Care4Suffolk

Citizens Criticized for Speaking Out

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 13:49:09 +0000

We already discussed how Council Member Rector tried unsuccessfully to dismiss Care4Suffolk’s claim that the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is port-centric during the November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting. Now let’s talk a bit about the fact that we have City Council Members that sit on the dais and publicly ridicule citizens who have the audacity to send in public comments and to show up to speak.

Council Member Rector characterized opponents of the comp plan as having a ‘hangover’ from the Port 460 project. Not only is this an insulting comment to make about concerned citizens, Mr. Rector is ignorant of the people he is criticizing.

We feel the need to defend ourselves since Council Member Rector mentioned us, not by name, but through the comments we submitted. Care4Suffolk is a diverse group of concerned citizens who have varied backgrounds but a common interest. We come together to share information, our talents, and our time to learn about land use issues and share what we learn with the broader public.

Care4Suffolk had nothing to do with Port 460. We were just getting organized at the time when that was going through council and we were focused on a different land use issue. It turns out that there are a lot of citizens, and citizen groups, who are concerned with land use issues throughout our city. During the more than two years that we have existed as a group, Care4Suffolk has only opposed two residential developments and only one of those even came before City Council.

When Council Member Rector characterized us, and other concerned residents, as afraid of change, he was dismissive and hypocritical. We do want economic development, just not warehouses. Growth can be positive for a community, but it should be carefully planned and not negatively impact the quality of life of those already residing in Suffolk. Those are reasonable feelings to have about development. However, it was Mr. Rector himself, who wanted to close the barn doors behind him after he moved to Suffolk in the 1980s. Mr. Rector should not project his previous feelings (which perhaps changed after he became a realtor?) onto citizens and citizen groups.

“I know that if you are here, and settled, and you like where you live, which most folks in Suffolk seem to, I fully understand why changes can be upsetting, to say the least. When I moved here in 1986, 38 years ago, I wanted to pull the barn doors closed behind me.” November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting, mark 2:45:30 – 2:45:49

Care4Suffolk has never been against growth. Care4Suffolk advocates for responsible growth which is not the same as being against it, despite Mr. Rector’s comment. We want growth that is fiscally responsible and supported by infrastructure. Some of our members are life-long residents and some have moved here quite recently. We don’t weigh people’s concerns by their time spent living in our city. We are all entitled to share thoughts and concerns.

What Care4Suffolk has spent considerable time on, over the past two years, is the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. When we first heard from Council Member Williams about the new comp plan back in the fall of 2022, we were very excited and made a focused attempt to encourage citizen participation to help shape this document that will have a lasting impact on the future of Suffolk.

We were the group that hosted the first public forum for the city to meet with residents so the city could explain the process and the public could share their thoughts and concerns. That was back in November 2022. The event was so successful that the city decided to host a series of public engagement sessions throughout the city. Through the early part of 2023, Care4Suffolk’s outreach team went to great efforts distributing the city’s literature on the comp plan to community groups and churches, going door-to-door throughout neighborhoods, and handing out information outside the local grocery stores. We posted flyers in public places, wrote about it on our website and facebook group, and encouraged as many people to participate as possible. We were very much a part of the unprecedented community engagement that Council Member Rector mentioned when he stated, “In the three years that this process has been unfolding, the level of community engagement has been unprecedented.” (November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting, mark 2:44:07 – 2:44:25)

We were excited about the new comp plan and wanted the voice of the people represented in the new document. Our dismay was palpable when we finally got a chance to see the draft. Everything from the growth areas, to the objectives, to the focus on the economic development as it relates to the port was a huge disappointment. We bore witness to the public engagement sessions when the citizens said that they wanted economic growth focused on downtown, when they said they didn’t want any more warehouses, and when they said they cared about the character of the city they call home. If you look at the summaries of the public feedback from the city itself (not the cherry picked comments Mr. Rector shared) you will see what the citizens requested.

Despite what Council Member Rector says, we have not been advocating for “incorporating all of the changes that people want” but we certainly expected that the vision and direction of this plan would be a representation of the summary of the public’s feedback. Instead, Suffolk will be home to all the warehousing and workforce housing needed by the Port of Virginia, much to the delight of the developers. The citizens are upset this is the direction the city took, DESPITE all the feedback the public gave. It is Mr. Rector’s hyperbole, not the citizens’ comments, that mischaracterizes the situation.

Our criticism for the new comp plan draft did not materialize overnight, nor has it come from a place of fear, emotion, or ignorance, as some council members would have you believe. On the contrary, we have been a part of this process from very early on. We have been watching, participating, and most importantly, sharing. We have shared public engagement opportunities, facts and data about the draft and land use issues, and important information from City Council meetings.

Yes, we are organized, as are other community groups, and many of us do show up to meetings. Yet, we are not the citizens that Mr. Rector wants to represent. He chooses instead to represent those who benefit from growth and don’t vote in Suffolk (out of town developers maybe?)

Council Member Rector sat up on the dais and claimed the following:

“The folks that are against growth are here, established, and have organized their voices. They are also the ones, as we found out, who vote, so their voices will be heard. The folks that would potentially benefit from growth are not here. They are not established, and they probably do not vote in Suffolk. The reason is that these people don’t know who they are. They could be the high school sophomore that in six to seven years, when they graduate from college, might have a house and a job to come to. Or they are the folks maybe living outside the area that might get transferred here. So obviously they are not here to advocate for the plan.”

November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting, mark 2:47:57 – 2:48:37

Is Council Member Rector seriously suggesting that he is more interested in representing the theoretical interests of potential future residents of Suffolk and hypothetical individuals, from whom he has not heard and who may not even exist? Yet he seems sure they would be advocating for the plan.

Suffolk resident’s, especially those in the Suffolk Borough, note Council Member Rector’s words. Actual Suffolk residents, including those who vote, those who take the time to show up to meetings, and those who make the effort to write comments – you are NOT the people that Council Member Rector will represent with his vote.

Council Members Rector stated towards the end of his speech:

“When you have the diversity of interest that we have here in Suffolk, we should not as a council, let one group or one interest dominate the plan and the future of the city.”

November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting, mark 2:49:04 – 2:49:13

This was in fact the point of the public comments made by Care4Suffolk (see below for pdf attachment of our comments). The Port of Virginia and developers have had a heavy influence on the Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan, more so than the citizens of Suffolk. (For more information see here, here, and here.) This plan is supposed to represent the needs and wants of people of Suffolk; any benefit to the port should be secondary to the will of the people. The citizens told the city what they wanted, but the city still refuses to listen.

Care4Suffolk has been very consistent with its message: this is not about being against growth or development. We want the city to listen to the wishes of its people:

The citizens are sick of warehouses – this plan will add millions, even tens of millions, more square feet of warehousing.
The citizens want economic development focused on downtown Suffolk – this plan encourages growth on the corridors.
The citizens want safe, walkable communities – this plan opens up more residential land use near warehouses.
The citizens want to preserve farmland – this plan allows for development on farmland.
The citizens want the growth to slow down and allow infrastructure to catch up – yet the city increased the growth areas to the largest of any previous plan, accelerating growth in Suffolk.

These were all part of the feedback from citizens during the public engagement sessions. We have been saying this since the draft came out. Of all the changes that Mr. Rector references, the only concession the city made was to scale back the growth areas, but they are still larger than the previous draft increases. The focus of this plan has not changed – it is still about the port, warehouses, and suburban sprawl.

The fiscal analysis for the comp plan, something done by previous Suffolk City Councils and done by other cities throughout Hampton Roads for their comp plans, is impossible for this council and this city staff. We ask too much to request it. We are presenting data and asking them to do the same, instead they are going by ‘feels’. They don’t care about having a data driven plan, yet they mock us and call us emotional. Why are Council Members so upset that the public keeps telling them what we want them, our elected officials to do?

It is completely inappropriate for Council Members to criticize the public while sitting on the dais. It is a form of intimidation. Many citizens are not used to public speaking and don’t write to the public on a regular basis. When they do take the time to exercise their right to do so, they should not be subjected to bullying by Council Members. Is the intent to make citizens think twice about sharing their views – especially if they differ from those on Council?

Just because some Council Members have already made their decision, doesn’t mean that the public should be discouraged from expressing their thoughts and concerns. It is our constitutional right to petition our government.

Except that right doesn’t extend to Wednesday, December 18, 2024. City Council has refused the citizens a public hearing on the comp plan during that Council meeting. City Council will be receiving a briefing of the comp plan changes, which may contain significant changes including to the growth areas. The public will have no chance to review these changes and share their concerns before Council votes on the comp plan.

But don’t worry, even if it passes, in the words of Council Member Roger Fawcett, “It’s not the worst plan in the world.” A ringing endorsement indeed!

It’s no wonder some Council Members feel the need to shove this comp plan vote through despite public opposition. They can never actually find anything good to say about it but want it anyway. Some would rather criticize citizens than justify their vote – just what citizens want in their public officials, right?

“It’s not the worst plan in the world,” says Council Member Fawcett, November 20, 2024 City Council Meeting, mark 3:07:50 – 3:07:53

Link to full City of Suffolk City Council Meeting, November 20, 2024

Link to Care4Suffolk’s August 2024 City Council Meeting public comment

Link to Care4Suffolk’s November 2024 City Council Meeting public comment

Rector Dismisses Claim of Port-Centric Plan

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:47:38 +0000

Care4Suffolk has been watching the 2045 Comprehensive Plan process closely over the past couple years along with other city happenings and land use related issues. By observing and gathering information from various council meetings, work sessions, staff presentations, and the comp plan draft itself, we formed the opinion that much of the 2045 Plan is geared towards prioritizing the needs of the Port of Virginia.

During the November 20th City Council Public Hearing on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Councilman John Rector (Suffolk Borough) read a very lengthy, prepared lecture focused on dismissing citizen comments and concerns as emotional and hyperbole. One of the main things that seemed to bother him was that “one of the citizens groups” sent an email to council members asking them to vote “no” on the 2045 Plan because it focuses on the Port’s needs more than it reflects citizens’ input.

Mr. Rector attempted to shoot down this claim about the Port by telling everyone how many times the words “Port of Virginia” or “warehouse” appear in the 2045 Plan draft as compared to words like “rural” and “agriculture.” It’s interesting that he thinks a simple word count would be what a citizens group would base its claim on.

Speaking up to City Council and sharing ideas publicly are not easy things to do, so as a group, Care4Suffolk makes every attempt to look at the bigger picture and tie various pieces of information together. This is how we came to our conclusion about the Port’s influence in the comp plan.

During the January 17, 2024 City Council Work Session council received a comp plan update presentation from Keith Cannady as a precursor to the first draft coming out in February. We noticed that four of his slides were the same ones we had seen presented at the April 2023 City Council retreat. They pertained either directly to the Port of Virginia or to warehouse space comparisons. It really caught our attention when Mr. Cannady said this:

“Another major driver, and this is somewhat unique for this particular plan update, is really an historic investment in the Port of Virginia and growth in container traffic at that facility and really changing the dynamic for the state and for the region in terms of economic development and opportunities.”

He goes on to remind council members that they had this conversation at the retreat “trying to set the stage for what this plan, and what we, would ultimately recommend.”

The rest of Mr. Cannady’s briefing covered the new growth area boundary options they had considered and then what they were actually recommending. At this point he stated:

“Investments at the Port were creating opportunities for Suffolk; consider that as we looked at the growth area boundaries.”

Care4Suffolk actually wrote an article about this work session back in February: Port or People: What is the City’s Focus?

Since the 2045 Plan draft was shared in February, Mr. Cannady has included the slide below in multiple presentations. Clearly, they are looking at the Port as a key opportunity for Suffolk, despite the public’s negative view of warehouses. (Highlighting residential and utility scale solar as development opportunities are topics for another day.)

We also saw that city staff are labeling Suffolk as a “Port Centric Partner” during the March 20, 2024 City Council work session presentation about the Route 460 road improvement project funding.

Councilman Rector may not have liked or agreed with what we had to say, but we based our recommendation on two years of listening and observing along with the 2045 Plan draft itself, definitely not emotion.

He chose to ridicule two out of the thousands of public engagement comments as a means to dismiss our claims that the 2045 Plan is not prioritizing citizen feedback. Cherry picking a couple of comments is intellectually dishonest. The bottom line is that those thousands of comments show that people do not like warehouses or the loss of rural character. City staff’s own public engagement summaries say as much.

Key Takeaways from the first set of public engagements from May – Oct 2022, p. 18, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft

Key Takeaways from the second round of public engagements from January – March 2023, p. 19, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft. Importantly, these were the series of public engagement sessions that were held throughout the city and were well attended.

Care4Suffolk has been reiterating the public desires that the city itself collected and summarized. These are not themes that we projected on the public – the public has already shared these with the city. The city is choosing to ignore these to push forward the goal of supporting the Port of Virginia with more warehouses and accelerating growth – expressly against the wishes of the citizens.

Maybe sometime soon, instead of chiding concerned residents, Mr. Rector will use his speaking time to explain why he thinks this new plan is actually needed and what is so good about it.

Hot Mic Mike

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:23:39 +0000

The whole point of a public hearing is so that the citizens can weigh in with their opinions and concerns on an issue before a decision is made and the votes are cast. The November 20th City Council Meeting was a mockery of that process.

Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the controversial document that was on the agenda that night. The comp plan had previously gone before the City Council three months earlier on August 21st. At that meeting, Council Member Roger Fawcett (Sleepy Hole Borough), read his pre-written motion asking to table the comp plan vote, conveniently delaying it until after election day.

This past Wednesday, the farce played out in a much more obvious way. After the public hearing, at which roughly a hundred citizens were in attendance, City Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow (Chuckatuck Borough) expressed her concerns and then made a motion to table the vote until January 15, 2025. Several of the 14 public speakers that night had made this same request to delay the vote until January in order to allow the newly-elected City Council Member, Ebony Wright, a chance to take her seat (and replace Roger Fawcett). Allowing Ms. Wright the opportunity to vote on this plan would give her the opportunity to represent the citizens who elected her.

After Ms. Butler Barlow made her motion and just as Council Member Leroy Bennett (Cypress Borough) was seconding the motion, you can hear Mayor Mike Duman on hot mic whisper the words “substitute motion”. About eighteen seconds later as the potential January date was being clarified, you can again hear Mayor Duman on hot mic whisper “Psst, Roger” while leaning back and looking in Council Member Fawcett’s direction.

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Substitute motion.” (Time stamp: 2:12:54)

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Pssst, Roger.” (Time stamp: 2:13:12)

The importance of the “substitute motion” is that it will get voted on BEFORE the first motion. And this is exactly what played out. After being reminded by Mayor Duman, Council Member Roger Fawcett did indeed make a substitute motion that the vote be delayed until December 18th, instead of the January date. The significance of this is that December 18th is the last meeting at which Roger Fawcett will sit up on that dais as part of council.

Council Member Lou Ward (Nansemond Borough) seconded Fawcett’s motion and then the December 18th motion passed 5-3. (Council Members Butler Barlow, Bennett, and Tim Johnson (Holy Neck Borough) voted in opposition.) Because Fawcett’s motion passed, Ms. Butler Barlow’s motion was moot and didn’t get voted on.

This was clearly orchestrated. Mayor Mike Duman needs to make sure that this comp plan passes and if Council were to vote in January instead of December, he risks losing the guaranteed ‘Yes’ vote of Roger Fawcett, the man who served as the Steering Committee Chair for this comp plan.

This is why we say that this Public Hearing was a farce. The Mayor of Suffolk and at least one Council Member (maybe more) had this planned in advance of the meeting. Members of our elected City Council had already determined how this would play out before the Public Hearing even began. Listening to all the citizen’s comments was just checking a box that is required by the State of Virginia.

When votes are decided in backroom conversations, democracy is not being served. When public officials manipulate the process to obtain the outcome they desire, democracy is not being served. When the city is no longer listening to its citizens, democracy is not being served.

We need our elected leaders to be better – and do better – than this.

More Comp Plan Confusion: Master Transportation Plan Recap

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:55:00 +0000

The Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as it is associated with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan became a topic of discussion at the May 2024 City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting. There was concern that there wasn’t one included as part of the 2045 Plan draft.

At the August 21st City Council public hearing on the 2045 Plan, the Master Transportation Plan became a main topic of discussion and clearly was the main reason why council decided to delay voting on the comp plan until November 20th. Mayor Duman emphasized the need for it a couple times and City Manager Al Moore assured him that staff had been working on it.

After this August meeting, Care4Suffolk submitted a FOIA request for Master Transportation Plan documentation that had been done thus far. The response was a memo from VHB, a consultant used by the City, that included a cover letter, which you can see below, dated May 23, 2024, along with nine other pages of conceptual/visionary road alignment images and descriptions.

We submitted a second FOIA request in early September to learn what additional work had been completed on the MTP, but instead we received the exact same memo again. Was there really no additional work done since this May memo, even though it was intended to be part of a MTP and after it became a big issue at a City Council public hearing?

Considering that there appeared to be no new progress on the MTP in early September, we were very surprised to see it show up as a topic on the agenda for the September 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting. It actually ended up not being discussed. A few weeks later, we acquired an email that seemed to explain why they decided not to bring up the Master Transportation Plan at this meeting.

The email was from Public Works Director, Robert Lewis, to the city manager’s office stating that he was “at a loss as to what is desired.” How could this be if staff had been working on it and it was supposed to be “pretty solid” by November 20th according to City Manager Al Moore’s comments back in August?

Also around early September, we discovered that VDOT is supposed to review comprehensive plans, which should be submitted to them 90 days prior to adoption. A reminder had actually been put out at a September regional transportation meeting.

It turns out, Suffolk planners did not submit the 2045 Comp Plan to VDOT for review until October 2nd. Why wasn’t the comp plan submitted to VDOT before it went to Planning Commission in July? There were three public hearings on the comp plan before it went to VDOT! And why did they submit it before a Master Transportation Plan was done?

To top that off, City Council got a confusing presentation about the MTP during their October 16th Work Session that seemed to contradict the direction they gave in August. To summarize this meeting:

– No Master Transportation Plan was presented; the consultant (VHB) just provided a briefing with a basic outline of a plan

– Coucilmember Butler Barlow asked who VHB was; they were not part of the original comp plan consulting team; it turns out they are a firm that Suffolk has had an ongoing contract with for many years

– When Councilmember Johnson pressed staff on why the plan wasn’t ready, Public Works Director, Robert Lewis said that their vision was for the MTP to be a stand-alone document, that it still needed work and would need to be approved at a later time

– Mayor Duman also expressed concern that the MTP was not further along already

Despite having their guidance pretty much ignored, no one on City Council pushed back very much.

We actually already wrote about this work session and included a few video clips here:

https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/26/city-councils-comp-plan-confusion/

Just two weeks after this work session, it appears that city Staff decided to take it upon themselves to change the goal posts on the Master Transportation Plan yet again. The suffolk2045.org webpage was updated, and an email to the public sent out, stating that new changes to the comp plan reflect Council’s directions from August to “provide additional project-specific detail and direction for the transportation policy” and that this additional work had been completed.

This is not an accurate reflection of City Council’s guidance and contradicts the comments about a stand-alone document from just two weeks earlier. It is also concerning that they were making yet more changes to the comp plan’s transportation chapter after it was already submitted to VDOT.

Deputy City Manager, Kevin Hughes, sent an email to city council members over a week after these changes were posted informing them that the MTP is now included in Chapter 4 of the 2045 Plan.

To top off all this confusion, we now see that City Council is supposed to be getting an update on the 2045 Plan during their work session on November 20th–the very same day that they are supposed to be voting on it!

Whether a Master Transportation Plan is a separate document or included as part of the comprehensive plan is not the main concern. It is the way this matter has been handled that is very concerning. It appears that City Staff are not following procedure and are also either very disorganized or not being forthright with City Council and the public. Perhaps it’s both.

Timeline of Master Transportation Plan Events:

May 2024

Parts of MTP worked on by consultant and shared as such with the Planning Department

MTP is a concern at joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting

June & July 2024

No discussion of MTP

August 2024

MTP is a main concern for City Council (Aug 21); they want one ready before they vote

Al Moore says it’s underway and will be solid enough by Nov; the vote is tabled until Nov 20th

FOIA request (Aug 22) – received memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May

September 2024

FOIA request (Sept 9) – received the same memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May, nothing new

MTP is on joint meeting agenda (Sept 24)

– Mr. Lewis unsure of vision for this agenda item

– MTP not discussed at the meeting

October 2024

2045 Plan initial submission to VDOT (Oct 2)

City Council work session: staff says there is no MTP yet

It will be stand-alone, living document and be approved at a later date

MTP page and visionary project diagrams are added to Ch. 4 of comp plan (Oct 29)

November 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council telling them that the MTP is now in Ch. 4 (Nov 8)

November 20th City Council agendas are posted online (Nov14) and a 2045 Comp Plan Update is scheduled for their work session that same day

2024 Comprehensive Plan Timeline

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:54:26 +0000

Nov 2020

Request for Proposal sent out by Suffolk’s Purchasing Division for “Review and Update of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan”

Jan 2021

Proposal received from Planning Next

July 2021

Contract executed between City of Suffolk and Planning Next (ACP/Greene & Associates, LLC)

Dec 2021

Vision and Goals to be completed; first payment executed

Plan contains no vision statement nor any goals

April 2022

Scope of Work Refinement: change of land use approach to “focus on trends or expectations about future development” verses “incorporating an entirely new, detailed scenario analysis.”

Added additional 25% above the cost of the original scope of work

Workshop and focus group attendees & meeting “minutes”

May 2022

Staff Land Use Workshop, including attendance by the Vice President of Tischler-Bise to discuss the Fiscal Impact Analysis

Several one-time, 1.5 hour focus groups held about different topics; focus group attendance ranged from 4-11 people.

Summer 2022

Fiscal Impact Analysis mentioned in emails between Planning NEXT and city staff

Planning staff attend various city events with a booth about comprehensive plan

Nov 2022

First public engagement gathering organized by Care4Suffolk

This was the original completion timeframe according to proposal

Feb/Mar 2023

City-organized public engagement sessions (one per borough with 2 in the Suffolk borough)

June 2023

City-organized three open-houses and included a “dot” board activity

August 2023

Fiscal Impact Analysis removed from Scope of Work to be completed after comp plan approval

Nov 2023 – Jan 2024

City Council Work Session presentations by Planning Department

All Growth Area expansion options presented to City Council in January

Feb 2024

Release of 2045 Plan draft; start of online survey

Mar 2024

City-organized three open-houses (summary of public input)

May 2024

Joint Planning Commission/City Council work session to discuss the 2045 draft

Reduction in Growth Area recommendations

Need expressed for transportation plan

Planner Keith Cannady stated that no Fiscal Impact Analysis needed because current growth strategy is being continued and because it is done at the site level rezonings

Public hearings delayed (TBD)

Rountree Property advertised on VEDP website and Yes Suffolk as being in the 2045 Comp Plan Growth Area although the plan had not been approved yet

June 2024

Planning Commission Work Session presentation

Reduction in Growth Areas

Other changes made, only 3 briefed

Lengthy Economic Development briefing on warehouse development

Land use pie chart added

All departments present slides

New “smart growth” label appears on some slides, but with no actual discussion of smart growth

Addition of Utility Scale Solar as a use for Rural Agriculture land; this was not briefed during the work session

July 2024

Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council received a work session update after Planning Commission had already voted

August 2024

Changes made to plan AFTER Planning Commission vote

Map changed due to “a number of landowners”

Planning Commission has to have a “do over” vote because the city failed to provide the legally required public notice

Planning Commission Johnnie Edwards gives a speech stating that Suffolk is strategically important to the Port of Virginia and that the 2045 Comp Plan is the start of Suffolk serving the regional goals of the port.

Planning Commission again votes to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council votes to table the vote on the 2045 Comp Plan until Nov 2024

Mayor Duman stipulates that Council needs to have the Master Transportation Plan in their hands to be able to vote on the comp plan

More new slides from Economic Development

Pie chart

Removal of “smart growth” from slides, changed to “focused growth”

Al Moore states that staff are already working on Master Transportation Plan it will be a “solid” by Nov 20

FOIA request for already completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

Sept 2024

Second FOIA request for any additional completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

One memo from May 2024 provided

Ground-breaking for Port 460

2025 Legislative Agenda presentation to City Council

Rt. 460 Project construction phase increased from $47 million to $65 million

Master Transportation Plan on Sept 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting agenda

Email from Lewis to Moore expressing confusion as to what is expected

Despite being on the agenda, the Master Transportation Plan was not discussed at meeting

Oct 2024

Comp Plan submitted to VDOT for review (Oct 2)

City Council Work Session (Oct 16)

No Master Transportation Plan, just VHB briefing and outline

No real changes to accommodate citizen concerns

Mayor Duman states that the comp plan should reflect what the recent State of the Region report says about needing more housing in Hampton Roads and Keith Cannady assures him that the 2045 Plan “provides a strategy for that.”

Update email sent out with misrepresentation of what City Council wanted in August for Master Transportation Plan (Oct 31)

Addition of an Master Transportation Plan page and project diagrams into Ch. 4—AFTER work session & AFTER submission to VDOT

Nov 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council informing them that the Master Transportation Plan is now in Chapter 4 of the comp plan a week after it was already updated as such on the 2045 website

City Council Nov 20th Work Session agenda posted and includes a 2045 Plan update presentation even though council is supposed to be voting on it that same evening

Fiscal Troubles Ahead?

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:52:48 +0000

We are just a few days away from the City Council Meeting where the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is on the agenda. Care4Suffolk has pointed out many problems with this comprehensive plan, among the most important issues is the lack of a fiscal impact analysis.

A fiscal impact analysis allows a municipality to understand how specific development will impact a city financially over time. It looks at both the revenue that will be generated from the development and also the costs of services (roads, schools, utilities, emergency services, libraries, parks, etc.) and then compares them to determine if the development will bring a net positive fiscal contribution to the city, or if it will be a net negative and cost the city money.

Most municipalities also do a fiscal analysis during the comprehensive planning process. It allows a city to look at the type of growth they want to see and whether it will financially benefit the city or be a drain on the taxpayers. The City of Suffolk has decided to forgo the essential fiscal analysis. Why?

City Staff assured City Council that a fiscal analysis isn’t necessary for the comprehensive plan, despite the fact that it is about to increase the growth area by the largest amount of any previous comp plan. Staff’s reasoning was because the fiscal analyses are done at the site level. It is true that by law, they are required to be done for all rezoning applications.

Suffolk’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) reads:

B-14. – FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

All applications for a rezoning shall include a Fiscal Impact Study containing a comparison of the public revenues anticipated to be generated by the development and the anticipated capital, operations, maintenance and replacement costs for public facilities needed to service the project at the adopted level of service standards (see Section 31-601 of this Ordinance).

Furthermore, the UDO states that no rezoning application is complete without a fiscal analysis.

However, in a previous article, we demonstrated that the fiscal analysis for the Port 460 project, which was two years ago and was arguably the LARGEST rezoning application in years, failed to provide an adequate fiscal analysis. The developer did provide fiscal data, but it only showed all the money the city might make on the development. It left out all the costs of services.

Based on the UDO, that rezoning proposal never should have made it through the Planning Department because it lacked a proper fiscal analysis. Yet, it not only made it through the Planning Department, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval, and City Council voted to approve the rezoning.

Suffolk has been rezoning with no idea if all this development in the long-term will bring money into the city coffers or cost taxpayers money to maintain it. The whole point of a fiscal analysis is to protect the citizens from poor planning and development that drains our resources.

Currently, City Staff fail to provide oversight to make sure a complete and accurate fiscal analysis is done at a rezoning. They also refuse to do a fiscal analysis for the comprehensive plan. How can City Council be so irresponsible with our taxpayer money? If the developer and the city can’t prove that these developments are fiscally beneficial for the city, they should not be approved. The same is true with the comprehensive plan. If City Staff want to increase Sufflolk’s growth area by the largest amount of any comp plan, they should have to prove that it is fiscally sound.

Join us at the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, November 20th at 6pm (City Hall, 442 W. Washington St.) and let City Council know that you do not want the 2045 Comprehensive Plan approved until they have completed the fiscal analysis.

Steering Suffolk Towards More Warehouses and Sprawl

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:23:00 +0000

When the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft came out, many people had the initial reaction that it was not actually about the needs of the people of Suffolk. Digging deeper into the plan and watching staff presentations about it has made it clear that the priority is actually for Suffolk to shoulder regional goals. Why has the City spent over three years, spending taxpayer money, tailoring its long-term growth plans to the needs of the Port of Virginia and the region?

Looking at the 2045 Plan’s steering committee might answer this question. It consists of selected individuals that are supposed to “help guide the process for and substance of the plan.” Of the 24 members, about half are either: not from Suffolk, have strong ties to development-focused regional organizations (such as Hampton Roads Alliance), and/or are in the real estate business. Nine members belong to at least one regional organization, with five of those currently or previously holding board or other leadership positions. One member is a Vice President with the Port of Virginia with his role listed as Port Centric Logistics. Another is a sitting council member representing the regional realtor’s association.

In addition, the person hired to manage the 2045 Comprehensive Plan previously worked as the Deputy Executive Director of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, with one duty being to develop a “program to increase the region’s inventory of shovel-ready economic development sites.”

Our Deputy City Manager who oversees the Planning Department (responsible for the creating the comprehensive plan), also has a strong regional background. He previously worked as Business Development Manager with the Hampton Roads Alliance and is on the Suffolk Division Board of the Hampton Roads Chamber.

We have nothing against these individuals personally or Suffolk being part of the broader Hampton Roads community. However, there is a problem when individuals are selected by the City of Suffolk to represent the citizens, but instead they prioritize regional goals. The Port of Virginia wants more warehouses and workforce housing, Suffolk has the land they need, and the objective of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is clearly to make it available.

Suffolk residents provided plenty of feedback letting city planners and managers know that they don’t want a congested warehouse city. We’re already an important “regional partner” with our existing 21 million square feet of warehouse space (which we’re having enough problems handling.)

We are also a critical partner with the lakes of Suffolk providing drinking water to many in Hampton Roads. Previous comprehensive plans explicitly state the need to keep these areas low density to protect this precious resource. Now our planners want expansion of the most intense types of development further into our drinking water watersheds.

The deck has been stacked against Suffolk’s citizens’ right to control their future through the regional influence in this plan. Regional collaboration is one thing, but we should not be accepting the role of subordinate. We are asking City Council to be bold on November 20th by voting ‘no’ to adopting the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and keeping the focus on what is best for the current residents of Suffolk. You can let them know if you feel the same way at council@suffolkva.us.

Please sign Care4Suffolk’s petition asking City Council to oppose the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Letter to the Suffolk News-Herald

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:41:28 +0000

Below is a Letter to the Editor of the Suffolk News-Herald, written by Care4Suffolk’s Ann Harris. She wrote this back in July of 2024, just before the 2045 Comprehensive Plan went before City Council and was tabled until after the election. You can read this on the Suffolk News-Herald.

The Master Transportation plan has been a major part of the discussion since the August City Council meeting, but it is important to remember that the 2045 Comprehensive Plan was also supposed to include the Fiscal Impact Analysis, which the City chose not to do. This omission is irresponsible and it is not getting enough notice.

Dear Editor:

A recent Suffolk News-Herald article about the 2045 Comprehensive Plan update presented to City Council on July 17th mentioned that there was a petition against this plan. I’d like to highlight a main reason why many residents think the 2045 Plan should not be approved. Page six of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft states that “Different kinds of development have different impacts on the fiscal health of the City. Development that is not supported by existing infrastructure (roadways, water, sewer) and that is more consumptive of land can be a greater drain on the City’s finances.” This is a pretty intuitive concept! When the initial draft came out in February with recommendations to expand Growth Areas by a shocking 23%, many people assumed it would be backed up by some solid data. (For context, our current 2035 Comprehensive Plan only increased the growth area by 5% back in 2015.) Planners did reduce the recommendation to a 17% increase and have since reduced it again, but it is still roughly a 12% expansion.

While looking for the justifications for this kind of growth (that flies in the face of the public feedback the City received), we realized that it is a norm to have a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) done during the comp plan update process. Originally, there were plans to do one: it was a requirement in the City’s Request for Proposal seeking a consultant to review and update the 2035 Comp Plan; it was part of the Scope of Work and timeline in the selected consultant’s proposal; Tischler Bise was the consulting firm scheduled to do the FIA and in 2022 their representative attended a workshop here with city staff. However, in August 2023, city staff decided to postpone the FIA until after plan approval. At a joint Planning Commission/City Council work session on May 1 of this year, Planning explained that an FIA is not really needed now because the City will continue using the same growth strategy it’s already been using. This assumes that the current strategy is a good one! The FIA can help determine probable long-term fiscal effects of different growth scenarios. Why would we want to move forward without this information?

Citizens of Suffolk deserve data-driven reasons as to why our Planners want to double down on a strategy that is negatively impacting our ability to move around the City and increasingly straining our infrastructure.

Please sign Care4Suffolk’s petition asking City Council to oppose the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Port 460 Project – Tip of the Iceberg?

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:31:17 +0000

It has been two years since the controversial Port 460 development project was rezoned at City Council, but the frustration from the public with a city that isn’t listening still lingers.

But is the Port 460 project just the tip of the iceberg? I was recently listening to a podcast of a mayoral forum hosted by the CE&H Heritage Civic League in collaboration with the Suffolk Peninsula Community Partnership and moderated by WHRO. Mayor Duman, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Bosselman had an opportunity to weigh in on a variety of topics.

At one point, near the end, Mr. Bosselman, while discussing development in the City, made an interesting revelation:

“I think the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city. In my opinion. So I think we need to have some more vision and foresight here. I do know that there are outside forces bearing down on the city so far as development here. I‘ve actually been in a meeting with this Matan group that’s in charge of Port 460 development. I had to go in there to get…, I still farm some land there. I needed the key to get in through the gate. As I was looking around the room, I see a big map. And there’s a map of fields and areas that I know, including my neighbor’s land, my land, and some more land that I farm. So their plan is going to go beyond what they’re trying to do here in the City of Suffolk. It’s all about development. It’s some kind of long-term plan here that nobody knows, nobody is telling us, but it’s in the works.” (around mark 1:14:45)

Back in May, Care4Suffolk posted an article about the City advertising 562 acres of agricultural land off Rt. 460 that is NOT currently in the growth area. The advertisement stated:

“This site is currently identified in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan as a designated growth area for Industrial Development encompassing a variety of uses including logistics, manufacturing, warehousing distribution, and research development.”

This was particularly concerning because back in May, City Council was still giving City staff feedback about new growth areas in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, while the City was selling it like it was a done deal. Rt. 460 was part of that discussion. Below is the original map proposed by City staff for the expansion of the growth areas:

There is an extended growth area of yellow to the north of Rt 460 and purple to the south of Rt. 460, and these extend all the way to the Suffolk city line. The yellow represents residential land use and purple is where warehouses can be built.

The growth areas have since been reduced and that advertisement has been removed from the city’s website, but the question is still hanging there: what is being planned down Rt. 460?

Mayor Duman spoke after Mr. Bosselman, and denied knowing anything about Matan’s future plans. I will take Mayor Duman at his word, but I find it hard to believe that there is no one in the city aware of Matan’s future plans down Rt. 460. Considering that the City’s own website was advertising the land for sale, there MUST be someone aware of these future plans. So where is the transparency? Why is our government working towards a future plan with no oversight from the public? The citizens spoke out against the Port 460 Project and the extensive growth area additions to the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Suffolk knows this is not what the citizens want. Maybe Mr Bosselman is right – maybe “the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city.”

Sacrificing Suffolk for Regional Goals

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:09:34 +0000

The State of Region is an annual report developed by the Dragas Center for Economic Analysis and Policy in the Strome College at Old Dominion University. For background information, the Dragas Center is thusly named because of the generous support received by ODU from the Dragas Family Foundation, which in turn is supported by the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce and the Dragas Companies – a residential home construction company that was ‘recognized as the top-selling local builder in Hampton Roads’ in 2017. The State of the Region report is also sponsored by TowneBank. There is nothing wrong with successful businesses supporting local communities and charities, but it is important to remember that they have a vested interest in new development in Hampton Roads, and in Suffolk. Keep this in mind as you read about Care4Suffolk’s take on the report: State of the Region.

The report reflects their evaluation and projections of the economic environment that makes up the Hampton Roads regional metropolitan area. It compares Hampton Roads to metropolitan areas like: Durham, NC; Charleston, SC; and Jacksonville, FL.

You might be wondering what this has to do with Suffolk, and specifically land use issues in Suffolk. The answer is – a lot! This report exemplifies the Regional views of Hampton Roads and the policies many regional organizations want implemented at the local government level. There is nothing wrong with being part of a bigger region and collaborating with neighboring cities and counties, but we also have to be very cognizant of Regional goals taking precedence over the goals of our City and its citizenry. We must think about how it will impact the city’s long-term fiscal health and quality of life.

As a region, Hampton Roads has been experiencing a healthy economic growth, even compared to pre-covid metrics. The authors of this report, however, say that that isn’t enough. We have to compete with the other metropolitan areas if we want to “win the economic race’.

If you read through the State of the Region, you will hear about the economic importance of the Port of Virginia, the need for workforce housing, and about a Regional focus to economic development. These themes will sound very familiar if you have read the draft of the Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan (comp plan) that City Council is set to vote on next month (November 20th). This comp plan bases the future growth in Suffolk on the idea that the Port of Virginia is growing and Suffolk must capitalize on it.

But will Suffolk actually benefit from this proposed new comp plan, or will the Region benefit at Suffolk’s expense?

Let’s look at some data from the State of Region Report. Below is the map of the areas included in the Hampton Roads Region.

The overall region has been experiencing low population growth, certainly lower than the competing metropolitan areas.

This low population growth isn’t true for the City of Suffolk, however. According to U.S. census data, Suffolk has experienced a 6.7% population growth in the last three years, with an annual growth rate of 2.19%. So while the Hampton Roads region only grew by 7,216 individuals in the last 3 years, Suffolk alone grew by 6,335 individuals in that same time period.

Despite the overall flat growth rate in the Hampton Roads region, this State of the Region had a whole section focused on expanding the housing market in Hampton Roads.They state that increasing the number of housing units may alleviate the affordable housing crisis. They even state that it doesn’t have to be affordable housing being built, just more housing of any type in general will bring down the costs of housing and rents.

There is a genuine need for affordable housing in Suffolk, Hampton Roads, and throughout the country. However, in the State of Region, they offered no evidence that their plan would actually make housing more affordable. In Suffolk, since the 2020 census, there were 2,759 units added (based on residential permits issued by the city). This is in addition to the 38,364 units from 2020 census data. (Source: U.S. Census Data). With the average dwelling containing 2.5 people, that is enough housing units for 6,898 people. Remember that Suffolk added 6335 people in that time period. Census data also shows that there were 2,809 dwelling vacancies at that time as well.

Also during that three year period, according to the Zillow home value index, the average house price in Suffolk went from $261,802 in 2020 to $346,957 in 2023, an increase of $85,155. The Suffolk market built more houses than the population growth required, had a vacancy rate of 7.3% and prices still increased by 24.5%. Clearly the housing costs are not just simply an effect of supply.

The State of the Region goes on to explain that the onerous rezoning and permitting processes are hindering the housing market: ”While zoning codes are the primary regulatory constraint on new housing supply, the site and building plan approval process described above is also a very real barrier to production.” On pages 80-81 they specify that to navigate the process from rezoning to permitting requires them to contract with specialists including: land use attorneys, environmental consultants, traffic consultants, wetland consultants, civil engineers, architects, plumbing/mechanical/electrical engineers, and landscape architects.

They state that: “Building projects are not only subject to local ordinances and regulations, but also to state building codes and myriad other state and federal requirements governing road design and construction, accessibility, wetlands, endangered species, and many other areas.”

These hardships they are citing are the laws and regulations that make sure development is safe – safe for those constructing it, safe for the new owner, safe for the community, and safe for the environment – oh the horrors!!! Then they state that the costs can climb into the millions of dollars. But if you look at their data, and take the average figure, all of these building regulations meant to protect people and the environment, when broken down, come to about $6,700 per multi-family home or $22,000 per single family home. The developers and builders don’t eat that cost; it is added to the price of the home. Compared to the cost of land, labor for construction, materials, etc., the added cost to ensure that development is safe for our community doesn’t seem that onerous, nor does it seem to be the bulk of the development costs.

This biggest takeaway from this State of the Region, and the reason why it should be important to every Suffolk citizen, is the part where they state that Hampton Roads needs more housing and that, “Given that more than 50% of workers in Hampton Roads live in one community and work in another, we should be indifferent about where jobs are created in the region. Building more housing, regardless of type, benefits the entire housing market. Lastly, housing policy is something we can directly influence in Hampton Roads and would benefit each of the key industry clusters as well.” (page 31)

It doesn’t matter to THEM where the houses are built, or what type of housing it is – it all benefits the Region. And it benefits the economic development of the Region, even if the jobs aren’t in the same location as the housing, because they have shown that people will travel from one city to the next for work.

There is a huge problem with this line of thinking. Hampton Roads is a region and NOT a municipality. A business building in Chesapeake pays Chesapeake taxes. A house built in Suffolk pays Suffolk taxes. This matters because residential housing is a loss when it comes to tax revenue versus costs of services. Residents require more services (roads, schools, libraries, parks, emergency service, etc.) than commercial and industrial developments. Warehouses have relatively low costs of service, but they also do not generate much in taxes, especially considering their footprints. Agriculture generates a net positive because, although it isn’t the highest in revenue, it also requires the least of any land use in services. Manufacturing and commercial tend to generate more in revenue than their costs of services. This is important because a municipality needs to BALANCE the residential/warehouse development to ensure that there is enough manufacturing/commercial to offset the residential development.

The 2045 Comp Plan recommends changing the land use of huge swaths of fiscally positive agricultural land for development as warehouses and workforce housing, which will be a drain for the city financially. No wonder the city staff decided to forgo the fiscal impact analysis, probably because it might have ruined the narrative that these decisions are fiscally good for the City. In another article, we discuss the regional influence on the 2045 Comp Plan. Regional “leaders” are looking out for the interest of the greater Hampton Roads Region and the direct impacts on Suffolk are NOT the priority to them.

An additional element from this report that is reflected in Suffolk’s proposed 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the idea of making the rezoning process easier for developers.

The State of the Region states:

“We must adopt a new municipal paradigm around land use, moving away from the ‘gatekeeper of growth’ model and toward acceptance of the responsibility to allow enough housing to be built. This means revamping zoning codes to allow more housing to be built without going through the laborious, expensive, and, sometimes, risky rezoning process (i.e. “by right”).” (page 85)

Suffolk’s proposed 2045 Comprehensive Plan shares similar ideas:

OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS (p. 64, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft):

L.1 Focus development in designated Growth Areas and promote development that is consistent with the Future Land Use and Growth Areas Map.

AND

2.1.2 Review and revise current development regulations, including the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the zoning map, to improve compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

Integration into City Operations and Processes

Regulatory Updates (p. 153, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

Revisions to the City’s zoning code and other regulations should be made in accordance with the plan. The process for updating the zoning code will be led by City Staff in collaboration with the Planning Commission and will be determined following the adoption of the plan. This will provide the City with the regulatory authority to enforce recommendations in the Future Land Use Map and promote other desired outcomes expressed through the plan’s actions.

Private Development Decisions (p. 152, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

Property owners and developers should consider the principles, objectives, and actions in the plan in

their land planning and investment decisions. Public decision-makers will be using the plan as a guide

in their development deliberations such as zoning matters and infrastructure requests. Property

owners and developers should be cognizant of and complement the plan’s recommendations.

The State of the Region is another example of Regional influences at play in our local government. Their goals have become manifested in Suffolk’s new 2045 Comp Plan. Regional entities are intent on using Suffolk’s bountiful land resource to serve the needs of the Port – warehouses and workforce housing. This will continue this unfettered growth in both population and development in Suffolk. We have already been experiencing these impacts with over-crowded schools and traffic congestion. However, the long-term fiscal impacts will be devastating, but regional goals will have been met. The Region–and some on our city leaders–are willing to sacrifice Suffolk for the sake of regional growth.

PLEASE go out and vote, sign our petition, and let City Council know that you want them to vote ‘NO’ on this failed 2045 Comprehensive Plan.