1995-09-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

239 The sources of these problems are multiple. City decisions to increase subsidized housing units in the 1970s and early 1980s are partially responsible. But county land use decisions which effectively l#nited the scarce stock of affordable housing opportunities in the county have had the effect of prompting the poor to move into the city in search of housing. The city is faced with the higher costs of providing se~q;ices, including education and transportation to this aging and poorer population, at the same time as more upper income housing is produced in the county. (2) The fixed boundaries of the City make it d~ficult (especially over the long term) to provide a wider range of business growth and economic opportunity for city residents, and thus, a broader tax base for city government. Charlottesville is one of the most densely populated cities in Virginia, with little vacant land remaining for either residential or commercial development. Consequently, there are fewer opportunities to expand the tax base by building homes for upper income residents or by creating new shopping and commercial areas. Since the revenue sharing agreement, major portions of city vacant land have been built-out with commercial development 1T 5th Street l/Villoughby Square, Seminole Square, the CSX property. Moreover, newer, more expensive housing in the county often "attracts" city residents seeking to "move up" in housing size, style, ne3vness, or price. Over time, this exacerbates the disparity of wealth and income between county and city. (3) The demographics and fixed boundaries of the city exacerbate problems in out' schools. Children from poorer families often enter school with lower readiness for academic learning. Our teachers make wonderful progress with these youngsters, but such progress requires great effort and substantial financial resources. In addition, Charlottesville is known for some programs such as special education, which draw families with special needs to reside in the city, and which cost city taxpayers substantial dollars. Although Charlottesville is financially sound at present, the trends just described have the potential to cause serious problems in the long term. And given the city's present strength, perhaps this is the most opportune time to discuss future problems. We do not have all the answers (that is why we are here), but we wish to discuss these and related problems with you in an effort to help you better understand the complexity of the challenges which we face as a city and as a community. To further discussion of these issues, the Council proposes that a working group be formed to conduct necessary policy discussions at the initial level, and establish an agenda for discussion for the near fitture. This working group couM be composed of up to two council members, up to two board members, the city manager and county executive and staff members as needed and would report back to a joint mee#ng of Council and the Board with a plan in the next two weeks. In conclusion, the challenge of political leadership is to anticipate future problems before they become crises, and shape solutions that can enjoy broad public support. In coming together, we have created the opportunity to build for the future of our entire region. Given the presence of the citizen petitioners, as well as the Positions of various candidates jbr statewide office, the window of opportunity for meaningful discussion and agreement ma), only remain open for a very short period But it is an opportunity that we shouM seize, because the conditions of its creation may not come again soon. Our citizens hope we are all up to the challenge." Mr. Charles Martin, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, said he was glad that Mr. Toscano had identified issues, but recommended that subcommittees be formed rather than a working group so that all members of the Board and Council can participate.