City needs RPS-used land to advance Southside development plan, but some board members are wary

The City of Richmond wants to work with local developers to transform a former industrial area in South Richmond into a mixed-use neighborhood that would include affordable housing and space for businesses. 

But the plan hinges on whether the Richmond School Board agrees to give up school property at a site on Commerce Road.

The land in question is the result of another deal between RPS and the city that left scars on both sides.

Just over a decade ago, the city leased the Southside site, which is more than 50,000-square-feet, to RPS for $1 a year in exchange for land previously owned by the division to support the development of the Diamond District. That land, which held the Arthur Ashe Athletic Center, was the subject of bitter fighting between the two groups prior to the resolution.

The city also accepted responsibility for maintenance of the Commerce Road site, which houses RPS’ facilities maintenance, school nutrition and contracted bus services.

A city official met with the School Board’s Facilities and Vacant Property Committee last week to discuss the situation.

“I hope we can kinda have the conversation in a way that’s not frustrating for anybody in this moment,” said Angie Rodgers, the city’s newly hired Director of Economic Development. 

The city is now seeking to reclaim the site and transfer it to Richmond-based developer Harper Associates, which is in charge of executing the economic and housing plan near the Oak Grove, Bellemeade, Blackwell and Hillside Court neighborhoods.

Mayor Danny Avula is expected to visit the School Board in March at its regularly scheduled meeting to attempt to convince the Board to vote yes on surplusing the property.

An initial presentation by Harper Associates representatives at a December Board meeting was tense and met with immediate pushback by Board members. 

Brian Jackson, a lawyer representing the real estate company, told the full Board that the company was under the impression “that the city was talking to RPS to some extent.” Because the city is contractually listed as the owner of the property, Jackson said the company had “been talking with the city for over two years.” 

The company previously had a deadline it needed to meet that would’ve required members to make a vote on surplusing the property a day after Jackson’s presentation. That deadline was later moved.

“We didn’t realize the ownership interest that RPS had in the property,” Jackson said in December. “That was a legal opinion given recently to the city by the city attorney that said, ‘whoa, you can’t do anything on this piece without RPS’ commitment to it.’ That’s why we’re here now.”

Some Board members felt unaware of the matter and pressured to make a last minute decision that could impact their constituents, including former member Shonda Harris-Muhammed, who represented the 6th District where the property is located. She said she learned about the proposal just 40 minutes before the December Board meeting started, calling it “a level of disrespect.” 

“I’m just going to say it: If I looked different, would I have been treated different?” she told Jackson. “Everybody in this city knows who represents the sixth. So why wasn’t I afforded the opportunity and the level of respect with a conversation? … You’re going to ask me as a woman of color to go and champion this project? Won’t do it. Because I was treated with a level of disrespect.”

Cheryl Burke (7th District) called for the city to explain the matter. Until then, no decision should be made, she said. 

“I’m not in a position to make any decision about anything because I’m hearing too much in terms of, ‘the School Board was aware, the city was aware.’ Just something isn’t fitting together on behalf of our children,” Burke said. 

At last week’s committee meeting similar hesitation was present, with the concern being where RPS’ operations can be housed if the property is given up. 

“The biggest issue here is relocation of our facilities that are there. That’s the only hangup that we have,” said Emmett Jafari (8th District). “We have to have that… we’re going to have a plan.”

Without a guarantee that Harper Associates can find another location for the division after the site is relinquished, “we’re taking a risk,” said Committee Chair Stephanie Rizzi (5th District). 

Rodgers told the committee that the city could include conditions in a resolution requiring the developer to produce a viable relocation plan for RPS’ operations at the Commerce Road site before the property is relinquished.

But a question that still remains is what happens if Harper Associates could not come up with a relocation strategy, she continued.

“If you surplus and then the city surplus, and we don’t actually get to relocate, then what happens with the property, does it revert back to your existing rights or does something else need to happen,” Rodgers said, adding that documents providing the guarantee are essential. 

Rizzi asked if documents can include a condition where RPS “would not have to move at all” if the relocation is impossible. 

“My hope is that in the coming days, we’re going to get some guidance from the city attorney on this,” Rodgers responded.  

Rodgers said Councilor Ellen Robertson (6th District) and Avula have so far expressed support for Harper Associates’ plan.

Matthew Percival (1st District) shared that the agenda for the March meeting will be published soon, meaning that it will need to be noticed in time for public comment, which is necessary for the Board to make its decision. 

“I don’t think we can vote on this without public comment,” Rizzi added.

Contact Reporter Victoria A. Ifatusin at vifatusin@richmonder.org