Union Presbyterian and the Parable of the Buried Talent

union_presby James A. Bacon

Union Presbyterian Seminary settled into its current location off Brook Road in northside Richmond in 1898, when industrialist Lewis Ginter donated land to the educational institution from the streetcar suburb he was developing. The seminary has been a good neighbor ever since, leaving a large tract of the land vacant as a park open to the public. Now the seminary needs some of that land to build new housing for seminary students and their families in place of antiquated housing that it provides at present.

The neighbors are up in arms. Many people who live nearby, it appears, are worried about the loss of open space, traffic and the impact on property values, according to the Times-Dispatch. A “crowd of hundreds” packed a meeting in the seminary auditorium when the institution unveiled a proposal to build 349 housing units. At one point, some in the crowd erupted in loud boos.

I find this extraordinary. Who do these people think they are? It’s one thing if the City of Richmond decided to sell a public park to a developer. It’s quite another when a private institution, which has been a foundation of the community for more than a century, wants to sell the land in order to preserve the viability of that institution. The seminary owns the land — not the neighbors!

The Presbyterian denomination has fallen upon hard times. The number of adherents is shrinking. Between 2008 and 2011, the denomination closed churches at the rate of 75 to 80 per year. Under the 2009-2014 strategic plan, Union Presbyterian slashed its budget by $3 million, reduced the number of students to 180 FTEs, and cut its faculty from 32 to 22.5 FTEs to align with the smaller student body.

Now the seminary is seeking to raise $75 million to reinvent itself — in effect, to stay relevant in a changing world. According to the 2014-2019 strategic plan, the campaign has raised $27.2 million, but achieving its goals also requires maximizing the value of its real estate holdings that have long laid dormant.

Here’s the killer. According to the T-D, the seminary could extract even greater profit from the property by building at greater density, as allowed under existing zoning, or by selling the land on the open market. It is not pursuing those options. The seminary wants to be a good neighbor. “We’re trying to do what’s right by the community and what’s right by the seminary,” said Andrew M. Condlin, a local land-use attorney.

Apparently, that’s not good enough. Some attendees took exception to the idea of the seminary erecting a four-story building at the corner of Brook and Westwood — as if a four-story building would be out of character for a higher ed setting!

They’re worried about traffic, too. Have these people been possessed by Beelzebub? The housing would be occupied by seminary students who would walk to the campus across the street! OK, some students might be married and have kids. Gee, spouses might drive to their jobs or run errands. I’ve driven on those Northside Streets and they are way under-utilized. Traffic fears are utter nonsense.

As for property values, adding quality density development will increase the value of property along the Brook Street corridor, not diminish it. More to the point, maybe the neighbors had better focus on what would happen to property values if Union Presbyterian closed its doors! Imagine the impact if the buildings were vacant and the landscaping was going to pot?

The incident brings to mind the parable of Jesus and the talents:

For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them.  To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey.  The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work and gained five more. In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! … You should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten.

For years, Union Presbyterian had done the functional equivalent of burying its talent in the ground — to the benefit of its neighbors. It can no longer afford that luxury. It’s time to put that asset to work. Jesus understood how capitalism functioned and cited approvingly the investment of money to make more money. (He also thought that the kingdom of God was at hand and urged his followers to give their money away, but that’s a different issue.) The seminary is acting entirely within its rights. The neighbors ought to be darned grateful their input was solicited at all.

The people at Union Presbyterian are far too nice to say this but I will: It’s time for the neighbors to stop bellyaching over trivial inconveniences and time to help make sure the seminary is still around another century from now.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

10 responses to “Union Presbyterian and the Parable of the Buried Talent”

  1. Cville Resident Avatar
    Cville Resident

    I could not agree more. Good post!

  2. It’s classic NIMBY, I agree but as we discuss the factors that go into those nasty urban “planners” restricting density – and all the claimed good things that come from it – we see that it’s not the planners that are driving this bus.

    Open space is an extremely valuable commodity. In my county of Spotsylvania – the most sought-after residential building lots (after waterfront) are lots that back up to Battlefields! Virtually all of our “famous” civil war battlefields are, in fact, largely “surrounded” by subdivisions and the preservation folks come out in force to decry the loss of “history”. To their credit – they have the Central Va Battlefields Trust which actually strategically buys historic land and then turns it over to the Park Service.

    but there is a real question here and that is – does Smart Growth envision parks as important and needed assets or does it view it as a wasteful use of land?

    If parkland is considered important – is there an issue of citizen equity in terms of geography and location ? Is the provisioning of parkland to some lucky folks and not others , a variant form of rent seeking?

    let me cut to the chase – could the land be bought and preserved for parkland and still be within the tenets of Smart Growth?

    what’s the argument against the city buying the land – the church getting their money and citizens keeping their park?

    I’m not advocating this – I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate, in part, to point out that perhaps this is not as cut and dried… unless Jim Bacon says that parkland in general is antithetical to smart growth and it’s not the role of govt to involve itself in provisioning parkland.

    I ask these questions on purpose to “trust by verify” a premise.

    1. Well designed parks are an asset to any community. (There are lots of poorly designed parks but that’s a different matter.) Maintaining parks is a legitimate function of local government.

  3. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    This reminds me of a meeting in McLean several years ago where some residents were up in arms about VDOT and Fleur’s construction of HOT lanes on the Beltway. Speaker after speaker complained about VDOT cutting trees and intruding on private property.

    A follow-up meeting was held where VDOT posted RoW maps. All the tree removal and construction occurred on existing VDOT RoW. That quieted most, but a couple still thought VDOT’s maps had to be wrong. LoL

  4. It’s hard for people to give up amenities and benefits that they have grown used to, regardless of whether they have a right to them or not.

  5. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    First, let’s note it was news to most of us in the neighborhood that the property in question, especially the walking path on the western side, was not a park. Once that sunk it, it was a surprise to learn that the development rights were virtually unlimited –not zoned for single family houses, for example, even though that is what surrounds it on three sides. I should note I’ve only lived across the street from this tract for one year, and no realtor involved in our purchase made any mention of the facts about the ownership of what seemed a lovely park or any rumor of development plans.

    Second, while Brook Road in this area is a lovely collection of single family homes and the existing Seminary housing is well maintained, you only have to go one block over to Chamberlayne to see the kind of low-income, poorly maintained rental housing that would absolutely destroy property values in this neighborhood if built on this location. Clearly that kind of housing is not in the seminary’s best interests either, but the neighbor’s concerns are understandable when they hear “rental.”

    Third, the plan described last night is very different (and far superior) to the densely-packed jumble of various housing types using up the entire tract in the first site plan that surfaced. Perhaps a bit of bait and switch is going on, and of course the seminary is not making a long term promise to preserve any open space, but the plan I saw today causes me less heartburn. I commend them for listening.

    The wide open development rights attached to this property, perhaps for a century or more, are no longer the norm. I get it, this is their property and they have a right to develop it to maximize their profit. But it would be in the city’s best interest and the best interest of the greater Ginter Park neighborhood for about half of it to become a true city park. There is no other park around that I’m aware of. If there is a gazillion dollars available for a ball park there are funds to buy or long term lease some of that tract.

    Changes are coming on the other side of Westwood, as well, as another private school may be expanding in what used to be the parking lot for Richmond Memorial Hospital and Sheltering Arms. Perhaps it is time to explore what the zoning for that is, but given it was a medical complex I doubt it is as wide open as the seminary’s land.

    1. Sorry for the harsh tone of this reply, since I know you don’t mean to make anyone’s life worse, but why do you have a right to tell people, including (especially) renters of lower-income properties, where they can and cannot live in order to maintain your property values? If they want to live in the neighborhood and are willing to occupy less space in order to do so, I have a hard time seeing your opposition to it as anything but the sort of crony protectionism that is concentrating poverty and making it worse.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Uh, that’s what zoning is in just about every instance I can think of — an effort to maintain or increase property values for some by limiting land use choices for others. That’s why most zoning won’t allow builders to plop 7-11’s or factories or (usually) massive multi-family projects in the middle of single family neighborhoods without some approvals.

        I have no such right, but I have a right of free speech. I have not been to any of the meetings. I have not complained to the seminary. But I live in the neighborhood and thought Jim’s piece needed a little balance. Until I moved here I really hadn’t realized just how nice this part of Richmond was, and that park walking trail is heavily, heavily used by people in this neighborhood. I’m glad the seminary backed off building rows of townhouses there — at least not yet.

        To read Bacon’s piece, you’d think the new housing was just for the seminary staff and students but they will use only a small portion. Nobody would be worried at all if that was the case — there are already housing units on the location for the school and nobody minds.

        Sorry to offend you, New Virginia, but the reality is that I accurately stated what is concerning the neighborhood. The comparison between Brook Road and Chamberlayne Avenue is stark. Jim loves to tout green space and walkability in other contexts. Here he seems pretty happy to see acres of trees and a popular park bulldozed under. We’ll see how he reacts when it is across the street from him. or you.

        1. Again sorry for the combative tone – I realize I have a fringe position on this. That is certainly what zoning is, but as such, it creates good for some by doing harm to others. By its very nature then, it has the capacity to do more good than harm or more harm than good. Zoning codes are legal in the United States only to the extent that they protect and aid the public (the whole public). This sort of restriction, which is ubiquitous in cities across the country, has its mildly positive effect on property values by doing tremendous damage to the prospects of poorer individuals, the fiscal solvency of the city, and the overall smooth functioning of the land market. As such, I think it’s bad (and borderline immoral, though usually unintentionally).

          If you want to have a big plot of undeveloped land next to you, you and your neighbors should buy it and do nothing with it – or convince the city to buy it and convert it to a city park. If you can’t afford to do that (or don’t want to), then you probably can’t afford the benefit you’re receiving. If the city can’t afford it, it could be because they make poor decisions, but it could also be because it won’t actually create enough of a boost to surrounding property values to justify its existence.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            Exactly what I advocated in my original comment. The city or the neighborhood association should buy or long-term lease that portion of the 36-acre tract that is now being used (and heavily used) as an exercise path. The residents have benefited from the generosity of the seminary for years, and now the seminary should be compensated.

Leave a Reply