• About Me
• Contact

More On The Future Of Countryside

Posted by Chris Berry on August 14, 2008 in Local Politics, Roanoke Valley

UPDATE: Newly elected council member Court Rosen requested additional financial information at a council meeting on August 18th, leading many Countryside supporters to believe he supports selling the property. His complete comments are available here. Valerie Garner, President of the Countryside Neighborhood Alliance and unsuccessful candidate for city council in 2008 makes her position clear on the matter here.

This article originally appeared on the Star City Harbinger site on August 12th, in response to this post.

The City of Roanoke made an incredibly foolish decision when it purchased the Countryside golf course in 2005. Botched development attempts, and poor stewardship of the course since then have only made matters worse. The actions of the city council during this time have demonstrated an alarming aggrandizement of their role in shaping the future of the city, as well as a complete lack of regard for the rights of property owners.

The original decision to purchase the property was based on the perceived need for additional upscale housing in the city, and the boost in property tax revenue that this new housing would generate. The fact that the city council considered Countryside to be suitable for this type of development indicates their complete lack of qualification to be in the real estate business in the first place.

The only reason that any development has taken place around Countryside in recent years is the golf course. If the course no longer exists, the property 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. This will hold true 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.

The manner in which the city went about acquiring the property is also troubling. Since the previous owners were not interested in selling, the city conspired with the airport commission to put the golf course out of business. When the airport commission refused to renew the lease on a 40 acre swatch of land that runs through the center of the golf course, the owners had no choice but to sell. The city is now in the process of negotiating a new 40 year lease with the airport commission on that same parcel of land. Just as citizens should be alarmed by the use of eminent domain to transfer the property of other business owners on Reserve Avenue to Carilion for their own development purposes, we should be outraged by the use of this kind of underhanded tactic to force property owners to sell.

The city now needs to make a decision on the future of the Countryside property. At this point it can enter into a long-term lease agreement with a management company to operate the golf course; it can take over the management of the property itself; or it can sell the parcel in the hopes of recouping a portion of it’s investment. Given that the course is now in need of at least $1 million in capital improvements, the city will be hard pressed to find a company willing to enter into a five year lease agreement. Unless the term of the agreement gives the operator ample time to recover their costs and make a profit, there is no incentive to make the required investments. By focusing on such a short term plan, council is once again displaying a remarkable lack of business savvy.

The option of taking over the operation of the golf course appears to be off the table, but this position seems to be based at least in part on faulty financial projections. Using the current annual debt service figure of $470,000.00, it’s difficult to come up with a scenario that makes financial sense. When the city purchased the property, it intended to sell it to a developer within a very short period of time. With this in mind, the purchase was financed with a short term instrument requiring a high annual payment. If the city chose to keep the property and operate it as a city park, the debt could easily be restructured and the annual cost could be reduced by half or more.

The final option the city must consider is selling the property. Given the current economic conditions, it is almost certainly worth less now than the original purchase price. Before putting the property on the market, the city has a very important decision to make. If it is determined that a golf course is the highest and best use, deed restrictions can be put in place to prevent future development. Any restriction on the rights of the new owner will reduce the value of the property, and the city must be prepared to sell at a potentially substantial loss. On the other hand, if the city chooses to sell without restrictions on the use of the property, the new owners will be free to pursue a variety of development options in the future.

One alternative which has not been mentioned publicly is certain to raise an outcry from local golfers and Countryside property owners alike. (Don’t hate me, Valerie) The Countryside site is ideally suited for industrial or retail development, and it is almost certainly worth more in parcels than it is intact. If recouping the original investment and increasing tax revenues are the primary considerations, the city should seriously consider breaking up the property and selling it in pieces. If quality of life issues take precedence over economic development, then adequate steps must be taken to ensure the preservation of the golf course. Council has a difficult decision to make, and they owe it to all of us to consider their actions more carefully this time around.

Print this Article
Return Home