Why is the Oregon Hill community news site posting about Chesterfield County’s water?
You probably still need to read this week’s Richmond Free Press. As with last week’s article on Monroe Park, reporter Jeremy Lazarus is supplying some valuable insight to how this area (dys)functions. For some mysterious reason, the following front-page article does not appear on the newspaper’s website, but here are photos of the printed version:
Please take the the time to read the second page, which includes hard-hitting quotes from former Sierra Club leader Dr. Charles Price on this attempted usurping of a public park as well as from Laurel Street neighbor Charles Pool on the City’s regressive water utility fees.
Although the Richmond Free Press article does not mention it, some neighbors are also speculating about how Chesterfield County might resell their ‘bargain’ on City water to Niagra Bottling LLC. Is City of Richmond not only forced to provide Chesterfield Co. water at a fifth the cost that Richmond customers must pay, but also subsidizing cheap water for the Niagara Bottling LLC? Are we really going to be damaging a Richmond city park to build a water facility so that Niagara Bottling Company can have cheap water?!
While Oregon Hill is not in Chesterfield County, our neighbors continue to keep an eye on local water issues and hope more media like the Richmond Free Press does the same.
Update: the article is now online-
http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2017/jun/02/mayor-seeks-lease-part-park-chesterfield-county-dr/?page=2
Compare this TD coverage with the earlier Richmond Free press article.
http://www.richmond.com/news/local/chesterfield/park-leasing-deal-to-boost-chesterfield-s-water-supply-meets/article_c04bf270-4a31-5157-a3ca-9d956bfc1148.html
Note how the TD article does not go into the questions about water rates.
http://wric.com/2017/07/06/residents-angry-over-proposal-to-use-city-park-land-for-chesterfield-water/
Sent this morning:
Dear Richmond City Council members,
The Sierra Club Falls of the James Executive Committee would like to express our opposition to Ordinance 2017-087, regarding the proposed Chesterfield water facility in Larus Park.
After careful consideration, there are three points to the proposal that we find particularly objectionable:
1) We are concerned that the lease proposal is in violation of the status of Larus Park. One of our former chairpersons, Dr. Charles Price, has publicly brought up the strict ban on development in Larus Park contained in Section 8-2 (c) of the City Code. That section bars the city from leasing any section of Larus and other parks for “any purpose that would result in or involve any development.” Also covered are Bandy Field Park, Crooked Branch Ravine Park and the James River Park system. The City has finite parkland that should be protected. To play word games with definitions of ‘development’ is unseemly and worrisome for all of our parks.
2) The Sierra Club has a stated duty to cherish trees and wildlife as part of our local environment. Though the land area may not seem significant at first glance, over 350 trees would be clear-cut from this natural, forested area, potentially impacting sixteen species of migratory birds, including the bald eagle, and at least one species of endangered mammal. We note that we have already seen drastic and regrettable tree removal from the leasing situation in Monroe Park, something that we previously asked Council to take action on, to no avail. Our members expect us to speak up for the local environment and we will continue to do so.
3) While we appreciate thoughts of regional cooperation, the financial details of this proposal are deplorable in that they represent a very lopsided deal that does not help the cause of conservation. We recall previous Sierra Club Falls of the James campaign to promote water rate reform for the City of Richmond and the fact that there is still dire need for more reform in order to instate incentives for conservation. There is also a social/economic justice aspect that is only exacerbated by the glaring disparity in rates paid by Chesterfield vs. City of Richmond residents in this proposal. The overall public return to the City of Richmond on this proposal is paltry once net revenue is determined. Water is a finite resource that requires public stewardship, not just commodification for easy sale.
In short, when you combine these points with the need for more communication and notice even within the City’s departments, the Sierra Club Falls of the James asks that City Council vote down this proposed ordinance at this time. We ask that DPU and Chesterfield rethink their relationship to the environment and their obligations to Richmond’s public.
That said, with opposition established, we are encouraged by Councilperson Larson’s recent communication on July 6 that the City is “currently investigating alternatives” and hope good news is forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Sierra Club Falls of the James Executive Committee, representing over 800 members of the Sierra Club Falls of the James group