City Blasts Alternative Waterfront Plan as Deficient on All Fronts
City staff said the plan is not financially or legally sound.
The waterfront redevelopment strategy presented by Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan is neither financially feasible, legally defensible nor responsive to change, according to a new City of Alexandria assessment (pdf).
The CAAWP proposal at a price tag of up to $109 million would cost twice that of the city’s draft waterfront plan, said Acting City Manager Bruce Johnson at City Hall on Monday.
“We don’t think that’s financially feasible considering the city’s financial outlook for the next decade,” said Johnson, who previously held the title of city chief financial officer.
He characterized the group’s plan to minimize costs as “deficient” and said potential revenue from a suggested museum is “drastically overstated.”
He also blasted the idea of borrowing money to partially fund the project. “We are pretty close to our capacity” and moves to borrow money could “perhaps endanger our triple A bond rating,” Johnson said.
Additionally, city lawyer James Banks said ideas to transfer development rights are not practical because it’s very difficult under Virginia law.
Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks said the idea of land swaps, which worked well for city development plans in the 1980s, aren’t a viable option for this project.
He said the city does not have land parcels available that have such value or on the order of magnitude that CAAWP suggests. “The alternative is giving up a large public city park,” which is not good policy, Jinks said.
“We see a plan whose intent is to minimize change,” said Johnson, adding that if there were an alternative plan that “could work” the city would love to see it. However, “our final conclusion is this isn’t it.”
Edgar Warfield
3:48 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011
Surprise surprise, the pipe dream of the CAAWP plan is not grounded in financial reality. Maybe now its backers will get their heads out of the clouds and we can move forward on realistic improvements to the waterfront that are within the City's means.
doug redman
3:57 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011
It has appeared to me that the CAAWP plan is and has been about minimal change all along. I personally believe that their rigid approach has hurt them. We need somthing along the waterfront that will benefit everyone. That includes incorporating some of what the CAAWP proposed along with additional commercial development tastefully planned and implemented.
djrobb
4:51 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011
The 20 or so page city critique of the CAAWP plan is up on the Alexandria city website. It's a good read.
Drew Hansen
5:08 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011
Here is a .pdf link to the city's critique the previous poster mentioned: http://1.usa.gov/uZM1un
Dennis Auld
6:13 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011
Another way to look at the comparison the City states in its Memorandum is not the comparison of $109M CAAWP cost to $53M in the City plan, which to me is apples to oranges, but the cost estimated by the city to do the CAAWP plan, which the City states at $220M, and the cost CAAWP says, about $109M. There are assumptions in teh CAAWP plan supporting the $109 estimate that are very questionable, mainly acquiring the propreties at assesswed, or lower value. In addition, CAAWp says the owners of the properties are faced with extensive clean up costs, which they do not include in their $109M cost. So, are we to assume that if CAAWP is successful, then the taxpayers are on the hook for more than the $109M becaust the City will then absorb clean up costs. The CAAWP plan would be much more credible if it puts forth realistic assumptions.
JohnFitzgerald
8:25 am on Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Gentlemen- There have been so many changes to the City's plan recently that it is essentially dead and devoid of the core amenity we are supposed to be getting - Fitzgerald Square. In light of that point, tell me why we are upzoning again? To pay for what amenities? and when do we get the amenities again? You do realize i hope that we are now talking about 4 not 3, 4 hotels down there with two being on the Cummings Turner site. And tell me again the rationale for upzoninig and allowing hotels at Cummings Turner? That site was not part of the settlement agreement AND the warehouses which they said would be restored as part of the upzoning deal at Cummings Turner have been purchased by another party who intends to restore them and tastefully reuse them. Then of course there's GENON... Gents, where do we go from here? The City no longer has a plan. The rationale to rezone allowing higher density and hotels is toast...
Dennis Auld
1:01 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
John, could it be that the changes in the plan were responses to groups, like OTCA? Do you believe that no changes have been made since the release of the intital plan? They are there, they are documented. CAAWP chooses to ignore them because it is an all or nothing approach with them. I appreciate your position, and passion, what i have a problem with is arguments that have no back up, other than emotional statements. The City has a plan, and it is supportable. The CAAWP plan is not. To make it potyentially viable, rework it, make it believable.
Dan Clark
8:58 am on Tuesday, November 22, 2011
We now seem to be getting to the heart of the matter -
“Any member of the city council that votes for the city’s plan as currently designed and ignores citizens as they have been doing deserves to be tossed from office in 2012,” said CAAWP co-founder and former city vice-mayor Andrew Macdonald in an e-mail to The Washington Post.
Ann Dorman
1:04 pm on Tuesday, November 22, 2011
And why is anyone listening to Andrew McDonald ? The last time he was elected he quit costing the City tens of thousands of dollars for a special election!
JamesOnThePotomac
9:33 am on Tuesday, November 22, 2011
It appears to me that this Alexandria Waterfront issue is boiling down to a fight between the City Council and a group of concerned citizens. Maybe this issue will be best resolved at the polls next fall.
JohnFitzgerald
9:37 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Mr. Auld please explain to me why we must rezone in order to get the dwindling list of ammenities in the city plan? with regard to "Legal Defensibility" - I hope folks outside of Old Town realize that the precedent the city is potentially setting here by not defending their own 1992 zoning is the elephant in the room. By declaring their own masterplan 'indefensible' this action opens pandoras box for upzoning city wide - perhaps in your back yard, Mr. Auld. A feeding frenzy for high density development across Alexandria. To Mr. Clark's point - yes, since the City leadership has completely dimissed any and all of CAAWPs findings it does look to be a potential political issue. These same leaders in city hall brought us BRAC. we must stop the madness now. The waterfront is our Alamo and citizens i believe will go the distance to protect it. To Ms. Dorman's point about Andrew Macdonald - I would challenge her on the costs he caused the city--- how much has this Mayor and Council cost us with their ill advised decisions and costly pet projects -- (BRAC, Wales Alley Defense, Metroblunder in Potomac Yards, Police Station, Jefferson Houston, and on and on and on.......). Have a fantastic Thanksgiving everyone (that goes for Mr. Auld too).
Dennis Auld
10:01 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Thank you John. You have a Happy Thanksgiving also.