Category Archives: editorial

Neighbor Featured In Newspaper Editorial

Posted on by
Reply

Check out the great editorial in today’s Times Dispatch that features Oregon Hill’s own “Renaissance Man,” and Cherry Street neighbor Todd Woodson.

Todd was Correspondent for the Day with an eloquent letter asking Richmond to ban the use of bullhooks on circus elephants be banned in Richmond. Todd inspired a City Council resolution, still under consideration, to ban bullhooks on elephants in Richmond. This impending resolution was in part responsible for the Ringling Bros. circus to announce that they will retire their elephants by 2018.

To quote from today’s lead editorial:

Todd Woodson attended the March 4 event honoring The Times-Dispatch’s 2014 Correspondents of the Day. His Sept. 29 letter called on Richmond to ban the use of bullhooks when training circus elephants. On March 5, Ringling Bros. announced it would phase out elephant acts. It cited changing attitudes among the reasons for its decision. Woodson expressed sentiments embraced by a growing number of Americans. He made a difference.

After the Ringling Bros. announcement, Woodson forwarded an excerpt from Dostoyevsky’s “The Brothers Karamozov”: “Love the animals: God gave them the rudiments of thought and an untroubled joy. Do not trouble them, do not torment them, do not take their joy from them. Do not go against God’s purpose. Man, do not exalt yourself above the animals: they are sinless.”

Woodson also is one of central Virginia’s most accomplished jazz musicians. The designation “Renaissance Man” applies to him.”

Vigil and Protest At Dominion’s HQ On Wednesday

Posted on by
4

Virginians are gathering on Tredegar Street this coming Wednesday morning, concerned about the ongoing tragedy of Fukushima and Dominion’s nuclear plans.

I expect a less noisy and more somber event than the recent pipeline protest, but perhaps as equally as important.

From FaceBook event page:

Please join us ~
Wed. March 11, 2015 from 7:30am-10:00am.
We will be participating in the global day of action ~ Commemorating the 4th year of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Fukushima and protesting against Dominion’s plan to build a 3rd nuclear reactor at North Anna on the fault line.

8:30am ~Vigil for the victims of Fukushima in plain view of Dominion Executives as they drive into work.
(will we be the next victims?)
10:00am ~ Moment of silence for the victims of Fukushima, followed by a brief memorial tribute and press conference.

Our State & Federal government is placing us at enormous risk!
Even with the past nuclear disasters (TMI, Chernobyl and the ongoing/uncontrollable disaster in Fukushima spreading radiation all over the world), nothing has stopped VA Dominion Power from moving forward with a plan for another reactor at North Anna.

1489257_10201907880170873_159090299_n

VCU Community Engagement Celebrated

Posted on by
Reply

Today VCU’s Division of Community Engagement hosted a lecture this afternoon by Dr. Barbara Holland, an expert on organizational change in higher education, with a focus on the institutionalization of community engagement.
IMG_4069
Part of the impetus for the event was also celebrating VCU having received Carnegie Foundation’s designation as a “Community Engaged Campus”. Former First Lady of Virginia and education advocate Anne Holton attended and spoke also. IMG_4072
The only question that time allowed from the audience was in regard to adjunct professors’ pay and declining state support for education. IMG_4073
While it may be easy for Oregon Hill residents to question VCU’s local commitment given past difficulties and controversies (not that this event attempted to address specific neighborhood concerns), the declining financial investments on the part of corporations and government in research make it clear that VCU’s challenges for community engagement will be very real. Hopefully Dr. Holland’s lecture will spur more open discussion and action.

Separate from this keynote event, on an even more positive note, residents may want to mark on their calendars the upcoming opening of the RVA Toolbank (on March 19th), with support from VCU.

City Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

Please note, it has been determined that the City is responsible for snow removal, condition, and maintenance of the 195 bridge overpasses, including pedestrian sidewalks, along Idlewood, Cumberland. Parkwood. No more deceitful ducking of issues by saying that the RMA or VCU is responsible. And if there is any problems with budgeting, I suggest money be cut and repurposed from Vulture Richmond’s “Clean and Safe” program, which currently receives over a quarter of million from the City.

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.