MoveToAmend.org Comes To Richmond

I am marking this ‘editorial’, since full disclosure, I wrote the following press release also. Unfortunately, I have not seen any notice of this is in the corporate, mainstream media, so as a public service, I am posting it here. I will delete this post if I see good notice and coverage appear elsewhere.

Virginia Greens Speak Up Against Corporations And Look Forward To Cobb’s Visit

by Scott Burger

Green Party of Virginia

http://vagreenparty.org/

For immediate release:

July 9, 2012

With Fourth of July holiday celebrations over, Greens across Virginia are eager to work towards freeing their government from the undue influence of corporations. This should come as no surprise as the Green Party of the United States has actively called for repeal of ‘corporate personhood’ and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling as well as an end to the influence of corporate PAC money on elections.

On May 4 of this year, the Green Party of Virginia adopted the following resolution at a regularly scheduled meeting:

RESOLVED, the Green Party of Virginia stands in defense of democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate power by calling for amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1. Corporations may neither claim for themselves nor limit the rights of persons or of citizens;
2. The right to spend money or direct economic resources to influence elections, legislation, or the decisions of government is not unlimited.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we encourage our local, state and federal representatives, as well as organizations that value the health of democracy, to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.

As part of these efforts, Greens are looking forward to an upcoming visit to the Southeast by 2004 Green Party Presidential candidate David Cobb on behalf of the citizens’ organization, MoveToAmend.org. Cobb deserves recognition for not only his electoral efforts, but his civil rights protest of the vote tampering in Ohio.

Cobb will be in Richmond, VA on Wednesday, July 11 at 7:30 pm at the Friends Meeting Hall, located at 4500 Kensington Ave, Richmond, Virginia 23221-1827.

After that, Cobb will be attending the Green Party National Convention in Baltimore.

For more information on Cobb’s tour schedule, please check MoveToAmend.org’s Campaign Calendar.

~END~

GRTC Task Force Meets Thursday

First, from the City’s press release:

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.

WHEN Thursday, July 12, 2012
4:00-6:00 p.m.

WHERE Richmond Department of Economic Development
Richmond Main Street Station – 3rd Floor Conference Room
1500 East Main Street; Richmond, Virginia 23219
(PARKING: Free parking is available on the west side of the building 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 Councilman Bruce W. Tyler, Richmond City Council, West End 1st District, at 804.357.6007; or bruce.tyler@richmondgov.com.

Secondly, and with disclosure here as a GRTC Task Force member, I will mention a few of the suggestions that are starting to emerge from the Task Force meetings so far:

1. There seems to be consensus that the City Code needs reform in regard to how GRTC’s routes are determined.

2. There needs to be some sort of inner city circulator that is inexpensive or even free. It needs to be much more frequent and reliable than standard GRTC buses and it must be designed to serve citizens and not just tourists. How this is implemented, and perhaps more importantly, paid for, still needs to be determined.

3. Task force members have been asking for regular updates on new signage for GRTC bus stops.

4. The GRTC Task Force has asked for assistance from the Green City Commission on initiatives like bus stop recycling, green fleet usage, connections with other organizations and multimodal transportation.

Also, I will say that while task force members agree that there needs to be more regional transportation efforts, the surrounding counties have not been attending meetings with GRTC or the task force, so the task force has been focused on what the City can do to improve GRTC.

“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.

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.

Latest Draft of Richmond Riverfront Plan

Yesterday, the City’s Planning and Development Review announced and released “the Final Draft of the Richmond Riverfront Plan” (click here for large PDF).

Pages 26 to 29, the part of the Plan that deals with “Tredegar Green”, seem most applicable to Oregon Hill. I did not see anything about moving the Confederate White House.

The proposed 2nd Street Connector road is still in the plan, although many questions have still not been answered. More on this soon.

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?)

Concern Grows About Ord. 2012-74

C. Wayne Taylor has more City government news to share:

Ordinance 2012-74 is scheduled to go before Richmond City Council on June 11th. The ordinance would give the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) additional authority to grant exceptions to the city’s zoning regulations.

The ordinance was discussed at the Council’s informal meeting held on May 29th. Councilor Samuels stated that he was getting many phone calls about the ordinance. The administration was pushing very hard for Council to adopt the ordinance without delay.

The administration kept the preparation of the ordinance a secret and did not tell the Planning Commission about it until the Commission was asked to initiate a code amendment. One commissioner is recorded in the minutes as surprised by the request.

The administration gave the Planning Commission false and misleading information. For instance, the Commission was told that it takes 4 to 6 months to get a Special Use Permit approved by City Council. The actual time is closer to 2 months. Another example: the Commission was told that the BZA cannot grant a variance under the existing standard except under very extraordinary circumstances. Actually, about 20% of the BZA approvals are for variances.

The administration repeated the “4 to 6 month” claim to City Council on May 29th. The administration also told Council that the ordinance does nothing more than expand on existing provisions. In fact, it adds several totally new subsections.

The administration repeatedly told Council that the changes are no big deal. New sub-section 17 in the proposed ordinance gives the BZA control over building heights. The BZA would be given authority to allow a building of any height in all but a few districts. Given that the BZA approved 90% of the requests it considered it 2011, one should expect most requests for additional building height will be approved. (City Council approved a 160′ tall building at the Dominion Resources site along the riverfront. The BZA would certainly refer to that.)

The Council agreed to Mr. Samuels request for a delay. Mr. Samuels wants the administration to attend a neighborhood association meeting to address citizens’ concerns.

A brief summary of the May 29th meeting can be seen by clicking here.

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.)

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.