Category Archives: politics

Drip, drip, drip…here we go again.

Posted on by
9

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!

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Important, Nearby, Water Pollution Public Meeting This Wednesday

Posted on by
3

From Virginia Conservation Network announcement:

You may be aware that over 10,000 miles of Virginia’s rivers and streams are considered unhealthy. Virginia is required to ensure its streams and rivers are clean, and develop a clean-up plan for waters that don’t meet those standards. Recently Virginia has developed one of these plans and will host a meeting to get your input on Wednesday, May 23rd from 2 to 4 pm in Richmond

(ed. at VCU!)

Continue reading →

Boards and Billboards

Posted on by
1

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?

Chicken Controversy Continues

Posted on by
7

I received this bit of political activism from Laurel Street neighbor Tommy Birchett:

Honorable Charles R. Samuels Councilman,

My name is Tommy Birchett and I spoke last night at City Council
during the public comments. I have been enrolled in courses on
backyard chickens at the William Byrd Community House. I initially
became interested in raising chickens when I was visiting a former
neighbor who moved to Charlottesville. He told me moving there allowed
him to raise chickens legally. He lives downtown near the train
station where city lots are similar in size to Richmond city lots.

The reason I’m writing to you specifically is to request your
assistance regarding some recent bad news for backyard chicken
advocates. Richard Hammack, a VCU Math professor and his family were
recently cited for keeping chickens in their backyard. They had the
chickens for a long time before a neighbor complained. He has not yet
removed them, but plans to follow the law and do so within the
allotted time frame. The underground backyard chicken movement is
growing. As Mr. Hammack says in the following article on NBC 12 news,
“There are lots of chickens throughout the city. You just don’t know
they are there.”

http://www.nbc12.com/story/17586022/neighbors-divided-over-chickens-as-pets-in-urban-areas

In light of the recent recommendations from the Mayor’s recent Food
Security Task Force I think Mr. Hammack should be allowed to keep his
chickens for now. Furthermore, I have never met or spoken to Mr.
Hammack, but I support backyard chickens and feel that it’s time for a
change and this is a good place to start.

Thank you for your time. You reply is appreciated.

As stated elsewhere, it looks like chickens will be a major upcoming political topic for City Council.

When he did attend a recent Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association meeting, Oregon Hill’s City Councilperson, Marty Jewell, did speak favorably towards changing the code regarding chickens.

‘Watchdog’ C. Wayne Taylor Holds His Bite On 2nd Street Connector

Posted on by
4

I have written before about how C. Wayne Taylor has taken on City Hall on the 2nd Street Connector and Special Use Permit Issues. Here’s the latest:

April 12, 2012

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Members of Council,

On March 15th 2012 I requested certain information from Councilor Tyler regarding the proposed 2nd Street connector. He said he would give me a response by the end of the week. On April 2nd I send an email to Councilor Tyler advising him that I had not received anything. As of this evening, I still have not received any of the information I requested.

The citizens of Richmond are being denied a meaningful voice in the political process if you do not give them the relevant information. Will you please take the appropriate action to obtain and make public the information I requested.

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Attachments: Copies of the emails are included below.

Links: http://cityhallreview.com/tag/2nd-street-connector/

Copy: Liaisons, Planning Commission via Secretary, Press, Interested Citizens

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: C WAYNE TAYLOR
To: Bruce Tyler
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 4:41 AM
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Mr. Tyler,

I have not received the information.

C. Wayne Taylor

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member”
To: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Mr. Taylor:

I will give you a response this week.

Bruce W. Tyler

1st District Councilman
City of Richmond

City Council
900 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

cell: 804.357.6007
fax: 804.343.0909

From: C WAYNE TAYLOR [mailto:cwaynetaylor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thu 3/15/2012 4:16 PM
To: Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

March 15, 2012

VIA EMAIL TO: Bruce.Tyler@Richmondgov.com
The Honorable Bruce Tyler
City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Council Member,

The proposed 2nd Street connector would cause a major change in the character of the area. I think it is very important to fully understand the proposal and the various factors involved.

As you know, the administration has not been transparent in this matter. Economic Development even tried to charge me for copies of the documents discuss with city council.

Therefore, I request that you help insure that citizens have all the facts. Will you please provide or obtain answers to the following for the public and me:

1. Has an elevation rendering of the proposed crossing of the historic canal been presented to council?

2. Has a perspective rendering of the proposed connector been presented to council?

3. What is the acreage of the land that is proposed to be conveyed to the city west of the connector?

4. Why does the Planning Commission letter state that the area on both sides of the connector will be privately owned?

5. Why is there a proposed parcel boundary down the middle of the historic canal?

6. What is the acreage of the land that the city is providing for stormwater detention.

7. Does the stormwater detention facility essentially block access of city land to Tredegar Street?

8. Does the parking area connect to Tredegar Street or the connector?

9. How many parking spaces are gained or lost?

10. Does the city have the right to require that the connector be put on the Tredegar Ironworks parcel under alternative B-3 of the 1995 agreement?

11. Does alternative B-3 provide better topography to cross the historic canal and provide more clearance for boats.

12. Why was the connector project assigned to Development rather than Planning?

13. Has Planning been prohibited from commenting to citizens about the connector?

14. Has the planning director issued an analysis of the pros and cons of a connector?

15. Has the city traffic engineer issued a report on the connector?

16. Who prepared the traffic analysis report?

17. Has part of the traffic analysis report been redacted?

18. Is it correct that the connector is not shown on the Downtown Master Plan?

19. What elements of the connector are not consistent with the Downtown Plan and UDC Guidelines.

20. Why were the trees cut down after the Planning Commission reviewed the connector concept plan?

21. What happens if the city requires clearance over the historic canal and refuses to pay the cost?

I believe the following is correct:

22. Road construction grading will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

23. The stormwater detention facility will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

24. Water flowed in the historic canal until about 1970.

25. Slave labor was used to construct the historic canal.

26. An 1880 bridge was built over the unused canal in a traditional arched style.

27. The historic canal is on the National Register of Historic Places.

28. The top executive at Dominion Resources received total compensation of $16.9 million in 2010.

I have attached copies of the documents that the Jones Administration attempted to charge me to have.

Thank you for your attention,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Copy: Council, Liaisons, Press

VCU SDS: “Defend Your Right to Peaceful Assembly and Protest”

Posted on by
2

From a statement for the VCU Students for a Democratic Society:

VCU recently proposed amendments to its student code of conduct. The proposed rules prohibit demonstrations that disrupt the normal functions of the university, but the language is so vague that, if interpreted by a trigger-happy administrator, you could be punished for non-disruptively, peacefully, and legally exercising your First Amendment right to peaceable assembly and protest.

“Demonstrations/riot – Participating in an on-campus or off-campus demonstration, riot or activity that disrupts the normal operations of the University and/or infringes on the rights of others; leading or inciting others to disrupt scheduled and/or normal activities within any campus building or area.”

VCU is not alone in this crackdown on active citizens; measures are being taken to criminalize free speech throughout the city and country.

On the 3rd of March, 30 peaceful protesters were arrested by Virginia State Police in riot gear for sitting on the steps of the Virginia Capitol building. They were demonstrating for an end to anti-choice reproductive legislation. In a further attempt to scare citizens away from expressing their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly, the female arrestees were held for nearly nine hours in a paddy wagon and prevented access to restrooms and drinking water.

In Georgia, members of the state legislature unsuccessfully attempted to restrict the right of protesters and union members with SB 469. The bill would have made it a felony to protest near a private business. Imagine being charged with a felony for simply holding a sign!

VCU’s Monroe Park is also significant. Last Spring, several activists were arrested for camping out on the corner of Main and Laurel in protest of City Council’s attempt to gentrify the park and criminalize homelessness. Later in 2011, members of Occupy Richmond were brutalized by Richmond police and denied access to Monroe Park after being forcefully removed from Kanawha Plaza, a camp that passed the City’s sanitation standards.

And so, we, the VCU chapter of Students for a Democratic Society are protesting today to publicly exercise and protect our freedom to peacefully assemble, to stand against the unjust and unprovoked attacks on civil disobedience, and to demand transparency in American society.

**This is an orderly, peaceful demonstration. We are practicing what we are trying to defend. Behavior that is harmful or disruptive to our fellow students or homeless won’t be tolerated.**

There is a Facebook page for a protest this Friday in Monroe Park at 1 pm:

https://www.facebook.com/events/429199907105958/

Citizen Watch Dog Takes On The City’s Special Use Permit (SUP) Process

Posted on by
1

C. Wayne Taylor, who has been doing a lot of digging’ on behalf of the neighborhood, recently sent this missive:

PLANNING COMMISSION

To the Honorable Council of the City of Richmond, Virginia
April 3, 2012

At its meeting of April 2, 2012, the Planning Commission voted (7-0) to APPROVE of:

Resolution of Intent:

To Amend the Zoning Ordinance Special Exception Provisions for the Purpose of
Reducing Reliance on the Special Use Process. All Council Districts

Summary dates:
Proposed Council paper introduction: April 23, 2012
Proposed Planning Commission public hearing: May 21,2012
Proposed City Council public hearing: May 29,2012

I recommend that all of you who are interested in sound land use policies for the city make sure you understand this proposal. While the title of the resolution sounds as if the proposal would move the city toward a more rules-based system, it would actual give the Board of Zoning Appeals broader authority to waive existing zoning and subdivision rules.

You should note that the BZA members are appoint the circuit court and can only be removed by the circuit court. Decisions of the BZA are not reviewable by City Council. The only course of action to challenge a BZA waiver would be a circuit court suit.

In my view, this is a very bad proposal. Richmond City Council is the only municipality in the Commonwealth of Virginia that has been given the authority to grant a special use permit that waives zoning and subdivision rules for a property owner. Over the years, City Council has granted thousands of waivers. As a result, the city has thousands of sets of rules for properties in the city and has failed to follow sound land use planning practices. The proposed ordinance perpetuates this situation and moves the process further from the citizens.

I submit that the fair and wise course of action is to have a set of rules that apply to everyone the way it is in all other municipalities. The city should stop granting special use permits. Unfortunately, this would require a charter amendment by the General Assembly. In the meantime, we appear poised to move further away from a rule-based system.

Please make sure you understand the immediate and long-term repercussions of this proposed ordinance. If you are concerned, please forward this information to your friends.

C. Wayne Taylor

1. Planning Commission “Letters” with notice of adopted resolution.
2. Planning Commission Agenda with full text of draft ordinance.
3. Code of Virginia § 15.2-2309. Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.

Read more on his blog at CityHallReview.com

Happy World Water Day….and local water issues

Posted on by
3

I hope everyone has had a nice World Water Day.

While there are a lot of international water issues, its as good as time as any to bring up water as a local issue.

So, a couple of things:

Despite all the earlier attempts to bring attention to the City of Richmond’s water rates, as far as I can tell this city still has the highest minimum residential water rate in the country.

Richmond continues its regressive water rates, offering a discount to those using vast amounts of water while maintaining the highest minimum water/sewer service charge in the country. Meanwhile, Henrico County’s minimum service charge is a third of Richmond’s while promoting conservation by offering a one-third discount in water/sewer volume charge for those using 6 ccf (hundred cubic feet) or less.

Continue reading →