COMMENTARY: City $ for Apartment Conversion
Williamsburg to fund portion of planned mixed-use project using 'demolition' money
At a recent meeting, the Williamsburg Economic Development Authority approved grant funding for part of the redevelopment of the old Wells Fargo bank building on Richmond Rd. Digby Solomon in Williamsburg Watch reported that the $99K grant money comes from the City by way of a program meant for property demolition and other reserve funds. A City document explaining the program states, “The Williamsburg Economic Development Authority (EDA) Demolition Grant Program was established in 2016 to encourage private investment in the City’s commercial areas, enhancing their economic vitality from both functional and aesthetic standpoints.” Another recent project approved under the grant is demolition of the old DMV building on Capitol Landing Road.
Project Background
The owner of the bank building, Demetrios Florakis, a former member of Williamsburg’s planning commission, filed the application for the grant. Previously, in February, he secured a Special Use Permit from the City Council in order to convert the old bank building into ground floor commercial space and 11 apartments on the upper two floors. According to the grant application, the bank’s old drive thru will be removed and parts of the building's exterior will be redesigned and replaced.
Residents on Matoaka Court, the side street next to the building, voiced concerns that the new use would increase traffic in and out of their neighborhood. They claimed their street is already a busy cut through between Monticello Avenue and Richmond Road. The traffic study conducted on behalf of the City confirmed that the road was frequently used as a shortcut by drivers, but concluded the overall traffic might actually decrease with the new use. It’s worth noting that the study didn’t provide information about the speed of vehicles cutting through the neighborhood which neighbors say is a problem.
Granted, the total funding received in this grant pales in comparison to frivolous ideas like borrowing over $6M for a splash park, planned to be built on Colonial Williamsburg land. But not only did the City ultimately discount neighbor’s concerns, it’s now spending money to subsidize the project. I wonder if nearby residents see this move as adding insult to injury, because I would. I also wonder how much the City knew about funding this grant when they approved the project.
Funding priorities
The larger issue that needs to be addressed is the City’s priorities. It seems local leadership always has plenty of cash to give away to certain businesses and institutions, some with almost a billion dollar in assets. The financial support given to them can be worth millions of dollars. And while some of this money is collected and earmarked for specific purposes like tourism, plenty is still spent on a discretionary basis by the City in the name of economic development.
The argument for these expenditures is usually the same everywhere, and it goes something like, “We have to do this in order to attract businesses to our community.” The common refrain is that at least a part of developer’s profits eventually trickle down to the rest of us in the form of taxes and a “vibrant” town. But a recent preview of the FY26 budget, given to the City Council by City Manager, Andrew Trivette, indicated the need for belt tightening and noted that some departmental requests for FY26 could go unfulfilled. Based on Trivette’s recommendations, additional staff for the police, fire and public works departments would not be funded. When we’re giving money away to developers and wealthy institutions while deciding not to hire first responders and folks to keep our city running, the priorities seem to be out of whack.
I don’t fault the developers for going after funds to benefit their company. But I’m at a loss why the City decided to fund this particular project. While the demolition program may be intended to “to encourage private investment in the City’s commercial areas,” the conversion of this building was never in question with or without the grant funding. Solomon noted in his report that Florakis said the project has already generated a lot of interest. So, I’m also guessing that the developer could secure other financing.
Funding recipients
A grant from the City to renovate the outside of my house would be great. We’ve been considering installing new siding which I think it would really “enhance the property’s economic vitality from both functional and aesthetic standpoints.” But instead of giving me funding for renovations, the City imposes material and aesthetic requirements that drive up the price of improvements, sometimes making them unaffordable. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the restrictions and requirements that keep our town unique. I just wish the City would slip me some cash to improve my property too.
Recently, the City’s economic development staff presented City Council with recommendations for outside grant funding to community organizations. Staff stated that five new requests for grants were left unfunded in the next budget. These included a request for $50K from the Williamsburg Community Pool for summer swimming programs and $10K for the Center for Child & Family Services for mental health and addiction help. That’s less money than the bank building developers will wind up getting. Meanwhile, topping the list of outside funding from the City was Colonial Williamsburg at $1.3M.
The necessity of catering to businesses and special interests who already have more resources than most people is debatable. Since living in our community is desirable, the need to support development efforts with public money becomes even less clear. But real need is clearly all around us — the need for affordable housing, the need for school funds, the need for social services, the need for first responders. These seem far more important than subsidizing a developer’s real estate project.
Demands of developers
Rather than giving money away, the City should be demanding more from developers. This is even more apparent as skyrocketing property assessments finally seem to be coming back to earth and the City is potentially facing funding issues. Too often, approval is given to massive projects that don’t solve problems like shortages in affordable housing. Meanwhile, a familiar lament of City leaders is not being able to attract and retain workers.
As far as I know, the only proffer offered by the developers of the bank building was limiting each unit to only two residents. There was no mention of rents aimed at families making at or less than the area’s median income. Compare what the City typically asks for from developers versus a recent proposal to redevelop Fort Magruder on Pocahontas Trail in James City County (right near the City line). The developers of that project have offered to set aside 40% of units as “workforce housing.” Clearly, an offer like that indicates Williamsburg can flex its muscles to get what it wants instead of just rolling over.
Perhaps bending over backwards is a better description. Consider the massive development project envisioned near the sports complex by Colonial Williamsburg and its partners at Historic Triangle Recreation Facility Authority (HTRFA), which is led by City Manager Trivette. As reported by Ben Swenson in the Daily Press, the proposal would have turned 177 acres into the Recreational and Entertainment zoning district consisting of “500 multifamily residential rental units; 50 to 60 owner-occupied or rental townhomes; 200,000 square feet of research and development or office space; and 50,000 square feet of retail space along a walkable main street.”
I wasn’t surprised that the proposal didn’t mention affordable or workforce housing. And though that plan was ultimately withdrawn from consideration, some version of it will be back eventually. Colonial Williamsburg considers the open pasture land underutilized. Again, it’s all a matter of priorities.
George Arbogust is Founder and Editor of the Williamsburg Independent. Consider buying him a cup of coffee.