Chris Berry On The Net

This article originally appeared on the Star City Harbinger website.

The City of Roanoke suffers from a severe case of multiple personality disorder when it comes to economic development issues. We hear a great deal of talk about the need for the city to be hip, cool and green in order to attract young professionals, while at the same time we’re talking about sacrificing open space at Countryside for the purpose of creating more suburban sprawl. Nothing could be farther from hip, cool or green than another vinyl clad housing development where residents would rely on their automobiles for even the briefest errand.

One of the fundamental principles of modern urban planning is the discouragement of suburban sprawl in favor of revitalization of older neighborhoods closer to the city center. Vibrant neighborhoods with diverse populations, and easy access to a wide variety of urban amenities, will be far more appealing to the young professional crowd than generic suburban developments lacking in style or sense of place.

For decades, the Old Southwest neighborhood has teetered on the brink of revitalization or further decline. While a number of preservation enthusiasts have done an admirable job of bringing historic homes back to life, the area has never achieved the critical mass required to make it a viable choice for those who lack the urban pioneer spirit. As long as the effort remains limited to one house at a time, the majority of potential home buyers will be reluctant to invest in an uncertain proposition.

The project at Miller’s Hill is a great example of the kind of effort that is needed to jumpstart the revitalization of Old Southwest. Instead of one house at a time, the idea is to renovate an entire block which would serve as a catalyst for further revitalization efforts throughout the surrounding area. Unfortunately, the project appears to have been abandoned by the city as a result of the slowdown in the housing market. This is an incredibly short-sighted decision, and a blatant betrayal of the people who have already bought into the project.

In 2005, the Roanoke Housing and Redevelopment Authority was presented with the unique opportunity to acquire 17 of the 20 houses on the 400 block of Day Avenue. The previous owner agreed to transfer the houses to the city in exchange for assumption of $344,400.00 in outstanding debts on the properties. The plan was to preserve the architectural integrity of these homes while upgrading them with modern conveniences and mechanical systems. The stated purpose at the time was to “help reknit the fabric of the neighborhood.”

Since the project began, seven of the 17 homes have been renovated, and five have sold for prices ranging from $270,000.00 to $383,000.00. The two other completed homes are currently listed for sale at $317,500.00 and $354,500.00. The last recorded sale took place in June of 2007, and there has been virtually no activity on the site since that time. The other 10 houses are simply boarded up and continuing to deteriorate, and all outstanding building permits on the project have expired. This leaves five homeowners holding the bag while the value of their property is reduced to virtually nothing by the surrounding blight.

City officials have cited conditions in the overall real estate market as the reason behind the work stoppage. If encouraging downtown living is important enough to justify a gift of $880,000.00 to the developers of the Hancock Building, then there should be no excuse for the abandonment of this project.

Property tax incentives are available to the purchasers of these homes, but these incentives are not sufficient to lure buyers back to the project. Without a firm commitment by the city to complete the renovations as originally promised, no sane buyer is going to invest $300,000.00 or more in one of these homes. Given the current situation in the mortgage market, no lender would take the risk either. The only solution is for the city to live up to its commitment and complete the renovation work on the remaining houses. The carrying costs might be higher than originally planned, but the long-term benefits will certainly outweigh the price.

Interestingly, there has been virtually no public outcry from the Miller’s Hill property owners. Unlike the folks at Countryside, they have not lobbied aggressively for the preservation of their property values. The reality is that they have a much stronger case against the city than the more vocal Countryside residents.

The Countryside Neighborhood Alliance is composed primarily of residents of a patio home development built between 1999 and 2002. The current assessed values of these homes range from roughly $170,000.00 to $220,000.00. They purchased their homes from a private developer with no promise or commitment that the golf course would remain in operation. While the course does enhance the value of their properties, additional development on the site will not have a devastating effect on those values. It should also be noted that the value of these properties is not wildly out of line with those in the surrounding area, or with similar homes in neighborhoods without a golf course.

Residents of Miller’s Hill, on the other hand, purchased their homes with a firm commitment from the city the project would be completed in accordance with a strict plan. Take a look at the Miller’s Hill website to get an idea of the lifestyle that residents were led to expect. What they have instead are beautifully renovated homes rendered unsalable by the surrounding abandoned properties.

It is the responsibility of our elected leaders to make wise decisions when it comes to allocating our limited resources, and to spend our money on projects that will produce the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens. Revitalizing our decaying older neighborhoods will have a far more positive impact on the city than owning a golf course for the enjoyment of a few. The $4 million currently tied up in the Countryside fiasco would be more than enough to complete the Miller’s Hill project, and the city would get its money back when the houses are eventually sold.