Category Archives: editorial

How Many Candidates Have Signed The Declaration of Solar Rights?

Posted on by
1

So the local Chamber of Commerce (ChamberRVA) is holding a Mayoral candidate forum tonight at the nearby Altria Theater.

It is free and open to the public (get there before 6:30 pm), and will be broadcasted live on NBC12 television at 7 pm.

By the way, you may notice that ChamberRVA has moved on from promoting the Shockoe stadium scheme to pushing for doing something with the Richmond Coliseum. Anyway, I suspect that the Coliseum will come up in the questions, but there is one question I doubt will come up, though it should:

As someone running for Mayor, have you signed the Virginia Declaration of Solar Rights?

Solar energy empowers Virginians to harness clean local energy, creates jobs, and enhances our energy security. Sadly, Virginia’s current laws violate our right to invest in and benefit from solar energy by limiting consumer choice. This fall, the General Assembly will hold a special session to review solar policies that will help all Virginians fairly access solar energy. This is a great opportunity for Richmond leaders and citizens to let our state senators and delegates know there is broad, bi-partisan support for legislation that will enable all Virginians to go solar.

There is more detail here:
http://www.vasun.org/declaration-of-solar-rights/

Announcing The First Annual Oregon Hill Jack O’Lantern Contest

Posted on by
Reply

I have been wanting to do this for a while, and I think this is the year… I am hereby announcing the first annual Oregon Hill Jack ‘O Lantern Contest. First prize so far is a measly $20 from yours truly, however I am also announcing that I am looking for a local business to co-sponsor and help to significantly increase the prize money. (In other words, this could quickly become the ________/Oregon Hill Annual Jack O’Lantern Contest with the right advertising contract).

Creative Commons image- A Jack o' Lantern made for the Holywell Manor Halloween celebrations in 2003. Photograph by Toby Ord on 31 Oct 2003.

Creative Commons image- A Jack o’ Lantern made for the Holywell Manor Halloween celebrations in 2003. Photograph by Toby Ord on 31 Oct 2003.

So…rules…let’s see…

Submission Info

OregonHill.net invites submissions for its first annual Oregon Hill Jack O’ Lantern Contest. Entrants should read the following rules, terms, and conditions before submitting any photos or documentation.

Eligibility

Entrants must be 18 years of age or older. All entrants younger than 18 years of age must submit a note of parental consent with their entry. All entrants must be a resident of the Oregon Hill neighborhood to be considered. Contest is void where prohibited by law.
Contest judges (which is so far just me) and their immediate families are not eligible to enter.

Entries

Entries will start being accepted from October 15, 2016 at noon through October 27, 2016 at 11:59 pm. A winner and runners-up will be announced and presented on OregonHill.net on Friday, October 29, 2016 at noon. Please submit entries by emailing a photo jpeg file, size between 200 kb and 1.5 mg, of the entry to info@oregonhill.net, including a (real) name and a (real) address. Submitted photo should be of a carved or altered pumpkin in front of address. All entries must be original, newly-produced works, created after October 1, 2016. Entries must be original creations, with photo by the creator, and not infringe on the copyrights of any other parties. Any entires suspected, in the discretion of OregonHill.net, to be in violation will be rejected immediately from the competition.
OregonHill.net does not grant entrants the right or access to photograph private property or use of its name to secure access. Entries may have multiple co-producers, but one should be listed as the primary contact upon entry. The fair dissemination of any prize winnings will be the responsibility of the primary contact. Participants may submit multiple entries, however 1 photo entry per email. All forms of photos that are not produced by the entrant must be credited to the original photographer. Entries containing immoral, defamatory, obscene or scandalous content, or any other content which, at the sole discretion of OregonHill.net, is not in the keeping with OregonHill.net, will be deemed ineligible. By submitting a photo entry, each participant represents that the photo submitted is an original work that does not infringe on the copyright or intellectual property right of another party, and each participant agrees to indemnify OregonHill.net, and its contest judges from all liability arising from any alleged infringement in this regard. Photographer retains ownership rights to the submitted photo. However, the winning entrants grant to OreognHill.net the non-exclusive, non-transferable right and license to use the photos and the winners’ names in perpetuity without compensation, notification, or other limitation or condition, both in conjunction with the competition and promotion of the competition and promotion of OregonHill.net generally.
OregonHill.net is not responsible for entries that are not received or not received properly, or for any technical problems with corrupt digital files, internet outages, computer failures, and the like. OregonHill.net is not responsible for lost, late, or misdirected entries. OregonHill.net is not obligated to acknowledge receipt of entries.

Judging

Entries will be judged by a panel made up of OregonHill.net editors and Halloween experts invited by OregonHill.net. Judges’s decisions will be final and binding.

To select the winner, entries will be by judged by awarding of points based on the following criteria: (1) originality (40%), (2) composition and coherence (20%), (3) quality of photo (20%), and (4) consuming/recycling/composting of materials (20%) (this can be signified by a statement of intent included with entry). In the event of a tie score, the tie will be broken by awarding the prize to the entrant with the highest score in the first of the above-listed criteria (in order of appearance) as to which there is no tie.

Prize

Prize consists of $20 in U.S. currency, prominent featuring on OregonHill.net, and bragging rights. Runners-up will receive prominent featuring on OregonHill.net, and bragging rights. Applicable federal, state, and local taxes on prize are the sole responsibility of the winner.

Lastly, OregonHill.net reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify, suspend, or cancel the contest for any reason.

I think that covers it.

In addition to possibly having a co-sponsor, there is the possibility that the contest judging will change to online public voting on OregonHill.net to determine winner, but that possibility may or may not happen for this year’s contest.

Folk Festival Cometh

Posted on by
Reply

img_7490

The noncontroversial stuff:
This weekend is the Richmond Folk Festival, which takes place just down the hill. It starts Friday night and continues till Sunday evening. It celebrates culture through music, dance, traditional crafts, storytelling and food. It started with Richmond hosting the National Folk Festival and has continued since then, becoming one of the best music festivals in the state if not the country. It has always had free attendance, though donations are encouraged and heavily solicited to augment the local corporate sponsorships. It goes on rain or shine.

Personally, I have attended every year and have enjoyed countless performances by musicians that I probably would never have been able to travel to and afford to see otherwise. I remember going to the first night of the National Folk Festival a dozen years ago when no one really knew what to expect. It was rainy and I was often one of the tens of people there at the tents as opposed to the thousands who now attend. I also enjoyed volunteering for the festival for a few years, helping with its recycling program.

So every year I do look forward to seeing the schedule and picking out the performances I want to attend. This year I am really looking forward to seeing L’Orchestre Afrisa International, Marquise Knox, Sri Lankan Dance Academy of NY, Kaynak Pipers Band, and Conteño, to name a few. Definitely take the time to at least check out the list and listen- there may be something that will pleasantly surprise you.

This year the weather is looking soggy and possibly windy. Regardless, having walked down there yesterday, I can promise it will be muddy. My suggestion is to wear old clothes, bring a rain jacket and umbrella, and open ears. The weather is no excuse to not take advantage of this great festival.

The controversial stuff:
I only bring up controversy in conjunction with this happy event for three reasons:

One is that it is pretty clear that the Folk Festival, as great and amazing as it is, has also been used as cover to push some inappropriate riverfront development, brushing aside citizen concerns about impacts on the environment, historic preservation, and quality of life issues for nearby neighbors. What has been particularly disturbing about this is the suggestion that anyone bringing up concerns is anti-Folk Festival and trying to end it. That is false.

Secondly, it is definitely worth noting that Venture Richmond, the nonprofit that runs the Folk Festival, has still not come to terms with this neighborhood over some very reasonable requests for the future use of the site, BEYOND the Folk Festival. Venture Richmond describes itself as a ‘public private partnership’, but has never had any real checks and balances for its overall role in the City, and it has served as the de facto marketing arm for a local corporate agenda that is often at odds with the public. For example, it was behind the wasteful lobbying for the failed Shockoe stadium proposal.

Lastly, and perhaps most urgently, former Venture Richmond executive director Jack Berry is running for Mayor (Election Day is only a few weeks away!), and has used the Folk Festival throughout much of his own campaign to give people the impression that he has values of diversity and inclusivity. I urge people to look past this advertising and take the time to learn about the Jack Berry that many City residents have come to know- someone who will arrogantly say anything but cannot be trusted on anything. Last week he came to the Oregon Hill neighborhood association meeting seeking votes but still refused to make any amends for past breaks in trust or, more importantly, make any commitments to how he would help and protect THIS fragile, historic neighborhood in the future.

I sincerely hope everyone enjoys the Folk Festival, appreciates the volunteers and performers who help make it happen, but also keeps in mind these last three points. The Folk Festival comes once a year, and, as has often been expressed- it has an impact that goes well beyond that.

Water Utility Reform and Local Elections

Posted on by
2

Although multiple media outlets covered the City Democratic Committee mayoral forum at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School this past Tuesday, the Times Dispatch newspaper captured this exchange:

Morrissey also chided Berry, a former assistant city manager in Richmond and county manager in Hanover County, on his response to a council candidate’s concerns about high city water rates that are inflated by an annual payment to the general budget in lieu of taxes.

Berry had warned that eliminating the payment from the public utility enterprise fund would hurt the city’s general budget. “The problem is if you take that away, it’s money that goes away from the general fund.”

Morrissey responded, “Just because you need the money doesn’t mean you can add a phony, faux tax to the water bill.”

Councilperson Baliles, who could not attend that forum, released this video:

On top of that, there was this announcement:

On today’s packed edition of Open Source RVA, we talk with city council candidate Charlie Diradour about his campaign to represent the second district. We discuss Richmond’s water rates, transparency in city government, what’s happening with Monroe Park and a host of other topics
…
We also welcome back to the program Farid Alan Schintzius, who talks about his legal efforts to appeal the decision by the city’s electoral board that disqualified him from the mayoral ballot. Too much show? You decide. Listen in at 2PM on WRIR 97.3 FM and http://wrir.org.

That’s today (Friday, Sept. 9 at 2pm).

So…The ongoing citizen campaign to reform City of Richmond’s water utility has become part of the local election landscape. Oregon Hill neighbors and others who have worked over time to bring water utility reform forward are excited to hear what the candidates have to say going forward.

It continues to be outrageous that small volume residential citizens can pay as much as 78% of their water/sewer bill for service charges, while some above average volume users can pay as little as 11%.
Will the candidate support removing the federal income tax surcharge on the water rates?
Will the candidate support lowering the base service charge that all customers must pay before receiving the first drop of water?
Will the candidates support discontinuing the use of the water utility as a cash cow for the city’s general fund?

Dueling Maps of the Towpath, Again?

Posted on by
Reply

Nothing better than a good history rumble, and RVAHub.com may have started one with a post on the history of Harvie’s Pond that tries to reintroduce some troubling assertions about the history of the James River and Kanawha Canal.

What’s particularly worrisome is how RVAHub.com is glossing over the earlier debate itself.

From a 2013 post on this site, entitled “Dueling Maps of the Towpath”:

Venture Richmond Director Jack Berry gave a presentation on the proposed amphitheater at the July meeting of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association. One the main assertions Berry made was that the tow path on the south bank of the canal was only 12 feet wide until it was enlarged in the 1880s to make way for the railroad. He wants to remove over half of the tow path on the south bank of the canal, from 25 to 12 feet to improve the sight lines of the the proposed amphitheater.

Disproving Berry’s assertion is the 1848 plat of Lewis Harvie’s property on file at the Henrico Courthouse (Plat 3-417), which is far more detailed than the Morgan map cited by Berry. This plat is of such detail that it actually gives the dimension of the tow path as being 30 ft. wide at the location of what is now Venture Richmond’s proposed amphitheater. (See measurement on the attached Henrico Plat below the word “Path” to the left of the “House.”) The east-west street above the canal is the same width as the tow path and is also labeled “30 feet wide.”

This 1848 Henrico plat establishes that the towpath was at least as wide as it is today during the canal’s primary period of significance, and long before the railroad purchased the right-of-way on the canal bank. This canal was carefully engineered with an impermeable “puddled” clay layer that would be irreparably damaged if half of the south canal bank is removed.

Sadly, this has happened. In late June, early July of 2014, Venture Richmond ignored citizen concerns and compromised the integrity of the historic canal.

In doing so, Venture Richmond and City government ignored the findings of a large report on this historic area that was completed earlier that year. That report concluded with this paragraph:

In 1989 a joint Virginia House and Senate resolution honored the bicentennial anniversary of the opening of the James River Canal, recognizing that the “James River Canal, around the falls of the James River in Richmond, Virginia was the first operating canal system with locks in the United States,” and recognizing the canal, “… as a valuable, scenic, historic and economic resource to the Commonwealth and its capital city.” The James River and Kanawha Canal has survived and been treasured as a remarkable feature for a dozen generations. Will we be the generation that jeopardizes the canal, allowing the tow path embankment of this rare, historic structure to be cut because it blocks the view of a rock band?

It’s definitely worth noting that Jack Berry, as the Executive Director of Venture Richmond, dishonorably broke a repeated public promise to this community and government. From neighbor Todd Woodson:

“It is outrageous that Venture Richmond is breaking its repeated promises to submit the amphitheater plan to an impartial state and federal review through the Section 106 process. We have spent a year researching the canal, and we have documentation that the current tow path and and embankment are authentic and will be greatly damaged by the amphitheater plan.”

Flash forward to 2016 and the same Jack Berry is now running for Mayor, complete with a slick video and lots of support from the Ukrops and other members of the local corporate oligarchy. Does anyone doubt that Berry, if elected Mayor, will put his backers’ corporate interests over the concerns of citizens and neighbors? As the election draws nearer, there are other important points to consider and I will try to get to them, but this “history debate” says a lot about the character of Berry. Also, is Venture Richmond is disingenuously delaying its interactions as they wait to see if Berry is elected or not?

Sure, a lot of people may not care that much about a nerdy debate over old maps, water levels, and historic preservation (though it should be held in higher regard based on future planning, and more!), but the bigger picture is who owns the history as we get ready to elect our new leaders. Sadly, I cannot help but compare this RVAHub.com post, which puts forward Venture Richmond’s version, with previous attempts to push Venture Richmond’s propaganda (to the point of dishonestly suggesting that this neighborhood is against the Folk Festival). The stance of this community news site is that the history belongs to all of us, and while different interpretations are certainly welcome, they should not be used as tools of corporate hegemony to the detriment of the community and the truth.

Recent Commentary From St. Andrew’s School’s Weldon-Lassiter

Posted on by
Reply

Head of St. Andrew’s School, Cyndy Weldon-Lassiter, recently had a column published in the Times Dispatch on the benefits of an Expanded Learning Time program.

Excerpt:

Much attention has been paid to the phenomenon of summer learning loss, which occurs over the long vacation break and can result in students losing two to three months of academic skills and knowledge. Summer learning loss can impact all students, but it predominantly affects those from low-income circumstances.

Many families don’t have the financial resources necessary to fill their children’s summers with enriching camps and travel experiences that augment lessons learned in school. An extended school year can mitigate summer learning loss and aid in closing the achievement gap for students whose families struggle with poverty.

Monroe Park ‘Modifications’

Posted on by
Reply

Cherry Street neighbor Todd Woodson continues to monitor Monroe Park situation:

In 2015, City Council wisely passed an ordinance (ord.2015-102) stating that they would receive monthly updates on modifications to existing contracts so they can monitor these additional expenses. July’s report contains this modification of the Monroe Park Renovations Project contract in the amount of $198,765. Ive asked for details other than those given but it is important to note that this contract value has increased by 41% since it was executed in 2008.

14051741_10154577108254391_5901727007362365394_n

With a high profile robbery and a stabbing, it’s been a rough summer for this historic public park. Neighbors are wondering if the neglect preceeding planned ‘modifications’ is purposeful in preparation for a VCU takeover. Will Monroe Park figure more prominently in upcoming debates between City Council candidates?

Click here to scroll through previous posts on Monroe Park.

New Petition Asks For Political Debate On Water Utility Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Building on previous efforts, a new online petition asks local candidates to address water utility reform issues.

Of course, this issue has been brought up before here, and more recently in the Washington Post.

From the new petition language:

We need our local elections to be more than just popularity contests. To that end, citizens need to demand more substantive discussion of issues and platforms. In the last six years or so, issues have been consistently raised by grassroots citizens in regard to reforming the City of Richmond’s water utility.
We point to the previous Change.org petition, “Reform Richmond’s Water Rates”, with over 1700 signatures. We reference the Sierra Club Falls of the James’ statement on how there are also significant conservation concerns with the City utility’s relatively high base rate for residents. We call your attention to the recent Washington Post editorial, with the headline, Richmond Is Ripping Off It’s Residents”. It is outrageous that small volume residential citizens can pay as much as 78% of their water/sewer bill for service charges, while some above average volume users can pay as little as 11%. Furthermore, we note that the City administration has broken its promise to list all charges on their billing.

We the undersigned feel that the Richmond water rates are a vital but neglected issue that should be addressed in this election in November. The undersigned request that all candidates address this issue and request that all debates include these 3 questions:

Will the candidate support removing the federal income tax surcharge on the water rates?
Will the candidate support lowering the base service charge that all customers must pay before receiving the first drop of water?
Will the candidates support discontinuing the use of the water utility as a cash cow for the city’s general fund?