Comments on: Rainwater rules cast cloud over development

By: New bills that could affect your business | Richmond BizSense

New bills that could affect your business | Richmond BizSense — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:18:30 +0000

[...] Introduced by Delegate Rosalyn Dance (D-Petersburg), this bill would delay for two years the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s regulations governing the stormwater management program that were to be implemented on July 1, 2010. (The new stormwater rules have been covered extensively on BizSense). [...]

By: Beth Stewart

Beth Stewart — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:41:17 +0000

The conversation about these proposed regs needs better exploration of the cost-savings of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater solutions – the concern about increased costs should be contrasted with actual experience. An EPA report of 17 LID case study projects around the country found that total capital savings of LID vs. conventional stormwater practices “ranged from 15 to 80 percent, with a few exceptions in which LID project costs were higher than conventional stormwater management costs. As LID practices become more common, it is likely that they will become cheaper to use.” For model projects in the Birmingham, AL area, LID has also in general cost less.
For a copy of the report: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/
LID practices are innovative stormwater management practices to manage urban stormwater runoff at its source, to mimic the way water moved through an area before it was developed by using design techniques that infiltrate, evapotranspirate, and reuse stormwater. Some common LID practices include rain gardens, grassed swales, cisterns, rain barrels, permeable pavements and green roofs. LID is small scale and can fit into areas already devoted to required site landscaping. Team it with reduced standards for street widths and parking for even greater cost savings. A recently-built Bass Pro in Leeds, AL is a great model for this.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:20:54 +0000

Are the objections to say that we should allow the big banks and GM to continue their profiteering as well? While ‘We the People’ foot not only the bill, but pay the social consequences as well??? This issue runs parallel to a number of critical imbalances in our nation today. Massive trade deficits, offshoring jobs, tax havens, Swiss bank account usage, unethical lending practices, and other forms of unregulated enviornmental disaster-creation name a few.

“We the People” tire of this constant lamentation. This great nation was founded on honest value WITHOUT appreciable social or national detriment. Far indeed have we strayed from such values.

The developers (who WILL pass the added cost along to the subsequent occupants) would do well to embrace the changes we all need to enter a new era of progress as a people and nation. The changes in business are proportional to those which will be made in every neighborhood by the citizenry. Holdouts will pay the price of inaction, and late-coming.

Our nation has come to a cross-roads in it’s adolescence. It is an awakening much like that experienced in revolutionary times. The path we have thus traveled no longer benefits us as a whole. Somehow, our identity as a truly great and daring people has to become our call to arms. We can only ask those forwarding antiquated ideals to ‘Get Out of the Way’!

By: Jim Meadows

Jim Meadows — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:22:56 +0000

I agree that greenroofs and rainwater / greywater recycling (or harvesting) is the way to go for a sustainable future. I only wish others would agree!

By: Joey

Joey — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:35:19 +0000

Great now we will never see a 40-50 foor tower in downtown richmond because of this. If only we had less harsh regulations then we could really see alot of nice 40-50 and possibly 60 floor towers in downtown richmond one day.

By: Scott Burger

Scott Burger — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:43:28 +0000

Roger Peterson has it right.

Stealing Apple’s old grammaticaly incorrect tagline-

BUILD DIFFERENT!

By: james

james — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:49:07 +0000

Good story, Al, but there are a few crucial things you missed.

First, commercial development of any significant size, like a strip mall, small office complax or larger, cannot meet the .28 phosphorus standard. Not “will have a difficult time meeting it.” CANNOT. It cannot be done.

Second, the DCR estimates for financial impact are strictly a guess by them. The economic impact analysis done by the state planning and budget office said the costs could not be determined at this time. Meanwhile, the report does say it’s clear that everyone, not just developers or new homebuyers, will pay more. Timmons’ projections are based on actual projects in the pipeline today. Timmons says the impact will be $30,000 per home. I’ll believe them over guessing by DCR.

Third, these rules will cause residential developers to have to use larger lot sizes to trap more phosphorus. That not only means no affordable housing, but also more land needed to build the same number of homes — urban sprawl. It also means more infrastructure costs for local governments because it costs more to put in water and sewer for large lots than small.

Commercial developers will have the same problem. Sen. Watkins will have to give up his office space component at Watkins Centre because he’d have to have more than 2x the land he has currently to control the stormwater runoff to the state’s liking. That’s 2x the cost and he’s not going to shell out that much more money. That will tell business looking to locate here that it’s too expensive and even a state senator can’t do anything about it. Bye Bye, business.

Fourth, this sprawl flies in the face of what the state has said it wants. Urban development areas, or UDAs, are being planned for development use. They guarantee higher densities nearer to roads and other conveniences to help promote mass transit and more urban community life. With these stormwater rules, UDAs can’t be used because the developer cannot provide higher densities.

This whole stormwater management plan is ridiculous. It’s Kaine way to pay back the enviros who helped him get elected and have supported him through his four years. Every competent civil engineer will tell you the costs this will put on development are staggering. And have we forgotten what our economy looks like right now? This is a bad idea all around. It should be scrapped and the governor ought to order DCR and DEQ to start doing their jobs and enforcing the regulations currently in place. If they would do that, the engineers say we could eliminate 75 percent of the problem in the Bay in 10 years.

By: Roger Petersen

Roger Petersen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:32:43 +0000

We have read with much interest the strong opposition the local and national developers have expressed to the proposed storm water regulations. The fact is they are wrong!!! While the new regulations may increase the cost of land development the cost will go down as the process becomes main stream – just like green building. The real problems are that most all entities who develop land in the area only know how to do it one way and cannot dream that they may other ways to work the land without distroying the environment. It may be with a little knowledge, an open mind and a willingness to change they may even increase their lot yield in a project. An that is what they are all about – lot yield – and the short term bottom line.

By: Dillon Franks

Dillon Franks — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:34:18 +0000

The rain water management discussion is a good example of the issues private enterprise and public agencies must face and resolve during this period of forming new strategies which must be economically sustainable.

There is a factor when building costs into economic models that has not been previously considered, That is the social responsibility cost. Relevant business strategies must consider the costs of NOT including social costs and as a result leaving them to governments to cover with “creative financing” which inevitable leads to higher taxes, fees etc.

In my long business career, I have been a real estate developer and railed against the costs imposed by municipalities and other government institutions. All of those cost that I thought were ruinous ( in the 1960s and 70s) are commonplace today. Indeed, without the amenities and services the extra cost added, the projects would not have built out.

All stakeholders must sit down and negotiate relevant strategies to make sure our economic and social quality of life is sustainable.