Hi All,

I've chatted with some friends and acquaintances, and reviewed this blog, and realized that I sure do complain a lot. I will continue to try to encourage participation and meaningful discourse, but I should really stop with the whining, huh?

So, that's my commitment to you, the anonymous readers of this blog. I may even edit-out some of my previous whining. OK, so, no more whining about my whining, it stops here.

Peace,

Jeff

Disclaimer: The views that I express here are mine alone, and do not reflect the views of the Lake Anne Village Advocates, of which I am a member.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a local government can take private property from "A" and give it to "B" if it thinks that "B" might generate more tax revenue with it. I'm appalled. The argument comes down to what the constitutional meaning of "public use" is, and Their Honors decided, 5-4, that economic improvement alone is sufficient to justify a taking. Any time there's a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, I can only conclude that intelligent people can disagree, but on this issue, I am firmly with the side that lost. As I'm a Libertarian, that's no surprise. I honestly do not believe (and haven't heard from anyone who does) that our revitalization project is at all likely to go down that road. Basically, we're too rich...they'd never do it to us.

Some say we shouldn't talk about it. While the exercise may be unnecessarry for people who already know everything, I think it might be valuable.

Some of my neighbors have suggested that even discussing the issues raised by the Kelo case in the context of Lake Anne's revitalization has no value, will not contribute to the effort, and can only be divisive and counter-productive. They reason that most people do not understand the issues. In acknowledgment of their concerns I will make an effort to explain why I think it's relevant. Here too, intelligent people can disagree.

Presumably, everyone who is interested in this process either reads or watches the news. The obvious parallels between the widely covered Kelo case and our own situation should be clear to all of us. Given these obvious parallels, I think it's worthy of discussion. In fact, given the extent to which the situation in Kelo and our own are similar, I think it would be a bit strange if we didn't discuss it. There are big differences, to be sure, and I share what I believe is the widely held view that condemnation of any local property is not on the table and is unlikely in the extreme. But the Kelo case presents us with an opportunity to start somewhere, and I believe that we are smart enough and civilized enough not to get all hysterical about it.

Discussing the implications of this decision is, in my view, appropriate for a group of people who have an expressed interest in economic revitalization in the context of an economically distressed area.

The Opinion of the Court in the Kelo case is here, you can judge for yourself, and please share your thoughts.

Hi All,

I was on vacation and unable to attend the Charrette. I'd love it if someone could post something about it.

Hello friends,

Going into the charrette, I wanted to alert you to some of the architectural, engineering, and other design issues that we need to think about as we try to translate our vision statement, or your version of one, into a sketch plan.

First, if you reflect on all good the ideas people have suggested for improvements to the plaza, you will quickly realize that we can't accommodate all of these suggestions, or even many of them, in available spaces without tremendous impact and exceedingly high costs.

Many constraints exist, including (a) impacts on the historic architecture of the plaza area buildings, (b) limited land area within the North Shore Drive perimeter, (c) high cost of building below grade parking under the main parking lot becuase the high water table and the water flow under the parking lot, (d) the desire to keep new development within scale of the existing buildings, and (e) the desire to open up a view of the plaza to people entering the Village Center area from Baron Cameron Avenue.

One of the concepts most likely to emerge from the initial suggestions during the charrette is an extension of the plaza into the area that is now the main surface parking lot, surrounded by shops, cafes, and other attractions.

What is left is very little space for parking and very costly below grade parking, and parking above the plaza level which cannot go very high without violating the community's architectural constraints.

The visual impact of such above grade parking might be mitigated by surrounding the parking with housing of high quality design, but at a cost that is likely to significantly impact the marketability of this housing.

Other solutions include (1) raise the grade of the extension of the plaza into the main parking lot area in order to reduce the cost of the below grade parking somewhat, (2) extend the plaza's pedestrian environment east toward a redevelopment of the Lutheran church site, (3) extend the plaza's pedestrian environment west beyond the Baptist Church, (4) extend the plaza's pedestrian environment north and/or east across North Shore Drive toward Baron Cameron Avenue and/or Cameron Crescent Apartments.

More on some of these options and issues later......

Joe Stowers

The questionairre that the group has put so much good work into is being distributed to local residents and is also available for either download or to take online here.

A Yahoo group to better manage email discussion has been created and should now include all card-carrying LAVA members. You can find out about the Yahoo group here.

I've gotten some feedback that people don't understand what this blog is all about, and in particular how it differs from the email discussion threads that are going on. I'll probably post more later, but the short answer is that the blog is intended to encourage public discussion that anyone can read or participate in, whether they are on a specific email distribution or not.