From the Times Dispatch (appearing after Fences of Contention, Part 1, and continuing disregard for citizen concerns):
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I strongly disagree with portraying the costly Brown’s Island Way fences as a valid city commitment. Your news article, “$53K fence planned to keep homeless away from Richmond bridge,” had seven references to a commitment but apparently none of the insiders talked about the actual written agreement.
The agreement approved by City Council did not require the city to do construction. It required Gamble’s Hill to convey land to Dominion, Dominion then to construct a road, Dominion to then convey the completed road property to Venture Richmond, and Venture Richmond then to sell the property to the city. The city agreed to pay the purchase price.
The agreement did not require fences. It did not mention fences. It did say that it “…contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set forth and may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by the parties….” A prior understanding about fences was superseded by the final agreement.
The road is built. The city owns property. The deal is done. Why are fences being discussed now? Why are fences being discussed at all? Why is City Council letting this happen?
C. Wayne Taylor.
Richmond.
The Planning Commission agenda and related documents for the Tuesday, January 20, 2015 meeting are now available on the City’s legislative website. No letters of support for the fence in the canal. Here are the four recommendations of the UDC that is included in the UDC staff report:
That the fence be revised so that the height (measured from the base of the canal bed) aligns more closely with the height of the Tredegar perimeter fence. That the applicant consider alternate techniques to mount the fence and gate recessed under the bridge. That the applicant refer to and align the detail and spacing of the fence and gate more closely with the guardrail above the arch. That the applicant considers including plantings on the banks of the canal as a deterrent.
Good letter!