Category Archives: editorial

Letter to City Council On Historic Canal

Posted on by
1

Neighbor Charles Pool sent this email to members of City Council yesterday.

(Ed. note: He received permission to send them an attachment of the “Tiller” magazine article, but I have not received permission to post that here. If I do receive it or a public website link to it, I will be sure to post it here.)

Dear Richmond City Council members,

Please take time to read the article entitled, “New Richmond Amphitheater Endangers Canal Plans” by Elizabeth Davis in the attached Winter/Spring 2013 edition of the “Tiller,” the wonderful publication of the Virginia Canals and Navigations Society (VCNS).

This article highlights the threat to the historic canal by Venture Richmond’s proposed amphitheater. If the canal bank is lowered as proposed, it would destroy the long-range plan of a canal boat trip to Maymont. Concern for our canal has arrived from as far away as Yangzhou, China, where the World Canal Conference “urged the people of Richmond, Virginia to prevent further destruction to the canal and to preserve, restore, interpret and wisely use this irreplaceable amenity for Virginia and her visitors.”

Other cities would be envious of our canal, running through the heart of downtown Richmond, that was promoted by George Washington at Mount Vernon, the canal company’s honorary President!

As noted in the “Tiller” editorial by Holt Messerly, “I want all people to enjoy this precious national resource for the betterment of Richmond, and for the preservation of our history and for the enjoyment of all — not just for someone to be able to cut the grass easier and see a straighter line to an amphitheater. We must look at the big picture and consider all of the areas as one big entity; a green way with a blue way …”

Continue reading →

Questions For The Chief

Posted on by
8

Dear Police Chief Tarasovic,

I would like to know who hired the contractor that destroyed the pre-Civil War Tredegar wall on city property, and the public would like to know if the entity that hired the contractor be held responsible. The reasonable citizens of Richmond assume that the laws against destruction of public property will be applied equally and that this destruction of public property will not be “swept under the rug.”

I would greatly appreciate it if you applied transparency to the case of the destruction of the Tredegar wall on city property.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Scott Burger

Email sent March 23 (An earlier, similar email was sent by a neighbor in February and an even earlier email was sent last year to predecessor Chief Norwood). No responses received as of yet. I am hoping that Chief Tarasovic will be willing to speak to this issue tomorrow evening at the 5th District meeting.

From a February Times Dispatch article:

“I’m a transparent person,” Tarasovic said Tuesday after joining Mayor Dwight C. Jones in congratulating dozens of officers for winning awards. “I’ll tell you how I feel. I’m telling you how I feel now.”
“I believe in sunshine, and I think we will shine in the sun,” Tarasovic added, referring to transparency.

Facts About the Mayor’s Proposed Water Rate Change

Posted on by
5

Please consider and share the following as City Council goes over the budget.

FACT SHEET: Richmond’s proposed $26.11 monthly water/sewer service charge

At $26.11, Richmond’s minimum monthly water/sewer service charge would still be one of the highest in the nation. It is a burden for every senior citizen getting by on Social Security and every other low income resident of the city to pay $313 annually just to be connected to the water supply.

1450 persons have signed a petition asking that Richmond reduce the minimum monthly service charge to $15 per month, which is line with other localities.

The city is using the utilities as a “cash cow” for the city’s general fund. Of the $12 million annually paid by the water and sewer utilities into the city’s general fund, $3 million is paid in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, which no business pays to the city. Every customer’s monthly service charge could be reduced $4 each month if the payment in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES was removed.

Henrico’s service charge is about half of Richmond’s and Henrico gives a discount to those who use 3 or less units of water volume.

Water is a necessity that no one can do without. This is the most regressive means possible to fund the city through an outrageous service charge on this necessity. The city residents own the utility, which should provide an affordable base price for water service to those willing to conserve water.

The city’s water rate structure provides little financial incentive to conserve water because the large service charge is the same even if the customer uses little water.

In Norfolk, the minimum monthly service charge is $1; everyone’s bill is in proportion to the amount of water used.

The minimum water/sewer service charges are not even shown on the bill, so most residents are not aware that they are paying a high monthly service charge — even if they use no water.

If Richmond had fair water rates that provided a financial incentive to conserve water, there would be less need for more chemicals and water treatment facilities. Fewer pollutants would be released downstream. The city would be better prepared for periodic drought conditions.

By the way you can see from our list that the city’s proposed $26.11 base water/sewer service charge is still higher than most cities:

Henrico: $16.27
Chesterfield: $22.16
Norfolk: $1.00
Charlottesville: $8.00
Petersburg: $13.90
Hopewell: $25.39
Alexandria: $18.20
Roanoke: $20.75
Washington DC: $3.86
Charlotte: $4.92
Greensboro: $3.04
Raleigh: $5.81
Columbia,SC: $11.01
Macon,GA $15.75
Tallahassee,FL $24.86
Pittsburg: $16.59 (includes first 1000 gallons)
Knoxville: $24.75 (includes first 1,500 gallons)
Memphis: $10.82
Louisville Ky: $21.27
Little Rock AR: $20.72
Oklahoma City: $13.03
Kansas City Mo: $22.30
Milwaukee: $9.65
Lincoln Ne: $4.92
Bismarck ND: $12.20
Helena,MT: $6.97
New York City: $12.90 (includes 4 ccf)
New Orleans: $15.65
Phoenix: $5.36
Albuquerque: $15.32
Dallas: $8.30
San Francisco: $7.90
Atlanta: $13.12
Seattle: $23.93

Letter in The Times Dispatch

Posted on by
20

From today’s Times Dispatch editorial page:

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Dominion Virginia Power has a distasteful presence on the north side of the James River, near Oregon Hill. Two of the ugliest buildings in the city and a parking deck completely obliterate one of the most beautiful riverscapes on the James.
Visitors to the river are denied a spectacular view of the rapids and boulders located in the area. Residents of Oregon Hill, bikers, walkers and hikers on the trail as well as tourists and visitors in Hollywood Cemetery would have difficulty respecting Richmond’s new name, River City.
Why is Dominion Power even there? And if it must have this location, perhaps its executives could come up with a plan that would not disfigure our lovely river and riverbank in this way.

Mary Virginia Beane. Richmond.

Sierra Club Responds To Water Rate Budget Debate

Posted on by
6

Today the Sierra Club Falls of the James group released the following statement in response to Mayor Jones’ announcement earlier this month:

Sierra Club Declares Only “A Partial Victory” On Richmond Water Rates and Calls For More Reform

The Sierra Club Falls of the James group’s Executive Committee listened to Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ budget announcement from last week that calls for reducing the City of Richmond’s water service fee. We were pleased to hear the Mayor refer to it as an important conservation issue that deserves immediate attention. By almost halving the residential base charge from $49 a month to $26 a month, and making sure that higher users pay more for their use, water utility reformers can declare a partial victory as the City moves to a ‘conservation rate’ structure. We do appreciate this step forward.

At the same time, the creation of a fund for helping low income residents with water bills needs more examination. While the Sierra Club is not against assistance for low-income residents, there is concern that this measure will complicate the overall rate structure and add more bureaucracy to the public water utility. Instead of financial assistance for water customers, the DPU would be wiser to offer a substantial discounted volume rate like Henrico for those customers who use 3 ccf or less of water/month. This would have a twin aim of setting a conservation goal for its customers and providing an affordable water bill for those willing to conserve water.

If the City were going to create this additional assistance program, then it would be wise to consider additional conservation measures. For example, the Sierra Club notes and agrees with Councilperson Parker Agelasto’s suggestion to use a portion of the assistance program’s funds for a new appliance rebate program, low flow adaption kits, as well as other conservation incentives. Other cities fund programs like this to help their citizens modernize and conserve their water resources and make them more self-resilient.

At this juncture, we urge Richmond citizens to listen and follow the budget debate carefully. It has been noted already that, despite the proposed reduction in the base rate, the rise in volumetric rates may mean increased overall bills for residents in the future and more revenue from the sale of a basic necessity. We do not believe that the water utility has shown justification for the relatively high base rate. The Mayor’s proposal is not revenue neutral: with the proposed higher volume rate, the base rate could be reduced to $20/month and, even a 10% drop in water use, still be revenue neutral. The DPU’s Payment-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes (PILOT) demands scrutiny because the base service charge could be reduced further if the DPU is not paying more than required into the general fund. There still exists the glaring differences in residential water prices between the City and the surrounding counties, which may in effect be encouraging suburban sprawl.

In short, despite the Mayor’s positive step, we expect that water rate reformers may have some very good reasons for calling for further reform. Again, Mayor Jones deserves credit for his conservation record, which includes the establishment of RVA Green, the City’s first sustainability plan. That said, we would be remiss on this subject if we did not call for further action.

VCUramnation Forum Reveals Continued Falsehoods and Arrogance

Posted on by
7

Fighting them off forever, and believe me, I have no desire to keep rehashing this controversy. It’s unfortunate that a few VCU boosters and sports fans continue to put their school in such a bad light.

From VCUramnation.com :

VRam said: ↑
Whatever happened to those abandoned barns that were falling down? Did they relocate them?

(vcu2008hsep replied:)

If I remember correctly, the stables were dated back to the late 1800s. There was no historical significance to them and were essentially derelict and used for storage. When the Cary St was expanded, those old buildings were torn down….

vcu2008hsep, Feb 26, 2013

All I can do to counter the lies and misinformation is keep posting the truth:

https://www.oregonhill.net/2007/09/03/antrim-photo/

https://www.oregonhill.net/2007/09/04/more-stable-history/

https://www.oregonhill.net/2007/09/12/1994-dhr-letter/

https://www.oregonhill.net/2007/09/23/vcus-parking-lots-alternative-sites/

https://www.oregonhill.net/2009/01/13/no-alternatives/

There were other posts too, but not all of them have survived over time. Thanks to misconceptions spread in the local media, many people have no idea that one of the livery stables, before it was taken by VCU, was completely renovated and occupied as a living space. It was even admired in an article that appeared on the front page of the Times Dispatch’s real estate section (of course the link to that story is long gone).

I would not care so much about responding to this VCUramnation drivel, but in addition to the revisionist history-making, there seems to be constant scheming about how to destroy more of our historic neighborhood. Again from VCUramnation:

“And, this is a contemporary thought – since Williams Mullen built thir skraper on top of the RMA parking deck that was built over the Expressway. Not sure why in our latest athletics complex plan (which seemingly mapped out all of the possibilities in the world) did not include one like this. Parkwood is already pretty much a dead street pass Harrison. Cumberland can be re-routed as a tunnel underneath the new athletics complex. Do the same for Grayland, with impressive entrance/exits to the Expressway.

The new complex, Ram Village, would be bordered by Cary to the north, Harrison to the west, Linden to the east, and Idlewood to the south.”

I am perfectly happy to allow VCU to bask in its continued success and improvement, and I have nothing against good-natured school spirit, but the intellectual dishonesty and continued threats of encroachment are dishonorable and unfitting for an institution of higher learning.

In the end, its up to the VCU administration to set the tone for their community relations, and yet they refuse to recognize it, again and again.

What’s That Number, Part 2

Posted on by
6

Well, the number did not come forward this month, but thankfully, reporter Robert Zullo is following the issue. From the Times Dispatch:

Advocates for lower Richmond water and sewer charges have thus far been stonewalled by the city administration in attempts to obtain a consultant’s study that will be central to the utility rates the mayor will propose this month as part of the city budget.
The city’s Public Utilities Department has denied a Freedom of Information Act request from Charles Pool, an Oregon Hill resident who is among a chorus of city utility customers calling for lower base charges for water and wastewater, for the report by Raftelis Financial Consultants.
….
Before drinking a single drop of water or flushing a toilet, Richmond’s water and wastewater customers pay $49.40 a month, the highest base charge in the area and, some argue, higher than most municipalities in the country. The water, wastewater and gas utilities, after covering their own operating expenses, will contribute an estimated $21.5 million this year to the city’s general fund in the form of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, a provision of the city charter that critics say subsidizes city government on the backs of utility customers.
….
The study’s recommendations will be included in the budget the mayor is scheduled to present to the council March 12. And though the council won’t vote on the final budget until May, Bedell argued that once the rates make it into the mayor’s budget, they’ll be more difficult for council members to alter. The rate discussion, he said, should be conducted with the council and public.
“It’s like all the proposals the city tries to push through,” Bedell said, citing the new city jail and Washington Redskins training camp now under construction. “I think their whole philosophy is … hold back as much as you can and spring it on them on the last minute.”

Oregon Hill resident Charles Pool has been bringing this issue for over five years now. Will 2013 mark a turning point?

Dominion and Renewable Energy In The General Assembly Update

Posted on by
Reply

Following up on some earlier news and editorials about our neighbor, Dominion Power….

McDonnell signs Va utility regulation bill.

Activist Ivy Main has written an overview of the 2013 General Assembly session on the Power for the People VA blog:

The Virginia General Assembly will soon wrap up its work on the 2013 legislative session. Renewable energy advocates began the session with high hopes for a series of bills that promised to reform our renewable energy law, expand net-metering, and open up new opportunities for financing solar systems and small wind turbines.
So how did we do? Well, this is Virginia. Progress is slow, the utilities are powerful, and half the legislature doesn’t believe in climate change. On the other hand, they do believe in business. Under the circumstances, we did okay.

Click here for more.

Constitutional Amendment Introduced in Congress Ensuring Rights for People, Not Corporations

Posted on by
17

This topic has been broached here (and here) before. And there has been movement elsewhere in the state. Now, who on Richmond City Council will put forward the resolution of support? Certainly we have seen plenty of corporate manipulation on the local level.

From MoveToAmend.org:

Reps. Nolan & Pocan Respond to Hundreds of Local Resolutions Calling for “We the People” Amendment

(Washington D.C.) – The movement for constitutional reforms that would end what organizers call “corporate rule” has arrived in the chambers of Congress. This morning, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined Move to Amend by announcing their sponsorship of the “We the People Amendment,” which clearly and unequivocally states that:

Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies; and
Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.
In making the announcement, lead sponsor Rep. Rick Nolan (DFL-Minnesota), said: “It’s time to take the shaping and molding of public policy out of corporate boardrooms, away from the corporate lobbyists, and put it back in city halls – back with county boards and state legislatures – and back in the Congress where it belongs.”

Ben Manski, a spokesperson for Move to Amend, agreed, saying: “Today, members of Congress join a movement that insists on the fundamental equality of all Americans, and that rejects the idea that the corporate class should have special protections against We the People.”

The Move to Amend coalition was formed in 2009 in preparation for the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. Today, the coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment.

The Move to Amend coalition makes a point of differentiating themselves from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United. “In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have seized it and voted yes overwhelmingly, stated George Friday, Move to Amend spokesperson. “The Citizens Uniteddecision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely.”

# # #

Read the text of the We the People Amendment by clicking here.