Traffic Concerns Grow

photo

The past few evenings have seen a LOT of traffic on S. Cherry Street. Neighbors attribute these gridlock conditions to a variety of reasons- VCU students coming back from winter break, VCU basketball schedule, audience attending Jersey Boys show at the Landmark, lane closures on Belvidere Street, construction on a water main at Cumberland and S. Harrison, etc. At one point it took over 20 minutes to drive in a car from the 600 block of S. Cherry Street to Cumberland.

Folks are also interested in knowing the status of the Idlewood roundabout project, and how Venture Richmond’s amphitheater plans (to be considered next at City’s Planning Commission on Jan. 21st) will impact neighborhood traffic.

UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan Despite Public Concerns

Richmond.com has a report on how the “Tredegar Green, Brown’s Island Proposals Pass UDC”.

By the way, the Richmond Free Press has an interesting story this week on the “Marsh commission bypasses law in drive for freedom monument” on Brown’s Island, which may delineate some of the fissures in Richmond’s political establishment.

Some of my own correspondence (editorial):

Despite our Councilperson’s request for a continuance, the UDC went ahead and approved Venture Richmond’s plan at today’s meeting.

Thank you, Parker, for responding and speaking up for Richmond citizens. Certainly, we are looking forward to new information in regard to the project. I hope the City can be sensitive to potential archeologically important material on this site.

Personally, I believe the vote reflects very poorly on the UDC and Venture RIchmond.

Thank you,

Scott Burger

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Agelasto, Parker C. – Council Member”
Subject: Re: please do not approve the Venture Richmond amphitheater proposal
Date: January 9, 2014 7:46:35 AM EST
To: Scott Burger
Cc: aalmond@3north.com, ariasllc@comcast.net, dcole@cite-design.com, garlandvw@gmail.com, Bryan Green , Giles Harnsberger , Andrea Levine , jnolt@3north.com, claire@GradientEnvironment.com, smithrd3@gmail.com, “Jeff R. – PDR Eastman” , “Mark A. – PDR Olinger” , Jack Berry

Dear Scott,

Thank you for writing to the Urban Design Committee. I too believe the timing of final review for the Tredegar Green project is premature at this stage. In discussions with Mark Olinger, the City is planning to restore the historic wall that was demolished. This will likely change the character of the site and should be reflected in the plan. Likewise, the Section 106 and Army Crops of Engineer reviews have not been completed. According to Mr. Olinger, the City’s review can proceed but no work permits can be issued until these are complete. If DHR and COE return with material changes to the plan, it will have to begin from the beginning of the process again. That being the case, continuing the UDC review should not put any hardship on Venture Richmond to wait for final approval until after these important, independent, reviews are complete.

Finally, Venture Richmond has not applied for a rezoning of the parcel where the amphitheater would be located. Thus, the use of the site as such is only permitted four days of the year. It would seem inadvisable for the City to issue site approval for a permanent change to the landscape that only can be used temporarily for it’s intended use. Likewise, discussions are underway that would provide significant landfill for grading of the Tredegar Green site such that the canal embankments would not be disturbed. This dirt would be coming from an area on the Virginia War Memorial site and would be a win-win for them, Venture Richmond, and canal preservationists. This grading would benefit from roughly 1,600 truckloads of additional, locally-sourced, dirt and could be considered a material change to the grading plan as proposed.

I hope that the items listed about are reasons enough for the UDC to request a continuance of the final review of the Tredegar Green proposal. Unfortunately, I am unavailable to attend today’s hearing and request that this issues be brought to the attention of all UDC members.

Sincerely,
Parker C. Agelasto
Richmond City Council, 5th District

On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:54 PM, “Scott Burger” wrote:

Dear members of the Richmond Urban Design Committee,

As a citizen who lives near the site of this proposed project I plead with you to NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal.

I am greatly concerned that Venture RIchmond’s proposal will negatively impact the historic integrity of the Kanawha Canal. I note that Venture Richmond was leasing the property when a historically significant wall was illegally demolished. I note that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not completed its Section 106 review of the proposal. This is a canal that was designed and presided over by no one less than George Washington!

I am also concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will negatively impact the structural integrity of the Kanawha Canal. This is very important because Venture RIchmond’s proposal could block public plans that have been in place for decades to renovate and re-water the historic Kanawha Canal. My City Councilperson has requested funds for this very purpose. Please do not allow Venture Richmond to alter or diminish this ‘blueway’ which is so important to the City’s past and future.

As an Oregon Hill neighbor, I am very concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will have a negative impact on my community’s quality of life in terms of congestion, litter, and noise. Venture Richmond has not adequately responded to or addressed community concerns in this regard. The City’s Downtown Master Plan states that historic neighborhoods such as Oregon Hill need to be protected from unsuitable development.

I do not believe Venture Richmond can be trusted to act as a good neighbor. I note that the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has offered a compromise proposal on the location of the proposed amphitheater that Venture RIchmond has ignored. I am disturbed that City staff have not adequately responded to questions from Richmond citizens, who were told that they would have to wait for the Army Corp of Engineers review.

Lastly, I will also say that I am very angry that tomorrow’s meeting was not given proper public notice. Due to this lack of proper notice, I will not be able to exercise my rights as a citizen to speak in person at this meeting.

Again, I plead with you to please NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal. At the very least, continue this matter until necessary reviews are completed and staff has fully answered questions.

Thank you,

Scott Burger

Vinyl Conflict vs. Steady Sounds Competition For Charity

Get ready to support your neighborhood punk rock record store.

From the Facebook event page:

Here is it folks….get ready to ruuuummmmmble!

It’s the tie breaker of all record store tiebreakers! In a tie, both shops were named best record store by onewayrichmond.com, but we can’t have that can we? We need to help break this tie! Vinyl Conflict Vs. Steady Sounds in a no holds fight to the FINISH!! One for one records spun by each shop and the WINNER WILL BE DETERMINED BY YOU!!

We will have tip jars set up at each deck and each dollar will count as a “vote” to decide the winner. All proceeds will benefit local nonprofit Feed More

One night only Tuesday January 28th at Saison, 10pm to ?

Can’t make it to the event? You can always donate to the shops or to Feed More directly.

Street Art On Cherry Street

photo 2photo 1

At least one Cherry Street neighbor is challenging the wisdom of this installation.
He says, “Please tell me tax dollars didn’t go into this and that they will come clean this mess up on the 400 block S Cherry…”

UPDATE: It appears that this installation was not authorized by RPL, GrovRVA, or Art180 though someone has clearly implicated these organizations in this project.

Venture Richmond’s Amphitheater Proposal Before UDC On Thursday

According to an agenda I just saw, the City’s Urban Design Committee has Venture Richmond’s “Tredegar Green’ amphitheater proposal on their regular agenda for January 9th at 10 am, 5th Floor Conference Room of City Hall.

“12. Final Location, Character and Extent review of the portion of the Tredegar Green Amphitheater proposed for City Property, 344 Tredegar Street; UDC #14-07”

Trash/Recycling Pickup Tomorrow

This Wednesday is a red Wednesday, which means trash and recycling pickup. Please make sure you pick up containers after pickup tomorrow night. They do not belong on the sidewalk after tomorrow night. (For more information click here.)

Note: “Bring One for the Chipper” event 1/11/2014 from 9 am until 2 pm, (Document shredding and electronics recycling will be included too.) hosted by the City of Richmond Dept of Public Works and Richmond CCC, field at corner of North Boulevard & Robin Hood Rd).

Also, check out a recent column on local recycling by local writer, Phil Riggan, by clicking here.

In other recycling news, Los Angeles plastic bag ban has gone into effect (though with some confusion and New York City’s City Council has voted to ban styrofoam containers. Begs the question, what is RVA doing?

Stadium Meeting With Agelasto On Thursday

From email:

COUNCIL PUBLIC INFORMATION NEWS ADVISORY
IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO BE FORWARDED AND SHARED
Thursday, 6 December 2013

Councilman Parker C. Agelasto to hold a meeting in the Richmond Central 5th Voter District regarding the Mayor’s Economic Development Plan for Shockoe Bottom and the Boulevard

All Richmond Central 5th Voter District residents invited to attend

WHAT (Richmond, Virginia U.S.A.) — The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman, Richmond City Council Central 5th Voter will hold a district-wide meeting in the Richmond Central 5th Voter District regarding the Mayor’s Proposed Economic Development Plan for Shockoe Bottom and the Boulevard. The meeting will include a presentation and discussion. This event is free and open to the public and all Richmond Central 5th Voter District residents are invited and encouraged to attend.

WHEN Thursday, January 9, 2014
6:30-8:00 p.m.

WHERE Richmond Public Schools George Wythe High School – Auditorium
4314 Crutchfield Street; Richmond, Virginia
Please park and enter through the Crutchfield Street Entrance.)

WHO The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman
Richmond City Council, Central 5thVoter District

CONTACT For more information and/or to R.S.V.P., please contact Ms. Ida Jones, Liaison for The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman, Richmond City Council Central 5th Voter District, at 804.646.5724 (tel); or ida.i.jones at richmondgov.com (email)

– E N D –

Monroe Park Privatization FAQ

1.) Who makes up the Monroe Park Conservancy?

A: The Executive Board includes private individuals, city officials and VCU officials.

The Monroe Park Conservancy is registered with the SCC. It is (SCC Id #07366511) and they list Mayor Jones as being one of the board members.

Alice Massie
John Bates III
Mark Dray
Christopher Beschler
Suzette Denslow
David Hicks
Thomas Huff
Dwight Jones
Brian Ohlinger
Robert Scott Ukrop

2.) Will the public still be able to freely hold public events in the Park?

A. The Conservancy will establish a list of “acceptable activities” in the park. If you qualify under their policy, you may apply for a permit which costs $35 per event/activity.

3.) Did the MPC come up with the renovation master plan?

A.) No, although both Alice Massie and Brian Ohlinger (VCU) were on the Monroe Park Advisory Council (which did).

4.) Will the Conservancy be responsible for property taxes during the 30 year $1 per annum lease?

A. No. Originally the Mayor wanted them to but acquiesced to no property tax payments.

5.) Then who will get the rent (possibly $100,000.00 or more per year) for the restaurant/cafe in the Checkers House?

A. The Monroe Park Conservancy.

6.) Who will do the daily management/maintenance of the Park?

A. Ms Massie stated this was unknown although she mentioned Venture Richmond as a possibility as manager. Currently, VCU does a very poor job of maintaining the Park. Ms Massie also mentioned the City might maintain the Park and provide the budget.

7.) Who will pay for the management and maintenance of the Park?

A. This $100,000 + budget would be the responsibility of MPC although Ms Massie mentioned possibility of using city funding and labor.

8.) Why can’t the city manage the Park?

A. The City has the resources and manpower to do just that. The question is “Why wont it?”.

9.) Then what benefit is there to turning over the Park to MPC other than excluding unwanted activities/park users?

A. The Foundation is a non-profit 501c3 which would allow tax benefits for corporate/public donors. They have offered to raise $3 million dollars to add to the $3 million the city has already budgeted.

10.) Isn’t there already a Foundation that could provide those tax benefits?

A. Yes. Enrichmond is a non profit that could do just that.

11.) Will the trees and other Park resources be protected if the Park is leased?

A. Not without a conservation easement.

12.) Who is the patron of the city legislation allowing this lease?

A. Both 2nd District representative and Council president Charles Samuels and Mayor Jones are co-patrons.

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.