Indigo Dunes

[hoobo]

I want to add one more thing about TIFs. TC and Lynnhaven are retail/commercial projects. They bring in more than just property taxes (commercial property is taxes at 3.7% which includes business-related property such as furniture and vehicles versus 0.99% for residential) but also business taxes in the forms of both licenses and income taxes, jobs which provide income taxes, and sales from merchandise and meals which bring sales and meal taxes. And as stated, the financial risk was placed on the mall owners in the case of Lynnhaven. The Sandbridge TIF is really an additional property tax (12 cents higher than the rest of the city) that is siphoned to pay for beach replenishment.

That is my main opposition to imposing a TIF on this project and Point Chesapeake. It doesn't add to the local economy except for the Harris Teeter and a couple small shops. All it does is require maintenance. And the Sandlers are proposing that the new tax revenues generated be used to pay off loans for road improvements as opposed to going to the general fund to be used to pay for the impact to schools, fire houses, police, water/sewer, and the like. Like I said, it's a shell game.

[Padman]

I'm neutral on the TIF idea for now. The devil's in the details on that, and it could go any number of ways. I do know that the traffic issue is will be major concern. But I think the justification (traffic engineering) to go to 6 lanes will exist with or without the project. And that brings me to another concern.

I'm in the nasty ingrained habit of looking at locations as market areas, growth corridors, or prime targets for activity. I think that Shore Drive is a huge magnet for residential growth, and that it will be difficult to control, much less stop overall growth in that area. Indigo Dunes appears to be an attractive, well planned answer to strong market demand in that part of the City. I'm somewhat concerned that without it, growth will occur in a less focused and in a poorly planned manner. Instead, we could see many relatively large infill projects and lot filling mega-homes and condo structures (like the North end of Atlantic Ave.?), and they would load traffic closer to Great Neck Road and offer virtually nothing in terms of needed improvements to the neighborhood infrastructure.

If it were up to me, I'd approve the project subject to conditions (details of the TIF proposal or some other compensatory agreement to the City) and phase the development over a period of say 10 years.

[hoobo]

I'm somewhat concerned that without it, growth will occur in a less focused and in a poorly planned manner. Instead, we could see many relatively large infill projects and lot filling mega-homes and condo structures (like the North end of Atlantic Ave.?), and they would load traffic closer to Great Neck Road and offer virtually nothing in terms of needed improvements to the neighborhood infrastructure.

If it were up to me, I'd approve the project subject to conditions (details of the TIF proposal or some other compensatory agreement to the City) and phase the development over a period of say 10 years.

I'm not sure that there are many parcels left for development. If any are left, they are small 1-2 acre parcels zoned for at most 20 units/acre if not less. Although I'm not a fan of mega-homes, they don't add to the overall density since they replace another single-family home. However, in speaking of the North End, those mega-homes are really duplexes which will worsen traffic. Existing single-family homes along Shore Drive may also be zoned for duplexing but I'm not sure of that. I would need to look at zoning maps.

According to URS which is the engineering firm handling the master-planning of Indigo Dunes, the development will be phased in over 8-10 years.

[rusthebuss]

Is the city working with a consultant company to see the impact of this development through the years. I'm sorry if I missed it being posted earlier in the thread.

[urbanvb]

I still feel the developer should offer some type of concessions for upgrading the infrastructure. /rant

Here is a poll I found in the article. Some interesting feedback on the Pilot article as well.

[rusthebuss]

I still feel the developer should offer some type of concessions for upgrading the infrastructure.

Not sure if the developer should be responsible for that. If the city approves it they should be responsible for it. City shouldn't just reap the benefits from all the tax money but not put anything into the project. I know alot of you guys will disagree.

Looks like all the NIMBYs replied.

[urbanvb]

The thing is the developers realize something would have to be done in order to accomodate such a huge project at this site. Why should the public be burdened to pay for this private project?

[hoobo]

The City receives $400 million in real estate taxes. The operating budget is projected to hit $1.7 billion in the 07-08 fiscal year. The developers anticipate that Indigo Dunes will be worth $1 billion at build-out which at the earliest will be 2015 if construction starts today. By then the City budget will have hit $2.7 based on 6% budget growth. If projections hold and the project is valued at $1 billion and real estate tax rates remain at 0.99%, then the project will generate $10 million in annual tax revenue not including the small retail component. That is less than 0.5% of the city budget at the time of build-out. I still believe that the burden it will impose outweighs the tax benefits it will provide.

[Sky06]

People hear "taxes" and they go ballistic. I guess I'm confused as to how taxpayers are being made to pay for these improvements. Actually, tax "dollars" raised from the project would go to pay for the improvements. If this project didn't happen in the first place, neither would those revenues. Either the improvements would not happen , or the taxpayers would have to foot the bill. Remember, those tax "dollars" wouldn't exist without the project.

The real issues are not the burden on the taxpayers, but these: (1) Are the benefits from raising new tax revenues worth the increased congestion, etc.? and (2) Should the city assume this risk by paying for the improvements up front?

Here are the answers: (2) No. The city is correctly putting the onus on the developers to take that risk. Contrary to what the NIMBYs think, the city seems to be handling this properly. As for (1), this is up for debate. The project may be too large for its own good. This is the tougher question to answer.

[rusthebuss]

What hobo is saying is even with the "extra" tax revenue it would exceed the proposed budgets and make it not worth it for the city. I don't totally agree with that because appreciation is not taken into the equation and the facilities need to be upgraded as it is now.

Not trying to argue with you hoobo just expressing some of my opinion. I think you do make some valid points but to me there is just too many variables to come to a solid conclusion as what this project would do to the city and its facilities on Shore Dr.

[hoobo]

It's cool. You have your view. I have mine. Both views are based on how we evaluate the info. Or more precisely whether road-widening will/will not occur because of this project (which isn't part of the proposed $39 million in improvements), how should these improvements be funded, and how long our outlook is (i.e. 10, 20, 30, 40 years).

[rusthebuss]

It's cool. You have your view. I have mine. Both views are based on how we evaluate the info. Or more precisely whether road-widening will/will not occur because of this project (which isn't part of the proposed $39 million in improvements), how should these improvements be funded, and how long our outlook is (i.e. 10, 20, 30, 40 years).

That is a tricky questions and your points that you brought up have my wheels turning. I don't think there is a definite answer. I do think that these dense developments are needed but you point out that who is going to pay for the much needed improvement to the area and who is going to foot the bill. We all know the state assistance is out of the question. Maybe a private and public project is in order. Maybe the Sandlers should kick a nice chunk in. I just hate to impeed progress but at the same time it has to be smart progress. Even if this doesn't get approved, it doesn't get away from the fact that the road needs widening and who will foot it then?

[solar]

seems to me that indigo dunes would be a terrific project on a different property. from reading everyone else's posts on this - it looks like some of you really understand there is huge downside to a development that large on that property. a couple examples, i've heard they want to completely rearrange the existing wetlands, plus the property is a flood plain that needs raised something like 5-7 feet even before any construction!

wouldn't it be better for vb to have the property be some kinda educational facility and turn it back into the wetlands it once was...and study the whole process?

[urbanvb]

Shore Drive civic leaders petition to halt Indigo Dunes development

VIRGINIA BEACH - Civic leaders along Shore Drive have organized a petition drive and an opposition Web site to stop a 1,096-home development near the Chesapeake Bay.

Yet some of them say they are torn between the money that the Indigo Dunes development would generate for needed road improvements and its potential effects on the environment and on traffic.

story

[chesbayland]

wow folks! All I can figure is that many of you don not live in the SHore Drive corridor, or if you do you dont go out much- like in the last five years. This place has been totally overbuilt, esp East of the Lessner, where it is noting more than a tunnel-monopoly board of condos. This area is the densest in VIrginia Beach, and no its not just a group of hysterical neighbors complaining,.........it sthe MAJORITY of citizens here. No, you dont go and widen Shore Drive so you can make it een tighter here until it bursts!!! Land Planning use has not been the citys forte. Obviously. Secondly, the project is a total violation of every ordnance withint the CHespaeake Bay Preservation Act 1988-1991 that there is.....ie. they want a hardship variance to break the laws protecting the wetlands. Next, that area is as clean and beautiful as Seashore State Park. GO check it out if you dont believe me. It is the last open space around and these folks and otehr sneed to be told, ok thats enough folks, go somewhere else AND then, start looking at aquiring that land for preservation. Stop the trend NOW!

www.No INdigoDunes.com

[vdogg]

Welcome to the forum. No mistaking what your opinion is huh? I'll be honest, I do not frequent that part of town much so I would not know as well as you do just how bad things have become. I will say, architectually and aesthetically, I love the project, however as I have said all along i think 1100 units is way too much.

[urbanlife]

I use to love that area growing up. My family lived there for a short time when I was a kid.

The growth and density of that area doesn't bother me, but what does is the complete disregard for planning until it was too late.

The area is a complete mess of battling ideas of the way it was and the way it has become. As much as it pains me, I have to side with the widening of the Lesner Bridge, but it shouldn't be at the cost of the neighborhood. There needs to be a better plan with this new bridge that will better bridge the gap between the way it was and the way it is.

No I realize everything I just said is just opinion, but smarter people need to look at this and come up with a much better plan.

Oh and the widening of Shore Drive through the park and cutting back trees so that drives can see the shore......I want to kick that person in the nuts till they shut the hell up. I say leave that part alone.

[solar]

chesbayland has it right!

check out the comments at NoIndigoDunes.com or rather the comments people are leaving at the petition the site links to.

has anyone actually read the details of what they want to do?

i've heard the project is so out of touch with reality and the law that they've even pulled their wetlands application...again.

[chesbayland]

well, all we can say is take a look at the area for yourself and you be the judge!

%5b/size%5d]'>%5b/size%5d]

(thanks to one of our dilligent members in the anti-dunes campaign here locally)

Recent facts are that the CHesBay Preservation Board heraing has been postponed 3x. It is not to be heard until December or January 2007 per the PLanning Dept. Also, the joint application was turned in AND then their rep. asked if they could have it back to make other changes to it. The joint app goes to 3 different boards for review: DEQ, VMRC aka Wetlands Board and Army Corp of Engineers. After that a public hearing with DEQ must be requested in order to have response. After all these, it will make its way before the council. We are counting on huge opposition and the momentum for that has certanly begun.

While some think it is a "wonderful" addition to the area, we do not, and most are vehemently opposed for reasons that cross all fronts. And yes, this project would violate every law that is designed to protect wetland areas without question. This is why the request for hardship variances and the effort of the developer to convince that this place is a man-made, wastedump of no value to the community or city.

It really comes down to this, you dont add more of the same problem to "fix" the existing problems (now compounded) that have gone unattended for over 7 years, AND then pretend that people are idiots and will belive that this is the "magical" answer...its like buying more on an already overextended credit card that you then promise that someone else, the city, is responsible to pay off for us later. Wrong.

Edit: Added url tags

[vdogg]

well, all we can say is take a look at the area for yourself and you be the judge!

%5b/size%5d]'>%5b/size%5d]

[spiker3]

....wow, some staunch opposition here.

But if the basis of rejecting this project is the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, your chances for success are minimal. Never has a piece of legislation meant less in an area than in Virginia Beach. Case in point, my parents house in Virginia Beach, on a tributary of the Elizabeth River, had a empty lot next to it. The lot was put up for sale, sold, and plans revealed to build a house well within the fifty and one hundred foot boundaries the CBPA specifies. A hearing was held, the commission found in favor of the new house, essentially saying since the lot had been zoned in in 80s before the CBPA, it's grandfathered in.

My point being, a 1+ billion development? Virginia Beach will do anything and everything to see this project through to it's pinnacle, regardless of the ramifications to Shore Dr, the environment, anything. It's going to be rubber stamped. Personally, i'm in the same boat as vdogg, i like the idea, but not the size or scope. I'm sure for VB and specifically Shore Dr residents this will be a polarizing, or unifying issue.

[vaceltic]

I think you can build as long as you replenish the same amount of wetlands you have destroyed at another location. Does anyone have more information on the CBPA?

[urbanfan]

I think you can build as long as you replenish the same amount of wetlands you have destroyed at another location. Does anyone have more information on the CBPA?

[hoobo]

....wow, some staunch opposition here.

But if the basis of rejecting this project is the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, your chances for success are minimal. Never has a piece of legislation meant less in an area than in Virginia Beach. Case in point, my parents house in Virginia Beach, on a tributary of the Elizabeth River, had a empty lot next to it. The lot was put up for sale, sold, and plans revealed to build a house well within the fifty and one hundred foot boundaries the CBPA specifies. A hearing was held, the commission found in favor of the new house, essentially saying since the lot had been zoned in in 80s before the CBPA, it's grandfathered in.

My point being, a 1+ billion development? Virginia Beach will do anything and everything to see this project through to it's pinnacle, regardless of the ramifications to Shore Dr, the environment, anything. It's going to be rubber stamped. Personally, i'm in the same boat as vdogg, i like the idea, but not the size or scope. I'm sure for VB and specifically Shore Dr residents this will be a polarizing, or unifying issue.

[Padman]

This is a going to be controversial and a difficult project to realize, but I'm pretty sure that the revenue side would be positive for the City, depending on how an analysis of the issue is conducted.

Much has been written and discussed recently with regard to the costs and the benefits of new development. Without knowing for certain the full truth of the matter, I'm still mostly in the camp that believes that generally development is profitable to municipalities. That doesn't mean that development is always or even usually right for communities. What's involved is a complex calculus of costs and benefits weighing individual utility and tax assessments and jobs against costs of municipal services, external costs borne by state and federal sources, negative environmental impacts, and a host of externalities that can be fairly subjective in nature. Then there are political issues.

I think that 1,090 units makes for a hell of a load of additional traffic to deal with, but that the local market will call for that much housing in the general area. The question is only whether most of that housing will appear in one development, or scatter throughout the corridor in several mid-rises and spot densification. The real kicker in my mind is global warming and flooding, but no one seems to care about that. Yes, the massive land-fill operation that Indigo Dunes would require is another big issue.