Photo Credit: Alan Schmidt - Free Lance-Star
On December 2nd, the Spotsylvania Planning Commission voted 4-3 (Commissioners Bell (Salem), Lane (Livingston), Thompson (Courtland) dissented) to recommend approval of 271 apartments in the vicinity of the now torn down Sears Department store in the Spotsy Mall. Plans call for 91 - 1 bedroom, 144 - 2 bedroom, and 36 3-bedroom apartments and 500 square feet of commercial space. This is likely to go in front of the Board of Supervisors at one of their January meetings.
Project's rezoning application with more details
Livingston Commissioner Jacob Lane associated the project’s approval as a “bailout” for the struggling mall. Courtland Commissioner Richard Thompson opposed the project largely on the grounds of not wanting to cede critical commercial land for residential housing. Lee Hill and Berkeley Commissioners expressed support for the project based on a desire to keep the mall a viable tax payer for the County.
Several Free Lance-Star articles with more project details
In a split vote, Spotsylvania planners endorse apartment proposal for mall
So long Sears, hello to an uncertain future for the mall
There are several interesting takeaways that stuck out during the applicant’s presentation.
Applicant believed the formula that projects the number of school aged children was not accurate (bad for the project).
Applicant believed that the traffic formula that projects less traffic for this project was accurate (good for project).
Applicant claimed that the mall in current form is unfeasible. Commentary: There is evidence across the country that this is accurate. Part of this has to do with Americans, particularly younger ones, turning more to e-commerce. Ironically, this is the main demographic that the applicant claims will help the mall. Additionally, the mall currently is failing (Applicant’s characterization) with 137,000 people living in Spotsylvania. Despite this customer base, the applicant is attempting to convince the County that if these 271 apartments are built than these residents will single-handedly save the mall. This seems far fetched. Although the applicant stated there are no plans to add more residential units to the mall area, they also did not say they would not consider adding more later.
The Spotsylvania Mall was the largest tax payer in the County for decades. Commentary: This is true on paper, but if it weren’t for the County citizens shopping at the mall all these years the mall would not have realized all of that tax revenue. To a degree Spotsylvanians were supporting Spotsylvania by shopping at the mall. The mall is currently struggling, because this dynamic is no longer true, and without reversing this trend, no amount of apartments will “save the mall”.
This project was developed to attract young people, emptynesters and the applicant does not see a lot of families moving into these apartments. Commentary: If you use the universal standard that identifies affordable housing, the average salary of individuals moving into this project would be: 1 bedroom - $52,000; 2-bedroom - $68,000; 3-bedroom - over $80,000. The reality is a lot of County employees would struggle to live in the one bedroom apartment on this project. In a County that one study suggests has 37% of its population living paycheck-to-paycheck or in poverty begs the question of whether this project seeks to appeal to current County residents or new ones?
People want to “live, work, and play” in the same area. This phrase has been used over and over the last 4-5 years to advocate for projects that it has become more of a cliche that sounds good, but nobody could probably effectively defend it. For this project alone, how many jobs in the mall area pays over $52,000 a year that would permit living in this development?
The applicant insisted that the County needs to think creatively with the redevelopment to allow for the mall to continue to be viable. However, the addition of apartments seems like the easiest and least creative solution. It’s a solution that places the Mall Owner’s well being above that of the County. It’s a solution that is being pursued because they must believe they already have 4 votes on the Board of Supervisors. This is supported in part by the rapid demolition of the old Sears building, with no other alternatives to the site than 271 apartments before a public hearing even took place.
