New Parking Meters On W. Cary and Main

From a neighbor:

Didn’t know if you’ve seen them yet, but there are now central pay to park kiosks on the 900 blocks, both sides, of main and Cary streets. They sure snuck those in over Christmas break. Students have never had to pay before. Will this drive vcu commuters deeper into Oregon Hill and shouldn’t the revenue benefit our neighborhood?

Of course, a more positive outlook might be that these new parking fees will finally drive VCU students out of their cars altogether, which is something that the City’s former director of the Department of Planning and Development Review, Rachel Flynn, often suggested as a goal in order to relieve overall congestion and pollution.

Let the commenting begin….

The Local Petition That Matters The Most

From The Richmond Open Government Project:

Not since Paul Goldman successfully led the effort to put the mayor at-large question up for citywide referendum has there been so much interest in local citizen petitioning. Of course, the ease, accessibility, and novelty of online petitioning have added to the attraction. In this past year we have seen local petitions, spread by social media, on Broad Street parking (833 signatures), urban chickens (226 signatures), water rates (1,400 signatures) and the environmental conditions at a public elementary school. That last one gained over 20,000 signatures from all over the world after ‘going viral’.

While there have been a few exceptions, the official response to these citizen petitions, unfortunately, has been tepid at best. Government officials might quickly promise to follow up on issues, but getting the press to follow up on the promises has not been that easy. Despite the fact that many of these local petitions implicitly asked for support and signatures from challengers and incumbents, the fall election rhetoric tended to be superficial and avoided the local petition issues. (One notable exception: Charles Diradour, running for 2nd District City Council, made a valiant attempt to make the City’s inordinately high minimum water rate a top campaign issue). Still, while one can argue about the overall effectiveness of recent petition efforts, they did undoubtedly raise the bar for public debate.

Yet there is one local, online petition whose cause should interest all reform-minded Richmond citizens and most certainly deserves attention from a new Richmond City Council–the one from the Richmond Open Government Project that calls for making Richmond City Hall an open government equal to the best in Virginia – www.thepetitionsite.com/684/909/771/

In a nutshell, this petition asks for commitment from citizens and public officials to raise the City of Richmond’s open government standards to, at the very least, match those of other large cities in the Commonwealth. (In addition, on a sharper edge, the petition clarifies some of the long-standing state code violations by the City regarding its public meeting documentation.) By asking for more open government, this petition puts democratic aspirations for accessibility and accountability front and center for all citizens and, by extension, calls attention to all petitions.

However, as with many of the petitions, though the response to the Open Government petition has been positive, the numbers are underwhelming. It still has a long way to go in gaining broad attention. Of recent candidates, only the aforementioned Diradour, and two City Council candidates in the Fifth District, Lee Shewmake and Parker Agelasto signed it. Of all the incumbent public officials, only 2nd district school board member Kimberly Gray signed on for open government.

At the same time, public statements in response have been very favorable and the picture painted in response to the petition is that open government issues have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed.

The reality is less than satisfactory- after the Open Government petition was launched, city hall announced that it would put videos of Council’s Formal meetings on the city’s website. Videos of the Informal meetings, where the blunt deliberations usually occur, are still not on the website. Three months ago the Council President said “[w]e’ll look at their petition and see if there are some suggestions that would make good sense to keep our citizens better informed.” As yet, the city has not announced that any of the 104 suggestions have been implemented.

So has this petition been a bust? Is that it? Not at all, says the Richmond Open Government Project. It may be an overused cliché, but organizers say their push for reform is more of a deliberate march than an open sprint. They always regarded the 2016 election as a more important barometer of success than the one this fall. The petition has served its purpose already in that it delivered the initial challenge.

So what now? With the New Year and a new city council, the Richmond Open Government Project has a new message: the time of notification is over. The petition is still open to more signatures, but it is time to also move forward with more members and not just signatures. To that end, look for a ‘larger umbrella’ meeting for a new organization with a new name and larger mission for better government.

Rick Tatnall

Scott Burger

C. Wayne Taylor

Silver Persinger

Victory Rug SUP at Planning Commission on Monday

From email:

Please come and register your opposition to the Victory Rug Special Use Permit before the Planning Commission this Monday, Jan. 7 at 1:30 pm on the 5th Floor of City Hall. We thought that we had an agreement, but unfortunately the developer has been unwilling to confirm any agreement so we will need to be present in opposition to the SUP. As it stands now the developer is proposing a 24 bedroom development, in 12 apartments and one townhouse, with only 8 off-street parking spaces.

More background here, here, and here.

Utility Rates Meeting Tomorrow Night

In addition to the OHNA meeting, The City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities is hosting a community meeting on the Cost of Service study for the water, wastewater, natural gas and stormwater utilities.

Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 at 6-7 p.m.
DPU Operations Center Atrium
400 Jefferson Davis Highway (at Maury Street intersection)

All interested parties are invited.

Of course, the citizen’s petitioners who have protested the high minimum monthly service charge are watching this carefully. Here’s the an update from their perspective:

(One potential problem is if) The City trots out some sort of new lower tier or charity level for residents who are unable to pay the high minimum monthly service charge. While this may help the poorest of the poor, it sidesteps the rate reform that we have asked for. It would add additional complication and bureaucracy to OUR utility’s billing.

Another potential problem is if questions about water contracts with the counties are ignored. There is already a lot of concern about why the City is selling water to the surrounding counties so cheaply. There are also doubts about the City’s ability to collect payment for the existing contracts that were supposedly examined by the outgoing Councilperson Jewell.

While it’s good to attend meetings like this one tomorrow night, the utility officials may not reveal important information until they submit the budget. The public should be given all the information that has been given to the consultants. It is also important that a time line be established for the budget process. Otherwise, it’s possible that neither the Council or the public will get to comment until the time the Council get the Mayor’s budget, which I believe is in March sometime- Only then will Council and public meetings be held to discuss the entire budget and the rate structure will get short shift because the time left for the Council to approve it is limited. What are the various budget process dates? It would be good to bring this up at this meeting.

We must keep these matters in mind at the same time we stay on our message–the high minimum monthly service charge is ridiculous and unacceptable. We are asking for a revenue neutral approach that raises volume charges while lowering the service charges in a way that encourages conservation. Based on some of the data that we have received, our suspicion is that the high minimum residential rate is still being used to offset lower commercial rates, in effect subsidizing big businesses while gouging residents.

Continue reading

James River Park History

I have uncovered some of the what-ifs, but thanks to Phil Riggan for this “History of Splashy Plans for James River Parks” on Richmond.com.

Excerpt:

According to the RTD archives, there were proposals to have “water-related leisure development” on Belle Isle — Richmond’s downtown gem on the James — including an visitor’s center, ice skating rink, waterfront auditorium and a conference center. People could have gotten to the island by way of a monorail that would have connected to downtown Richmond.
The $6 million in riverfront plans at that time did not cover for the proposed monorail and other buildings on Belle Isle, which would have been paid for through private funding. Monorail screams “Disney,” right? We would have been robbed of the pleasure of walking across the Belle Isle pedestrian bridge under the Robert E. Lee Bridge, which opened in 1992. The view of the city skyline from there alone is worth any price and we’re much better off.

Something to think about as more of the area gets paved over.

Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force to hold meeting

From City press release:

New parking pass requirements for the parking lot on the side of the building: All residents are invited and encouraged to attend

WHAT The Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force will hold a meeting. The purpose of the Task Force is to make recommendations to Richmond City Council with regard to enhancing mass transit in the Metro-Richmond area and the efficiency and effectiveness of the GRTC Transit System. The meeting is free and open to the public and all residents are invited and encouraged to attend.

Free street parking is available nearby and in the lot on the west side of the building. Passes are now required for lot parking: Those wishing to park in lot are requested to please contact Ms. Marianne Pitts, at 804.646.5935 (tel); or marianne.pitts@richmondgov.com (email), two to three days before the event to arrange for a pass.

WHEN Thursday, December 13. 2012
4:00-6:00 p.m.

WHERE Richmond Department of Economic Development
Richmond Main Street Train Station – 3rd Floor Conference Room
1500 East Main Street; Richmond, Virginia 23219
(PARKING: Free street parking is available nearby and in the lot on the west side of the building. Passes are now required for lot parking: Those wishing to park in lot are requested to please contact Ms. Marianne Pitts, at 804.646.5935 (tel); or marianne.pitts@richmondgov.com (email), two to three days before the event to arrange for a pass. The lot is accessible by using the Franklin Street Entrance and using the lot below the Interstate. When facing the Train Station from the Franklin Street Entrance, make a right and park towards the Clock Tower end. When facing the building from the parking lot, the entrance door to the Richmond Department of Economic Development is located on the right of the building.)

WHO Members of the Richmond City Council GRTC and Transit Study Task Force

CONTACT For more information, please contact Marianne Pitts, at 804.646.5935;
or marianne.pitts at richmondgov.com.

Continue reading

Election Controversies Continue

There are still some strong allegations being made about the recent election.
Received via email:

PARTICULARIZED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 3:12-CV-00650

L. SHIRLEY HARVEY,
CHRISTOPHER DORSEY,
Plaintiffs

v.

JANE KIRK SHOWALTER,
GEORGE WILLIAM THOMAS,
CECELIA DABNEY,
ERNESTO SAMPSON, JR.
DONALD PALMER,
KIMBERLY BOWERS,
CHARLES JUDD,
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs comes to the Court to request an investigation into the process of qualification of candidates by the Registrar, Jane Kirk Showalter, regarding local elections for the City of Richmond on November 6, 2012. The Plaintiffs research has found that in several instances, the Registrar has either made gross mistakes or deliberately made decisions that are not in accordance with the Virginia State Code 24.2 regarding elections and further noted in the procedures for registrars called the GREbook (General Registrar and Electoral Board Handbook See Exhibit I) which provides procedures for the Registrar’s office to accomplish the mandates set forth in Virginia Code 24.2.

The Richmond Electoral Board and the State Board of Elections have the authority and the power to avoid these discrepancies by overseeing the work completed by the Registrar. The lack of supervision allows that any registrar in Virginia could be bribed, could make gross mistakes, could discriminate, and could, in essence, decide elections before the citizen vote. The Plaintiffs have attempted on many occasions without success to bring about an investigation or review by filing written and verbal complaints as prescribed by the Code to several authorities including the Richmond Electoral Board and the State Board of Elections. These Boards did not respond.

Continue reading