Category Archives: editorial

Landmark Organ Controversy

Posted on by
Reply

WTVR is reporting on a controversy regarding the Landmark (isn’t it the Altria Theater now?) Theater’s organ.

Recently the antique Wurlitzer organ that Lunde once played upon was disconnected and stored away. There are only about two dozen of its kind left in the country.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said Lunde.
The controversy over the Wurlitzer began last summer. Lunde says renovation management at the Landmark wanted to remove the organ, he claims he was told to open up a few additional theater seats.
After outrage from organ enthusiasts worldwide, city council assured Richmonders that the organ would not be moved. Lunde and others felt relief, that is until this week.
“They cut the voice out of the organ because you can’t play it,” said Lunde.
Just last week after Lunde got a tip from a friend, he went to the Landmark theater and found the cable to the organ cut, cement poured where the playing console used to be and the instrument resting amid a construction site.
“It’s a trust issue,” said City Councilman Parker Agelasto.
He and Council President Charles Samuels were called on the issue and began asking questions. Samuels was told by the administration that the approval for removal came from Richmond CAO Byron Marshall, who was at the time unaware of the organ controversy.

As one neighbor wrote to our Councilperson, “The Administration needs a good talking to on destroying historic resources…A very unnerving pattern has been unfortunately established…”

But honestly, is anyone surprised by this, given what has gone on? What’s next? Center Stage asking for a percentage of every pint sold to fix the organ?

Councilperson Agelasto Takes On Illegal Dumping

Posted on by
Reply

WTVR recently had a report on illegal dumping in City neighborhoods.

Excerpt:

Farmer claims this year is the worst yet. She claims as renters move out, their belongings move out to the curb or the alley. Sometimes the items remain in public right of ways for weeks.
“This one has been out here over two weeks,” said Farmer as she points to several old mattresses left in the alley behind her home.
It sometimes takes weeks before someone calls the city for a bulk pick up. Farmer believes it’s wrong to create such a poor reflection of the neighborhood and to assume someone else is supposed to pick up after you.
“I think its people who are used to their parents taking care them,” said Farmer.
City councilman Parker Agelasto recently captured video of an illegal dump near his home.
“it’s out of control essentially,” said Agelasto, who claims he sees similar messes all the time all across Richmond.
He was so appalled by the recent dump however that he called Richmond’s Department of Public Works and the Richmond Police.
“We’re talking huge amounts of garbage that’s not their primary function, that’s cleaning up an illegal activity,” said Agelasto.
Agelasto then stuck around to capture images of the DPW clean- up. He claims DPW is backlogged with calls to pick up what’s been illegally dumped and it’s putting strain on them and the police to have to correct other people’s mistakes. He says it’s time for the city to crack down on those who do it.
“Wherever you’ve moved, we’re going to find you and you’re going to be held accountable for what you’ve done, you can’t do this,” said Agelasto.
Richmond Police also acknowledge a huge problem with illegal dumping in the city, mainly in area where there is a high density of student housing.

From Councilperson Parker Agelasto’s FaceBook page:

Thank you Catie Beck for featuring the issue about illegal dumping in Richmond. Many people are concerned about the timeliness of bulk pick-ups; however, I believe we need to turn attention to the problems that are taxing City resources such that they impeded our regular response times. This includes the illegal dumping that occurs when rental properties turn over near the beginning and end of the school semester.

I ask that all City residents that witness such activity 1) explain that such activity is illegal and request that the individuals correct the issue, 2) document it with your cellphone, and 3) report it to the Richmond Police prior to requesting a bulk pick-up.

As a reminder, garbage must be properly bagged and in placed trash cans. If it is more than can be reasonably accommodated in the trash can, it is the resident’s responsibility to take it to the City dump. You may call for a bulk pick-up; however, there is generally a fee for this service.

If the illegal dumping persists, a lot of “personally identifiable information” can be obtained by simply looking at the garbage. The Richmond Police Department will use this information to investigate and make an arrest for a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

Certainly, this site has reported on on this problem in the past (here, here, here, here, and here) and it is exciting to have our new Councilperson address it. Hopefully his activism will spur more parties (landlords, VCU, THE RENTERS THEMSELVES, etc.) to take some responsibility.

Idlewood Roundabout Plan Becomes Funded and Closer To Reality

Posted on by
4

Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association President Jennifer Hancock announced good news in regard to the Idlewood Roundabout proposal by making public an email from Councilperson Parker Agelasto:

Our roundabout is finally going to become a reality thanks to Parker.

Thanks
Jennifer
OHNA

From: Agelasto, Parker C. – Council Member
Subject: Idlewood Roundabout

Hello everyone,

I wanted to provide an update regarding the Idlewood Roundabout. Each and everyone one of you contributed to a campaign to make this a priority. My fellow Councilmembers and the Administration heard you clearly. The project that has been discussed for nearly 15 years is finally going to be a reality.

Thanks to Brian Ohlinger for working with us to secure the $250,000 funding support from VCU for this initiative. This provided the necessary leverage for the project to get the attention of those at City Hall. Likewise the commitment from the St. Andrews Association to permit easements for the project made it very doable. The City has set aside $200,000 in the FY2014 capital improvement budget. This will leverage another $200,000 through VDOT’s revenue sharing program. The project thus has $650,000 and should begin over the next 12 months.

CAO Byron Marshall has been very helpful throughout the process. If you happen to see him, please thank him for his support of the Idlewood Roundabout. In the meantime, I will try to organize a public presentation on the project once the Department of Public Works has more specific information to share.

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

Editor’s Note: This corresponds to number 5 of my own top ten issues for the neighborhood. With issues 4,5,6,7 all getting somewhat addressed (and a sincere hearty thanks to those who helped make that happen), it may be time to repopulate the list with some new issues.

Breaking Down The Water Bill

Posted on by
2

From press release:

Better Government Richmond, a citizen advocacy organization, is pleased to announce the release of a new video about the City of Richmond Water Utility Charges and Rates. Better Government members produced this video in order to inform the public about the Mayor’s proposed plan that is under review by City Council. Better Government mentioned a study of the water utility by paid consultants as one of its top issues in its first press release in February.

The 9-minute video includes information regarding the consultants’ study as well as an explanation of charges on a sample City of Richmond utility bill. It has been made available online at Vimeo.com as well as on Better Government Richmond’s website and Facebook page. Supporters are asked to share with their neighbors and contacts.

The Vimeo.com url is http://vimeo.com/64618134

See also:

www.bg-us.org
www.facebook.com/BetterGovernmentRichmond

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.