I see Council using the ‘bad housing market’ as an excuse not to do anything for the years The Times suggested. Developers won’t touch it currently and the City (residents and officials) doesn’t place our Golf Course high on the priority list.
This might actually be a blessing to save Countryside because the market factors suggest it will remain ‘green’ for a few more years. Perhaps when our economy turns discussions will become serious. Right now it seems like band-aids are the cure to just get by.
Oh… Countryside not being listed in the ‘Phone Book’ or by The Convention & Visitors Bureau shows a negligent management team.

By Ken Daniels on August 27, 2008 at 11:12 am

As housing density and urbanization increases, those communities with proximity to large green spaces will almost certainly be the most desirable. Look no further than property values of those residences that border Central Park on Manhattan for a historical example of this. However, if not attended to, Mother Nature has a way of spoiling the party in short order.

Keeping up a golf course doesn’t have to be overly expensive. Labor cost is the main limiting factor when it comes to maintaining 100+ acres, but you can often create even better conditions with less money if you restore a natural balance to the soil ecology on site. Regardless of which products and BMP’s are used to achieve this end, it is FAR less costly to keep up a certain standard than to recover from even a single season of neglect.

Feel free to contact me, and I will gladly discuss this matter further to divine if we can contribute in some way. If nothing else, I would be willing to say the same to any officials willing to listen.

Please feel free to share your thoughts. Without your comments, I'm just some guy talking to myself. Let me know if I'm right, wrong, or completely full of sh*t.