Liberty depends on . . . deliberating with fellow citizens about the common good and helping to shape the destiny of the political community . . . .It requires a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a bond with the community whose fate is at stake. --Michael Sandel. And so we move forward with the Richmond Downtown Master Plan public process, now in the hands of the city's Planning Commission. The 180-page document, filled with detailed ideas of a future downtown and riv erfront, is based on seven foundations resulting from the input of literally hundreds of citizens who shared their vision for what has come to be known as Virginia's Downtown. They include (1) The River, (2) Urban Architecture, (3) Variety and Choice (Mixed-Uses), (4) Mixed-Income Housing and Retail, (5) Traditional City (modes of transportation), (6) History, and (7) Green (environmental protection).

The similarities between the foundations and the priorities for downtown listed in the Crupi Report are remarkable. Crupi states, "The plan should focus on several priority areas, (1) The River, (2) Retail and Entertainment, (3) The Convention Center, (4) Urban Design and Architecture, (5) Neighborhoods, (6) Commercial Development, and (7) Gateway Entrances."

We know what we need to do. How do we get there? First and foremost, we endorse a vision of what we hope to become. Crupi mentions "vision" repeatedly in his report, as well as the need for the city to dream "BIG." The plan, in its current draft form, is all about vision -- derived from citizens' dreams -- and translated into specific action items. From creating an accessible and beautiful riverfront park to reverting back to two-way streets to establishing new zoning ordinances, based on traditional Richmond urban design.

DURING THE two public hearings, most expressed strong support for the plan -- its vision, comprehensiveness, and implementation steps. Some, however, expressed concern. They have said that the plan is unrealistic, too detailed, too critical of VCU and the state, too expensive to implement, and too controlling of private property rights. I have been asked if I was surprised by the criticism and my response was and remains, no.

Whenever a city sets up a process that is open to all citizens -- indeed, promotes the attendance of all citizens -- it is setting itself up for agreement and disagreement, for public deliberation of ideas, for a democratic process. The "charrette" process we chose did not edit out controversial ideas, because these are what prompt public engagement. As Mayor Wilder says, this is the people's plan. It is a sharing of the values that each of us hold as Richmonders, as Virginians, as keepers of the Capital City.

Some say that if the plan proposes a park or a building on land the city does not own, then it should not be mentioned in the plan. Some say that if a proposal lacks funding, then it should not be mentioned either. I could not disagree more. The vision and ideas must be expressed, as well as details on how they would be implemented.

A Master Plan is not a rezoning document, nor is it an unfunded mandate. It is a planning guide for localities to use, as they make future decisions. Not every idea is required to be carried out. Mayo Island has been shown as future public open space and/or recreation space in the city's Master Plans for 24 years, yet it has not been rezoned or taken through eminent domain. But that does not imply that ideas should not be mentioned.

When VCU adopted its bold 2004 Master Plan, it included plans on land it did not own and listed projects without a dedicated funding source. It showed detailed site plans and included city-owned property, e.g., the closing of public streets. VCU's Board of Trustees was bold enough to document its vision. Good for VCU. Look where its Master Plan has taken it. Whether the city agrees with all of VCU's recommendations or not, the point is, it all starts with each entity's vision.

MANY CITIES in America have done the same -- e.g., Chicago, New York, Charleston, Washington, D.C. They have purchased waterfront property to build parks, invested in multi-modal public transit, and established design standards. All have enjoyed economic booms. Simply put, good planning is good for business.

Finally, to those who believe the city has no business commenting on state projects, I would respond that actually it is our business. As part of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process, Virginia Code Section 15.2-2202 requires the commonwealth to notify local officials of state construction projects that exceed $100,000 -- thereby enabling comment by local officials. Richmond's EIR comments have resulted in constructive dialogue with state agencies and positive revisions to the planning and design of their projects. It is for this reason that including all downtown neighborhoods in the Master Plan is essential.

Planning Commission members have been holding Master Plan meetings throughout the month, each in a different area of the downtown. You can find more information on the city's Web site at www.richmondgov.com regarding next steps. We hope that citizens will continue to stay closely involved and share your thoughts.

Now is the time. It is your plan, your vision, your future.
Rachel Flynn is Richmond's director of community development. Contact her at Rachel.Flynn@Richmondgov.com.