Category Archives: editorial

Shiver Redux

Posted on by
Reply

Took part in the Shiver in The River cleanup this morning. Started by myself picking up the smaller bits of plastic and cigarette butts on 5th Street and near Tredegar but gradually worked over to the riverfront between Tredegar and Lee Bridge with some likeminded folks. Other groups of volunteers worked on other parts of the riverfront area.
IMG_3948
It was a beautiful day for it and there were plenty of birds enjoying the sun and river.
IMG_3947
Some were able to find sponsorship for jumping in the river after the cleanup was over.
IMG_3949
Our dedicated Councilperson Parker Agelasto was there, as well as members of RVA Clean Sweep. (They have an upcoming cleanup for the Randolph neighborhood scheduled, for those inclined.)
Overall, a good first annual event and congratulations to Keep Virginia Beautiful for hosting it. Maybe Oregon Hill can sponsor a team for it next year. In the meantime, it looks like VCU’s Paint The Town Green event is scheduled for April 18th. If folks would like to volunteer for it and other neighborhood cleanups, please contact Cherry Street resident Jimmy Blackford at prairiegates at hotmail.com or (804) 335-5808.

Fences of Contention III

Posted on by
Reply

An update on the Fences of Contention saga (Here are links for Part I and Part II):

Councilperson Agelasto spoke with the City Attorney about the 2nd Street Connector legal agreement and the $53,000 budget requirement for the fence. The original agreement has been completed and is now closed. The City has no further obligation to complete the fence. In order to fund the budget, this will require the City Council to approve a budget amendment.

Yesterday, the Planning Commission review was supposed to consider the authorization of the “location, character, and extent” of the fence, but due to other issues on their agenda, the meeting went on too long and the fence item was continued until the next meeting February 2nd. According to neighbors who did attend and spoke with officials after the meeting, the City administration is still trying to maintain that the fence was paid for through the authorizing ordinance (despite the City Attorney’s opinion.)

But looking back at the authorizing ordinance for the 2nd Street Connector (Brown’s Island Way), the plans were NOT included in the ordinance or the agreement attached to the ordinance.

If plans had been included, they would have been attached to the agreement as an exhibit. These are the only exhibits attached to the agreement:
Exhibit A. Description of the Property
Exhibit B. Project Area
Exhibit C. Description of City Property
Exhibit D. Project Standards
Exhibit E. [Payment Schedule]
Exhibit F. Lease Agreement
Exhibit G. Construction Plan Showing Curb Cut Overlaid on Exhibit B “Project Area”

Exhibit G is for item 2.d of the agreement:

(d) Grantor shall have the right to a curb cut within the area identified on Exhibit G as “Approximate Location of Future Curb Cut” with the precise location of the actual curb cut within that area coordinated through the City’S Department of Public Works’ Division of Transportation and Engineering to ensure that the location and construction of the curb cut complies with transportation safety standards. The curb cut shall be at the sole expense of the Grantor and Grantor shall restore the remaining curb to a condition deemed satisfactory to the City of Richmond in its reasonable discretion. Such right for the curb cut shall be evidenced by reservation by Grantor in the Grantor’s Deed.

Exhibit G has no other purpose in the agreement. The parties are not bound by anything in Exhibit G except what is described in 2.d of the agreement.

Open Letter On “Broadband Price-Fixing & Monopoly in RVA”

Posted on by
Reply

From email:

An open letter to Parker Agelasto, Richmond Times Dispatch, Style Weekly, and all my neighbors…

Parker,

As you may know, Verizon has recently expanded its FIOS (broadband internet) coverage into Oregon Hill. From the outside, this seems like good news, but the end result is that I’m now paying more money for less bandwidth that I had ten years ago.

Most people don’t realize that Comcast and Verizon both own significant shares of each other. This “merger without merging” happened back in 2011 when Comcast agreed not to get into the wireless business and let Verizon have that. In exchange, Verizon agreed to cease expanding its FIOS coverage in most areas, which is why Oregon Hill was ignored for so long.

The workers I spoke with, who began installing FIOS in Oregon Hill last year, said the only reason Verizon was doing this was because it had failed to live up to its agreement with the City Of Richmond to provide FIOS service to a certain percentage of the population in return for their franchise license. It was scrambling to make that happen, and was very much behind schedule. Verizon didn’t bring FIOS into Oregon Hill out of the goodness of their hearts.

With FIOS plans starting at $55 per month (plus taxes, plus fees, plus equipment rental fee, on a TWO YEAR CONTRACT) you would think that Comcast would be inclined to offer special rates to retain customers. You would be wrong.

With Verizon no longer offering DSL packages in the neighborhood (and no longer offering DSL resellers a competitive pricing structure), there is no reason for Comcast to be significantly cheaper than Verizon.
In fact, internet access offered by Comcast is pretty much on par with that offered by Verizon.

What’s wrong with that? Why should they offer me cheaper service when they don’t have to?

Because they’ve purposefully eliminated my options.

Ten years ago, I could get DSL from Verizon or any number of resellers for about $40/month, and the speeds were about 6000 down/1500 up.
In the present day, ten years later, if I want internet access, that same $40 per month will only buy me Comcast’s economy plan (which they won’t willingly tell you about), which provides speeds of 3000 down/768 up.

To put this in perspective, that same forty dollars buys me HALF of the speed it bought me ten years ago.

But what’s really corrupt about this whole thing is that up until six months ago, before FIOS was installed, Comcast was selling me internet access for $30 per month, and that bought me speeds of 25,000 down/5000 up.
It was a “six month promotion” which went on for almost two years. They had to give me that price to keep me away from all the DSL resellers, who they had to COMPETE with.

I called one of those DSL resellers today. If I wanted the same level of service Comcast was offering me for $40 per month, it was going to cost me over $70 per month. Why suddenly so much money for DSL? Because Verizon owns the copper phone lines which DSL runs on, that’s why. Verizon doesn’t want you using the copper phone lines, they want you using FIOS, which costs a minimum of $55 per month, plus fees, etc etc.

Let me summarize:
Ten years ago, DSL = $40/month = 6000 down/1500 up
Last year, Comcast = $30/month = 25,000 down/5000 up
FIOS gets installed in Oregon Hill.
This year, Comcast= $40/month = 3000 down/768 up

Technology is supposed to get faster and cheaper. This is not progress, this is collusion, price-fixing, and monopoly.

Why am I writing you about it? Because the City Of Richmond enforces this monopoly, and they need to know that they’re not providing increased or better internet access to the public in doing so.
The solution? The city either needs to roll out municipal broadband, and/or open up the licensing process so other, smaller, more local businesses can put up their own wires on the phone poles, and offer up some real competition.

Very concerned about this.

–Matt Siegel

Fences of Contention II

Posted on by
2

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.

VCU Continues To Disregard Its Own Master Plan, Counter To State Agreement

Posted on by
1

While some local journalists have chosen to focus on VCU President’s performance review, they are missing some of the importance of VCU’s recent property grab on Cary Street.

VCU’s neighbors have relied upon VCU’s promise to abide by its Master Plan boundary when purchasing property. This promise is essential for removing speculation and inspiring a sense of trust between VCU and its neighbors. Unfortunately, VCU continues to breed community distrust with its actions. The history is not good: The Oregon Hill neighborhood at one point endorsed the VCU Master Plan 2020, which called for a small natatorium to be constructed at Cherry and Cary. In 2007, VCU abruptly changed its master plan, without community involvement, after a much larger recreational project was already submitted for state review. VCU still ignores “Issue 1” in regard to community relations.

In November 2014, VCU purchased the property at 9 W. Cary Street outside of its Master Plan boundary. In response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act, VCU has confirmed that the VCU Master Plan boundary has not been changed to include the property at 9 W. Cary Street and that VCU did not inform its neighbors that it was purchasing property outside of its Master Plan boundary. VCU made no mention of the acquisition of the property was made at recent community advisory board meetings.

This appears to run counter to the Management Agreement between VCU and the Commonwealth of Virginia that states that capital projects must be “consistent with the University’s published Master Plan.” “Exhibit A … V. CAPITAL PROGRAM.
The President, acting through the Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration or other
designee, shall adopt a system for developing one or more capital project programs that defines or define the capital needs of the University for a given period of time consistent with the University’s published Master Plan.” (Editor added emphasis for this post).

While the property in question (9 W. Cary Street) is not in Oregon Hill, and Oregon Hill neighbors are not against VCU’s Office of Continuing and Professional Studies receiving a new home, the fact that VCU continues to disregard its own Master Plan raises alarm bells for the surrounding community (and that includes more than Oregon Hill neighborhood).
Again, where is the accountability?

The “Tredegar Green” Amphitheater and Local Media

Posted on by
1

An article appeared on RVANews.com on the amphitheater built by Venture Richmond this summer. The subtitle of the article is “Here’s why a new patch of grassy hillside is such a big deal.” Unfortunately, like an earlier article on the subject that was published by Richmond.com, it mostly contains quotes by Venture Richmond’s executive director, Jack Berry, without including any opposing or even questioning viewpoints. In other words, these articles seemed designed to drown out any concerns coming from Oregon Hill neighbors.

I hope people remember the impetus for the creation of this community news site, OregonHill.net. Neighborhood residents were having difficulty getting their unadulterated views represented in the local media on the destruction by VCU of important historic stables, and the absorption of Green Alley and the historic City Gymnasium for its VCU student recreational center. At one point, the Times Dispatch published a column with outright falsehoods about the condition of the stables, in conflict with an earlier TD real estate column on the successful and tasteful renovation of one of the stables. Thanks to John Murden and RVAnews.com for their help with getting the site started, OregonHill.net was able to later publicly offer some opposing points. At the very least and if nothing else, the subsequent discourse eventually lead to a better finished project overall. That controversy continues to have reverberations.

And that is why it is particularly disappointing to see RVAnews.com publish such a one-sided piece on this current controversy. While I don’t think OregonHill.net necessarily represents all the views of neighborhood residents, in the same way the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association does not necessarily represent all neighborhood residents, it at least offers a community perspective, one that is often shortchanged by the local corporate media. Case in point: Do these recent articles on Richmond.com and RVANews.com do the community interests justice or are they more interested in serving as advertising? When the Times Dispatch, WCVE, Style, or for that matter, “alternative community station” WRIR, preview the Folk Festival and ignore the amphitheater controversy altogether, can they truly say they are serving the community?

And for the record, this is not about me- there a number of other residents from Oregon Hill, the Overlook condos, the local preservation community, local politicians, the local canal society, the international canal society, etc., with their own nuanced views of the controversy that the local media could have chosen to interview for their articles. But they did not. They chose to give Jack Berry and Venture Richmond the full coverage and sole voice.

There is also the important journalism principle of disclosure. The Times Dispatch, WCVE, and many other local media outlets are sponsors or partners of Venture Richmond (along with many other powerful interests, including VCU and City government). Is there a financial relationship between Venture Richmond and RVANews.com? And while it is may be too much to expect disclosure on every article or opinion, it should definitely be part of the ones that deal with topics of important community discussions. By the way, don’t forget that the Times Dispatch and Richmond.com are owned by the same company and they are in the process of tightening their relationship. (Also, not all the local media has been amiss. The Richmond Voice has done a good job of presenting and balancing opposing views in the amphitheater controversy. It deserves more readership.)

Consider and compare the roles media and community involvement in regard to the multiple attempts to push through a flawed plan for a minor league baseball stadium in historic Shockoe Bottom. If it was not for dogged involvement and investigation by citizens, and those same citizens demanding media coverage, there are many important facets to the public debate that would have likely been ignored. Now, with City Hall figures jumping ship, opponents are feeling better about the chances of stopping the potential destruction of valuable slave history in Shockoe Bottom and making way for more responsible development.

Sadly, there are still many Richmonders who are not aware of the damage done to the James River and Kanawha Canal, an important piece of slave history in its own right, by Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater, despite similarities to the Shockoe stadium proposal. Oregon Hill neighbors have watched over this valuable public resource for over a hundred years, yet much of the local media has deliberately chosen to ignore our concerns. Will it continue to do so going forward?

Bottom line, real community journalism represents the happenings, news, and opinions of the community. It does not exclude voices as much as it includes them. ‘RVA’ continues to struggle in this regard and that does not bode well for the future. As citizens, in all our different communities, we need our local media to make an effort for fair reporting that gives voice to more than corporate agendas. That was true with the Shockoe ballpark debate and it should have been true for the Tredegar Green amphitheater controversy.

Questions Concerning The Future of “Tredegar Green”

Posted on by
Reply

With it almost being time for the wonderful Richmond Folk Festival, there is more attention on Venture Richmond’s “Tredegar Green”. Here are a few of the questions that Oregon Hill residents have about it:

What happened to the emergency? Venture Richmond repeatedly told the media that they had to have the amphitheater built this summer or the Folk Festival would not happen. They said that nearby property owner New Market would not allow them to use some of the site land that they had in the past due to development plans, so they had to have the amphitheater site and no other alternative sites would work. Why were alternatives like Brown’s Island and beneath the historic James River and Kanawha Canal ignored? What are those development plans for the site area that they supposedly had to vacate?

What about the issues of the lease of the City property and the fact that Venture Richmond attempted to get a tax exemption on this land during the moratorium on tax exemption by designation?

Its been almost two years since a historically significant wall was systematically torn down (despite what the contractor Liesfeld has said about it just falling down, there were witnesses who saw the deconstruction). When will the illegally demolished historic wall be replaced, as was repeatedly promised? Were all of the torn down wall’s bricks accounted for (There were pallets of brick on the berm on Venture Richmond’s property. They had to have been moved when Venture Richmond worked on the berm)? Will the public ever be allowed to see the work contract and other agreements concerning the land where this public resource was illegally demolished (The plans approved by the City government showed the wall to be removed only on Venture Richmond’s property)?

Will there be a state historic marker for the James River and Kanawha Canal west of Tredegar Iron Works?

City staff told the Urban Design Committee and the City Planning Commission that they didn’t need to consider any damage to the James River and Kanawha Canal because Venture Richmond promised a thorough Section 106 review by the Va. Dept of Historic Resources and the Corps of Engineers. But Venture Richmond withdrew from the Section 106 review the day after receiving final city approval. How can Venture Richmond be trusted after the destruction of the canal without the promised Section 106 oversight?

There are rumors that the area closer to 5th Street and the Tredegar Iron Works site will be developed soon. There are still remains of the historic James River & Kanawha Canal there as well (Venture Richmond used part of them for a bicycle ramp as part of this past Dominion Riverrock festival). What are those development plans? Will there be any efforts to preserve the historic canal site there? The parcel is privately owned, but the Canal is a publicly registered historic site.

With Venture Richmond having altered and destroyed part of the historic James River & Kanawha Canal at one of it’s previously best preserved portions, will the Canal be structurally sound in the future?

When will the historic James River & Kanawha Canal be rewatered and more properly preserved? -as per 1988 City of Richmond Canal Restoration plans, despite the recent destruction of one of the previously best preserved portions of the canal? What is the City government doing to follow its own planning?

Upon the future restoration of the James River & Kanawha Canal, where will the planned canal boats turn around, now that Venture Richmond has taken and altered much of the crucial turning basin land as well as altered and diminished a crucial part of the canal’s foundation?

Venture Richmond received the City government’s approval to build the amphitheater in conjunction with a City ordinance that authorizes “temporary events”. Jack Berry of Venture Richmond told the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association that “we would probably be open to the idea of renting it.” which is not the same story that was told to the Planning Commission. Now that the amphitheater is built, Jack Berry is planning to have the amphitheater rezoned to allow for much more use. Is this a technique that other developers will copy? How and will rezoning plans for this area be publicly shared and debated? How will the public have a voice on this matter?

How will the new amphitheater effect programming at other public venues? How about the Dogwood Dell amphitheater? Given the number of performing arts venues that already exist and are being built, how many performing arts venues can Richmond support, both in terms of audiences and finances? How can they be coordinated to prevent interference and harm?

There is speculation that the planned reopening of a concert area on Mayo Island was basically not allowed by City government, in part because it would compete with this new amphitheater. Is there any truth to that speculation?

Oregon Hill neighborhood leaders have recently been working with the Richmond police to ensure that there is adequate parking enforcement and traffic control for public safety. As this amphitheater is used more, will Venture Richmond compensate the City and neighborhood for the additional parking and traffic pressure and needed resources?

In a similar vein, riverfront events have caused increasing pressure on public trash receptacles and outright littering. When will the riverfront and nearby neighborhoods receive better public trash and recycling infrastructure? Will there be recycling and composting at the new amphitheater?

Oregon Hill residents have had to complain to the police about multiple loud noise disturbances from concerts at Brown’s Island with varying levels of response. The Oregon Hill neighborhood has been very tolerant of the Folk Festival weekend over the years. The amphitheater is aimed at the Va. War Memorial, a place of quiet contemplation. Is Jack Berry’s desire to have more events at Tredegar Green consistent with the Commonwealth’s obligations to respect the Va. War Memorial? The City’s Zoning Administrator determined that the “temporary event” ordinance did not exempt the owner from complying with the noise ordinance. What recourse will Oregon Hill residents have with future loud noise disturbances from concerts at this new, much closer concert site? How will this noise effect wildlife on our riverfront? Will Venture Richmond be held accountable? Perhaps more importantly, how will the City address this and the noise ordinance in general?

There were repeated requests from the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association and the Overlook Condo Association for Venture Richmond to agree to curfews and some restrictions on the new amphitheater operations in the interest of giving Venture Richmond a chance to forge a better relationship with the neighborhood. OHNA received no response. The Overlook Condo Association received a cursory, noncommittal response. If Venture Richmond is a ‘public-private partnership’, why does it treat the public with such disrespect?

What are future plans for this riverfront area? There are plans to build a connection from the current pedestrian bridge over the canal to the Belle Island pedestrian bridge. Will citizens continue to have direct public pedestrian access to Tredegar Street and the river from Oregon Hill, as they have had for generations, in addition to this new connection? This goes directly back to the City’s Master Plan, which cost a lot of taxpayers’ time and money, and done with much input from citizens. Again, what is the City government doing to follow its own planning? Why is the City’s Riverfront Plan being used to ‘water down’ the tenets of the City’s Master Plan? What is being done to preserve and protect remaining public resources from increasing privatization of the riverfront?

Virginia Utilities Pull Out of Solar Collaboration As State Energy Plan Is Released

Posted on by
10

Looks like Dominion decided to quit and take the game ball home to prevent others from continuing.

From a recent column:

Utilities in Virginia which had been collaborating with local governments, solar stakeholders and academic researchers to agree on a methodology for valuing small solar energy systems have withdrawn their participation leaving the state-directed effort without their future or concluding inputs.

…

David Botkins, a spokesperson for Dominion Virginia Power, said after providing “feedback” to a draft report by the Group, it determined “the group has migrated into issues that are more appropriate for the SCC (State Corporation Commission) and General Assembly to consider.”

When asked why Dominion did not assume, from the beginning, that a report from the Group was destined for the Senate, Botkins added, with “the report nearly complete (it has been through several drafts) it seemed an appropriate time to discontinue our participation.”

Susan Rubin, Vice President-Legislative Affairs of the Virginia, Maryland and Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives informed DMME and DEQ of their withdrawal saying ”We began the process hoping, in the end, the work product would be the result of collaboration. Following the last meeting (in August), it became clear that we must remove ourselves from the list of participating stakeholders as we cannot be associated with the final report this group will issue.”

Pitt of VCU, the Group’s meeting leader, said, “Basically the utilities all said that the report was heading in a direction that they wouldn’t be able to support.” He added, they “wouldn’t say anything specific about what parts of the report they disagreed with.”

The withdrawal is leading several solar advocates to conclude that the utilities opined the valuation methodology headed would set too high a value for solar, setting the stage for a debate, and perhaps legislation, they might have a difficult time controlling. Several long-time observers have long doubted this study would have much, if any, impact because Republicans control the House of Delegates, as well as, the Senate. Neither body has demonstrated interest in enabling markets for cleaner energy in Virginia, even as the economy needs to replace tens of thousands of jobs lost to cut backs in defense contracting.

While earlier this week, the new state energy plan was released. From the Times Dispatch article:

The 2014 Virginia Energy Plan, released Wednesday, “will lead our efforts to grow, strengthen and diversify Virginia’s economy,” Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a letter laying out his priorities and what he hopes to accomplish over the next four years.
McAuliffe’s goal is a state economy that will be “stronger … and fueled by cleaner and more abundant Virginia energy.”
The state must put in place policies that include traditional energy sources, renewable sources and energy efficiency, the plan said.
…
“We don’t really look at all-of-the-above as a strategy,” said Glen Besa, director of the Sierra Club’s Virginia Chapter. “The governor’s made it pretty clear he wants to address climate change, and all-of-the-above doesn’t help us address climate change as aggressively as we need to.”

VCU, You did not build the city of Richmond

Posted on by
Reply

I was glad to see this editorial in VCU’s student newspaper, the Commonwealth Times, in response to some t-shirt sloganeering.

Excerpt:

Although it might be frustrating and difficult to accept, you didn’t build that. Aside from the inhuman toil that created this country’s structural foundation, a myriad of factors built this city, including but not limited to taxpayer money, honest labor, legislation, committees, grassroots organizations and petitions.

It would behoove certain members of our community to educate themselves on the history of Richmond before asserting VCU’s dominance in the role of the construction of the city, whether the comment is meant metaphorically or otherwise. The city is a separate entity from VCU, and without Richmond, there would be no VCU. The fraudulent claim that “we built this city” downplays the city as a municipality and implies that Richmond is lucky to have us, when, indeed, it is we who are fortunate to have Richmond, a city underpinned by a shameful history, but working toward righting past wrongs and progressing itself into a thriving, truly diverse community.

Richmond On McDonnell Verdict

Posted on by
Reply

Neighbor John Richmond got a mention in the Washington Post yesterday:

John Richmond, 44, a public school math teacher, was riding his bike by the Capitol not long after the verdict was announced. He said he was less than shocked.

“These guys, they’re just as corrupt as people in any other state are. It’s just the corruption is legal,” he said, referring to ethics laws that, before the McDonnell trial, allowed officeholders to accept unlimited personal gifts as long as any worth more than $50 were disclosed.