A recent article about the ongoing saga of the Old Blacksburg Middle School seemed to indicate the newspaper's assigned newbie to the school beat hadn't read related file stories. This article stated:
"Supervisors have wanted to sell the downtown property for the best -- and most lucrative -- commercial use possible and use the money for school building needs. Blacksburg Town Council has asked for lower-density and civic uses of the property that would preserve the historic neighborhoods nearby."
Blather.
What was the genesis for possible "commercial" use of this property?
As reported by the Roanoke Times in November, 2006, the town had already held several closed meetings with a specific developer on a grand mall concept for this property. That council then sent the developer over to visit the Board of Supervisors.
Yes, the Board of Supervisors wanted to see a fair price for a school property which includes an aged building along with approximately 19 acres.
Most lucrative? Well, it would be nice if how this property were used in the future generated some tax revenue for the county, as well as Blacksburg. But the zoning, and ownership, kept supervisors from being able to respond to any offers, proffers, options or ideas.
Public response to the town's mall concept was negative. The purported developer didn't have a strong track record anyway.
A later "proposal" from one non-profit for the building to be, in essence, gifted to that organization was just an unaffordable pipe dream no one should have been asked to fund. Relegating the supervisors as wanting only "commercial" use is a stretch.
No, the Supervisors were not interested in a forced fire-sale for this property. This represents fiscal responsibility.
Further, supervisors have no choice about the use of related proceeds -- state code requires such funds go to public education in these types of transactions. The question would be whether they'd cut other operating costs from the school board's budget, thereby recouping these potential funds. "He who holds the gold....."
Blacksburg Town Council wanted to get some money out of any deal, too. That's why they included a property they didn't own in their Comprehensive Plan and initiated discussions with at least one developer in the first place. Nor were they willing to foot the bill for civic uses.
Given the existing zoning for this property is residential, the article's statement that Blacksburg town council is "asking" itself for this type of use is just more blather.
Before this school closed, there were years of planning for both the new Christiansburg and Blacksburg middle schools, procuring the land and funding, and the construction of each building. So after a decade of dithering by Blacksburg officials and civic organizations, why should the school system (which has no taxing authority) put any of its limited funding into an old building that everyone agreed needed replacing years ago? Using all available funds for today's school buildings and students is fiscally responsible.
The term "hostage" was used by the current school board's chairman in this article, and seems to be in response to a reporter's question. One could then presume the question itself used that word -- deliberately negative and purposely divisive.
A professional reporter shouldn't use loaded words, any more than someone crafting a survey doesn't want to influence those responses. Reframing who wants what use for the property today doesn't stand up to the public record. The town controls the zoning. So is the property instead held hostage by the town?
After property ownership was re-clarified for all and a related bill written by Delegate Dave Nutter didn't float through the General Assembly, the school board detailed what it needed in order to be able to surplus this building. Since then, it's been the responsibility of county and Blacksburg officials to work out whatever details or deals -- including courting developers or time driven deadlines for taking action -- they find mutually agreeable.
It just so fascinating, too, that similar properties owned by the public schools and located in another town or the county's borders hasn't generated this type of dysfunctionalism.
Now with the expanded University Mall and the new First & Main projects, is there a need for additional retail or commercial use in the downtown area? Not according to current downtown business vacancies (unused inventory).
Perhaps then, the existing zoning is the appropriate one -- low density residential use. Any developers willing to make an offer on 19.9 prime acres in close proximity to Virginia Tech and the historic downtown core? Possibly. Any who are willing to try to negotiate with town or county officials? Doubtful.
In the meantime, one school board member's recommendation to remove signage from the building represented the only sensible comment in the article.
As stated before, it's time to move this valuable property -- owned by the school board and therefore all county residents -- out of limbo and onto the tax roles.