How ‘Tredegar Green’ and Shockoe Stadium Proposals Are Similar

This past year Venture Richmond promoted two proposals for downtown Richmond, one being a new concert amphitheater on the Kanawha Canal near Oregon Hill (codenamed ‘Tredegar Green’), another putting a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom. Although these two proposals may be different in scale and scope, their similarities reveal just how corrupt, flawed and misguided they really are.

Venture Richmond is a local ‘public/private partnership’. It’s stated mission is to ‘promote downtown living’. Its precursor was another corporate partnership called the Richmond Renaissance, which was partly responsible for such boondoggles as Sixth Street Marketplace and Broad Street Community Development Authority, among other questionable projects. Both Richmond Renaissance and Venture Richmond have employed Jack Berry, who by all accounts can be a very slick salesperson. So it is very telling when Berry pleads ignorance. In the case of the ‘Tredegar Green’ amphitheater plan, Berry, executive director of Venture Richmond, said he was not aware when a historic wall was illegally demolished, even though Venture Richmond was leasing and responsible for the city-owned land at the time the wall was demolished.

As for the latest rendition of the Shockoe stadium proposal (which has been made off and on for the last ten years), Jack Berry told the Times Dispatch this past September that he was͏ not aware of any involvement by Louis Solomonsky, a multimillionaire architect and real estate developer who infamously served two years in federal prison for conspiring to bribe former City Councilwoman Gwen C. Hedgepeth (for her vote in electing a new mayor in 2002 under Richmond’s previous city manager form of government ). Salomonsky, I might add, has developed properties in this neighborhood. It’s worthwhile to keep in mind that Salomonsky told local preservationist Jennie Dotts, who opposed his stadium plans back in 2004, that “there are powerful forces out there, and they can destroy you”.

In fact, neither of these plans are new, as this may be the third or fourth pitch for the Shockoe stadium, and as for the canal, the Ethyl corporation destroyed the architecturally significant 2nd Street bridge back in 1991 despite public protest and company officials derided the Kanawha Canal as ‘a stinking ditch’ (shades of the way Shockoe Creek has been treated over the decades). So if you know the full history, there is a lot to think about in regards to the motives of these projects.

Its also very telling that both plans have been pushed forward with manufactured crises. In the Kanawha Canal case, the public was told that the wonderful Richmond Folk Festival might have to fold if Venture Richmond is not allowed to build the amphitheater to its specification. Certainly there are other qualified entities besides Venture Richmond that could run a successful folk festival along Richmond’s extensive riverfront. What’s even more disturbing is how Venture Richmond lead the media and public to believe the controversy is just about the 3-day Richmond Folk Festival. In fact, Venture Richmond would like to be able to rent its proposed amphitheater to other entities year round, with no limits, which could significantly impact its neighbors in terms of litter, congestion, and noise. Venture Richmond insists it must be allowed to alter the Kanawha Canal in order for their amphitheater plan to work, yet there is plenty of space beneath the canal and further from the Oregon Hill neighborhood. This area has hosted a stage for previous festivals, including this past year’s. So, what’s the crisis? I suspect this may have more to do with future corporate ambitions for re-zoning the area than any folk festival.

In the Shockoe stadium proposal, the media and public are told that the Flying Squirrels franchise could leave possibly Richmond just like the Richmond Braves did if the proposal does not go forward (as if that would justify the costs of the proposal). In addition, the public is told that the Shockoe stadium proposal has to go forward NOW for the economic redevelopment of the Shockoe Bottom neighborhood AND the current location of the baseball stadium, the Boulevard area, to succeed. In fact, the footprint of the proposed Shockoe stadium development could easily fit in the Boulevard area with lots of space left over for more (re)development. In both cases, there are significant, very viable, publicly popular alternatives to these plans that are only now coming forward and receiving media attention.

Both the Shockoe stadium proposal and the ‘Tredegar Green’ amphitheater plan could be disastrous for historical preservation in Richmond. Even more crazy, these flawed ventures potentially damage very important slavery history while pretending to save it. Both sites, Shockoe Bottom and the Kanawha Canal, have been allowed by their landholders to become derelict and unappealing with very few indications of their historical importance. By proposing to bulldoze the canal bank, Venture Richmond claims it will “restore” the canal — the same way that it is “honoring” Richmond’s slave history by building a ball park on the Shockoe site. This comparison is especially appropriate and yet disturbing since the canal was largely built with slave labor and many of the slaves that worked on the canal were probably sold in Shockoe. In both situations, past transgressions have already done damage to these sites, and in both situations, there has not been enough archeological exploration to document what is under the ground. There are concerns that archeological requirements will be waived to make way for immediate construction. Any Richmonder who is familiar with the interstate 95 construction, the discovered James River bateaux, or the relocation of the Jacob House should understand the danger and what is potentially at stake.

And it’s not just the past, but also Richmond’s future. In both cases, Venture Richmond’s plans could block or destroy needed transportation options for Richmond (which makes the alternative plans that much more important). For decades there has been interest and plotting to properly restore the Kanawha Canal for boat use, which could potentially re-create “the blueway” (think greenway but on water) from downtown to Maymont, reconnecting the Haxall Canal to the Kanawha Canal to a renovated Byrd Park Pumphouse. In 1988, with Historic Richmond’s help, renowned architect Carlton Abbott prepared plans and cost estimates. More recently, Councilperson Parker Agelasto submitted a Capital Improvement Project budget request for rewatering the canal. Think about the tourism potential! Most cities could only dream of having this historic amenity, a working canal originally designed and presided over by George Washington himself! Yet Venture Richmond’s amphitheater plan would seriously endanger the canal’s historic and structural integrity by slicing into of its best preserved portions. If the canal can’t hold enough water, it can’t be fully restored.

In comparison, in Shockoe Bottom, there has been interest and plotting to bring the beautiful Main Street Station back to full train service, with high speed rail being an eventual goal. Unfortunately, the Shockoe ballpark proposal is more likely to hurt multi-modal transportation in Richmond than help it. Instead of a stadium, city planners should be considering a GRTC bus transfer station near Main Street Station, with an airport shuttle, that can make Shockoe Bottom a true transportation hub for the entire region. If the Shockoe stadium happens in lieu of a good bus transfer station, in the future, when you can’t easily catch a bus to and from Main Street Station train station, think back about how this public interest was bypassed.

In addition to the spurning of multimodal transportation, the Shockoe stadium plan further buries Shockoe Creek, a natural feature that served as another of Richmond’s original ‘blueways’. Think about it, while cities all over the world are recognizing the importance of urban tributaries and working hard to daylight them, Shockoe stadium proponents are lobbying to pour more concrete over Shockoe Creek. So much for local environmental stewardship.

In closing, its important to once again recognize how both of these plans are arrogantly pushed forward with no willingness for compromise. It appears that Salomonsky is a prime mover and would be a prime beneficiary of the proposed Shockoe stadium, which, according to recent polling, a large percentage of the public considers a very poor location for a ball park. Yet in the Shockoe stadium debate, proponents are that emphatic that all of the components of the plan must happen. Hmmm, I seem to remember a recent Times Dispatch article that stated that the “plan” is to swap the property that Salomonsky purchased [in the flood zone] for property on Broad St. [not in the flood zone]. A few years back, many of Salomonsky’s LLCs sued the city regarding the flooding of Shockoe Bottom; isn’t it strange now that the city is apparently working with Salomonsky, a principal of many of the LLCs that sued the city because of the flooding, to acquire the property in the flood zone for the baseball stadium? By the way, how are those traffic studies coming?

In the ‘Tredegar Green’ amphitheater case, the Times Dispatch has floated a compromise that would keep the project below the Kanawha Canal without diminishing it. The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has neighborly suggested that it could go along with this compromise as long as other restrictions on the amount and dates of use could be codified. Yet Venture Richmond has not only remained silent on this potential compromise, but recently submitted its original plan to the Army Corps of Engineers. This would damage the canal, which shares important historic ties to Oregon Hill. This unreasonable attitude from Venture Richmond certainly contradicts its stated mission for ‘promoting downtown living’.

Let’s cut to the chase. If Venture Richmond’s joined cabal of corporate and political power is going to continue to be wielded against Richmond’s public in order to force projects which the public does not agree with, then it’s time to stop publicly funding Venture Richmond. Other cities are moving away from this particular ‘public-private partnership’ model, which relies on special tax assessment districts for downtown. Richmond should do the same.

New Year’s Resolution: Use RPL’s Online Resources

If you are still looking for a New Year’s resolution, this one has a lot of potential. While many Oregon Hill residents enjoy walking downtown to our nearby Richmond Public Library Main Street location, all Richmond residents can take advantage of RPL’s FREE online resources.

Here is a list of them:
America’s News (Search largest collection of full-text U.S. newspapers)
Auto Repair Reference Center (Find the cost of repair to your car or truck)
Biography in Context (Biographical information on more than 500,000 people)
Find It Virginia (one-stop source for newspaper and periodical articles on a wide range of topics, resources for middle and high school students with research assignments)
Global Issues in Context (variety of sources focusing on broad issues such as war, genocide, terrorism, human rights, poverty, climate change. What no Kardashian or Duck Dynasty?) Literati Public (Literati is a great place to stat research on any topic, plus online homework help)
Mango Languages (Study over 77 different languages through everyday conversation. Includes over 15 courses for people learning English as a second language)
Mergent (Full financial information offered on international and U.S. companies)
NoveList Plus (Literature database spotlights biographies, book titles, subject headings, and read-a-likes for current as well as past authors)
Opposing Viewpoints in Context (This database allows users to explore both sides of hotly debated topics)
Reference USA (Find residential, business, and medical listings across the country by name, address, telephone number, or business code)
TumbleBook Library (Animated, talking picture books that teach kids the joy of reading)
Zinio (Full digital copies of popular magazines)

Then in my true, made-for-TV infomercial voice, But that’s not all!-

In addition to the many, many e-books that can be downloaded for your iPad or e-tablet reading pleasure, there is also the Learning Express Library, which offers online courses and practice tests for Civil Service, ASVAB, GED, SAT, and even vocations like nursing. Again, you can register and access these FREE online resources using your Richmond PUBLIC library card number as your username.

The thing is, I don’t think many Richmond teachers, let alone students, fully recognize just how much is available online from RPL. So, even if you are already using RPL online, make a point to tell your neighbors about it and have a Happy New Year!

header copy

Canal Water Levels And Venture Richmond

There is important new documentation on the water level in the James River and Kanawha Canal provided by the research of canal enthusiast C. Wayne Taylor. He has made the discovery that there is still a water gauge in the canal at the city Park Hydro near Cherry Street, some 1000 feet from Venture Richmond’s proposed amphitheater. The water level in the canal is clearly shown by a line on the wall at 83 feet next to this water gauge. Water has eroded all paint from the gauge under the 83 foot mark on the gauge.

James River and Kanawha Canal gauge at Park Hydro, Cherry Street, showing water line at 83 feet elevation

Remarkably, Wayne Taylor has also discovered a 1990s photograph from the City Planning Department in the VCU Library showing water in the canal at the location of the Park Hydro, and this photograph shows the water gauge in the canal.

Water in canal at 83 feet elevation at Cherry Street, Park Hydro, 1990s (Source - VCU Libraries)

The 83 foot water elevation of the water in the canal shown in this gauge and photograph correspond with the many Tredegar and C&O Railroad surveys of the historical water level in the canal at this same location.

James River and Kanawha Canal detail showing 83 foot gauge at Park Hydro

It would be folly to reduce the elevation of the tow path of the James River and Kanawha Canal to 83 feet as proposed by Venture Richmond, when a preponderance of evidence shows that the historical water level in the canal near the amphitheater is documented at 83 feet elevation.

When will Venture Richmond acknowledge its plan is based on flawed history? When will Venture Richmond give in to sensible compromise and stop trying to dishonorably label neighborhood concerns as unreasonable?

Richmond Water Rate Reformers Respond to Utility Report

So, this press release went out on Monday:

***

Richmond Water Rate Reformers Respond to Utility Report

Richmond water rate reformers had been eagerly anticipating the Sept. 17th City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities Report to Council (pursuant to City ordinances 2013-58-77 and 2013-61-79, study performed by DPU with consultant Ratfelis Financial Consultants). A copy of the study was finally earlier this month and is attached to this press release. Disturbingly, the report has not been worth the wait. It lacks substance and appears to be written to support the existing rate structure. At this point, City Council has asked it’s staff to review and make some comments and recommendations for next steps, which suggests that it will consider the issue further in the next budget cycle.
Citizens are urged to contact the press and their City Council representative and ask why the base charges cannot be further reduced and why the PILOT for federal tax is still part of their bills.

Report lacks substance:
Pages Topics
00-01 Table of contents
02-03 Executive summary
04-05 Purpose
06-09 Concepts
10-12 Reconciliation
13-13 Expenses
14-15 PILOT cost
16-20 Affordability measures
21-26 Low Income assistance

The only things new are some subsidy ideas, which are arguably not the purpose of DPU. There is no consideration for the relatively high base charges of $26.11 (which Mayor Jones only partially addressed last year) or the unlawfulness or appropriateness of the federal PILOT (payment in lieu of federal taxes, which, again, no private business pays to the City). In the report chart (page 3) showing how rates would change if this PILOT payment in lieu of federal income tax was eliminated, instead of showing a reduction in the base service charge, the report shows only a reduction in the volumetric charge. It does not justify the allocation of the charges to the base service charge vs. the volumetric charge.

Here is why this is important: since we know the number of residential and commercial customers, we can compute that the base water/sewer service charge for each customer can be reduced $7.62/month just by removing the (probably illegal) payment in lieu of Federal income tax.
Here are the figures: According the water rate study, in 2014 PILOT payment in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES for the water and wastewater will be $5,442,575.
There are 51,825 residential and 7683 commercial water customers, or 59,508 total water customers. $5,442,575 divided by 59,508 customers equals $91.45 per customer. $91.45 divided by 12 months equals $7.62 each month that each customer’s base water/sewer bill could be reduced just by removing the PILOT payment in lieu of FEDERAL income tax.

We note the American Water Works Assoc. Policy on Financing, Accounting and Rules, which state among other rules, ” Reasonable taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and/or payments for services rendered to the water utility by local government or other divisions of the owning entity may be included in water utility’s revenue requirements after taking into account the contribution for fire protection and other services furnished by the utility to the local government or to other divisions of the owning entity.” Federal taxes do not meet the reasonable critera.
Does the City subtract the services provided by the utility from the charges to the utility? What about fire hydrants service, street light services. Also, do public buildings pay for water and sewer?

In the report’s discussion of affordability it does not address the fundamental idea of lowering the base rate further to provide an incentive for conservation, as well as a means to lower the residential bill. Where is the Anti-Poverty Commission on this matter? In the big picture, conserving water reduces the need for more infrastructure, chemicals, etc.

This report also ignores the effect of the potential savings to water and waste water operations from the creation of the storm water utility and the offloading of part of the common service functions costs to the storm water utility budget. Upon examining the DPU’s organizational charts for all three utilities, it is not clear what if any accounting procedure is used to allocate time and charges for each utility. Most of the storm water employees were DPU employees prior to the creation of the storm water utility in 2009.

Water rate reformers are reserving their comments for now on the reformatted water bills being sent to customers. We hope to collect more feedback. But we also note that there have been recent complaints about erroneous billing due to faulty water meters, that have been reported on by WTVR television news.

Background information:

http://www.change.org/petitions/reform-richmond-s-water-rates/

http://bg-us.org/2013/05/01/informational-video-examines-city-of-richmond-utility-charges-and-rates/#more-126

Tredegar Takes In Museum of Confederacy To Form New Civil War Museum

It was alluded to earlier, but now it has been announced. From NBC12:

Now the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center are joining forces to build a $30 million museum in Richmond with the goal of creating the top Civil War museum in the nation 150 years after the deadliest conflict fought on U.S. soil.

The marriage of museums, announced to The Associated Press, will meld the collection of Confederate battle flags, uniforms, weapons and other historic relics with a narrative-based museum that uses bold, interactive exhibits and living history events to relate its 360-degree telling of the war.

In a joint announcement, the museums said the new historic attraction in the former capital of the Confederacy has yet to be named, but $20 million has been committed to its construction. Ground will be broken in 2014, with an expected opening the following year.

The new museum will be located along the James River, at the Tredegar Ironworks, where much of the South’s cannons were forged during the war. It’s also the home of the Civil War Center. The museums said bringing together both institutions will “further establish Richmond as the foremost Civil War destination in the United States.”

While other news sites are just reporting the announcement, many are still digesting what this means. A more nuanced reflection from an unnamed Oregon Hill neighbor:

Hmmm … no comment on the fate of the authentic White House of the Confederacy, coveted by VCU. And the $20 million pledged for this new museum would have gone a long way toward building a slavery museum in the authentic location in Shockoe Bottom. I wonder what proportion of that $20 million is being pledged by VCU foundations and their donors.

Between turning the canal location into an amphitheater, turning the slave market location into a ball park, and ceding the White House of the Confederacy to VCU, we are really at risk of losing the city’s authentic history.

Questioning Venture Richmond

From citizen “watchdog” C.Wayne Taylor:

Councilor Agelasto requested that Venture Richmond provide financial and other data to the Council’s Finance and Economic Development Committee. Jack Berry presented the information at the committee’s October 24th meeting.

I support Mr. Agelasto’s inquiry into the breadth and depth of the city’s involvement with and funding of Venture Richmond. While Venture Richmond is good at promotional work, it seems to have become a monopoly with excessive influence over the decisions made at city hall.

Mr. Berry is a very experienced promoter. He presents Venture Richmond’s view very effectively. As with most matters, there may be more to the story. He seems to be off on some of the facts included in his presentation. Regarding the amphitheater:

–Mr. Berry said that the planning commission proved the amphitheater project. The planning commission approved a concept plan. The final plan must still get commission approval.

–Mr. Berry refers to the canal’s configuration in the early 1800s. In past presentations he cites the 1850 to 1860 period.

–Mr. Berry repeats the claim that the amphitheater plan is necessary to continue the festival. He has not explained why.

It is noteworthy that councilors Graziano, Robertson and Samuels had no questions.

Also noteworthy is that some of the materials available on-line are very poor quality and some seem to be completely missing.

Presentation: (ed. note: click here to download large .pdf file from the City website)

Venture Richmond self-promotion on pages 9 through 101.
Venture Richmond financial data on pages 103 through 109.
[stop at page 109]

The two pages of financial data are hard to read and in some places illegible. Not all the figures Mr. Berry recites can be verified in the data.

The materials are incomplete. Several financial reports mentioned at the meeting are not included in the on-line documents.

Audio:(ed. note: click here to download .wma audio file from City website)

0:00:27 Presentation
0:00:35 Venture Richmond – Jack Berry, Executive Director
0:06:18 amphitheater – Berry: It got unanimous approval from the planning commission last month.
0:06:54 canal – Berry: The canal will be restored to its configuration in the early 1800s during the heyday of canal boat traffic on the James River and Kanawha Canal.
0:07:04 crowd – Berry: This is the crowd of people that are now at the main stage on NewMarket property that will need to move to that amphitheater in order for us to continue to host this big festival.
0:11:03 answers to budget questions [handout]
0:18:36 questions
0:18:48 Agelasto – future of Venture Richmond
0:30:07 Agelasto – top priorities
0:33:09 Agelasto – base-line services
0:36:27 Agelasto – sidewalk cleaning
0:39:40 Robertson – compliments Venture Richmond
0:43:53 Samuels – no comments
0:43:53 Graziano – thanks Venture Richmond

Letter On Proposed Tax Abatement Ordinance

October 16, 2013

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 2013-219 – Tax Abatements

Dear Honorable Members of City Council,

The proposed tax abatement ordinance seems unlawful.

The Constitution of Virginia allows a tax abatement when a building has undergone rehabilitation because of age and use. (1)

The ordinance seems to allow a tax abatement for a building in excellent condition.

Shouldn’t a tax abatement be limited to a building needing rehabilitation?

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Taylor

(1) The General Assembly may by general law authorize the governing body of any county, city, town, or regional government to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation, within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed, (i) of real estate whose improvements, by virtue of age and use, have undergone substantial renovation, rehabilitation or replacement or (ii) of real estate with new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas. Constitution of Virginia, ARTICLE X, Section 6 (h).

Copy:
Jean Capel, City Clerk
Lou Ali, Council Chief of Staff
Better Government Richmond
Press

Times Dispatch Editorial Offers Compromise in Theater Controversy

The ‘top opinion’ in today’s Times Dispatch contained this:

The alternative of confining the amphitheater to space below the canal has considerable appeal, and we endorse it. It is our choice.

Todd Woodson, a longtime officer of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, made this comment in response:

Thoughtful and equitable. If Venture Richmond made the concessions of restricting the amphitheater to BELOW the canal with use of the facility to only the Folk Festival and River Rocks, not disturbing the canal’s infrastructure and leaving the upper area as a considerate buffer to the war memorial and the residents of Oregon Hill, I believe progress could be made. The attitude that its “your plan or this here Folk Festival gets it!” has caused extensive loss of trust in VR amongst city community and fosters fears that the plan as you envision it establishes the facility as a cash cow- renting to all comers- not good. It’s the upper part that is not zoned for an amphitheater anyway. It’s in EVERYBODY’S best interest to be good neighbors and to do what’s right. The Tredegar wall gets rebuilt, the discussion can begin in earnest on restoring this wonderful canal. VR saves money by not butchering the canal infrastructure. There are some smart people in the city that can help make the grand canal renovation happen. Venture Richmond?

Theater Controversy On Channel 6

Click here for the story on Channel 6.

Well, this could have been a lot better, but it was certainly better than some previous coverage. It did not mention the historic Kanawha Canal (and how Venture Richmond’s canal history is WRONG), and still gave the mistaken impression it’s all about the Folk Festival (it’s not!), but at least it did acknowledge opposition. Thanks to our Overlook neighbor Nancy for appearing and making the case for reason.