February 4, 2009

Ms. Darlene Burcham
City Manager
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
Room 364
Roanoke, VA 24011

Dear Ms. Burcham:

I was very excited to learn about the new Creative Communities Leadership Program being undertaken by the City of Roanoke. Please accept this letter as my formal application to become one of the 30 Creative Connectors. After examining the online application form, I have made the decision to submit my application in an alternative format that better reflects my qualifications. I humbly suggest that you encourage others to do so as well. If you’re looking for people to think outside the box, it may not be wise to restrict them to filling in boxes on a form.

As for the statistical information requested on the application, being a 47 year old heterosexual white male does not earn me any diversity points. On the other hand, as an atheist firmly committed to the separation of Church and State, it appears that I represent the point of view of a very small minority in the Roanoke Valley.

I graduated from North Cross School in Roanoke, and earned a B.A. in Economics & Business from Randolph-Macon College. I also attended graduate school at the Rochester Institute of Technology, but did not complete the thesis requirement in time to earn my M.S.

My current employment situation is perhaps not my most obvious qualification for the post. The fact is that I have been unemployed for the past 13 months since selling a small business in December of 2007. My inability to find suitable employment opportunities in Roanoke does, however, give me a bird’s eye view of the problems faced by job-seekers in our local economy.

Prior to becoming unemployed, I was the founder and owner of Foodies. Starting a small business targeted at upscale professionals gave me a unique insight into the demographic challenges faced by local entrepreneurs. I also learned a great deal about the obstacles to new entrepreneurial ventures posed by various government agencies, particularly at the city level.

Before opening Foodies, I spent the bulk of my career in the commercial printing industry. I worked for companies ranging in size from small family owned enterprises to Fortune 500 corporations. While the bulk of my responsibilities were in the area of sales and sales management, at some point in my career I’ve been involved in virtually every aspect of the business. In my capacity as a sales executive, my performance placed me in the top 1% of producers nationwide for 10 consecutive years.

The application form shows a heavy emphasis on prior civic involvement and leadership as selection criteria. I suggest that these may not be the best standards by which to judge the people you are seeking. If fresh thinking and new ideas are the objective, you are less likely to get them by dipping into the same pool of candidates whose past leadership has gotten us to this point.

As far as my own civic involvement goes, my experience is limited by the fact that I am a relative newcomer to the Roanoke Valley. Even though I’ve lived here for roughly half my life, I did move away for twenty years before returning in late 2002. Since that time I have started a unique small business targeted specifically at the upscale young professional demographic that the city is so eager to cultivate. Through that business, I was a generous supporter of over a dozen local charitable and cultural organizations, providing both in-kind contributions and pro-bono services. I’ve also played an active role in organizing and promoting the annual Gallop 4 The Greenways event, and I’m currently in the process of creating a new website to increase the effectiveness of our individual fundraising efforts. In October of 2008, I was appointed to serve as a member of the board of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Roanoke.

While I’ve done my best to become an active and engaged member of the community, I don’t consider myself to be a leader in the traditional sense. Because of my generally introverted nature, I don’t have the networking or social skills required to be the spokesman for any cause. You won’t ever find me working a room or glad-handing with the local bigwigs. What I do have is the ability to develop new ideas and to devise creative solutions for challenging problems. I am also fortunate to possess the writing skills to express those ideas in a manner that is clear, concise, and convincing.

The fact that I have not lived in the area for my entire life is actually one of my best qualifications to become a Creative Connector. Even though I’ve moved over a dozen times, I’ve always considered the Roanoke Valley to be my home. I was one of those young professionals we hear so much about who left in search of greener pastures. After completing my education, I set out into the world in search of opportunities that were simply not available locally. Over the years, my career led me to a number of major metropolitan areas, including Richmond, Charlotte, Washington, DC, and even Buffalo, NY. I have first hand knowledge of what leads young people to leave, and what may eventually bring them back.

When I left Roanoke, the local economy was beginning to make the transition from decades of domination by Norfolk Western and General Electric. When I returned 20 years later, a new power player had emerged. While the growth of Carilion has been a boon to those in the healthcare industry, opportunities for people in other fields have not kept pace. I’m looking for a chance to share my experience to help local businesses grow, and create opportunities for the next generation of Roanokers. My goal is to ensure that when the time comes for my son to begin his career, remaining in Roanoke will be a viable option for him.

In addition to this long-term view, it is essential to focus on the present. Promising career opportunities for people of all ages and backgrounds can only come about through diversification of our local economy. The primary focus of the economic development effort should be on creating an atmosphere that encourages entrepreneurialism, and takes advantage of the economic, educational and cultural resources of the region as a whole.

As for my abilities in Research, Advocacy, Communication, Writing and Creativity, I’ve addressed most of those points elsewhere. Just to be certain, here’s a quick self-assessment.

Research: This takes many forms. I can usually find what I’m looking for on Goggle, but don’t count on me to discover the cure for cancer.

Advocacy: Another term with many possible meanings. Can I convince other people to support an idea or a cause? Yes. Can I serve as the public spokesman for that cause? Probably not.

Communication: See Advocacy.

Business Reporting & Writing: One of my greatest strengths. See Communication.

Creativity & Innovation: Again, one of my greatest strengths.

As far as the problems facing Roanoke, I’ve written numerous articles over the past year that address the subject directly. The links at the end of this letter will give you a clear idea of my position on a wide variety of local matters.

As a result of my introverted nature and the fact that I have been self-employed for most of my time in Roanoke, I do not have an extensive network of professional references. What I do have is a large number of people who have come to know me through my writing and other community activities. I have posted this letter on my website and will ask my readers to provide the references. I hope that you will follow the conversation here.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Berry
2220 Stanley Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24014

LINKS

New Ideas For Development Incentives
A Tale Of Two Neighborhoods
A Few More Thoughts On Miller’s Hill
Abandoned Downtown Landmarks Call For Creative Solutions
Time To Consider A New Home For The Food Court Vendors
Tell The Farmers To Shut Up
Why Chico’s Happiness Shouldn’t Matter>
Chico Was Not Happy Last Night”>
Missing The Point On Rockledge
Transportation Museum Should Hold A Yard Sale
Council Forum A Flop
Passenger Rail Service Doesn’t Add Up
Why I Stay In Roanoke
Why Regionalism Never Works
Intermodal Facility More Important Than Ever

When the meeting ended, an angry but anonymous attendee fired off an email to city officials complaining that the prayer was illegal, since it made reference to a specific religious belief. The vice mayor responded by stating that he was a Christian, hence he could not pray without invoking the name of Jesus Christ. Rather than offering up a meaningless nonsectarian prayer in the future, he would simply forfeit his place in the normal opening prayer rotation. Naturally, someone had to contact the ACLU, but they refused to get involved since the vice mayor had agreed to no longer pray in the name of Jesus. It appeared that the crisis had been averted.

No one on the city council has claimed credit for inviting a guest pastor to the next meeting, but it wasn’t especially surprising when he opened with a fervent prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. When interviewed after the meeting, our vice mayor claimed that the city had no control over what the man had said, since he was a private citizen and not a member of the council. This pathetic attempt at side-stepping the rules didn’t sit well with the handful of anti-prayer activists in town.

If you’re not familiar with Roanoke, we’re in the heart of Bible country, less than an hour’s drive from the headquarters of the late Reverend Jerry Falwell. A quick glance at our local paper is all you need to see that folks around here take their religion pretty seriously. The editorial pages are usually filled with letters promoting Intelligent Design, and blaming all of our problems on a general decline in religiosity. The consensus is that a Christian prayer without Christ is pretty much pointless. Even as a steadfast non-believer, I have to agree with them on that point.

The idea of nonsectarian prayer is a ridiculous concept invented by politicians and bureaucrats to avoid facing the larger issue of separation of Church and State. The rationale is that as long as the public prayer doesn’t mention any specific religious belief, then there is no violation of the establishment clause. Like so many other examples of poorly conceived government solutions, by attempting to protect the sensibilities of various minorities, the policy of non-sectarian prayer manages to offend nearly everyone.

The problem is that people of faith believe in very specific Gods. Religion is by definition an explicit set of beliefs for which there is no generic alternative. Expecting Christians to pray without invoking Christ makes no more sense than asking a Pastafarian to worship a plate of macaroni and cheese. All of this begs the main question; given the unsatisfactory nature of generic prayer, why do we continue to make it a part of our public ceremonies?

As a non-believer I am not offended by anyone’s private religious beliefs, and I feel strongly that I deserve the same tolerance for my own. What offends me is the idea that private beliefs must be turned into a public spectacle at official gatherings. It’s not the mention of Jesus Christ that bothers me, but the idea that we cannot conduct public business without first asking for supernatural oversight. The fact that our city council cannot reach a conclusion on any matter of consequence, even with the guiding hand of a generic god, is sufficient proof to me that he cannot exist.

The City of Roanoke owns the parking garage on Church Avenue, and the building is already in the midst of a renovation that will convert the lower level to retail space. The square footage that is planned for retail conversion is approximately equal to the size of the existing food court. The structure is within site of the Market Building, and the location would be just as accessible for downtown workers and tourists.

Locating a major attraction on Church Avenue would also serve the purpose of extending the market area and drawing visitors into other parts of downtown. This was a major objective spelled out in the 2006 City Market Plan by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.

On an quasi-unrelated note, I would like to welcome a new member of the Star City Blogosphere. Matt has contributed a number of thoughtful comments on this site, and I look forward to seeing what he has to offer on his own blog.

When the city council discusses issues relating to Countryside, you can count on Countryside residents to turn out in force. At a recent public input session intended to gather ideas on the future of the Market Building, the audience was dominated by food court vendors. When voters are required to attend lengthy meetings to express their views, only those with a vested interest in the outcome are likely to attend.

The city has recently announced plans to conduct a survey of visitors to the Market Building. This is a step in the right direction, but once again it not going to capture a representative cross section since all of the participants will be current food court customers. Those residents who do not patronize the building in its present configuration will not be heard.

We clearly need a better method of communicating with our city officials. Councilmen Trinkle and Rosen have both recently started blogs that allow them to communicate directly with their constituents. This is a step in the right direction and I applaud them for their efforts, but I would like to see one site with every member of council participating, along with the City Manager and other administration officials.

Imagine a blog site where every member of the city council can explain their views and positions on a variety of important topics, and readers can provide their own input in the form of comments. Instead of relying on public input sessions, the site could include surveys to allow a broader cross section of residents to express their views on topics like the Market Building, amphitheater locations, Countryside, Forest Park, etc. One thing that the public made abundantly clear during the last election was that they are tired of factionalism and backroom deals. Allowing the public to participate more directly in the debate would go a long way toward improving public confidence in the council and their decisions.

I have already made my position abundantly clear that the city owes the Market Building tenants nothing beyond their term of their leases. In spite of this, there appears to be fairly widespread support for the idea that the we as taxpayers are responsible for providing them with a place to conduct their business without interruption.

When the building was converted into a food court in the early 1980’s, the concept made perfect sense, and it served the intended purpose very well. Since that time, downtown Roanoke has undergone a dramatic transformation, and the building needs to evolve to serve a higher purpose. The Market/Museum area of downtown needs an anchor attraction that offers city residents and tourists alike more than just a quick lunch. With that being said, there is still a need for downtown workers to be able to grab a quick and inexpensive meal.

There are plenty of derelict downtown buildings that would serve as ideal locations for a lunchtime food court. Some of the most notable possibilities include the Campbell Mart, Southern Pawn, or Junior Lunch buildings. Any of these locations would be just as convenient for downtown office workers as the Market Building. When trolley service begins from the Riverside Center, it could easily include a stop at one of these locations. Even more importantly, the renovation and adaptive reuse of any of these structures would provide a tremendous boost to the overall revitalization of downtown Roanoke.

If the city can justify a $9 million dollar incentive package to the developer of Ivy Market, then we can certainly support a package to encourage a private developer to rehabilitate one of these buildings for use as a food court. If we start today, any one of these structures could be ready to occupy within a year. Given that we have already invested heavily in temporary upgrades to the Market Building, it should remain safe and sanitary for at least that long. The city could allow the vendors to remain in the Market Building until the new food court building is complete. Once they have a new place to call home, the Market Building can receive the top to bottom renovation that it so desperately needs.

If the city is unwilling to invest in a new home for the food court vendors, there is yet another possibility to consider. Just a few blocks from the Market Square, the struggling Virginia Museum of Transportation occupies a building that is vastly larger than the collection it holds. The location is still within walking distance for downtown workers, and it would also be an easy access point for the Trolley. If a portion of this building were converted into a food court, both the vendors and the museum could benefit from the increased traffic, and the rent paid by the vendors would go a long way toward solving the financial problems of the museum.

Of the 150 or so in attendance, no fewer than one third were food court vendors and their employees, and they brought along a cheering section of family and friends to boost their numbers further. There were also a large number of media on hand, and several officials from the city managers office and the office of Economic Development. Bill Carder of DRI was there, along with a dozen or so downtown business and property owners. The smallest group in attendance by far were the ordinary citizens with no vested interest in the project.

Ed Hall of Hall Associates, and Bill Carder were among the few who made any attempt to present factual information on the history of the building, or the proposed renovations. The other speeches ranged from purely sympathetic appeals to incomprehensible rants. Throughout the entire evening, not a single mention was made of the cost to the taxpayers of any of the proposals, or the fact that the city is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on temporary repairs in a building that will in all likelihood be completely gutted in another year.

The dominant theme of the evening was an unchallenged assumption that the food court vendors were somehow entitled to preferential treatment beyond the term of their lease agreements. No one in the crowd seemed to have a basic understanding of the fact that a lease is a contract for a specified period of time, and nothing more. When the lease expires, as most of them are set to do within a matter of months, the relationship between tenant and landlord is terminated. There are only two tenants in the building with lease agreements that extend beyond 2009, and only one of those is in the food court. The city has made it abundantly clear for quite some time that they have no intention of renewing the current leases beyond 2009, yet none of these vendors appears to have made any sort of contingency plan.

I’ve often been accused of being heartless because I tend to examine situations based on facts without allowing sentimental issues to cloud my judgment. Individuals and private businesses have every right to make decisions based on sentiment if they so desire, but when taxpayer dollars are at stake, a higher standard must be applied.

The majority of speakers last night spoke about the fact that the food court is a unique Roanoke destination, and I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Whatever becomes of the market building, it is essential that the unique local flavor is preserved. There was also a great deal of talk about the fact that the livelihood of these vendors is being threatened, and here comes the part where you can call me a heartless bastard. To what extent are the taxpayers of Roanoke responsible for subsidizing the livelihoods of these 10 vendors, and what makes these people more deserving of our generosity than any other small business owner in the city?

The undeniable fact is that the building is in need of a complete overhaul that will require an investment of millions of taxpayer dollars. Should the taxpayers be expected to bear this expense purely for the benefit of the existing vendors? Will any of these vendors be able to afford the massive rent increases necessary to offset the renovation cost, or do they believe the city should pick up the tab without increasing their rents?

Standing up for the little guy has a great populist ring, but let’s look at this from the point of view of all the other little guys who will be footing the bill for this project. If the city decides to pick up the tab for the renovations without passing along the cost to the vendors, doesn’t every other small business owner in Roanoke have a legitimate claim to the same sort of subsidy? If the city uses tax dollars to create a shiny new market space, shouldn’t other entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete for that space at true market rates?

The food court model served its purpose well for many years, but it no longer serves the needs of the rapidly changing downtown core. If you’ve ever visited Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, or Pike Place Market in Seattle, then you know what kind of opportunity the building presents to further the revitalization of downtown Roanoke. We cannot afford to pass up this opportunity for the sake of making Chico happy.

I have tried to use this blog as a means of influencing the public debate on a variety of local policy issues, and I applied for the appointment in the hopes of having a more direct influence on the process. In spite of the fact that I have been an outspoken critic of numerous actions by the city council, they did vote in favor of my appointment. My term won’t officially begin until the appointment is approved by resolution at the next council meeting on October 6th. In the meantime I am preparing myself to hit the ground running by scheduling meetings with a variety of economic development officials to learn as much as possible about the inner workings of the authority.

I look forward to the opportunity to share my ideas on local economic development with a wider audience, and to being in a position where those ideas might actually become policy. I do have some misgivings about my ability to cope with the inherently political nature of the process, but I will do my best to avoid going postal.

Oh yes Chris, blame the tenants for the disrepair, not the landlord. That makes perfect sense. Yes it is Chico’s fault that the city has shown no interest in renting any of the empty stalls you mention. Damn that Chico, he should just offer to pay for the 3/4 of the building (oh yeah, the upstairs too!!!) that the city has not tried to rent (and indeed, has pushed vendors out of). Now you and the City Manager and council members can blame current tenants for the empty stalls. Damn that Chico. Damn that Chico for not keeping the building he rents in better repair, damn that Chico for taking away parking at every chance he gets, damn that Chico for simply trying to have some involvement in the business he’s invested his entire life in, damn that Chico for going through an entire year of renovation (which effects his business) only to be asked to leave, damn that Chico for simply wanting to be in a conversation that the city has not asked him to participate in. God the nerve of these City Market Rats.

There is a huge difference between a private and a public landlord: the public one has accountability to more than its bank account, and does not own the property. Chico, me, you, and any other tax paying citizen own the property. So yeah, when Chico’s happy, I’m happy.

I apologize for singling Chico out, but it just so happens that our mayor made the initial comment about Chico’s happiness. I just want to take a moment to examine what it’s going to take to make Chico and the other tenants happy.

Let’s assume that the renovation cost projected in the coalition proposal was correct, and that the building requires upgrades and modifications totaling $7 million. The two main floors of the building are approximately 15,930 square feet each for a total of 31,860 square feet. If we include the mezzanine added during the last remodeling, the building total is roughly 40,000 square feet. Let’s also assume that roughly half of the total square footage can be configured as leasable space, and the balance would be set aside for common areas and mechanical systems. Now we have to look at the total renovation cost divided by the revenue producing square footage.

If the mezzanine is kept in place, and all three floors are used as retail space, we get a renovation cost of $350.00 per leasable square foot. If the mezzanine is removed and the two main floors are used for retail space, the renovation cost per leasable square foot becomes $439.42. Under the rejected proposal, the mezzanine would be removed and only the main floor would be used for vendor space. Under this scenario, the renovation cost per leasable square foot works out to an incredible $878.84. What exactly does all of this mean? At 100% occupancy and annual rent of $25.00 per square foot, it would take between 14 and 35 years just to recoup the $7 million dollar investment without interest.

On a per square foot basis, the food court vendors are already paying some of the highest retail rents in the Roanoke Valley. This is justified by the fact that their actual spaces are quite small. The reality is that in order for the proposed renovations to make sense from a pure business standpoint, the current vendors would have to be willing to pay 3 or 4 or 5 times their current rent. Otherwise, the citizens of Roanoke would be subsidizing their operations with tax dollars. Is this a price we are willing to pay to make Chico happy?

Since the last renovation in the early 1980’s the market building has functioned primarily as a food court, offering a wide variety of international cuisines provided by local vendors. In recent years, the food court area has fallen into a state of disrepair and neglect, and is also marred by a substantial number of vacancies. While the city has been responsible for the upkeep of the building since the expiration of a previous management agreement in 2005, it can be argued that the generally shabby appearance of the food court area is at least partly the fault of the vendors themselves. Over the years, they have made no effort whatsoever to upgrade or even maintain the appearance of their stalls.

Generally speaking, I am a huge fan of small business owners, and I have incredible respect for the entrepreneurial spirit. At the same time, I believe that these people are responsible for making sound long-term decisions regarding the health and survival of their businesses. The fact that their leases are expiring, and that they do not have options to renew them should not come as a surprise. It is not the fault of the landlord if the tenants fail to make any sort of contingency plans. In the entire building, only two tenants have options to renew their leases beyond 2009.

The market building belongs to the citizens of Roanoke, and not just to Chico and the other vendors in the food court. When their leases expire, the city owes them no further obligation. We have an opportunity to turn something very ordinary into something remarkable, but we can’t do it if we allow the vendors to dominate the debate. Losing your lease is just one of the realities of owning a small business. We don’t need to treat these people any differently than a private landlord would.

The city has already squandered opportunities to revitalize the Market Square by caving in to the protests of the street vendors. We should not make the same mistake with the Market Building.

Much of the criticism of the proposal was based on the fact that it did not provide sufficient protection for the current building tenants. A controversy arose when the public was made aware that council members had not been allowed to read the actual proposal before the vote was held. On further examination of the facts, it appears that they also failed to read the original RFP. The 23 page document makes virtually no mention of the existing tenants. It contains no requirement that they be consulted on the development of the plan, or that they be included in the future tenant mix.

The only reference to existing tenants is on page 11 of the RFP, in which respondents are asked for a “proposed plan for managing the retention of existing tenants, or the transition plan for the recruitment of tenants in concert with the capital improvement phasing strategy in item (d) above”. Clearly this was an either/or option, and provides no protection or preference for the current tenants.

The plan was also criticized by city officials for straying too far from the development principles laid out in the RFP. Those principles are in fact quite vague, and spelled out on page 14 of the document as follows:

1. Any proposed modifications to the building’s interior or exterior will respect the architectural significance of the structure and its compatibility with other structures in the historic district.

2. The proposed uses of the facility will result in a mix of food court, restaurant, retail, and similar establishments in a configuration that maximizes efficient use of the building and ensures its functional vitality.

3. The tenant mix of the facility and leasing structure should ensure opportunities for locally owned vendors, food court, and retail establishment tenants.

After reading the document, it’s difficult to see where the coalition proposal fails to meet these principles.

The real issue behind the rejection is money. The coalition proposal called for the city to foot the entire bill for the renovations, and projected that roughly half of the cost could be recouped in the form of historic tax credits once the project is completed. The city had anticipated that a private developer would make a substantial capital investment in the project. This is just one more example of a history of unrealistic expectations. The fact that this RFP, along with those for Countryside, Rockledge, and the Amphitheater failed to attract private investors indicates a fundamental lack of business savvy on the part of city officials.

Given the size of the market building and the projected cost of the required renovations, it only takes a moment to realize that the project is not viable from a pure business standpoint. The footprint of the building is 15930 square feet, and as currently configured, roughly half of the ground floor is leasable space. At 100% occupancy, that amount of square footage would only produce about $200,000.00 in annual rent. Without the flexibility to reconfigure the space to maximize leasable square footage, no private developer is going to touch the project. If the city believes that preservation of the Market Building is an essential priority, it must be willing to pick up the tab to make it happen.