Category Archives: editorial

Virginia Emancipation Proclamation Monument For Brown’s Island

Posted on by
Reply

This past Friday, local architect Burt Pinnock gave a public talk at the University of Richmond entitled “Race In Architecture: Can Memorialization and Development Coexist?”.

Although most of the presentation was philosophical in nature with the subtext of the raging Shockoe Bottom controversy, Mr. Pinnock did generously show some slides of VERY PRELIMINARY ideas for the proposed Virginia Emancipation Proclamation and Freedom Monument for Browns Island. These visuals showed a raised structure that would offer enclosed meditative space with slats that would allow light to come in.

IMG_2959

IMG_2960

It will be interesting to see if this proposal, or the controversial ‘Tredegar Green’ amphitheater proposal, will be allowed for discussion at tonight’s Riverfront Plan forum. It’s worth noting that the Proclamation Monument proposal has not been without some controversy, and its worth remembering that Browns Island has been brought up as an alternative to the Kanawha Canal site for the proposed amphitheater.

Thanks To City Council For Postponing Ordinances On ‘Tredegar Green’

Posted on by
Reply

From email:

Dear Honorable Members of the Richmond City Council,

I would like to express my appreciation for the postponement of the Ordinances that would grant Venture Richmond tax exemptions for its “Tredegar Green” amphitheater properties.

Venture Richmond wants exemption from all the rules. It wants to be exempt from having to bid for city contracts, to be exempt from the non-profit prohibition of engaging in substantial lobbying, to be exempt from having to answer all of the questions submitted by the Taxation by Designation Committee, to be exempt from paying real estate taxes, and even to be exempt from the moratorium on exemptions.

As you carefully consider this issue, I would like for you to understand the frustration that the Oregon Hill neighborhood has experienced in dealing with Venture Richmond, which apparently also feels exempt from treating its neighbors and George Washington’s James River and Kanawha Canal with respect. Venture Richmond wants to be exempt from the zoning requirements for its proposed amphitheater at “Tredegar Green,” to be exempt from protecting Oregon Hill and the Va. War Memorial from the noise and parking congestion of events at the amphitheater, and to be exempt from protecting the historic canal from damage so that it can again be a “blueway” westward to Maymont.

Recently Venture Richmond notified the Corps of Engineers that it may withdraw from the Section 106 review of the amphitheater project by the Va. Dept. of Historic Resources if it cannot be exempt from the holding off implementing much of the project before the review is completed.

The “Tredegar Green” amphitheater also includes city property, so it is my hope that the Richmond City Council, when drawing up a revised lease for this city property, will not exempt the significant interests of the community. The Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association and the editorial staff of the Richmond Times Dispatch have endorsed limiting the amphitheater to the properly zoned property below the canal, and this would eliminate any cause to damage the canal and protect the Oregon Hill neighborhood and the Va. War Memorial from excessive noise and parking congestion.

Thank you for your consideration of the needs of the community and for the postponement of the untimely Venture Richmond tax exemption Ordinances during the moratorium on tax exemptions by designation.

Sincerely,

Charles Pool

Editorial On Venture Richmond’s Tax Exemption

Posted on by
2

On Monday, February 10th, the Richmond City Council will vote on giving Venture Richmond a tax exemption for its real estate on the site of its proposed amphitheater below Oregon Hill. City Council should not approve this tax exemption for Venture Richmond for the following reasons:

The City Council has a moratorium on granting tax exemptions by designation. Venture Richmond submitted this application in 2012, and Venture Richmond failed to meet the deadline of April 8, 2013, as established by City Ordinance 2013-19, for introducing an ordinance exempting property from taxation by designation.

State code requires that City Council consider whether the executive salary of the organization is reasonable when considering an organization’s application for tax exemption. Venture Richmond Director Jack Berry receives a salary of over $240,000 annually. If Venture Richmond can afford to pay its Director $240,000 are we to believe that it cannot afford to pay $43,836 in real estate tax?

State code also requires that City Council consider whether the non-profit applying for tax exemption engages in substantial lobbying for legislation. According to Venture Richmond, it has spent at least $32,000 lobbying for the Mayor’s Shockoe Stadium proposal. The Mayor is President of Venture Richmond, and Venture Richmond has been engaged in substantial lobbying for the Mayor’s legislation.

Richmond’s Tax Exemption by Designation Committee recommended AGAINST a real estate tax exemption for Venture Richmond, and the committee sessions generally focused on the amount of executive salaries, revenue sources and any duplication of city services being performed by each applicant. The other organizations that applied but did not receive exemptions were VMFA parking lots, Science Museum of Virginia properties, Family Lifeline properties, CHAT Property, Hands Up Ministries properties and Richmond Urban Senior Housing property.

On its application for real estate tax exemption for its amphitheater property, Venture Richmond stated that the property was in compliance with zoning codes. Yet the amphitheater above the canal is not zoned for an amphitheater. Venture Richmond also stated that it does not compete with other organizations in the marketplace, a contention that is disputed by private promoters. Venture Richmond also stated that it does not provide or deny services based on ability to pay, a contention that would be disputed by those not affording a ticket to Venture Richmond paid events.

According to a video-taped presentation given by Venture Richmond Director Jack Berry to the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, the intention of Venture Richmond is to rent out the amphitheater with no limitation on the number of events annually, and to serve alcoholic beverages on the property. Rental property generating income for the non-profit is generally not considered a charitable purpose for tax exemption.

I will be very interested to see how other local media covers this issue. Joined corporate and political power in Venture Richmond’s board that runs roughshod over citizen concerns is a real problem, whether the issue is the Tredegar Green amphitheater plan or the Shockoe stadium proposal.

“City Council may rule on fate of park foliage”

Posted on by
Reply

On March 8, 1991, an article appeared in the Times-Dispatch.

VCU plan to remove 37 trees from Monroe Park 3-8-91

The article was about how VCU was trying to get control of the maintenance of Monroe Park and had a plan to cut down 37 of the mature trees. VCU said that the trees were “improperly placed, damaged, dangerous and add nothing to the function or aesthetics of the park,” and stated that removal of the trees would, “make the park safer.”

Fortunately this maintenance agreement was not approved in 1991 because of neighborhood objections, but if the newly proposed lease is approved, VCU would be in charge of the maintenance of the trees and would be given carte blanche to remove as many trees as it wanted without any recourse. Most of the trees that were slated to be removed in 1991 are still in the park, and there is no reason to think that VCU would not again want them removed, “to make the park safer.”

As a result of VCU’s attempt to remove 20% of the mature trees in Monroe Park in 1991, the Monroe Park Advisory Council was established with neighborhood representation from Oregon Hill, the Fan, and Carver. The proposed Monroe Park Conservancy has NO neighborhood representation, but includes four VCU administrators, and four city administrators.

Will Mayor Jones Destroy History?

Posted on by
1

c9c9c56725a4c4b2946b711b80f0ef95

From C. Wayne Taylor’s website, City Hall Review:

January 27, 2014
VIA EMAIL TO:
Ms. Lou Brown Ali, Chief of Staff, lou.ali@richmondgov.com
The Honorable Mr. Baliles and Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA
Re: George Washington’s Canal at Tredegar Green
Dear Mr. Baliles and Members of Council,
Mr. Dwight Jones, Mayor of Richmond and President of Venture Richmond, wants to drastically reshape George Washington’s canal at Tredegar Green. Only a portion of the channel bottom would remain authentic.
Mr. Jones claims the canal berm interferes with visibility from the northern portion of Tredegar Green to the southern portion. Mr. Jones knows that raising the ground level of the northern portion of Tredegar Green would increase visibility to the southern portion.
Why is Mr. Jones proposing to lower the ground level of the northern portion of Tredegar Green?
Sincerely yours,
C. Wayne Taylor, Publisher
City Hall Review LLC
CityHallReview.com
Copy: City Clerk, Better Government Richmond, News media, Interested parties

City Schedules Three Land Use Meetings on Same Day (TOMORROW!)

Posted on by
1

With a nod to the City Hall Review:

City of Richmond
January 21, 2014
1:30pm – Planning Commission Meeting
3:00pm – Land Use Standing Committee Meeting
7:00pm – Richmond Riverfront Plan Projects Public Forum

Also, from Fans of Monroe Park Facebook Page:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, Alice Massie, president of the Monroe Park Conservancy, will make a presentation to Richmond’s Land Use Committee at 3PM. This is the first step in turning the park over to this private entity. There is a public comment period. This will take place at city Hall, 2nd floor council chambers.

Click here for previous post on Monroe Park privatization.

Also note how the Riverfront Plan Public Forum will happen AFTER Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater plan goes to the Planning Commission.

Joint House and Senate Recognition of the James River and Kanawha Canal from 1989

Posted on by
Reply

The James River and Kanawha Canal is on the National Register of Historic Places and was honored by a joint House and Senate resolution in 1989. George Washington’s canal has survived for 15 generations.

Will it be this generation that shows such a lack of respect for it that it allows Venture Richmond to cut away the historic tow path of the nationally recognized structure because it might block a spectator’s view of a pop band?

General Assembly recognition of canal

UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan Despite Public Concerns

Posted on by
8

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

Monroe Park Privatization FAQ

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
10

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.