2007-10-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Responding to question from Mr. Norris, Mr. Tolbert said the design was accepted by Council in a January 2006 resolution, and the Committee will meet on Wednesday to see VDOT’s work on the stormwater plan. Mr. Norris asked about the comment from the public about a four fifths vote needed, and Mr. Brown said he has a different opinion, and feels that only a simple majority is needed. Responding to a question by Mr. Norris, Mr. Tolbert said that not all of the pedestrian and bike access has been cut out of the plan. Mr. Taliaferro said while the comments about some people financially benefiting from the parkway are true, it will also be a financial benefit for the City. He said downtown is fragile and improvements downtown help everyone. Mr. Taliaferro said there have been projects that were controversial, such as the Omni Hotel and downtown mall, but they have benefited the City as a whole. He said if we do not move forward it may sour us with those in Richmond and we may have trouble getting money in the future. He said cooperation with the County is also important, and he thinks it is important that we move ahead. Mr. Norris said the issue is the terms under which we move forward. He said we should change the terms of the debate to what a regional network looks like. He said it cannot just be about cars and roads. He said he would put more emphasis on a commitment from the County on transit and bike and pedestrian projects. He said he thinks putting pressure on the County for connectors on Fontaine and Hillsdale Drive are more realistic. Mr. Lynch agreed there should be more emphasis on transit. He said he thinks the resolution is premature. He said replacement parkland, the interchange, and a County network of roads is most important. He said he has no confidence we will get replacement parkland if we give up our leverage. He said there is a funding gap for the interchange. He said the resolution should come back to Council when all those have been done. Ms. Hamilton said Council is showing a serious lack of trust. She said she appreciates Delegate Toscano’s reality check. She said we have had verbal assurances from VDOT and the County about the conditions, but nothing concrete from them. She said she does not necessarily agree with paving parkland, but agrees the parkway is probably needed as part of a network. She said the viability of City businesses is not guaranteed. She said she hopes we get to a better place in terms of trust. Dr. Brown said he agreed to support previous Councils regarding the parkway, but has mixed feelings. He said he has become more convinced of the need for the road, and does not think the road will facilitate growth. He asked what happens as Route 29 becomes more congested. He said downtown needs to be accessible. He said he thinks the eastern connector is somewhat feasible, but we need to figure out how to pay for it. He said he is prepared to go forward with the easement on the condition of final acquisition of parkland and final stormwater plan approval. Mr. Lynch suggested bringing the resolution back when those things have happened. Mr. Brown said that the conditions can be included in the resolution as long as they are specific and refer to who approves the stormwater plan. Mr. Tolbert said approval of the stormwater plan could be left to the Committee and staff or can go to Council for approval with a recommendation from the Committee. Mr. Norris said if Council moves forward we should make our expectations from the County clear, and proposed the following: commit to a continued and substantial increase in funding for public transit; commit to making extensive pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the urban ring; commit to building a transportation connector