“Deal of A Lifetime”: Landmark Theater Gets ‘Center Stage’d

Don Harrison, of SaveRichmond.com fame, has a back page editorial in this week’s Style magazine that revisits Center Stage saga and it’s next victim, the Mosque, sorry, the Landmark, no, sorry, the Altria Theater (?).

Excerpt:

Now I’m no forensic accountant, but the foundation’s financial track record and recent lack of success raising private dollars suggest that there might be other motives behind the Landmark project, which City Councilman Marty Jewell recently called “the deal of a lifetime.”

If it’s so great, why shield its true cost to taxpayers? It’s been reported that only $14 million in public dollars will be invested. But the figure actually is closer to $30 million. Included in what’s called the private-fundraising side is an estimated $18 million in state and federal historic tax credits, which the foundation plans to use to finance the deal. This deal also hands over millions in Landmark corporate naming rights to the foundation, and since the theater is a city-owned facility, this is public money that is being given away (the city could independently sell these rights). Meanwhile, the mayor insists that he can’t address the city’s high meals and admission tax rates because the city is hurting for revenue.

Universities Vs. Historic Neighborhoods

From email:

Hey! I’m from Knoxville TN. Recent news in Knoxville is that the University of Tennessee is planning to further encroach on the adjacent historic Fort Sanders Neighborhood. Anyone with experience in the Oregon Hill effort to maintain boundaries with V.C.U? I’m planning to blog and and hoping to gather some hope though any stories of creative approach to the issue in your neighborhood. Thanks! Jennifer

Jennifer,

Thanks for writing. I will try to send you some other information, but here is an update on the situation with VCU:

VCU still refuses to put in place any longterm, binding agreement to protect the neighborhood.

https://www.oregonhill.net/2008/10/24/ohna-president-asks-vcu-to-take-positive-step-for-true-community-partnership/

https://www.oregonhill.net/2011/06/27/issue-1-still-no-positive-step-from-vcu/

The last we heard, anything new would come forward in community sessions for VCU’s next Master Plan.

The problem is that VCU can make adjustments to their Master Plan at any time in support of their encroachment, and in fact did so the last time we had an issue.

To paraphrase a neighbor’s published column:

In 2004, the VCU 2020 Master Plan, page 88, marked a dotted-line boundary between VCU and Oregon Hill. We believed VCU would honor this boundary. That belief proved to be false.

In 2007 — despite opposition from multiple neighborhoods — the VCU Executive Board, desiring more property within the Oregon Hill Historic District than their previous Master Plan allowed, chose to breach the boundary of good faith by amending the border to facilitate the acquisition and demolition of a livery stable built to service the landmark City Auditorium.

The property in question, 911 Green Alley, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register as a contributing element to the Oregon Hill Historic District. A Times-Dispatch article from November 12, 2006, extolled this stable’s amazing renovation and adaptive reuse. The sister stable at 917 Green Alley, listed on the historic registers as well was slated for demolition. VCU also destroyed Green Alley on this block. Green Alley was part of the historic streetscape established circa 1817. We are unaware of any other Virginia agency ever acquiring a fully renovated property listed on these registers with the intent to demolish. Implications loom large for other historic communities.

In other words, Master Plans CANNOT be trusted.

So right now, this state of mistrust still exists between the neighborhood and VCU and so far VCU has done nothing to alleviate it.

I wish I had better news. Sadly, citizens and neighborhoods have a tough time in disputes with large institutions and corporations. The difference in available resources is one thing, but now its hard to even find any rule of law. I will send you some other stuff via email and, of course, my best wishes.

Thanks,

Scott

Drip…Drip…

Correspondent of the Day in the Times Dispatch:

Water rates target smaller users

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

You ran two Op/Ed columns on Richmond’s water rates. The column by Gloria LeRose, “Water’s worth the cost and effort,” explains that the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) does a needed job protecting our water quality, and what it spends to do so is worth it.

An earlier column by Scott Burger, “City proposes outrageous water rates,” relates to the amount of service charge DPU has in its rate structure, which results in a lower volumetric charge, which in turn discourages conserving water.

While both of these are valid concerns, the main issue with a high service charge is the inequality of cost for small consumers. Someone using 3 to 5 ccfs (1 ccf = 100 cubic feet) of water per month ends up paying about 79 percent of his total bill for service charge, while someone using 100 ccfs per month pays only about 11 percent. The purpose of the service charge is to recover certain fixed costs and should be recovered proportionally based on the amount each consumer uses. Lowering the service charge requires increasing the volumetric rate to compensate for the reduced revenue. There would be no less money for the DPU. There would be no lost revenue.

I raised this issue in 2006 with the DPU after a study recommended reducing the service charge. At that time the DPU indicated it agreed the service charge was disproportionate to the small user and planned to gradually reduce it and increase the volumetric rates. The DPU needs to renew this plan.

Robert Bedell.

Richmond.

Virginia Water Environment Association Response on…Water?

This morning the Times Dispatch ran an editorial by Grace LeRose, the President of the Virginia Water Environment Association. I should note that I know Ms. LeRose, having met her personally during some of the hearings on the James River TDML. In particular, pet waste is one of our shared concerns in terms of water quality. Her editorial this morning continued on the water quality theme. But it seemed as if it was in response to a column that I had submitted earlier on City water rates. Her column begins-

Recently this paper published an opinion piece declaring the City of Richmond’s water fees to be “outrageous.” As president of the Virginia Water Environment Association (www.vwea.org), a nonprofit educational association of wastewater professionals dedicated to preserving Virginia’s water resources, I offer the following observations:

The water (and wastewater) industry has been called the single most important public health development in the past century, bringing clean water to our citizens while removing and treating wastewater in an efficient (oftentimes unseen) manner. The incidence of water-borne disease has almost been eradicated in our country. Funding for investment in water infrastructure came from many sources — rate payers, local governments (by selling bonds), state governments (matching grants or loans to communities that could not afford these improvements on their own) and finally, the federal government. Like the interstate highway system that helped the US grow after World War II, spending on water and wastewater systems brought health benefits and access to an expanding economic prosperity for all Americans.

The importance of water in our daily lives can hardly be overstated. Water industry professionals work tirelessly to protect public health, more than 3 million miles of rivers and streams, 40 million acres of lakes, 87,000 square miles of estuaries (including the Chesapeake Bay) and 95,000 miles of coastal waters. The infrastructure that supports this massive effort — 800,000 miles of water pipe and 600,000 miles of sewer pipe — lies below our feet every day. These systems have worked silently for years, in some cases more than a century, to deliver and remove water and wastewater. The water and wastewater utilities have done such a remarkable job of producing and delivering clean water out of the sight of the public that the public can be forgiven if they think water should be always available and always cheap. We are now learning that water may not always be available and will probably not be cheap.

Of course, none of this is wrong- however, LeRose begins this piece as if she is offering a rebuttal to my column, yet ignores the rate structure issue. LeRose is not addressing my column in which I criticized Richmond’s plan to hike the minimum water/sewer service charge to $49.40 per month. Deriving the lion’s share of the revenue for the city’s water works from the minimum service charge does not promote conservation. If I conserve this resource and got my water use to below 1 ccf, this month and yet my water/sewer bill is still $47.03 for 0 ccf of service (soon to be raised to $49.40). Richmond’s minimum service charge may be the highest of any city in the United States, and that allows the city to keep the volume rate artificially low. As a result, there is no financial incentive to conserve water in the Richmond.

In Hanover, the minimum service charge for the water/sewer bill is only $14.03 per month. This is less than a third of Richmond’s minimum monthly service charge. Hanover promotes conservation by giving a volume rate discount to those who use little water. Hanover offers a heavy discount for the first 4000 gallons of water volume, while the volume charge increases almost three fold for the next 11,000 gallons of water and increases again for over water volume in excess of 15,000 gallons. Richmond has this backward and offers a discount, not to those who use the least water, but to those who use the most volume: over 74,800 gallons of water.

Can we get the Virginia Water Environment Association and other groups to address this? The local Sierra Club is on board, but where is the N.A.A.C.P., James River Association, or the Richmond Crusade for Voters? What does it take for citizen concerns to gain attention and triumph over corporate control these days?

Charlies’ Letters

Neighbor Charles Pool’s letter got printed in the Times Dispatch today:

Proposed water and sewer hikes are outrageous

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

While commuters are protesting the proposed $1 monthly service charge for the E-ZPass, there is little notice as the city of Richmond quietly hikes the minimum monthly service charge for water and sewer to $49.40 per month.

How many cars would use the toll roads if those monthly service charges were raised to $49.40 a month? Unlike the toll roads, water service is a necessity and the city knows that no one will be digging a well in his backyard to avoid the rate hike.

We don’t have the option of turning off the water, but we can vote. Every candidate for city office in this election cycle should be challenged to explain why Richmond’s outrageous, minimum water and sewer bill is the highest in the country.

Charles Pool.

Richmond.

At least one other Charlie and City Council candidate is speaking up:

Let’s Reward Conservation of Our Resources
An opinion piece appeared in the Times Dispatch on May 24, 2012 addressing what we are charged for water and sewer in Richmond. After reading Scott Burger’s piece over many times, I tried to write a blog post in reference to the minimum fee method of charging us for the water we do or do not use. As I tried over and over, I realized that the only fair thing to do was to share the opinion piece with you, my supporters and potential supporters, in its original form.
It is simply unfair for a person who uses 1 CCF of water per month to pay an amount equal to or slightly less than the person who uses 10 CCF per month. People should be rewarded for their conservation, not punished for it.

Editor’s note: This does not constitute an endorsement of Diradour (…But what are other candidates saying?)

Drip, drip, drip…here we go again.

I thought the message had already been sent, but I guess not. Hello Anti-Poverty Commission.

Excerpt from today’s Times Dispatch:

On an annual basis, Richmond’s minimum charge for water really puts a dent in the budget of a low-income resident. While in Norfolk the minimum annual cost per consumer for water/sewer service is only $12, in Henrico annually it is $195.24, and in Richmond annually it is a whopping $564.36!

This is a conservation issue: There is little incentive to conserve water in Richmond because the city finances the lion’s share of its water works through the minimum service charge. The cost per CCF of water is kept artificially low so you don’t feel much of a pinch when you use more water. It would encourage conservation if Richmond slashed the minimum service charge while raising the cost for each CCF of the resource.

This is a social justice issue: Richmond’s outrageous minimum water/sewer service charge shifts the burden of financing the city’s water supply disproportionally onto those who use the least water, and often unto those who can least afford it. For a senior citizen on fixed income, the water bill will often be the largest bill of the month, even if minimal water is used. It is unjust to require low-income residents of Richmond to pay a whopping $564.36 in minimum service fees annually just to be connected to the water supply. Water is a necessity that no one can do without.

Here is a revenue-neutral proposal. Let’s revamp Richmond’s water rates by lowering the minimum monthly charge for water and sewer service to $15 per month, while raising the cost per CCF of water in line with the neighboring counties. As sure as the spring showers, the summer droughts will follow. Richmond should have a price structure in place that encourages conservation of this important resource while giving those on fixed income a fair deal.

(Sorry if you are tired of editorials on this site this week. I did not have any control on when the TD piece would come out.)

Best of the Best

Congratulations to Mamma ‘Zu and Pescados China Street for their recognitions in the latest Style magazine for Best Italian Restaurant and Best Fresh Seafood Restaurant, respectively.
Combined with previous honors (and that includes 821 Cafe!), Oregon Hill is known as a dining destination.

It would be nice if the Hill had picked up other awards as well, but it is not always easy for the smaller neighborhoods to register in these reader polls. The only mention in the Richmond Times Dispatch’s recent Discover Richmond magazine was at the end under Dog Parks, where there was a snide remark about how “the old days of Oregon Hill mutts run amok have given way to a more courteous approach to sharing our spaces with four-footed friends”.

But hey, perhaps its just as well to leave the rest of Richmond to its self-accolades, and just go get a bite to eat, while being happy where you are at. Maybe I will grab a sandwich at Mojo’s, maybe I will share part of it with my dogs.

Meanwhile In Northern Virginia…Move To Amend!

From announcement:

Here is the work that Northern Virginia MTA has done:

Resolutions on overturning Citizens United v. FEC and combating the undue influence of money in politics passed Saturday at the Virginia 8th and 11th Congressional District Democratic Conventions. The resolutions call for the Constitution to be amended to establish that: (1) Corporations should not be entitled to the same Constitutional rights in our elections as people and should have only the powers and rights granted to them in state and federal law; and (2) Money is not speech so federal and state governments have the power to fairly regulate, without infringing the freedom of the press, any political contribution or spending. NOVA MTA helped prepare the resolutions and strongly advocated their passage.

The resolutions will help build support for passing a similar resolution at the State Democratic Convention on June 2, 2012, which in turn will help build support for passing MTA resolutions in municipalities in northern Virginia and elsewhere across the Commonwealth.

The Move To Amend movement may start small here, but it has potential to join other states’ efforts and become a reckoning force in the next few election cycles.

Boards and Billboards

Supposedly, the following ordinance will be put up for vote at the City’s Planning Commission meeting on Monday:

Ord. No. 2012-74 (Patron: Mayor Jones) – To amend and reordain City Code §§ 114-402.2, concerning permitted accessory uses and structures, 114-620.5, concerning division of lots to accommodate existing dwelling units, and 114-1040.3 concerning additional exceptions granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, for the purpose of discouraging the use of the special use permit process by expanding the special exceptions available under the zoning ordinance.
(Planning Commission, Monday, May 21, 2012, 1:30 p.m.)

One interpretation of this is that Mayor Jones has introduced the ordinance to expand the authority of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It allows for additional sign height except for billboards. Will the next step be to add billboards?

This ordinance is one that caused blogger C Wayne Taylor concern in the past. Last year the BZA decided 32 cases and only denied 3.

Anyone following the latest proceedings in the illegal Mayo Island billboard saga?

“Save Richmond’s canals, again”

A Times Dispatch guest editorial by Jack Pearsall makes a strong case for making Richmond’s historic canals a priority. There have been previous posts here on the proposed 2nd St. Connector, but Pearsall is more knowledgeable of the planning history that should negate it.

Here’s the beginning of his piece, but I urge readers to click here to see the rest of it.

Our historic canals should be saved so their future development can put Richmond on the map, as in San Antonio and Georgetown. But this opportunity could be mooted by well-intentioned pending schemes, which injure the canals in five places. There need not be this choice between canal and improvements.

In 1988, a canal committee of leading citizens designed a waterway for tour boats from the James River at the Great Shiplock to Maymont. The navigable James River & Kanawha Canal would be spliced with the millrace Haxall Canal. Renowned architect Carlton Abbott prepared plans and cost estimates.

Thanks to smart planning, much of the restoration was accomplished as part of the city’s Combined Sewer Overflow project. The rest remains unfinished, but possible.