Taking Charge of Our Future Talk

I mentioned this before, but here’s is it’s own posting:

From the Flying Brick blog:

On Friday, February 15th, at 6 PM, Alexis Zeigler will conduct host slideshow and discussion titled:

Living free of fossil fuel and corporate dependence. Taking charge of our future. Find out how.

How do peak oil, climate change, and the limits of growth affect abortion rights, income equality, and civil liberty? The presentation will examine the hidden connections between ecology, economics, politics, and social justice, and how to use those connections to effect real, long-lasting change.

Human cultures evolve in responses to changes in ecological and economic circumstance. Thus changes in the supply of soil and oil have impacts on our politics, or social structure, and ultimately on our religion and moral attitudes. These facts are very well documented in the anthropological and historical record, yet these same facts serve to undermine the importance of academic, religious and political leaders as agents of change through history, thus they are largely ignored.

We are capable of understanding our own cultural evolution in a whole new way. We can create a social movement that links changes in ecological sustainability to effective changes in community organization and personal attitudes. The tools are in our hands. All we need do is to close our fingers around them. Alexis Zeigler will conduct a presentation and discussion about practical technologies and political strategies that will allow us to consciously choose our own future.

Alexis is the author of a book, Integrated Activism: Applying the Hidden Connections between Ecology, Economics, Politics, and Social Progress (North Atlantic Books, August, 2013).

Nuclear Senator

Oregon Hill’s state senator, John Watkins, withdrew his bill for uranium mining, but he is still pushing nuclear power.

Please call or email his office to let him know you oppose SB1138.
“We don’t need a nuclear think tank, we need to move away from dangerous nuclear energy and towards safe renewables!”

John Watkins (804) 698-7510

Emails ~
district10 at senate.virginia.gov

What’s That Number?

Soon the City’s Dept. of Utilities will most likely announce recommendations towards a reduction in the $49 minimum monthly charge to ratepayers for water and wastewater service. The big question is what will that number be?

The expectation is that the planned reduction will be a little less than 20% of the total monthly minimum charge and there will be a new charity rate created for poorer residents who have trouble for paying their utility bills.

It would be easy for the citizens who have petitioned for water rate reform to declare victory and enjoy the hope that bills might be slightly less in the future for all Richmond households.

But, when the history and big picture are considered, they would be wise to not do that and stand behind their stated request- that Mayor Jones and Richmond City Council take immediate steps to lower 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. There needs to be a change in the volume rate structure change to reward conservation with the first 5 ccf of water/sewer service at a lower rate, and with a premium volume rate for water/sewer over 5 ccf of volume.

My best guess is that City officials will propose a token drop in the service charge along with a large increase in the volume charge that more than makes up for the token decrease in the service charge. They quietly claim that lowering charges too much will create “a hole in their budget”. The reality is that the City can receive the same total revenue from its water works by slashing the minimum monthly service charge to equal that of Henrico’s (which it sells water to!) and instead charging a premium for customers who use more. In other words, make it progressive instead of regressive.

Also, keep in mind that the city paid $200,000 to hire a consultant to examine Richmond’s outrageous water/sewer rates (although reformers said that was not necessary). Despite requests, the consultants have not met with reform activists. In addition, there has been difficulty with getting access to the information given to the utility rate study consultant. The DPU office recently told a citizen that the information will not be put on the city’s web server unless the city receives $287.17 from the citizen.

The utility rates and service charges affect almost all residents and businesses in the city. It is sure to be an important issue during the budget review process (which looks to be extra rushed this year). It would help the Mayor and City Council if the public feels confident that all important information is being freely shared. This speaks to many of the open government concerns raised by activists. In other words, if Richmond citizens want to be treated fairly by the government and utilities that they own, they need to keep the big picture in mind.

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

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

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

New 5th District Politics, Or At Least Coverage

With Election Day behind us, it is noteworthy that not only do we have a new Fifth District Councilperson and School Board representative, but we also a lot of revived interest and media coverage for the district.

I am still hoping to read notes on an organizing meeting that happened this past Friday at the Randolph Community Center. But first I may need to listen to the interviews on the latest Open Source show from WRIR. The title: “Ushering in th Age of Agelasto for Richmond’s Fightin’ 5th”.

Last, but certainly not least, now might be a good time to review a new web page from watchdog C.Wayne Taylor, which ‘wiki’s’ the City’s winning candidates. Citizens should learn and track the promises made. The campaign contact info on there might alone make it worthwhile to bookmark, given some of the past lack of response from those e-mail addresses on the city’s web page!

Supporting My Neighbors

Someone knocked on my door and told me something was happening Tuesday that I should be aware of, and then I heard a few things from the television also….

I do know that I support and endorse my neighbor from the Overlook condos, Maurice Henderson, for another term on the Richmond School Board. While I recognize that Henderson angered many of the Patrick Henry charter school parents with some blunt antics that I agree are troubling and questionable, and I really do appreciate that that he does have serious competition from challenger Mamie Taylor, I believe he is the best qualified and suited for the position. I have seen him diligently work first hand to improve standards. I am hoping that with a second term he will become even more outspoken in challenging the Richmond leadership to improve the public schools.

I also support my Pine Street neighbor, former roommate, and longtime friend Silver Persinger in yet another political campaign for office. If you are not aware of Silver’s political activities and some of the things he has accomplished with his citizen advocacy, then you have not been paying attention. This time, he is running for Mayor as a write-in. With the new electronic machines, its pretty easy to do a write-in vote, and hopefully they might actually be secure and accurate with your vote (though I have my concerns).

As for our incumbent Mayor, I have supported him in the past. And while I have applauded certain efforts, I looked down at others, and wonder how much he is considering the big picture. I support Silver, but also remain hopeful that Jones’ second term will be bring better things.

I am looking forward to new representation on City Council, but beyond that, I will leave you with the thought that my personal choices for President and Vice President were not even allowed in the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, which should tell you something about how disappointed I am with our nation’s politics these days, no matter who is visiting us.

For voting information, you can click here. Oregon Hill’s polling site is Clark Springs Elementary.

Vice President Biden At Tredegar On Monday

From The American Civil War Center At Historic Tredegar’s FaceBook page:

BREAKING NEWS!

Vice President Joe Biden will be at The American Civil War Center At Historic Tredegar on Monday for the campaign’s final Get Out the Vote rally!

Other distinguished guests will be Jill Biden, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine. Oh and one last guest, John Mellencamp!

If you, our Facebook fans, would like tickets, you can pick them up at the Center between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. SUNDAY. Two tickets per person.

The American Civil War Center and the Richmond National Battlefield Park/National Park Service will close at 3 p.m. Monday in preparation for the event.

Doors will open at 5 p.m. for Monday’s rally.