From neighbor’s email:
To: Members of the City of Richmond Urban Design Committee
Re: UDC No. 2015-02 (proposed fences under bridge at Brown’s Island Way, City of Richmond property)
Dear Members of the Urban Design Committee,
Please do not approve the proposed fences under the bridge at Brown’s Island Way at the James River and Kanawha Canal. The proposed fences would be a wasteful and inappropriate use of city funds. The fences on both sides of the bridge would cost $53,000, with the city paying half of this cost.
The dubious “security” purpose of the fences of preventing homeless persons from camping under the bridge is not only a mean-spirited goal but also an unnecessary expense. The water under the bridge makes it highly unlikely that anyone would camp there. (Please see the attached photo showing the water under the bridge, leaving no place to camp.)
Of the hundreds of bridges in Richmond, this bridge adjacent to NewMarket property should not be singled out for fencing. This culvert adjacent to NewMarket Corporation property should be treated the same as the hundreds of other culverts in the city.
The proposed fences are incompatible with the city master plan goal of promoting canal boat traffic in the canal. According to the city master plan: “All public improvements to and investments in Tredegar Green should support the goal of westward (or appropriate) canal restoration …” The proposed fences do not support the goal of westward canal restoration. This is particularly significant since City Councilman Parker Agelasto last month in December 2014 submitted a CIP budget request for rewatering the James River and Kanawha Canal.
The altered design of the proposed fences is a substantial and undesirable change in character from the earlier design of gates that could be opened for canal boat traffic. The proposed bars under this bridge would resemble a cage or prison cell in character rather than a gateway for canal boat traffic.
The Brown’s Island Way written agreement approved by the Richmond City Council (Ordinance 2012-153) did not include these expensive fences, and at this point any additional verbal commitments are not relevant: Section 4(d) “This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set forth and may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by the parties to this Agreement.” The installments for Brown’s Island Way already included in the CIP budget are based on the completed project and have already been established based on the city ordinance and purchase price of the project. The City administration has been unable or unwilling to provide any documentation of who made the verbal commitment to build these fences.
The limited resources of the city should be allocated based on need and common sense rather the whims of the politically connected. Paying for these fences would be footing the bill for corporations … with little or nothing to do with public welfare or existing city regulations. There is no city regulation to prohibit public access under the city’s many bridges and no exception should be made because this bridge is adjacent to NewMarket Corporation.Thank you for your consideration of this request to not approve the wasteful and unnecessary 2nd Street Connector bridge fencing plan .
Sincerely,
Charles Pool
