The city is asking residents to get involved in updating its comprehensive plan. Some believe the city's reaction to concerns over Mary's Landing raises concerns over how closely the city will listen.
There appears to be a connection between this proposed development and the proposed Jeremiah Community project, which seeks to serve the unhoused and underserved communities. Interesting to note the different approaches to development.
First, Matt Kelly is no longer on Council because he sold out his District (College Heights) for MORE church expansion when that church has over run the neighborhood beyond common sense. Also, it's not lost on anyone the failure of Mary's Landing developers failed to get their act together. Medical Arts Building? They don't know. The Hunter St. medical building? They haven't planned on that either. Yet they still get a Council go ahead on their development? What kind of a mess can we expect Mary's Landing to leave on those vacant lots? It's time for someone to care.
Thank you for your comments. You are spot on that residents need to engage. Regarding the vote on St. Mary’s it involved combining existing special use conditions with some added. No expansion was involved. If that is incorrect I hope you will elaborate.
The point is you were elected and repeatedly re-elected to represent your constituency which did not, does not, include a tax-exempt church that has outgrown their location. This is particularly true if it is YOUR religion and you had tossed aside College Heights' residences concern about a beast that has taken over a large portion of our living area. For that you were voted out and cannot, should not, ever be in a position again to compromise your fellow voters who want fair and equitable treatment from their representative. on Council. The kicker in your comment is the "some added" where there's already too much on the plate for all of us. This has become a runaway train and we're fed up with it.
Demonstrate oversight and denied requests to make the matter worse. Conduct a Council review of the problem and create workable solutions that prevent a private takeover of city owned land. It is all too obvious that church has completely shut down the 1300 block of Buckner St and made it as their own. It is now a no-thru street and appears to have been incorporated as part of their own property. Where else in Fredericksburg do you see this? Can anyone or group take over an entire block of a city owned street and shut it down to thru traffic? What we have is empire building of a massive takeover of multiple formerly residential properties that remain tax exempt due to failures to define church tax-exempt status as limited only to worship halls. This cost the city dearly.
Voting it down would change nothing. The existing Special Use Permits would have remained in place. Additional restrictions, acknowledging they were not extensive, would not have happened. If you go back and listen to vote I asked staff to review issues and come back with action plan within six months. You’ll have to ask current council what has happened with that. We cannot stop the church from buying additional property so I made it clear in all my meetings I would not support SUPs on any new acquisitions.
We need to go beyond asking a review of issues and provide pro-active guidance when an issue has spiraled out of control. As in "this needs to be done because......." Presenting multiple scenarios of impact if control is not exerted defines the critical nature of the problem. This alerts constituency that there is a shared heightened concern and something is being done about it, They have unlimited resources to do as they please. It is up to the city to draw the line and stop this mess.
There appears to be a connection between this proposed development and the proposed Jeremiah Community project, which seeks to serve the unhoused and underserved communities. Interesting to note the different approaches to development.
First, Matt Kelly is no longer on Council because he sold out his District (College Heights) for MORE church expansion when that church has over run the neighborhood beyond common sense. Also, it's not lost on anyone the failure of Mary's Landing developers failed to get their act together. Medical Arts Building? They don't know. The Hunter St. medical building? They haven't planned on that either. Yet they still get a Council go ahead on their development? What kind of a mess can we expect Mary's Landing to leave on those vacant lots? It's time for someone to care.
Thank you for your comments. You are spot on that residents need to engage. Regarding the vote on St. Mary’s it involved combining existing special use conditions with some added. No expansion was involved. If that is incorrect I hope you will elaborate.
The point is you were elected and repeatedly re-elected to represent your constituency which did not, does not, include a tax-exempt church that has outgrown their location. This is particularly true if it is YOUR religion and you had tossed aside College Heights' residences concern about a beast that has taken over a large portion of our living area. For that you were voted out and cannot, should not, ever be in a position again to compromise your fellow voters who want fair and equitable treatment from their representative. on Council. The kicker in your comment is the "some added" where there's already too much on the plate for all of us. This has become a runaway train and we're fed up with it.
And what should City Council have done?
Demonstrate oversight and denied requests to make the matter worse. Conduct a Council review of the problem and create workable solutions that prevent a private takeover of city owned land. It is all too obvious that church has completely shut down the 1300 block of Buckner St and made it as their own. It is now a no-thru street and appears to have been incorporated as part of their own property. Where else in Fredericksburg do you see this? Can anyone or group take over an entire block of a city owned street and shut it down to thru traffic? What we have is empire building of a massive takeover of multiple formerly residential properties that remain tax exempt due to failures to define church tax-exempt status as limited only to worship halls. This cost the city dearly.
Voting it down would change nothing. The existing Special Use Permits would have remained in place. Additional restrictions, acknowledging they were not extensive, would not have happened. If you go back and listen to vote I asked staff to review issues and come back with action plan within six months. You’ll have to ask current council what has happened with that. We cannot stop the church from buying additional property so I made it clear in all my meetings I would not support SUPs on any new acquisitions.
We need to go beyond asking a review of issues and provide pro-active guidance when an issue has spiraled out of control. As in "this needs to be done because......." Presenting multiple scenarios of impact if control is not exerted defines the critical nature of the problem. This alerts constituency that there is a shared heightened concern and something is being done about it, They have unlimited resources to do as they please. It is up to the city to draw the line and stop this mess.
Wonderful article. Valid concerns. Thank you, Matt. Stay involved and villigent residents!.