Blair's Blog

10-month Study for Human Rights Commission

2012-02-06T22:03:00.004-05:00

Dave Norris becomes flustered when Kristin Szakos points out his confusion.

Charlottesville, Va. – City Council voted 4 to 1 Monday to create a 10-month commission task force to study how to implement a full-fledged Human Rights, Diversity & Race Relations Commission.

There would be 11 members appointed by Council, who would present an interim report at 5 months. Mayor Satyendra Huja said City Manager Maurice Jones’ idea for a study would clarify questions and confusion of Council and the community.

Councilor Dave Norris was the lone dissenting vote. He didn’t want to wait. He wanted the full commission with investigative and enforcement powers right now. Norris seemed confused and unprepared for the meeting other than a prepared statement that listed everything for inclusion. Councilors Kristin Szakos and Kathy Galvin pointed out to Norris that the ordinance before them was the real deal. Huja asked why he voted no but Norris had no answer.

Kathy Galvin was the voice of reason. While so far commissions from Arlington, Fairfax and Virginia Beach have been looked at, Galvin pointed out that Arlington has 400,000 and Fairfax 1,000,000 population. Charlottesville has only 43,000+. The commission is not likely to have any real impact anyway.

Councilor Dede Smith kept asking, What does it mean? What does this study commission mean? What does it all mean?

Answer from Blair’ Blog: Rule by committee instead of rule of law. The commission means, at best, a new way to violate due process, to deny your day in court with a non-judicial ruling with all the trappings of legality and justice – except without a jury of your peers and other due process rights. Whatever happened to the Bill of Rights?

Answer from Abigail Turner in public comment: One of our Legal Aid clients received a considerable settlement for a sexual harassment claim.

Note on process: When Dede Smith asked to remove the Minutes from the Consent Agenda since she hadn’t yet read them, there was a motion, a second, and a vote. Previously any single councilor could remove an item to be considered at the end of the meeting. The consent agenda is where a list of legislative acts is passed in a single vote.

Watch the whole thing! Video of Feb. 6, 2012 City Council.

16-item, 448-page Agenda Feb. 6, 2012 with background materials.

Annexation History Drives Water Agreement

2012-01-29T18:30:00.012-05:00

Charlottesville, Va. – How did the water, schools and city-county relations become entwined? There's an old saying: If you ignore a big truth long enough, it becomes your master. That truth is it's wrong to "annex" your neighbor and immoral to demand payment not to do something wrong. Annexation causes trouble whether it's Germany annexing Czechoslovakia, or Richmond annexing suburbs to affect local elections.

While Charlottesville thought they were getting a good deal, only 2 years into the agreement the City lost its legal "right to annex" because of the statewide moratorium. The County continued to buy this right in the belief the agreement is binding although its core provision evaporates, and under threat of most recent mayors Dave Norris and Satyendra Huja to begin annexation proceedings immediately if the extortion is not paid.

The Composite Index for state funding of local schools is the spark to the powder keg called revenue sharing. If the funding were allocated fairly and counted the latest $18 million as City income, the City would lose about $2.5 million, which County schools would gain. But the City would still have $16 extra million.

The Albemarle County school board has asked Delegate Rob Bell to carry a bill this session to reform the Composite Index to make the means testing more fair. The rhetoric from the City is harsh and accuses the County of trying to take money from City schools. The City is not arguing fairness.

How does this relate to the water? While many in the City have questioned why we're building new supply when the 2002 drought was an apparent hoax, others maintain the drought was real and more capacity is called for. Since annexation is an act of hate, we know the City government hates the County government. So the harsh rhetoric against the County is understandable.

Once you understand this dynamic, you begin to see a long list of hateful actions. The 13-foot compromise advocated by Dave Norris and Holly Edwards was hardly a compromise. According to a Jan. 2011 Daily Progress editorial, 60% of the water is above the 30-foot mark. The 30-foot compromise would have given 40% of the 2006 water plan. The 13-foot "compromise" much less.

The personal attacks and dishonesty of the water plan's critics were a low point in local history. Fortunately the City finally recognized they'd better be nice to the County or no more revenue sharing. Besides the more the County develops, the greater the property values, the more revenue is transferred to the City.

You see, greed can sometimes be a good thing. The agreement now benefits the County and is the oil that greases the palms that, after much protest, have approved the first new reservoir since 1966. Construction is expected to start in March 2012.

Revenue Sharing Summit: More city-county cooperation. Apr. 25, 2010.
The Composite Index for state funding of schools is proxy war for revenue sharing, now $18 million. City schools to lose $2.8 million if City revenue is accurately accounted for. Refutes Mar. 21, 2010 editorial by three former City Councilors who use their political stature to revise history.

A year later Councilor David Brown reports "We abandoned an opportunity to do something big [on city-county revenue sharing]." ( Council: No JPA bridge detour, No Belmont bridge repair, No art in historic zone. Apr. 5, 2011. )

1982 Revenue Sharing agreement published, Mar. 4, 2008. All 9 pages of the original agreement. The algebraic formula to compute the transfer payment deciphered from the word problem described in the agreement. List of first 26 annual payments.

2000 Revenue Sharing speech on video. Mar. 10, 2008. Includes speeches from 7 other candidates that year. Summary of Blair Hawkins’ campaign for City Council.

Slutzky: Revenue Sharing reform would be Declaration of War. Apr. 8, 2008. In case you don't see annexation as an act of war that it really is.

“Agreement fails in common sense” Nov. 16, 2011, The Daily Progress.

What is the 9-page city-county revenue sharing agreement? In 1982 Albemarle County agreed to purchase Charlottesville’s right to annex after a century of hostile annexations. But according to the front-page article (“County seeks to revisit measure,” Nov. 13, 2011, The Daily Progress), since the 1984 statewide moratorium on annexations, the City has had no right to annex. Yet the County has continued to pay for this nonexistent right.

To the non-politicians, this contract makes no sense. And the politicians, who have been petitioned repeatedly by common sense citizens, refuse the see the common sense. In the political universe, if you agree to buy something, you must continue to pay even when the seller stops providing the product as outlined in the contract.

As a resident and native of Charlottesville, I’ve written and spoken on this issue many times in great detail from many angles since abolition of revenue sharing was the main plank in my 2000 City Council campaign. I’m happy to see my message has gotten out to most people. Too bad the politicians aren’t listening.

Blair Hawkins
Charlottesville, Virginia

City-County joint venture Jefferson Madison Regional Library ("Post Office Sale Signed," Oct. 11, 1977, The Daily Progress)

1976 by the Albemarle County Historical Society, Albemarle, Jefferson’s County 1727-1976 by John Hammond Moore.

Historic day for water supply plan; City, countu officials give final approval. Jan 24, 2012. Charlottesville Tomorrow.

2011 Turning Point for 2006 Water Plan

Public Hearing on 125-year-old Water Plan. Sep. 19, 2010.

Why city & county can't cooperate on water plan. Dec. 14, 2010.

City to take over 2006 water plan. Jan 3, 2011.

Council wants 30-foot dam. Jan. 18, 2011.

Councilor Huja defends 30-foot dam. Jan. 22, 2011.

Council: Dueling dams, PUDs, dialogue on race, immigration. Feb. 8, 2011.

Council endorses 30-foot earthen dam, denies Ridge-Cherry. Feb. 23, 2011.

Earlier Water Links:

'Crying Drought' Fatigue, Mar. 9, 2009

"Rivanna Four Party Agreement 1972 to 2012", Feb. 15, 2009

"Ex-Councilors oppose their own water plan", Jun. 5, 2008

"Council approves water plan again", Jun. 2, 2008

“Dredging alternative at Citizens forum” May 5, 2008

"The emperor has no water" Hoax, Mar. 16, 2008

“2007: Year of the Non-Drought” Jan. 3, 2008

“50-year Water Plan for 76% more population: Ragged at same phase as Buck Mountain”, Sep. 18, 2007

“Rivanna uncomfortable using Buck Mountain land for Ragged Mountain plan” Nov. 2, 2006

“Council approves Ragged Mountain option: Water for another 50 years” Jun. 6, 2006. Includes Tom Frederick’s report to Council Feb. 7, 2005

Apology includes Garrett urban renewal

2011-11-20T19:49:00.002-05:00

Impact study for Downtown Mall shows Garrett zone larger than Downtown and Vinegar Hill combined.
1967 Garrett urban renewal zone.

Charlottesville, Va. – City Council passed the resolution on Nov. 7 to apologize for urban renewal. For the first time in at least a decade, the city officially acknowledged that Vinegar Hill is not the only urban renewal.

The eleventh of twelve points recognizes the much larger urban renewal project under the umbrella name Garrett Street. It affected more than a dozen streets, hundreds of residences, and scores of businesses and industries. Some seized properties are still for sale four decades later.

However, since the Mar. 25, 2004 request, the city has stalled and stonewalled in releasing the historical archives related to housing and redevelopment. By systematically omitting the Garrett project, a myth arose that Vinegar Hill is the only urban renewal in Charlottesville.

When those archives, 6,845 documents and 1,189 photos, are finally published, the ‘Vinegar Hill only’ myth will be put to rest. Then we'll be able to talk about history unrelated to urban renewal such as the town's first public school on Garrett Street in 1870, and many other pieces of local history.

Council prepares fake apology for urban renewal, Oct. 18, 2011.

City Council Agenda with background materials Nov. 7, 2011

A Resolution of the City of Charlottesville Apologizing for Destruction of Vinegar Hill

[1] Whereas the neighborhood known as Vinegar Hill was also known as the Black Business District for the Charlottesville area from the 1920’s to the late 1950’s, and;

[2] Whereas Vinegar Hill, a self-supported community, considered the hub of black culture that included a cross-section of residents from all economic backgrounds in Charlottesville, where businesses, schools, churches and homes comprised the predominantly African American neighborhood, and;

[3] Whereas businesses such as the Progressive Billiard Parlor, Jefferson Inn-Furnished Rooms, Wingfoot Shoe Shop and Inge’s Grocery provided the goods and services to African Americans who were in many cases unable to receive those services in other areas of Charlottesville as a result of segregation laws and discrimination, and;

[4] Whereas these business owners in Vinegar Hill faced intense racial discrimination in start, grow and maintain their businesses, and;

[5] Whereas the Federal Housing Act of 1937 paved the way for Charlottesville to begin consideration of public housing in this area, and;

[6] Whereas in January 1954, City Council adopted a resolution establishing a “Housing Authority” to deal with the “unsanitary and unsafe inhabited dwelling accommodations” that existed in the city, and;

[7] Whereas on June 14, 1960, the citizens of Charlottesville voted through a referendum to proceed with redeveloping Vinegar Hill under the Federal Urban Renewal Program, and;

[8] Whereas the attempt to create “a fine modern business section for the slum area…of Vinegar Hill” and a “decent standard of living” for the African American residents led to the displacement of close to 500 people and the destruction of close to 40 different businesses and churches, and;

[9] Whereas when the Vinegar Hill neighborhood was demolished, many of the displaced were moved to the new public housing community of Westhaven, and;

[10] Whereas some who lived in Vinegar Hill welcomed improved housing opportunities for the residents of the neighborhood but felt overlooked and unheard during the decision making process that led to Urban Renewal;

[11] Whereas Urban Renewal affected not only Vinegar Hill but homes and businesses along Garrett Street as well, and;

[12] Whereas some residents of Charlottesville still feel the negative consequences of Urban Renewal and continue to distrust the City government as a result;

Now therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned members of the Charlottesville City Council recognize the African-American owned businesses, homes and property that were destroyed or damaged by the razing of Vinegar Hill; acknowledge that the events leading to the destruction of this neighborhood did not adequately include those who were to be affected; mourn the lost sense of community caused by the demolition of this neighborhood; and for the harm caused we do hereby apologize for the City government’s role in the destruction of the Vinegar Hill Neighborhood, and affirm that the lessons learned from the City’s actions will be remembered.

Blighted House Demolished by Eminent Domain Ordinance

2011-11-19T22:32:00.006-05:00

Blighted house gone. Privacy fence survives.

Two sheds in backyard survive demolition.

Charlottesville, Va. – On Thursday Nov. 17 the house at 704 Montrose Avenue in Belmont was torn down. The $10,000 demolition made the front-page of The Daily Progress. By the next afternoon, only a privacy fence and two sheds indicated anything had ever been there. The house’s footprint was covered with straw.

City Council passed the ordinance Sep. 19 ordering the blight removal. The July 16, 2001 Blight Ordinance is actually an eminent domain process that allows eminent domain to seize and sell the condemned land or, in this case, abatement where the house is torn down but owner retains the real estate and is billed for the abatement.

The case was prosecuted by Patty Armstrong, Property Maintenance Inspector, and James E. Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services. They accused owner 77-year-old Charles W. Rogers of 40 violations since 1993. Rogers pleaded guilty to the blight and asked for more time to remove his belongings.

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 704 MONTROSE AVENUE TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville , Virginia, pursuant to Sec. 5-198 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville:

IT APPEARING TO THIS COUNCIL, based on information presented by the Director of Neighborhood Development Services (“Director”) and the Planning Commission, pursuant to Sections 5-193 through 5-195 of the City Code, THAT the property located at 704 Montrose Avenue (City Tax Map 59, Parcel 189), hereinafter the “Property”, constitutes a Blighted Property, as defined within City Code Sec. 5-192; and

IT APPEARING FURTHER THAT the Owner of the Property, despite having full notice and an opportunity to be heard and to present a plan for curing the blight, has failed to cure, or present a reasonable plan to cure, the conditions constituting the blight; now, therefore

THIS COUNCIL hereby declares the Property at 704 Montrose Avenue to be a nuisance and orders the Director to proceed with demolition and removal of the building located on the Property following the abatement process specified in City Code Sec. 5-198.

City Ordinance Code, Chapter 5 (Building Regulation, Property Maintenance), Article 5 (Blighted Property), Division 5 (Spot Blight Abatement)

Sec. 5-192. - Definition(s).
For the purposes of this division the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed below:
(a) Blighted property shall mean and refer to any property with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, deleterious land use, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, or welfare of the community.
(b) Director shall mean and refer to the director of neighborhood development services and his designee(s).
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-193. - Administrative determination of blight.
The director shall make a preliminary determination that a property is a blighted property. Upon making such a preliminary determination, the director shall notify the owner of the blighted property, specifying in writing the reasons why the property is considered blighted. A property owner shall have thirty (30) days from the director's written notice of the preliminary determination to respond with a plan to cure the blight within a reasonable time. If the owner fails to respond within the thirty-day period with a plan that is acceptable to the director, then the director may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing and make findings and recommendations concerning the repair or other disposition of the property in question.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-194. - Planning commission hearing.
(a) In the event a public hearing is scheduled by the planning commission:
(1) The director shall prepare a plan for the repair or other disposition of the subject property. The director's plan shall include any aspect(s) of a plan submitted by the property owner which the director deems to be reasonable.
(2) Notice of the public hearing, including the director's plan for the intended repair or other disposition of the property, and including the time and place of the hearing at which persons affected may appear and present their views, shall be given by the planning commission as follows:
(i) By regular and also by certified mail, to the following: (i) the owner of the blighted property, or the agent designated by the owner for receipt of service of notices concerning the payment of real estate taxes within the city;(ii) the abutting property owners in each direction, including those property owners immediately across the street or road from the property; and (iii) the representative neighborhood association, if any, for the immediate area, and
(ii) By publication, at least twice, with not less than six (6) days elapsing between the first and second publications, in a newspaper published or having general circulation in the city, and
(iii) By posting on the property itself.

(b) The public hearing shall take place not less than six (6) days nor more than twenty-one (21) days after the second newspaper publication.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-195. - Report of planning commission.
(a) Following a public hearing, the planning commission shall make specific findings as to whether:
(1) The property is a blighted property, as defined within City Code section 5-192
(2) The owner has failed to cure the blight or to present a reasonable plan to do so;
(3) The property is occupied for personal residential purposes,
(4) The property has been condemned for human habitation for more than one (1) year;
(5) The director's plan for the repair or other disposition of the property is reasonable and in accordance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances, and other applicable land use regulations;
(6) The property is located within an area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the event of such a determination, then the planning commission shall consult with the board of architectural review regarding the director's proposed plan for repair or other disposition of the property.

(b) The planning commission shall report its findings and recommendations concerning the repair or other disposition of the blighted property to the city council.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-196. - City council hearing.
Upon receipt of findings and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council may, after an advertised public hearing, affirm, modify or reject the planning commission's findings and recommendations. If the repair or other disposition of the property is approved, the city may carry out the approved plan in accordance with the approved plan and applicable law.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-197. - Recovery of costs.
The city shall have a lien on all property repaired or acquired under an approved plan, to cover the cost of improvements made by the city to bring the blighted property into compliance with applicable building codes and the cost of disposal, if any. The director shall prepare an affidavit certifying the amount of such costs. The lien shall be filed in the circuit court and shall be subordinate to any prior liens of record. The city may recover its costs of repair from the owner of record of the property when the repairs were made, at such time as the property is sold or disposed of by such owner. If the property is acquired by the city through eminent domain, the cost of repair may be recovered when the city council sells or disposes of the property. In either case, the costs of repair shall be recovered from the proceeds of any sale of the property.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Sec. 5-198. - Alternate remedies available to city.
(a) In lieu of the acquisition of a blighted property by the exercise of the city's powers of eminent domain, and in lieu of the exercise of other powers listed in this division, the city council may, by ordinance, make findings that a property constitutes a blighted property, as defined within City Code section 5-192, declare such blighted property a nuisance and thereupon abate the nuisance.
(b) Such ordinance shall be adopted only after written notice by certified mail to the owner(s) of the property, at the last known address of such owner(s) as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records. The notice shall advise the property owner that if corrective action is not taken by the property owner of the date(s) on which the ordinance will be considered by council, and a copy of the proposed ordinance shall be attached to the notice. A copy of such notice and proposed ordinance shall also be sent by certified mail to any lienholder(s) of record. Copies of certified mail receipt(s) shall be sufficient evidence of mailing.

(c) The abatement process shall be as follows:
(1) If the property owner fails to abate the blight prior to the date on which an ordinance is adopted by council, the director shall give a final notice to the owner and shall also send a copy of the final notice to any lienholder(s) of record. A copy of the ordinance adopted by council shall be attached to the final notice. The final notice shall state that, no fewer than fifteen (15) days from the mailing thereof, the city will commence to abate the blight, taking any corrective action the city deems appropriate, including, without limitation, removal of the building or other structure so as to abate the blight on the property. In the event the director determines that a removal of a building or structure is necessary to abate the blight on the property, the final notice shall give the owner and any lienholder of record at least thirty (30) days in which to abate the blight. The property owner shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to the city, to seek equitable relief, and the city shall initiate no corrective action while a proper petition is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

(d) The final notice shall be given to the owner and any lienholder(s) of record, as follows:
(1) To an individual who can be found within the city, by hand-delivering a copy of the notice to such person. Where hand-delivery is utilized the director shall prepare an affidavit certifying the hand-delivery. If the person named in the notice cannot be found after a diligent search, then notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of such person and a copy of the notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises; this latter procedure shall be deemed the equivalent of personal notice. Copies of certified mail receipt(s) shall be sufficient evidence of mailing; an affidavit of the director shall be sufficient evidence of hand-delivery.
(2) To an individual under the age of eighteen (18) years ("infant"), or who is otherwise legally incompetent, then notice shall be provided by hand-delivering a copy thereof to such person's parent, guardian or committee. If such parent, guardian or committee cannot be found after a diligent search, the notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of such parent, guardian or committee and a copy of the notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. If there be no guardian or committee, notice shall be given by delivering a copy thereof to any person found at the infant's or incompetent's usual place of abode who is a member of his or her family and who is sixteen (16) years of age or older. If such infant or incompetent resides at a residential or other treatment facility, adult care facility or nursing home, notice shall be given by delivering a copy to the officer or official who is in charge of such facility. If a family member or an officer or official cannot be located after reasonable efforts to do so, then a copy of the notice shall be posted at the front door of the infant's or incompetent's usual abode and a copy of the notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the unsafe premises. Compliance with the procedure(s) set forth in this paragraph shall be deemed the equivalent of personal notice. Copies of certified mail receipt(s) shall be sufficient evidence of mailing; an affidavit of the director shall be sufficient evidence of hand-delivery.
(3) To a corporation, bank, trust company, or other corporate or business entity, then notice shall be provided by hand-delivering a copy thereof to its president or other officer, director, manager, managing partner or agent thereof who is located in the city; or, if an individual cannot be found at the regular office or place of business in the city, by hand-delivering a copy to any employee thereof found at such office or place of business; or, if no such employee is found at such office or place of business, by leaving a copy of the notice posted at the front door of such office or place of business and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the corporate or business entity. A copy of the notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the unsafe premises. Compliance with the procedure(s) set forth in this paragraph shall be deemed the equivalent of personal notice. Copies of certified mail receipt(s) shall be sufficient evidence of mailing; an affidavit of the director shall be sufficient evidence of hand-delivery.
(4) To a person whose identity is unknown or who has no place of abode, office or place of business in the city, and if, after reasonable efforts, the city cannot locate a last known address for such person, notice shall be given by publishing a copy of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, once per week, for two (2) successive weeks, in a newspaper having general circulation within the city. A certificate of publication provided by the newspaper shall be sufficient evidence of the required publication.
(5) Where the final notice is sent by certified mail, or notice of publication is utilized, no action shall be taken by the city to remove any building or structure for at least thirty (30) days following the later of the return of a certified mailing receipt or newspaper publication.
(7-16-01(1), § 2)

Previous Reports

Council rules blighted Belmont house has until September, July 7, 2011.

Reprieve for blighted Belmont house, Sep. 6, 2011.

Council prepares fake apology for urban renewal

2011-10-18T19:32:00.008-04:00

Luanne Williams in Feb. 2007 gives size of housing/redevelopment archive: 6,845 documents and 1,189 photographs.

Charlottesville, Va. – The current City Council pretended to apologize for one urban renewal project Monday while making no reforms to the city’s urban renewal agency. All five councilors feel sorry for the Vinegar Hill project but otherwise support urban renewal. Council is expected to pass the fake apology at the next regular meeting Monday Nov. 7.

The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (urban renewal agency) was created 1954 in the first of many controversial and illegal referendums. The 1960 referendum approved the Vinegar Hill clearance. A later referendum approved seizing the site for the Westhaven public housing apartment complex with 126 units. Westhaven was named for John West, a black developer who built Vinegar Hill after the Civil War, when blacks outnumbered whites and everyone remembered the 1850s atrocities.

The 1967 triple referendum set in motion a much larger urban renewal project continuing to this day, which Council is not apologizing for. The Garrett Street urban renewal is so controversial that recently The Daily Progress could not say in a front-page article who UVa’s Garrett Hall is named for. Five publicly funded apartment complexes were built in what’s now called the Warehouse District or Downtown Extended. The 150-unit Garrett Square, now called Friendship Court, sits where the last wholesale destruction of non-blighted houses occurred in 1977.

If you want more information on how the history of Thomas Jefferson’s financial advisor, UVa’s first bursar, Albemarle sheriff, court clerk, real estate developer and friend Alexander Garrett was lost, simply ask current City Councilor Satyendra Huja. Huja was city planner from 1973 to 2004 with a master’s degree in urban renewal, the settlement of seized lands and resettlement of displaced people. He was an eyewitness to the urban renewal that dare not speak its name and should know many details. Unfortunately Huja claims no knowledge of urban renewal other than Vinegar Hill, which occurred before he came to Charlottesville.

Not only does Councilor Holly Edwards work as a nurse in a public housing complex (conflict of interest with urban renewal), she’s playing games with our local history. In Feb. 2009 Blair Hawkins asked Edwards on WINA’s Schilling Show if she would help to get the public housing / urban renewal archives published. Instead of arranging an appointment to scan the archives, she kept trying to arrange a meeting between Hawkins and the two people blocking this history; namely Randy Bickers, director of the urban renewal agency, and so-called historian Scot French at the University of Virginia. A Feb. 2007 report to the Historical Society indicated 6,845 documents and 1,189 photographs. Subsequently only Vinegar Hill photos and documents have been published, and only a portion of those.

Mayor Dave Norris is a former chairman of the 7-member board that oversees the Housing Authority, so of course he supports eminent domain to seize and sell real estate for private uses such as private residences and private enterprise. Norris supported the Nov. 2005 city charter amendment to expand eminent domain powers with only then-Councilor Rob Schilling voting no. In Nov. 2006 when the entire City Council publicly refused to release the historical archives, Norris did not offer to use his connections as a former urban renewal chairman to get the process rolling.

Councilor David Brown expressed his support for urban renewal during his first term. At the Democratic nomination Brown said he had established a local funding stream to the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, in addition to federal funds. Previously the City provided the land while U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supplied most of the money. In 2006 as mayor and again just this past summer, Brown threatened to use police power to steal blighted houses, acquire property without a guilty ruling from a court.

Councilor Kristin Szakos is fairly new on the scene. But it didn’t help recently when she referred ex-convicts to the best-known, local criminal agency – Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. That advice came at a meeting where Council voted to use eminent domain to seize land the owner willingly gave, in order to avoid compensating Kmart for 110 parking spaces taken for Hillsdale Drive Extended at Whole Foods.

To those following the civil rights issue related to urban renewal, it is an incredible story. It’s incredible how many eyewitnesses are pretending Vinegar Hill is the only urban renewal. As Charlottesville’s 250th anniversary approaches, we already see an Orwellian display of appreciation for history. Remember the novel 1984 was about a guy whose job was to erase history, to falsify the archives to agree with whatever current politicians are saying. It’s much easier to block access. It’s much easier to destroy the documents. But why bother if your society repeats without question whatever the officials say.

17-item, 112-page Council Agenda with background material.

Video of Oct. 17, 2011 City Council meeting.

Previous Reports:

Reprieve for blighted Belmont house, Sep. 6, 2011.

Council invokes eminent domain for Hillsdale dedication, May 2, 2011.

Sustainability Fair at old Lane High School, Apr. 27, 2011. Photo of urban renewal official (not Vinegar Hill). HUD has extra money to give away while sustainability people pass along false urban renewal history.

Latest Archive Request on WINA, Feb. 12, 2009. Includes detailed timeline with links. Carter Woodson Institute were in possession of the archives, there was an office shakeup, and the archives moved on. Now the Institute has no information on this topic.

Asst city manager Small-Toney blocked access to public records, May 23, 2007. Small-Toney accepted a job in Savannah, Ga. And sparked controversy when she couldn’t get bonded as condition to be hired as City Manager.

First Baptist Church site of first Jefferson School, Feb. 25, 2007. Luanne Williams makes public the size of the urban renewal archive: 6,845 documents, 1,189 photographs, 189 maps and blueprints, 6,199 files related to GIS mapping for a total of 14,422 items.

Update on urban renewal archive: 287 more photos, Feb. 12, 2007.

Council refuses to release urban renewal archives: Jefferson School conflict of interest: Blighted House has until Feb 15, Nov. 21, 2006. All five Councilors pretend to be unaware of the urban renewal issue. Kendra Hamilton advises Hawkins contact the latest urban renewal director, pretends not to know that assistant city manager had the archives.

“An Inconvenient Truth:” Report from Housing Authority: Update on archives, HUD request, July 17, 2006. Periodically HUD destroys whichever archives are the oldest, most historic.

Newspaper updates 38-year-old Levy Avenue urban renewal, July 27, 2010. Newspaper article placed in historical context.

More Urban Renewal Archives online, Jan. 18, 2010. All 287 photos Small-Toney allowed to be photographed after claiming Hawkins had been granted full access, but only a dozen unidentified houses and only 6 houses on Ware Street, site of Friendship Court.

Perriello protest in Garrett zone, July 2, 2009. Modern view. Photos prior to urban renewal being suppressed by institutions.

Democrats nominate Huja, Edwards, Brown: challengers Seaman, McKeever to remain active, June 3, 2007. Only Blair's Blog reported on urban renewal debate at the convention. Other local media simply omitted enough to give the appearance urban renewal was never mentioned while it came up throughout the convention.

Aplogy for slavery insincere, Jan. 20, 2007. Analogy with urban renewal.

Opposes Charlottesville’s affordable housing amendment: Letter to Va. General Assembly, Jan 8, 2006. Includes text of amendment to expand urban renewal powers.

Reprieve for blighted Belmont house

2011-09-06T22:46:00.004-04:00

"I don’t want to die in hurrying to meet a deadline I can’t honestly meet." - C.W. Rogers

Charlottesville, Va. – At tonight’s meeting City Council granted a reprieve for the blighted house at 704 Montrose Avenue. Owner Charles W. Rogers agreed to demolish the house by the end of October when Council will unlawfully seize the house and destroy it if it still exists.

Rogers assured Council that won’t be necessary. He will have the house taken down after he has removed his belongings stored in the house unoccupied for 30 years.

Council’s destruction of the house and lean on the lot for the cost of demolition would be a felony civil rights violation. What right would Council be violating? Due Process – the right to have a judge and jury decide if you have violated the 2001 Spot Blight Ordinance and what punishment fits the crime.

Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert presented the prosecution. Co-accuser Patty Armstrong has fallen ill and was absent. Tolbert conceded an actual person interested in purchasing the cleared lot has called his office.

Tolbert has had many questions from the media and tried to claim the City is “not taking his property.” Yes, they are. They’re taking the house, not the land it sits on. Actually they’ve already taken it by dictating how and by when the legal owner will dispose of the property.

Councilor Holly Edwards said, "I'm sorry...The bottom line is safety...Safety is the bottom line." Basically Edwards is claiming safety trumps the Constitution she took an oath to uphold.

In his Aug. 11 letter, 77-year-old Rogers sets forth extenuating circumstances. People who promised to help were unavailable to help including independent City Council candidate Bob Fenwick. Rogers said he suffered a heat stroke with severe chest pains in July, which sent him to the emergency room.

In that letter Rogers asks for a few more weeks to remove his boxes of books, furniture and appliances. He also threatens to sue. “If I am not given a reasonable amount of time to do this work, I will have to hire an attorney and bring suit against the City Dept.”

Such a lawsuit would not be against a department or entity. Tolbert and Armstrong would likely be charged for their role in not turning the case over to the Commonwealth’s Attorney. They might argue sovereign immunity, which the American Revolution abolished. “Doing my job” is not a legal defense for committing crimes such as stealing a house.

Video of Charlottesville City Council Sep. 6, 2011.

32-item, 283-page Council Agenda Sep. 6, 2011 with background materials and the Minutes of previous meeting written for and approved by Council.

Council rules blighted Belmont house has until September, July 7, 2011. Only Blair’s Blog listened carefully and reported that the 30 days was not the real deadline.

Latest hand-written letter from Charles W. Rogers

Aug. 11, 2011

Dear Sirs,

Several interested people wanting to buy the property at 704 Montrose have looked at the house but can’t decide until all the rooms are cleared out before full inspection. As you are aware all the 7 rooms are full of boxes of books, furniture, etc. I have only been able to clear out 4 rooms and will need a few weeks more to finish.

As you know by the papers July was the hottest month in years with temperatures every day in the high 90s and often topping 100. I am 77 years old and handicapped. In during this moving I suffered heat stroke and chest pains and had to go to the hospital emergency room.

This was the worst time of year you could have given me a 30 day ultimatum to clear out the house and have it appraised by repairmen or buyers. 30 days is an impossible deadline for me to dispose of all the contents. I don’t think I’m unreasonable to ask for more time.

The letter I originally got from the Planning Commission promised they would make an allowance for the aged or handicapped. I now ask for this.

When my embarrassing situation came out in the local paper, several people, among them Bob Fenwick running for City Council, offered to help me move the house contents but when I called them back later, nobody would give me a commitment for a time to meet me there to help.

So I have had to decide and put aside which things I wanted to keep and move into storage, what to donate to the local Goodwill, SPCA, Salvation Army, etc., and which to take to the dump. This is a slow process.

In the excessive heat I have had to limit myself to 2 or 3 hours in the evenings as my doctor said I was endangering my life with this excessive exertion. If I am not given a reasonable amount of time to do this work, I will have to hire an attorney and bring suit against the City Dept.

I have a bad back from degenerative disc disease but I never suffered bad chest pains until now. I don’t want to die in hurrying to meet a deadline I can’t honestly meet.

Why didn’t you wait till the early spring or fall to take this action against me? The terrible heat of July has just been too much for my body. I have long been declared handicapped by my doctor.

I’m not trying to put this off or delay action. I want to get this headache over with as much as you do. I am making a real effort to get this over with. I have disposed of 3½ rooms of clutter and have that amount left to go. I believe by this time next month it will be cleared out and a firm decision can be made as to whether repair or demolition can be reasonably assessed.

I think you’ll agree I was shocked by the City Council demanding I solve this problem in only 30 days as I was counting on the Planning Commission, which assured me I’d have six months to do this work.

I ask for a few more weeks.

Sincerely,
C.W. Rogers

P.S. Please refer to your files on the letter informing me to appear before the Planning Commission (I can’t find my copy) in which it stated allowance would be given for the aged and/or handicapped (I am both). The interested parties won’t give me an estimate until I can clear all the house. I was formerly depending on the Planning Commission assurance of being given 6 months.

In other matters

M. Rick Turner, president of the Charlottesville-Albemarle NAACP, embarrassed himself and the community once again. Claiming skin color, Turner wondered why the Downtown Mall had so few black faces. It must be racism, not that blacks have better things to do or have mostly moved away.

Let me explain it once again. It is self-segregation. A small group of blacks have adopted the thug culture and speak like they learned English from a rap video. A larger group of blacks defend the thugs by claiming racism and demanding restorative justice for thugs instead of equal justice. To non-blacks, it’s hard to tell who is the thug or the thug defender. If a black is not a thug, he’s accused of acting white or acting smart.

Then black leaders, members of the gangster culture like Turner himself who left UVa after smoking crack with a female police informant, ask repeatedly and loudly: Why is everybody avoiding us? At the same time these so-called leaders decry black violence in the black community, somehow not seeing it spill out into the whole community.

The City Council video says it all after the blight item as the climate item began. One guy is sidestepping his way toward the aisle. A second guy is stretched out in the last seat. The first guy has to jump over him and almost stumbles.

Why didn’t the second guy sit up to let the first guy out? Which one was white and which one was black? Either way the second guy is building a future where he won’t be able to point to good deeds to explain why people politely go the other way when they see him coming.

These black politicians are so blinded by skin color, they see no correlation between content of character and segregation.

UVa’s Garrett Hall namesake suppressed by newspaper

2011-08-28T18:26:00.005-04:00

letters@dailyprogress.com

August 14, 2011,

Dear Editor,

After reading the front-page article on the Garrett Hall renovation (“After 102 years, Garrett gains new life,” The Daily Progress, Aug. 13, 2011), I am left with one unanswered question. Who is Garrett Hall named for?

In modern times at the local level, the Garrett name has become controversial because of the 1970s urban renewal of the 1860 Garrett neighborhood, formerly Garrett’s 117-acre Oak Hill farm. Nowadays the area is more often called the Warehouse District or Downtown Extended. In 2002 the Garrett Square apartments were renamed Friendship Court.

In a previous era, The Daily Progress was able to talk about Alexander Garrett. In 1952 when the Garrett mansion on Garrett Street was about to be torn down, an article summarized the contributions of Alexander Garrett as well as the history of the building.

The 1952 newspaper photograph of the Garrett house strikes the same pose as the 2011 front-page photo of Garrett Hall. No doubt the 1909 architects were able to study the 1820s mansion first-hand and model Garrett Hall after the home of Alexander Garrett.

“[Alexander] Garrett was a friend and financial advisor of Thomas Jefferson and the first bursar of the University of Virginia. He was present at Monticello when Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. The following is an excerpt from a letter he wrote his wife shortly thereafter:

“Mr. Jefferson is no more. He breathed his last ten minutes before one o’clock, almost without a struggle. No one here but Col. Carr and myself, both of us ignorant of shrouding, neither ever having done it ourselves or seen it done. We have done the best we could and I hope all is right. His remains will be buried tomorrow” (“Historic ‘Cold Steam Building’ Yields to Modern-Day Needs,” The Daily Progress, Apr. 16, 1952).

Sincerely,

Blair Hawkins
Charlottesville, Virginia

Related Links from Google

“Garrett Hall Renovations to Start This Week” by Matt Kelly, Oct. 9, 2009, UVA Today. “Garrett Hall was originally known as the Commons, a central dining hall for the Grounds…The dining room moved to the newly opened Newcomb Hall in 1958 and The Commons underwent renovation to house the bursar's office. It reopened in 1959, having been renamed after Alexander Garrett, the first bursar of the University. The bursar's office moved from Garrett Hall in the early 1980s.”

“Batten School's New Home Honors the Past, Prepares for the Future” by Matt Kelly, Aug. 2, 2011, UVA Today. “The University's central dining room moved to the newly opened Newcomb Hall in 1958, and the Commons underwent renovation to house the bursar's office. It reopened in 1959, renamed after Alexander Garrett, the first bursar.”

“Please, no historical histrionics: Charlottesville's real history,” letter by Antoinette Roades, March 27, 2007, C-ville Weekly Issue 19.13. “The creation of my zone’s street scheme, together with the establishment of both Ridge Street and Fifth Street as public thoroughfares, dates to 1825 (a full half-century earlier) when Alexander Garrett (namesake for Garrett Street and UVA’s Garrett Hall) platted his Oak Hill farm.”

Previous letters too radical to print

“Global Warming: Another letter too radical to print”, Feb. 15, 2011. C-ville Weekly prints at week 3 after letter published on internet.

“Historical Society: Jefferson School 1865”, Aug. 17, 2010. Daily Progress refuses letter from board member Fred Dove of Historical Society similar to one by Blair Hawkins in 2007, which Progress refused.

“Staunton didn’t self-destruct”, Apr. 1, 2004. I sent the letter to The Hook in response to Feb. 19 cover story. But the Hook didn’t print it until I had waited more than 2 weeks, then posted it to Charlottesville Independent Media in mid-March 2004.

“Race violence in our schools?” Apr. 4, 2006. Daily Progress again.

Council rules blighted Belmont house has until September

2011-07-07T20:17:00.004-04:00

77-year-old Charles W. Rogers owns the blighted house at 704 Montrose Avenue.

Charlottesville, Va. – Tuesday evening City Council agreed, without voting, to give the owner of 704 Montrose Avenue until September to have contracts to repair or letters of intent to purchase the house, otherwise Council will order demolition. The work does not have to completed by then.

The owner, 77-year-old Korean War veteran Charles W. Rogers made a coherent case. He said he now has the money to bring the house up to code. He has $85,000 from unexpectedly selling a lot on Druid Avenue. He hasn’t moved forward since the April ruling from the Planning Commission which recommended 6 months to formulate a tangible plan for blight abatement. He was waiting for Council’s decision, which could have called for immediate demolition or quick-take seizure under eminent domain.

Rogers disputed every allegation made by city staff Patty Armstrong and Jim Tolbert. Rogers said the termite infestation has been eliminated. The house is not on the verge of collapse. It is not infested with rats because he put out enough rat poison “to kill an elephant” and doesn’t want rodents gnawing on his books.

Though unoccupied for 30 years, the house is used to store books. He estimated $20,000 to $30,000 to upgrade the house while staff and Council claim renovation will cost more than the place is valued. Rogers agreed to demolish the 2-story house if his contractors agree with the assessment of contractors the City hired. He also said “2 or 3” people have offered to buy the house as is. At a minimum he wants time to remove the books.

Both sides backed off from earlier rhetoric. In response to a Dec. letter from the City, Rogers claims in a 10-page handwritten letter in Jan. that the city has billed him for yard maintenance work not performed, a $900 and a $500 bill. He questions the ethics of City hiring contractors, who employ City employees, presenting the appearance of corruption. He has paid the bills and is current on all taxes.

Ms. Armstrong dropped her petty charge that Rogers’ Jan. letter was late. Rogers hand-delivered his 10-page letter on Jan. 17 but City Hall was closed due to Martin Luther King Jr. day. So Rogers had to make a second trip on Jan. 18. Armstrong complained the letter didn’t address her allegations. That’s because Rogers was presenting his side. Rogers had to write still another letter, this time only 2 pages, in May to address these government agents. Both letters are included in the Agenda.

In Council discussion, Satyendra Huja wanted to give the elderly man on a fixed income more time, 6 months or more. But David Brown was less caring and lenient with experience threatening houses as far back as 2006. Brown said 30 days should be enough time at least to get letters of intent, otherwise we’ll be right back here in 6 months. Holly Edwards seemed the most compassionate, wanting to respect the man’s dignity in this process. Kristin Szakos wanted hearing phones for the hearing impaired likes some churches have.

This story is yet another to show how incredibly far from the Constitution we have strayed. Council is serving as a court adjudicating the law, a panel of judges or a jury of elites. City inspectors are acting as law enforcement officers. In a real court, the accused is presumed to be innocent. Therefore the inspectors would be presumed liars and required to present evidence. Why is Council granting an extension instead of the Commonwealth’s Attorney or Judge?

Even more strange, Mr. Rogers’ civil right of due process is being violated simply because his life, liberty, or property is threatened by someone other than a court. City Council and the City Attorney were educated on the three branches of government and their roles at a Nov. 2006 Council meeting.

“Secondly, I’d like to ask the city attorney a civics question about our system of government. We have three branches of government. The legislative branch (city council) passes laws and ordinances. The executive branch (all city employees including police) enforces the laws. And the judicial branch interprets the law. Is it true, in our system of government, only courts can seize and sell property?” – Blair Hawkins Nov. 20, 2006.

The question of whether to employ due process or eminent domain has been dealt with over the years. In 2001 Council passed a Blight Ordinance. The main purpose was to avoid dramatic showdowns like the one tonight. Before then, blighted properties were seized, destroyed or resold without due process, similar to tonight’s proceeding. Under the ordinance, blight is treated like any other infraction. You don’t appeal a parking ticket to Council, so why would you take a housing code violation to Council?

There’s one problem with due process – the property must be sold at auction to prevent corruption. But eminent domain allows the seizing agency to set the selling price, choose the buyer, and continue to act as owner by dictating how the new owner will use the property; ensuring corruption as we see in the case of 704 Montrose Avenue.

At Tuesday’s meeting the selling end of eminent domain was on display. The surplus lot on Elliott Avenue had its first official public hearing. The last meeting’s public hearing didn’t count because of advertising glitches. At last meeting Tolbert suggested Council could deem that to be the second reading and Tuesday’s the first. But Council didn’t take his weird advice so there will be three readings.

There was a first reading for a land swap. The owner of River Court wants to swap for land at the end of Madison Ave at Washington Park near Preston Avenue. How did the City acquire this land anyway?

Also 409 Stadium Road facing Jefferson Park Avenue has the same issues. Council is trying to pick a new owner based on proffers to the City and future planned uses of the property. Why don’t they sell it at auction and current zoning?

Because they are control freaks – with the power and desire to ignore Constitutional limitations.

Video of July 5, 2011 City Council Meeting

11-item, 117-page Council Agenda July 5, 2011 with back ground materials

Previous Reports:

Council real estate dealings under scrutiny, June 20, 2011. Former Mayor Blake Caravati complains about City not being transparent.

Council refuses to release urban renewal archives: Jefferson School conflict of interest: Blighted house has until Feb 15, Nov. 21, 2006. Includes the “3 Branches of Government” speech, documentation of first request to view housing archives Mar. 25, 2004 and Council’s 2006 unanimous refusal to allow that.

Council to rule on ordinance violation: ‘Blighted’ house to be seized, Nov. 2, 2006. Photo of 610 Ridge Street next to LEAP around the corner from EcoMod and Burnet Commons. Shows lengthy process to declare blight, each step in the process resulting from historical abuses.

'Blighted' house to be seized: eminent domain by Council vote or due process by Court ruling? Oct. 15, 2006. 610 Ridge Street and condemnation notice.

Rogers agrees to demolish if independent contractors validate City findings.

You can easily see which is the problem property-- the overgrown house. The original sin may have been not continuing the privacy fence all the way around the property.

Council real estate dealings under scrutiny

2011-06-20T22:53:00.005-04:00

Housing Development Specialist Kathy McHugh has facilitated several sales of public land this year.

Charlottesville, Va. – Former Mayor Blake Caravati criticized the City for not being transparent in its sale of surplus public land on Elliott Avenue to Southern Development and Habitat for Humanity. A landlord of nearby houses for 25 years, Caravati compared his not being notified to neighbors of 409 Stadium Road (facing Jefferson Park Avenue), who complained at a recent Council meeting that they had not been notified of that sale.

Both properties currently have “For Sale” signs posted. But as tonight’s meeting shows, said Caravati, the property is already sold. He said many candidates over the years have used transparency as a main issue in their campaigns. He wants to know why other members of the public have no opportunity to make a proposal.

Southern Development is partnering with Habitat to build a 47-unit “Burnet Commons Phase II” in the backyards of houses facing Ridge extending to Lankford Avenue. Three units would be affordable and four finished lots for Habitat to build on. The developer has already negotiated options to purchase the backyards if the project is approved.

Housing Development Specialist Kathy McHugh presented tonight’s agenda item and said the packet includes an ordinance to finalize the sale.

Director of Neighborhood Development Services Jim Tolbert said his department sent out over 80 letters to adjacent property owners but the sale was not posted. According to Tolbert, the Daily Progress made a mistake so tonight’s public hearing is unofficial. The official public hearing will be July 5 at the second reading and Council passage or rejection of the sale first proposed in December.

When neighbors complained about 409 Stadium Road, Tolbert apologized and promised to do better. While Burnet Commons neighbors complained about lack of transparency and process earlier this year when the City sold a different adjacent lot to Habitat, tonight the only Burnet resident to speak had high praise.

Councilor Satyendra Huja asked if there was a rush or deadline. Tolbert said there was none and Council has the option of taking no action. “The earth will not end if it doesn’t get done tonight,” he said.

Ironically, Tolbert said Council could change the process. They could switch the first reading with public hearing to July 5 and pass the ordinance tonight June 20 at the second reading “if you so chose.”

The issue of elected bodies not following process came up in public comment when US 29 Bypass opponents criticized the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for reviving the bypass in an unannounced, late-night vote June 8 after retiring Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier said cash-strapped VDOT has money for the project.

Except for rhetorical use, the complaints fell on deaf ears because Council uses the same tricks, most dramatically on Jan. 18 with the surprise approval of the 30-foot dam.

In tonight’s special public hearing, in addition to Mayor Caravati, two others spoke: Dan Rosenwieg, Director of Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity and Paul Cook of Burnet Street. But these two spoke in favor of the sale and subsequent development.

In other matters

Renovation is set finally to start in July and last 15 months at Jefferson School. As a result, the Carver precinct voting location will temporarily move to the Institute for Autism on Rose Hill Drive possibly through the November 2012 election. Voter identification cards will be mailed to every registered voter in the city. The JPA precinct will split into two precincts because of population shifts and the 2010 census.

Video of June 20, 2011 City Council meeting

21-item, 193-page Council Agenda June 20, 2011 with background materials. ** NEW ** The Minutes of the previous meeting is included.

Previous Report: TEA Party takes heat at Council meeting, June 6, 2011

TEA Party takes heat at Council meeting

2011-06-06T22:09:00.002-04:00

Carol Thorpe speaks April 15, 2010 at Second Tax Day Tea Party

Charlottesville, Va. – In public comment, a deluded Jack Marshall characterized the Jefferson Area TEA Party as deluded. Marshall’s 3-minute speech was one for the ages, to be memorized by students of rhetoric because he used every trick in the book. It was political theater to energize the “radical ideologues” in the TEA Party. Such reckless rhetoric often backfires.

Marshall spoke right after Carol Thorpe, president of the Jefferson Area Taxed Enough Already Party. Marshall called the party, and hence Thorpe, reckless, insulting, anti-history, anti-intellectual, a “conspiratorial absurdity,” along with other epithets.

Mayor Dave Norris joined the negative rhetoric in council comment following public comment. Norris said he likes and has had lunch with Thorpe. But she should see that Sustainability is a “pretty core conservative value.” Conservation saves the City “hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.”

Norris claims “nothing nefarious” and hopes the TEA Party will return to legitimate issues and move away from “extreme conspiracy theories.”

Carol Thorpe explained that her group supports lower-case “sustainability,” principles of conservation and good stewardship of the environment. But, if it’s upper-case “Sustainability,” a set of specific laws mandating right action, then that would be a problem. Thorpe said the livability agenda threatens private property rights.

But Thorpe didn’t specify what property rights are. Besides she was speaking to a 5-member City Council who routinely violate those rights and revise the history of those violations.

Most recently on May 2, the property owner for Kmart, Hillsdale Drive and the new Whole Foods, asked Council to use eminent domain against himself for 110 parking spaces Kmart had been renting before the new road was built. The action would nullify the landlord-tenant agreement and circumvent legal negotiations ongoing between Kmart and landlord Meadowbrook Creek.

What are those property rights? In the United States the foundational rights are public use, just compensation, and due process. They balance individual rights versus group needs. The first two rights are called eminent domain, the only exception for due process and only for property that the society uses.

Due process requires you be found guilty of a crime before your life, liberty, or property can be taken. If society needs your property for the public to use, the only crime you’re guilty of is having property they need. As a safeguard against rampant abuses through history, the American Revolution changed eminent domain to public use, not public good, public benefit, economic development, jobs, blight, or anything else. The revolution added just compensation so if your property is seized, you’re paid an amount that would justify the violation of your due process.

How is Sustainability a threat to due process? In order to protect the environment, your land is designated wetlands and off-limits to you. In effect your property has been seized but you still own it and pay taxes on it. These infringements happen every day; it’s not just academic. If you trespass on your own land, you could be arrested. But what charge – trespassing on your own property?

So you’ll never be charged. Eminent domain will be invoked and the meaning changed. Instead of public use, it will be public good or for the good of the planet and its climate. Instead of just compensation, it will be fair market value, a price that applies only when the seller and buyer are not under any coercion, such as threat of court actions.

The Sustainability advocates claim the draft ordinances resulting from three years master planning will not be binding. A letter in The Daily Progress on Sunday listed the United Nations documents where Sustainability principles have been traced. But they don’t list the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence. That’s because they don’t recognize the God-given rights described in those documents.

What’s more important? The environment, the planet, the weather, the global nations? Or you – the most tiny minority of all – only one person? One person can make a difference – for the worse if Jack Marshall prevails and for the better if Carol Thorpe can articulate the radical ideals our forefathers set as the supreme law in our national constitution.

Video of June 6, 2011 City Council Meeting

19-item, 130-page Council Agenda June 6, 2011 with background materials

12-item, 97-page Council Agenda May 16, 2011 with background materials

Previous reports:

Council invokes eminent domain for Hillsdale dedication, May 2, 2011.

Sustainability comes to Council for $1 million, Apr. 18, 2011

Sustainability Fair at old Lane High School, Apr. 27, 2011

Council invokes eminent domain for Hillsdale dedication

2011-05-02T21:58:00.003-04:00

Charlottesville, Va. – If not for concerned citizen Collette Hall, the seizing of 110 parking spaces at Kmart for Hillsdale Drive would have sailed through as a “condemnation.” Hall asked City Attorney Craig Brown if this taking is eminent domain. Brown responded yes. Hall said she opposes eminent domain.

Then, incredibly, Brown claimed Council has been “reluctant” to use eminent domain. In fact, eminent domain comes up at every single City Council meeting, although its name is rarely spoken.

After the Kmart item, Council released a storm drain easement acquired 1993 under implied threat of eminent domain. The item after that was the selling of 409 Stadium Road seized and now surplus for construction of Jefferson Park Avenue. In the next item on the Re-entry Summit for ex-convicts, Councilor Kristin Szakos talked about “CRHA” – Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the most notorious abuser of eminent domain locally.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said the taking was in the public interest – a belief which must have led him to support countless eminent domain abuses as chief City Planner 1973–2004. Only Holly Edwards and Kristin Szakos feigned unease at the ease with which property can be seized. David Brown threatened eminent domain against 610 Ridge Street in Nov. 2006 while he was mayor and connected the urban renewal agency to city, not just federal, funding under his tenure while telling newspapers he couldn’t imagine the city ever using eminent domain. Mayor Dave Norris was absent, but a supporter of unlimited eminent domain and former chairman of the Housing Authority Board.

Tonight’s eminent domain proposal passed 3 to 1. Vice-Mayor Edwards cast the no vote registered in the Norris slot in the electronic vote machine while she sat in his chair.

According to attorney Craig Brown, Kmart does not own the property. Meadowbrook Creek owns the Kmart property as well as the first phase of Hillsdale Drive and Whole Foods. The road is under a public use now. Kmart rents the store and parking lot and has 6 or 7 years left on the lease.

Brown said the condemnation is urgent because the city wants to dedicate the private road as a city public road. But why? Why can’t this private road be an easement for the public use as a public road? Easement was good enough for the storm drain.

The owner Meadowbrook Creek had intended to give the land and road to the city anyway as a proffer for approval of the plan. But they built the road too far into Kmart’s parking lot. It’s not a property rights issue; it’s a lease dispute between Kmart and the property owner. Council has now made it a property rights issue.

Meadowbrook will reimburse the city. So in essence Council is asked to nullify a landlord-tenant agreement between Kmart and its landlord. In return the city will have more public land not paying taxes.

(1) Is this action necessary? No. The property owner agrees to the perpetual public use.
(2) Is this a last resort? No. If Council postponed this item indefinitely, the inaction would have no effect on anyone. The property would continue as a public road.
(3) Is fair market value offered? No. According to Brown a few years ago, fair market value is a sale where neither the buyer nor seller is under any coercion. If Kmart also had the power of eminent domain, then it might be fair.
(4) Have all other options been exhausted? No, not even close. But the action is urgent because they want to dedicate the street. So a dedication is now a justification for eminent domain?

In Charlottesville, eminent domain has been abused excessively. The abuse partly explains why Charlottesville is unfriendly to business. It explains why real estate is so expensive. Every legal act of eminent domain shrinks the real estate market when the property becomes publicly owned.

Eminent domain to seize and sell property for any reason, perhaps to increase the tax base or create jobs or economic development, is a felony under the U.S. Constitution. Even the illegal acts shrink the real estate market because some properties become radioactive with controversy recorded forever in the deed archives in courthouses.

Video of City Council May 2, 2011

20-item, 219-page Council Agenda May 2, 2011 with background materials

Previous Report: Sustainability Fair at old Lane High School, Apr. 27, 2011

Council refuses to release urban renewal archives: Jefferson School conflict of interest: Blighted House has until Feb 15, Nov. 21, 2006 Includes speech delivered by Blair Hawkins and documentation of the first request to view the housing archives March 25, 2004.

Sustainability Fair at old Lane High School

2011-04-27T22:40:00.019-04:00

Francis Fife on right, Charlottesville Mayor 1972-74, civil rights opponent.

Charlottesville, Va. - The past gave a glimpse into the future at the first local sustainability infomercial. The posters contained revised history and important omissions.

The presence of "respected" leaders helps explain why the information is so misleading. These leaders from the past, such as Francis Fife and Nancy O'brien, and leaders from the present, such as Peter Kleeman, don't care enough about Charlottesville to speak up and correct the official history.

The timeline poster has the first comprehensive housing strategy in 1990. But the city has had public housing since the 1960s. Was there no housing strategy before 1990? Of course there was. But this history is now lost because our leaders can't remember their actions. City staff, Housing Authority, and City Council are actively blocking publication of the full housing archives to present the false history that 1990 is the first local housing plan.

And now the sustainability people are complicit in passing along misleading information.

But the timeline does show the 2003 Mixed-use Rezoning that seeks to bring back the characteristics of city neighborhoods lost to urban renewal, namely diversity of residents and businesses. Sadly you cannot mandate the ideal neighborhood or bring back what was destroyed.

The Housing Poster claims the Housing Authority owns 40 acres of seized land, which they now want to develop after decades of efforts to develop those properties where people once lived and worked. The poster claims only 376 public housing units, intentionally ommitting the 150 units at Frienship Court, cleared in 1977.

Housing and Urban Development is offering million dollar grants for communities to think about sustainability. HUD has funded the destruction of minority neighborhoods nationwide since the 1940s, including Garrett Street and Vinegar Hill in Charlottesville.

Please click on the photos to read the posters. The final image shows how the University of Virgina campus has remained in the county while the city limits expanded because of annexations.

Sustainability comes to Council for $1 million, Apr. 18, 2011.

Many Plans - One Community website http://www.1-community.org

Sustainability comes to Council for $1 million

2011-04-18T23:14:00.001-04:00

Queen Charlotte married King George III in 1761. Named for the royal black lady, Charlottesville’s town charter was approved December 23, 1762.

Charlottesville, Va. – Planning Manager turned community organizer Missy Creasy asked Council for $100 thousand to become $1 million when matched by a grant from Housing and Urban Development, which has funded urban renewal and public housing locally since Vinegar Hill. The online Council agenda gives the timeline of events but omits the dollar amounts spoken at the meeting.

The purpose of the grant is to influence the City and County to adopt comprehensive plans more aligned with the global sustainability movement articulated in the Unit Nations document “Agenda 21”. Creasy said the goal is a more “livable, sustainable community.” She used all the code words.

The initial step in the comprehensive plan process is an informational fair April 27 from 3 to 7 p.m. at the Albemarle County Office Building, 2nd Floor Atrium. It’s open to the public. All comments, from now until the City and County adopt the next comprehensive plan Winter/Spring 2013, will be archived at www.1-community.org.

Mayor Dave Norris wanted a detailed breakdown in the million-dollar price tag. Creasy could not immediately provide a breakdown but said the money would hire staff to organize the community to provide feedback on proposed comprehensive plans.

On March 17 Charles Battig and Tom Deweese spoke at the same location. They explained in detail how the UN documents echo through local governments and how sustainability became a dirty word. Battig detailed the dates to show when and how Albemarle County staff have been a conduit for the global but un-American principles. No one spoke to the dates of Charlottesville’s involvement because Council is proud of those policies.

At its core, the sustainability movement subordinates mankind to the environment. This is nature worship and the opposite of most western religions where the spiritual is more important than the natural world.

"Tea Party hosting forum to review local sustainability initiatives" | Audio podcast March 17, 2011 by Charlottesville Tomorrow.

In other matters, there’s a committee planning the City’s 250th anniversary. According to the first speaker, most of the news has focused on the missing time capsule buried near the Courthouse in 1962. But it’s also a legacy project – what can we leave for the future? It’s about story content – what story do we want to tell or include in the next time capsule? The signature event will be November–Decemeber 2012 to coincide with the 1888 commemoration of the town becoming a city.

C0-chair Nancy Damon said Charlottesville is much different than its 200th anniversary. She claimed the city is “more diverse” than 50 years ago. She said historic photos would be made available.

President of Albemarle Charlottesville History Society Stephen Meeks said there would be exhibits in Cityspace and on the website www.celebrate250.com. Meeks doesn’t care much about local history, covering up Jefferson School’s history in Feb. 2007 at the site of the first Jefferson School on West Main. His own Society published in their 2006 magazine the origins of the school but Meeks continued to echo false information until a fellow board member exposed the truth last August on the Schilling Show.

Councilor Holly Edwards wanted folks to talk to former Councilor Kay Slaughter about story content and the Drewary J. Brown Bridge. A local NAACP president in the 1960s, Brown’s name has been perverted to include civil rights opponents in the list of annual honorees. For example, in 2002 Francis Fife was added to the list. As mayor 1972–74 Fife presided over the largest, most contested civil rights violation in city history. Today it’s called Downtown Extended or Warehouse District. Then it was called Garret Street urban renewal.

Three people spoke at the end of the meeting. Peter Kleeman wants city elections to move from November back to May because local issues are lost in the larger election. But Councilor David Brown said it was good to see City and County election coverage side by side in the newspapers. Dede Smith spoke about the water plan but has disseminated so much false information it would be irresponsible for me to repeat anything she said tonight without verifying.

Ivy McCall spoke at the first City Council meeting she has ever attended. She talked about “allocation of funds.” The sustainability grant and 250th celebration are good ideas as long as “we recognize all the history, not just what we like.” We should prioritize. If we’re cutting six tenths of a teacher per department, how can we justify these expenditures?

14-item, 115-page City Council Agenda April 18, 2011 with background material.

Previous Report: Council: No JPA bridge detour, No Belmont bridge repair, No art in historic zone, Apr. 4, 2011.

"First Baptist Church site of first Jefferson School", Feb. 25, 2007. Gives the number of urban renewal documents and photos. Scot French promises to publish the archives but doesn’t. The non-Vinegar Hill archives are closed to the public. Blair Hawkins made the initial request to view the archives Mar. 25, 2004 and has since implicated numerous officials in wrongdoing.

Council: No JPA bridge detour, No Belmont bridge repair, No art in historic zone

2011-04-05T00:34:00.007-04:00

“We abandoned an opportunity to do something big [on city-county revenue sharing]” – Councilor David Brown.

Charlottesville, Va. – The three biggest buzzes from last week came at the end of tonight’s 3-hour City Council meeting. The closing of the JPA bridge without a detour. Fencing off Belmont Bridge sidewalk to avoid repair. The BAR doesn’t like the new mural at Random Row Books on Vinegar Hill. The perennial theme: How can we do nothing but say so much you think we did something?

No Detour for You

The Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge at Fontaine in Fry’s Spring will be closed for replacement for more than a year beginning today. But Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert said there is no official or posted detour. There is “no formal detour,” no preferred route and all routes go through residential areas.

A few years ago, the city pulled this same stunt on Locust Avenue closed for repairs after a couple tractor-trailers struck the bridge. After complaints, the city spokesperson was on the radio explaining the detour and that the signs are now posted.

The alternate route is Shamrock to Cherry Avenue across the railroad. East of the tracks is one lane because utility crews are still fixing a major water line connecting 7 or 8 customers. Stribling Avenue is the other route connecting UVA to JPA. Tolbert wondered “why anyone would want to drive down this windy road?” Because people are trying to get somewhere.

The city has promised on a number of instances that only one major road would be worked on at a time. But during the replacement of Ridge at Garrett Street, Belmont was also being repaired. Edwards asked, “We’ve been waiting for how long?” Tolbert tried to dispute that the 40-year-old bridge and sidewalks had been repaired many times in the past.

Councilor Holly Edwards wanted some kind of traffic calming. Tolbert said there would be a new cross walk at Spudnuts with LED flashing lights when the pedestrian presses the button. City Manager Maurice Jones suggested they could step up police enforcement on Belmont Bridge.

The motion to put up a prettier fence for $14 thousand was chosen 3 to 2 over the $300 thousand plus for concrete repair. The bridge is expected to be replaced in about 6 years and design is in progress, according to Tolbert. But councilors questioned the likelihood there would ever be funding and pedestrians are as important as cars. Referring to the half-sidewalk wide Way-Finding signs to guide you to the Downtown Mall, we would never block half the vehicular travel lane.

BAR doesn’t like freedom

The mural of American Indians on West Main at McIntire was not pre-approved by the Board of Architectural Review. Students and teacher at Tandem Friends School took the initiative to beautify one of the few buildings surviving the Vinegar Hill urban renewal.

Tolbert rolled his eyes a few times and frowned. He wondered why anyone would do something without approval. There have been other murals that went through the process. It’s all about “the need for process.” He reached out to area schools and art teachers but only one responded.

Mayor Dave Norris said we need a better process. The most recent non-pre-approved artistic expression of high profile is the camera shop at High St. and Meade Ave. The city came after the same students claiming the mural was not art, but a sign for a camera store. The mural of cameras was eventually permitted.

Mayor Norris said we need to encourage, not regulate art. The case of the uncontrolled artistic signage will come before the politburo when BAR meets at its next meeting. Rulings and certificates of appropriateness are sold on the third Tuesday monthly, according to Tolbert.

In other matters

Council approved the 9-precinct reconfiguration discussed two weeks ago. Council is set to approve bringing Jefferson School under Board of Architectural Review control so African American interests can be treated equally badly as the mural of Native Americans on West Main at Random Row Books only a block away.

An update on last year’s annexation summit showed no progress other than the recent 30-foot earthen dam water supply plan compromise. Mayor Dave Norris was unusually hypocritical tonight, saying the County “threatens” the City every two years to take $2.3 million from city schools unfairly allocated from the state’s Local Composite Index, while the mayor threatens the County with annexation if they stop making the ever-increasing annual rent, now at $18 million. Norris understood the force of an 8-year-old contract with the Pavilion but is still fighting against the community water plan City Council approved in June 2006.

Councilor David Brown said staff on each side have too much invested in the status quo to ask for changes or more consolidation. Since last April, City and County have discussed three areas: (1) Annexation / Revenue Sharing LCI with only one meeting and no more planned. (2) Fire and rescue and (3) social services consolidation. Brown said, “We abandoned an opportunity to do something big.”

The usual suspects are still at it, trying to thwart majority rule on the water plan. Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply have an online petition asking for dredging first and for the City to stop cooperating with the County. In public comment, Vonti Win (spelling) said there were 362 signatures as of 6 pm. The 2006 plan is “financially and environmentally reckless.”

John Cruikshank of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club had a different set of priorities. (1) Aggressive conservation. (2) Phased building on 1908 Ragged Mountain dam. (3) Dredging. “Please secure funding for dredging before anything else.” The County will pay 100% of the 2006 water plan according to the 1972 Four Party Agreement, which created Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and recent official statements echo the 4-party contract. The City uses and must pay 55% of maintenance, including maintenance dredging. Water plan opponents demand the County to pay 100% of everything.

Rebecca Quinn attended the Mar. 22 RWSA board meeting. She thanked Councilor David Brown’s responsiveness, who replaced water plan opponent Mayor Norris when the Council majority rejected the Norris 13-foot plan on Jan. 18. Quinn said the RWSA would not answer her questions or provide a timeline.

The Garrett Street urban renewal area has a new name: Downtown Extended. Jacob Wolf used this euphemism in context of the music hall zoning regulations, describing the area from the X Lounge to the former Ix textile factory. Wolf said there are three levels of music zoning: By-right, special use with $1,500 fee, and provisional use. Under the new zoning, most businesses would become by-right able to play music or dance.

Later the mayor and others used this term. Scott Buyer talked about Single Room Occupancies, such as the one coming to 4th NW. They can be bad if social services are concentrated in a small area such as “Skid Row in L.A.” the most dangerous blocks in America. But SROs work in Greenwich Village where there are several universities and many market rate units. Here “urban renewal wiped out an entire neighborhood and didn’t replace it for two decades.” The City, including Mayor Norris and Councilor Holly Edwards, have for years been blocking access to official urban renewal archives in order to erase from public knowledge the history of Downtown Extended.

In the final public hearing on the 2011-2012 city budget, Collette Hall brought up urban renewal and “broached the sacred cow of affordable housing.” She listed myriad programs: land bought for the SRO, tax relief for the elderly, homeowner tax relief program originally part of the Nov. 2005 city charter amendment to dramatically expand the city’s liberal eminent domain powers. She said redevelopment of public housing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. “When will it end?” asked Hall. This is “unsustainable and driving the middle class out of Charlottesville.”

The real estate tax levy is to remain the same. Councilor Kristin Szakos tried to correct Bob Fenwick from Public comment. “Raise money by raising assessments? We don’t do that,” declared Szakos. She wanted to make this clear. Luckily she added “theoretically” because this is exactly what Council has done for a decade, with surpluses every year, $3.5 million last year.

Some speakers wanted some of that money to go to the Haven day-time-only flop house on Market Street at 2nd NW, in front of Fellini’s, between McGuffy School and Lee Park. The shower facilities are sponsored by PACEM, the mayor’s nonprofit homeless program. You know, the crowd of bums behind the church that cause you not to see the Way-Finding signs to the Mall. When people see that, they drive on to Preston and Barracks Road.

Norris said the appropriation was conditioned that the Haven create a downtown workforce satellite office. As such, the Haven would become more like the Hope homeless shelter near the Westhaven public housing, which the City shut down using zoning codes.

Szakos said the Haven has withdrawn their request. She believes the withdrawal to be sincere. In a rare move of transparency, Edwards read the Haven’s email withdrawing their request. Several times people compared one expenditure with another. If you had to choose between art for rich people and a homeless shelter, which is more important. This is exactly how you prioritize spending items. Whatever items at the bottom of the list when you get to the bottom of the piggy bank are not funded.

The final speaker before Council adjourned was Scott Bandy, an independent Council candidate for November on the ballot, handed out papers to Council. But Bandy said it was late and that’s all. Talk about wasting an opportunity! He had 3 minutes to campaign for office but he didn’t address the public. Hello, Council meetings are on cable and the internet! Council will ignore him politely – that’s what they do best.

Bandy addresses his attention to 5 people on Council instead of everybody else – the voters. Bandy’s motivation to run for Council must be something other than election.

175-page, 18-item Council Agenda April 4, 2011 with background materials.

Video of Apr. 4, 2011 City Council Meeting.

Revenue Sharing Summit: More city-county cooperation, Apr. 25, 2010.

Previous Council Report: Council to approve 9 precincts due to 2010 census, Mar. 21, 2011.

Council to approve 9 precincts due to 2010 census

2011-03-21T22:48:00.006-04:00

"We’ll be the first to submit to the Justice Department [under 1965 Voting Rights Act].” – Voter Registrar Sheri Iachetta

Charlottesville, Va. – City Council will likely approve a 9-precinct redistricting at their Apr. 4 regular meeting. All 5 at-large councilors indicated support for the change. Tonight was the 1st of 2 readings. A motion and a second continued the agenda item. The public now has 2 weeks to contact Council members to influence the final decision.

The current 8-precinct configuration was adopted 1963 with the annexation of Barracks Road and other areas. At that time the 4 wards were divided into a small and a large precinct. Following a Dec. 1920 referendum, all city elections became at-large. The wards and precincts ceased being election districts when city elections became at-large, 51% choose all the councilors.

There is a great deal of history swirling around city elections and precincts. The boundaries changed with each annexation across two centuries. In just the last decade, a commission on Council representation and commission on School Board elections were ignored by Council. Other requests from the Voter Registrar and Board of Elections were also ignored.

Prior to that, there was a movement to switch back to district-based representation within the city in the early 1980s at a time when discontent was high following the 1970s urban renewal of what’s now called the Warehouse District / South Downtown. Efforts to reform the Redevelopment and Housing Authority failed in 1977.

The current changes are required by the Code of Virginia Section 24.2-307. “At the time any precinct is established, it shall have no more than 5,000 registered voters. The general registrar shall notify the governing body whenever the number of voters who voted in a precinct in an election for President of the United States exceeds 4,000. Within six months of receiving the notice, the governing body shall proceed to revise the precinct boundaries, and any newly established or redrawn precinct shall have no more than 5,000 registered voters.”

The ordinance would amend Sections 9-1 of Article I, and 9-26 through 9-30 of Article II, of Chapter 9 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990. After 90 years, only now is Sec. 9-26 changed from “election districts or precincts” to “election precincts.” They are voting precincts, not election precincts, because no one is elected from the precinct, as explained by the city attorney during the School Board election commission. Voting precincts are subject to less regulation than election precincts.

Wards 1, 2 and 4 would continue to have 2 precincts. Ward 3 would have 3 precincts: Tonsler, Buford, and Johnson. All the boundaries would be redrawn for balance. Alumni Hall precinct would become contiguous whereas it’s now split by the UVA campus, which has remained in the county despite city annexations.

Charlottesville is subject to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, enacted by Congress to single out certain communities for review by the US Department of Justice.

Voter Registrar Sheri Iachetta said all the growth has occurred on the southern half of town where a new precinct is created. She said, “We are the first to be ahead of everybody else, significantly ahead of any other municipality…We’ll be the first to submit to the Justice Department.”

Given all the community time and energy spent in recent years on elections and precincts, nothing less would be expected.

9 Members of the Redistricting advisory committee

Perri Rush Brown – Chief Election Officer, Recreation Precinct
Blake Caravati – Former Mayor, City Council
Robert P. Hodous – Member, Charlottesville Electoral Board, Election Officer
Loren Intolubbe-Chmil, Ph.D – President, League of Women Voters
Charles Kromkowski, Ph.D – UVA Research Associate Professor, Politics Department
Frederick Schneider – AIA, Senior Voting Machine Technician
Richard Sincere – Chair, Charlottesville Electoral Board
Thomas Vandever – Chair Charlottesville Democratic Party

Video of the Mar. 21, 2011 City Council Meeting. Includes in the first few minutes, the giant Polyp running around the chamber for Colo-rectal Cancer Awareness. Because of thunderstorms this evening, this reporter watched approx. 7:00 to 7:15 and 8:30 to 9 p.m. when the meeting was adjourned. The city redistricting was the final agenda item.

48-page Council Agenda with background material Mar. 21, 2011.

Previous Blair’s Blog Council Report.

City to revisit election precincts, Sep. 23, 2008. Includes timeline.

The first 3 images are from tonight's report. The final 3 images are from the 2006 School Board Election commission with the proposed 4- and 7-precinct models and the ward-precinct layout

Council spends almost $1 million off-budget, debuts budget process

2011-03-07T22:56:00.004-05:00

“When someone flushes their toilet in Forest Lakes, we don’t want to smell it [in Woolen Mills]” – Allison Euring.

Charlottesville, Va. – In a single vote, Council spent $926,419.45 in nine appropriations. In the 254-page Council Agenda with background, you can see the documents submitted with each request to justify the public expenditure.

That one super vote also passed five resolutions, four ordinances, and approved the Feb. 22 Minutes. The consent agenda is so sketchy, it only requires one Councilor to request an item be removed, and force the item to be actually read, discussed, and voted on as a single object. Normally it takes a minimum of two votes (a motion and a second) to continue an item or force an item to a vote, and of course, three votes to pass the item.

But the removed item is heard at the end of the meeting, not the beginning where it would have passed as part of the consent agenda. Lumping unrelated bills together to speed up the process is understandable. The problem is that government has grown so big that it’s impossible to vote on every action with equal process and opportunity for deliberation.

Councilor Edwards said she will vote no on Item R since she has opposed the Longwood Drive development. She also commented on Item O “CRHA/City Council MOU (1st of 1 reading).” The memo was not read. It’s the non-specific agreement between Council and its urban renewal agency. The memo perpetuates well-documented myths while Edwards has been unsuccessful in getting the full Housing Authority archives released and published. Edwards also voted for the memo containing the discrepancies.("Latest Archive Request on WINA", Feb. 12, 2009.)

At the Feb. 7 meeting, Councilor Kristin Szakos requested the immigration resolution be read aloud so people would know the opinion of Council. The resolution opposed ten so-called anti-immigrant laws pending in the state General Assembly.

Tonight Edwards did not ask for the memo of understanding to be read. Councilor Edwards also questioned Item S “Sale of Land to Southern Development (2nd of 2 readings). Apparently it's for only one parcel, while the other parcel is to be gifted to Habitat for Humanity.

In public comment, Paul Cooke of the adjacent Burnett Commons at Elliott near Ridge Street was opposed to the sale and complained that adjacent properties had not been notified of the proposed sale. Cooke was “perplexed at the lack of transparency.” He said Southern Development should consider the opposite corner for development – the Ridge-Cherry property whose development Council disapproved two weeks ago. The developer changed plans approved in 2009 and Council insists the 2009 plan be built.

So Edwards wanted clarification. Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert said he spoke at a Burnett Neighborhood Association meeting and conceded the lack of communication and promised to do better. He said there were concerns about the sewer line and city woult plant grass to stabilize erosion.

Finally all 19 items of the consent agenda were passed. David Brown made the motion, Szakos seconded. The silent electronic vote. Then Mayor Dave Norris declared the vote unanimous although Edwards voted no on Longwood Drive. And Councilor Satyendra Huja abstained due to being absent.

The 20th item on the agenda was the school board’s 2012 budget. This school budget background was the only one missing from the 254-page agenda. I couldn’t make sense of the presentation and have lost trust in this body. I don’t believe anything they say. Much of the report was statistics with actual numbers not given. Dropout rate is down from 17.8% in 2008 but most recently 6.8%. Really? More made up numbers?

In the next item, new City Manager Maurice Jones presented the $142.9 million City budget for 2012. He basically read the report in the agenda. He did not say how tonight’s nearly $1 million spending spree is funded. Is it from the $3.5 million surplus Jennifer McKeever talked about at the last meeting, when she asked $1.5 million of that be moved to Charlottesville Housing Fund? More magic money?

In other matters, several residents of the Woolen Mills neighborhood spoke on the proposed, expanded Rivanna Pumping Station to increase waste water treatment capacity. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was created around 1972 with its main focus dealing with sewage. The solution to Crozet dumping its treated sewage upstream from the Rivanna Reservoir was to pump the waste to one central station at the eastern edge of town and discharge downstream.

Allison Euring said Option A, one of the four being considered, was too large-scale for the entrance to Riverview Park and nearby houses and buildings. She asked people to stand if they were from Woolen Mills and continue standing if they oppose Concept A. Those concerned about sewage packed the meeting.

“When someone flushes their toilet in Forest Lakes, we don’t want to smell it,” said Euring. She said they’ve been living with “broken promises” of “no smells, no noise” since the 1970s.

Robin Haynes presented a 124-signature petition to oppose Rivanna Pump Station Option A. To the councilors, she said the proposals should set off “alarms in your consciences." The smell has dissipated since human waste composting was halted there, which the neighborhood “crusaded” against.

The issue of signage on side streets downtown came up again. Jacklyn Dunkle, owner of Fellini’s #9 with a Mardis Gras Party tomorrow night, said the “signs are just not ample.” She complained a city map sign on Market Street was blocking her sign.

Siblings Joanna and Stratton Salidis talked about the water. Stratton said the 2004 water demand analysis has over-projected by 26%. If you extrapolate this error out 50 years, the error would be more than 200%, meaning the 45-foot dam of the 2006 plan would supply more than twice the water we would actually need.

The noise ordinance came up when Peter Markish played his violin and asked whether this decibel would be legal on the Downtown Mall, because a policeman says it’s not. “If illegal, should it be?” Why did no one answer his Feb. 21 letter?

In Council comment following the Public comment, Mayor Norris apologized for not answering the letter and promised to look into the noise ordinance again.

I turned off the meeting at 9 p.m. to write this article. The city budget report was underway. As always, if I misspell your name, let me know so we can get it right. If you disagree with a fact or opinion (what’s the difference?), feel free to leave a comment.

Previous Blair's Blog Council Report Feb 22, 2011.

City of Charlottesville Streaming Live and Archive Media

City Council Agenda Mar. 7, 2011 with background materials.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 7 2011

6:00 – 7:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code
(Second Floor Conference Room)
TYPE OF ITEM SUBJECT

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL

AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS MS Awareness Proclamation; THE BIG READ; Festival of the Book; StoryFest (Cat in the Hat Proclamation); GFOA Budget Award

ANNOUNCEMENTS

MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Public comment will be permitted until 7:35 p.m. (limit of 3 minutes per speaker) and at the end of the meeting on any item, including items on the agenda, provided that a public hearing is not planned or has not previously been held on the matter. Persons are asked to sign up in advance of the start of the meeting.

COUNCIL RESPONSES TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC

1. CONSENT AGENDA* (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.)

a. Minutes of February 22
b. APPROPRIATION: $3,177 – 2010 State Homeland Security Program Grant 3 (2nd of 2 readings)
c. APPROPRIATION: $18,362 – 2011 Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) (2nd of 2 readings)
d. APPROPRIATION: $2,500 – Charlottesville Newsplex Scholarship Program (2nd of 2 readings)
e. APPROPRIATION: $382,090 – Highway Safety Improvement Program (2nd of 2 readings)
f. APPROPRIATION: $102,576 – Aid & Localities Fire Disbursement Fund (2nd of 2 readings)
g. APPROPRIATION: $122,398 – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Grant Funds (2nd of 2 readings)
h. APPROPRIATION: $250,000 – Charlottesville City Schools - Appropriation of Capital Improvement
Program Large Cap Supplemental Contribution (1st of 2 readings)
i. APPROPRIATION: $980.45 – State Assistance for Spay and Neuter Program at SPCA (1st of 1 reading)
j. APPROPRIATION: $44,336 – Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant (1st of 2 readings)
k. RESOLUTION: New Sidewalk Prioritization Process (1st of 1 reading)
l. RESOLUTION: Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (1st of 1 reading)
m. RESOLUTION: Amend SUP for 207 14th St NW (1st of 1 reading)
n. RESOLUTION: License Agreement with Qwest Communications (1st of 1 reading)
o. RESOLUTION: CRHA/City Council MOU (1st of 1 reading)
p. ORDINANCE: Changes to Café Ordinances (2nd of 2 readings)
q. ORDINANCE: FiberLight Agreement (2nd of 2 readings)
r. ORDINANCE: Longwood Park PUD – Exchange of Land (2nd of 2 readings)
s. ORDINANCE: Sale of Land to Southern Development (2nd of 2 readings)

2. REPORT: School Board’s Proposed FY 2012 Budget

3. REPORT: City Manager’s Proposed FY 2012 Budget

4. REPORT: Rivanna Pumping Station

5. REPORT: Social Services Advisory Board Annual Report to Council

6. APPEAL:* Board of Architectural Review Decision re: 1328 Riverdale Drive – Renewal of
Demolition Request (1st of 1 reading)

7. REPORT: Old Lynchburg Road Design Update

*ACTION NEEDED

Reasonable accommodations will be provided for persons with disabilities upon request

City Council Agenda Mar. 7, 2011 with background materials. Includes the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. The urban renewal agency is a city department created 1954. The two biggest projects were Vinegar Hill resulting in 124-unit Westhaven public housing opened 1964 and Garrett Street resulting in 150-unit Garrett Square / Friendship Court public housing opened 1979, Crescent Halls 1976, S. First with 58 units, and 6th SE with 25 units.

The myth is that Vinegar Hill is the complete story of urban renewal in Charlottesville.

Council endorses 30-foot earthen dam, denies Ridge-Cherry

2011-02-23T00:44:00.002-05:00

“Above what the City chooses to pay, the County will pay the remainder,” – City Public Works Director Judy Mueller.

Charlottesville, Va. – Tonight City Council clarified that the new dam of the 2006 water plan be earthen, not concrete. The surprise vote of Jan. 18 for a 30-foot dam height increase didn’t specify whether it be a concrete or earthen dam built atop the existing 1908 Ragged Mountain dam.

Councilors David Brown, Satyendra Huja, and Kristin Szakos maintained their dam coalition. Mayor Dave Norris was willing to vote for 30 feet, despite his 13-foot plan unanimously resolved by Council in September, but insisted it be of concrete. Holly Edwards wanted the phased approach of the Norris plan but, if she had to, she would vote for the concrete.

The Council discussion was a civics lesson in how to argue a case. Szakos has matured since she voted for a plan not approved by Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply. Szakos has seen the dirty side of politics and sobered up. She said she has received email from supporters of the 2006 plan who are afraid, if they speak out, they’ll be ridiculed the next day in The Hook.

While Szakos has matured, Edwards has become less mature. Edwards announced yesterday she will not seek a second term but warned she will be speaking out at public meetings. She’s now a lame duck, not running for reelection so now she can be honest. On Council she has political power and can do something. As a minority of one speaking at occasional gatherings when it’s convenient, she will be dismissed as irrelevant. What an opportunity she walks away from!

Brown is also retiring this year, but after two terms. Huja, the third leg of this 30-foot dam triumvirate, is expected to announce next month that he will run for a second term. He certainly acted like it tonight. He didn’t back down from Norris on concerns about integrity and safety of the existing dam.

Norris keeps saying he hasn’t seen anything to question the dam’s integrity despite dozens of concerns documented back to 1912. Norris’ preference for concrete didn’t advance because he dismisses the concerns, does not address them. Huja’s right – Who builds a new dam on a 100-year old dam regardless of any expressed concerns?

It’s $1.1 million cheaper to build the earthen in the design alone. Black and Veatch would charge up to $1.4 million to finish design, which could be changed if further research or digging confirm the safety concerns. In that case the dam could cost more than estimated.

It would cost close to $250,000 for Schnabel to complete the earthen design. At one point, Norris said the concrete dam is cheaper. Huja responded that the concrete estimate is for 50% of design, not 90% where Schnabel would be after the expenditure.

If the Black & Veatch concrete dam is selected, the timeline as discussed in November would be 6 to 8 months to final design plus 2 to 3 months public review time. The construction time would be 2 to 8 months less than building the earthen dam.

City Public Works Director Judy Mueller delivered the water progress report. She and her assistant answered half the questions Council posed; the other half went unanswered. Mueller talked about the cost sharing agreement. The cost of water is divided into maintenance and additional supply. City uses and pays 55% of maintenance, but County will pay most or all of the cost of the new supply.

“Above what the City chooses to pay, the County will pay the remainder,” said Mueller.

In public comment, Bob Fenwick was back to defend his statement at the last meeting that Ragged Mountain reservoir would silt in. But the claim was refuted because the watershed is undeveloped forest. Fenwick named several lakes that have silted in. “They all silt in.” He echoed Huja from Jan. 22 and said, this is a “50-year plan not a one or two year plan.” Fenwick said the efforts of Citizens for a Sustainable Water supply have saved this community “tens of millions of dollars.”

Phyllis Koch-Seras, whose house overlooks the South Rivanna reservoir and added sedimentation to the reservoir when it was built, said dredging should be put in the cost sharing agreement. “We could have a drought this summer,” she said. This water plan is a “crime against nature.”

Rebecca Quinn said the Rivanna authority has finally issued RFPs for an updated water demand analysis after delaying for a year. The demand predictions should be for 50 years to compare with Ganett-Fleming water plan, not 30 years as the RFP is advertised.

Dede Smith, a former school board member, seemed like she was addressing a class of children, giving them false choices to choose from. She listed three reasons to delay a vote. (1) RWSA has just issued an RFP for a firm to conduct a water demand analysis. (2) The RFP process for dredging should be completed and advertised. (3) The cost sharing agreement has not been completed.

Stratton Salidis talked about the “legalized corruption” and ironically thanked Edwards for her one term of service. Edwards is an official supporter of urban renewal. Salidis described the “sprawl-growth industrial complex” as subtle “showering and shunning” He said this area’s local government has as much corruption as you see at the national level. He indirectly called Council corrupt.

After the water vote just after 10 pm, Edwards asked for a break and the mayor declared a ten minute recess. I turned off Council meeting to write this article.

Magic Money

What if you could invest $1 and get $10 or $11 back? Well, you wouldn’t call it investment. You would “leverage” one dollar into ten.

Karen Waters, Chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), said “for any of this to work”, the plans require that every $1 have a $10 to $11 federal match. She wants the Charlottesville Housing Fund (CHF) to be fully funded and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)/HOME to be leveraged or put at risk.

Jennifer McKeever, a member of HAC, wants Council to keep the two funds separated, “not co-mingled.”. CHF should be fully funded from city general funds and CDBG/HOME to be leveraged. CHF funds new housing unit while CDBG/HOME targets neighborhoods. For a longtime, Council has designated its public housing as the neighborhood in need.

Jennifer Jacobs, director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and member of HAC, wants the city to contribute $1.5 million to CHF. She said there are 176 homes on the waiting list for rehab and 25 for emergency repair within the city.

Council denies Ridge-Cherry: New plan inferior

Council wants the developer to build what was agreed in 2009 when Council first approved the sale of two city-owned lots, once known as 521 and 529 Ridge Street before VDOT came through with 5th Extended more than thirty years ago.

The developer wanted to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning exemption to a new PUD. But Council said no. So now this site remains zoned for the original PUD. Only that plan can be built. So effectively the land will remain open space for years to come.

Ten people spoke in the public hearing to sell the city land. The Planning Commission meeting Feb. 8 denied the zoning from PUD(A) to PUD(B) 4 to 2, and two dozen citizens spoke for denial of the rezoning request. That decision was appealed to City Council for tonight. And tonight the comment was more favorable for the new mixed income apartment complex, 30 affordable (subsidized) and 50 market-rate (independent) units.

Antoinette Roades described proffers as “legalized bribes.” She said this area doesn’t need anymore affordable housing. If you stand within sight the PUD site, you’re guaranteed to see 659 affordable housing units. We don’t need more affordable housing in this location.

Herb Porter said, most of the project’s supporters are from outside the neighborhood. He said the actual residents have opposed this and other measures such as conservation district designation. Council has ignored the desires of Fifeville. Porter was offended anyone would call his neighborhood “blighted.”

Paul Bussiere lives a few blocks away on 7 ½ St. He moved here from France 2 ½ years ago with his wife and son and bought the Updike House, a Victorian house built 1896. Bussiere fully supports the William Taylor Plaza approved in the 2009 PUD and the latest plans also. Any development in this part of town would be beneficial.

City Council Meeting Feb. 22, 2011, Charlottesville City Streaming Live and Archive Media

Council: Dueling dams, PUDs, dialogue on race, immigration, Feb. 8, 2011

Ridge-Cherry development goes to Council Feb 22, Feb. 24, 2011

Global Warming: Another letter too radical to print

2011-02-15T19:45:00.005-05:00

February 6, 2011

Dear Editor:

RE: “Fanning the flames”, Feb. 1, 2011, C-ville Weekly

In my opinion, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation into state funding of Michael Mann’s climate change research at UVA is politically motivated. It’s payback for how the University treated former State Climatologist Patrick Michaels. Cuccinelli is sending a message that state colleges should think twice before fostering an environment hostile to academic and intellectual freedom.

If it’s about global warming, allow me to save taxpayer money and debunk the idea right now. Global warming is a three-part theory, a trinity of postulates.

(1) The average temperature of the earth is warming.
(2) Some or all of the warming is caused by man.
(3) The warming is abnormal and bad.

Mann and Michaels agree on the first two points. But Michaels is not alarmed because his hockey stick temperature chart is much bigger.

If you go back only a thousand years, it looks like a hockey stick. But if you go back 3 million years, it looks like a straight line of ice with occasional heat waves. If you go back 300 million years, it looks like a hockey stick again but turned upside down because of the recent ice ages.

Only one percent of geologic time has been as cold as we are today. Earth is 99 times more likely to have alligators at the poles than to have ice. You might say, too much carbon dioxide has been bound into fossil fuels, causing the ice ages.

With cooling since the 1998 El Nino and growing scrutiny of the science, global warming morphs into: (1) We have cooling. (2) We want warming. (3) Warm is good and normal. CO2 is plant food. Plants provide all the oxygen. I leave you with this moral imperative.

If you truly care about the environment, you should generate as much greenhouse gas as you need so Mother Earth can warm back to normal and the polar regions can once again recycle CO2 into oil and natural gas for future generations.

Sincerely,
Blair Hawkins
Charlottesville, Virginia

[ Update: Letter published in the Feb. 22 issue of C-ville Weekly.]

My general policy is to wait 2 weeks or 2 issues of a weekly paper to seek publication elsewhere. Most letters policies require that your letter be exclusive to the paper you’re writing to. So they have first publication. In my experience, C-ville Weekly and The Hook do not call or notify you. The letter simply appears.

The Daily Progress calls the writer to verify you actually wrote the letter. From time to time, there are actual fake letters written. Usually I hear from the Progress within a few days and then it’s a week or two for publication. So if I don’t hear from them in more than 5 business days, I’ll call and ask if they intend to print. If not, I’ll seek to publish the letter elsewhere.

The latest global warming letter does provoke thought and tests the limits of intellectual expression accepted in C-ville Weekly.

“Investigation into forged letters planned” by Brian McNeill, Aug 1, 2009.
“A top congressman announced Friday that he is launching an investigation into a half-dozen forged letters sent to U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello in an attempt to sway his vote on a landmark piece of climate change legislation.”

Previous letters too radical to print:

Historical Society: Jefferson School 1865

Race Violence in our Schools? Apr. 4, 2006

“Staunton didn’t self-destruct”, Apr. 1, 2004. I sent the letter to The Hook in response to Feb. 19 cover story. But the Hook didn’t print it until I had waited 2 weeks, then posted it to Charlottesville Independent Media in mid-March 2004.

The NASA Temperature Chart 1880 to 2006 zooms in on the 1980s and 1990s when National Weather Service and other weather services worldwide modernized and automated their equipment. The new temperature sensors have a documented warm bias and explain why you still hear news stories of record warmth despite the obvious cooling.

Ridge-Cherry development goes to Council Feb 22

2011-02-14T19:35:00.002-05:00

[This repost corrects the date for the Council meeting.]

Charlottesville, Va. – “A majority of [Planning] commissioners felt the revised plan for William Taylor Plaza fell short of the original project, which was originally approved for Southern Development in October 2009…

"At least two dozen neighborhood residents rose in opposition to plan at the public hearing. Architect and former mayor Maurice Cox said he could not support the project…

"However, not all public opinion was against the plan. The owners of Charlottesville’s Flower Man, a business on Cherry Avenue…[and] Pascal Bussiere, who bought a house on 7 1/2 Street in 2008, wrote the commission” in support of the development…

The item goes before City Council on February 21, 2011.” ( “Commission denies request to add more homes to William Taylor Plaza” by Sean Tubbs, Feb. 9, 2011, Charlottesville Tomorrow. )

Planning Commission Meeting Feb. 8, 2011 Video. City of Charlottesville.

City of Charlottesville Streaming Live and Archive Media.

Antoinette Roades talks to Rob Schilling Feb. 7 about the project the day before the Planning Commission meeting.

Ridge-Cherry development: Green vs Affordable, Jan. 24, 2011.

Ridge-Cherry development proffers for rezoning again, Jan. 5, 2011.

Virginia eminent domain amendment fails on party vote

2011-02-13T18:59:00.002-05:00

Charlottesville, Va. – This year’s effort to elevate the 2007 eminent domain reforms into the state Constitution passed in the House of Delegates but failed in the state Senate. The 2005 Kelo case inspired the reforms, which addressed known abuses in Virginia.

This time, Democrats sided with property theft while Republicans stood up for property ownership and the little guy. The bill passed the 100-member House 81–18 but failed in the 40-member Senate 18–22. Virginia is a purple state.

The Democrats oppose the civil right of due process, preferring instead to claim public use to seize and sell your home to a developer for imagined social benefits. Eminent domain is preferred because it’s easier to prove public use than to prove a crime and the property does not have to be sold at auction, thus guaranteeing the delivery of the seized property to the correct buyer.

A state Constitutional amendment must be passed by two General Assembly sessions separated by an election. The amendment then goes to the voters as a referendum for adoption or rejection. That the voters would approve the abstract property restrictions is not a certainty by any means.

Local representatives Delegate David Toscano (57th) and Senator Creigh Deeds (25th) voted with their party.

Toscano is a longtime supporter of eminent domain to seize and sell property. He was a sitting city councilor on June 5, 2000 when Blair Hawkins delivered two landmark speeches on eminent domain abuse specific to Charlottesville. Toscano has remained silent on these community grievances and remains complicit.

Toscano and Deeds opposed then voted for the 2007 reforms. On a radio show in Dec. 2006, they argued that eminent domain is not a problem in Virginia, despite all the abuses that have been told to their faces.

Toscano has posted his most recent legislative update to the Augusta Free Press. He mentions the eminent domain amendment in a list of bills but doesn’t disclose his position or his vote. On other proposed Constitutional amendments, Toscano indicates a statute or state law is sufficient protection.

Delegate Rob Bell (58th) cosponsored the 2007 reforms as well as this year’s attempt to elevate the restrictions to Constitutional stature.

Of course this entire debate is absurd. Government employees are not following the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled they don’t have to unless their state says otherwise. So we passed a state law to enforce the federal law. Somehow we think people will follow the state Constitution when they have ignored state and federal law, and the national Constitution.

Still no mention of the enforcement mechanism. It’s not until Attorney General Ken Cucinelli or a commonwealth's attorney brings charges against an eminent domain abuser will we know the meaning of the 2007 reforms.

Follow SJ307 in the state Senate.

Follow HJ693 in the House of Delegates

“Va. House tries to limit taking of property” by Bill Sizemore, Feb. 9, 2011, The Virginian-Pilot.

David Toscano: The calm before the storm? Feb. 1, 2011, Augusta Free Press.

Deeds and Toscano: Eminent domain not a problem in Va., Dec. 14, 2006, Blair’s Blog.

Va. 36th state to reform eminent domain, Apr. 8, 2007, Blair’s Blog.

2007: Virginia reforms eminent domain, Jan. 12, 2008, Blair’s Blog.

Del. Rob Bell explains why property rights belong in the Va. Constitution, Feb. 7, 2011, Examiner.com.
“That’s what the Fifth Amendment’s supposed to protect and it doesn’t any longer.”

Va. Att'y Gen'l Ken Cuccinelli endorses curbs on eminent domain in constitution, Jan. 20, 2011, Examiner.com.
“This is a fundamental right and it should be enshrined in the constitution.”

State Senator Mark Obenshain discusses property rights and eminent domain reform, Jan. 17, 2011. Examiner.com.
“It prevents the economic development/employment-type of eminent domain exercises that have been subject to abuse across the commonwealth of Virginia. It gives us the opportunity to memorialize that [language] in the Constitution so that it can’t just be undermined by efforts of the General Assembly in years to come.”

Virginia’s current Constitution was adopted in 1971.

Virginia’s Constitution 1776.

SJ 307 Constitutional amendment; taking of private property for public use (first reference).

Mark D. Obenshain | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
Summary as introduced:
Constitutional amendment (first resolution); taking of private property for public uses. Limits the exercise of eminent domain for the purpose of public use and specifies that, with the exception of property taken for public service corporations, public service companies, or railroads, property may not be taken if the primary purpose of the taking is private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or tax revenues, or an increase in employment. No more property shall be taken than is necessary to achieve the stated public use.

Full text:
01/05/11 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100710D pdf

Status:
01/05/11 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100710D
01/05/11 Senate: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/14/11 Senate: Assigned to P&E sub: Constitutional Amendments, Reapportionment, Referenda
02/08/11 Senate: Left in Privileges and Elections
02/08/11 Senate: Motion to suspend the rules rejected (18-Y 22-N)

HJ 693 Constitutional amendment; taking or damaging of private property for public use (first reference).

Johnny S. Joannou | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
Summary as passed House: (all summaries)
Constitutional amendment (first resolution); taking or damaging of private property; public use.

Revises the prohibition on the enactment by the General Assembly of laws whereby private property may be taken or damaged. An existing provision authorizing the General Assembly to define what constitutes a public use is removed. The proposed amendment states that (i) no private property shall be damaged or taken except for public use without just compensation to its owner for the property taken and for damages to the residue caused by the taking or damaging and (ii) that no more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken and the damages to the residue caused by the taking. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.

Full text:
01/17/11 House: Presented and ordered printed 11103856D pdf
02/04/11 House: Committee substitute printed 11105102D-H1 pdf

Status:
01/17/11 House: Presented and ordered printed 11103856D
01/17/11 House: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
02/04/11 House: Reported from Privileges and Elections with substitute (17-Y 2-N)
02/04/11 House: Committee substitute printed 11105102D-H1
02/04/11 House: Incorporates HJ647
02/04/11 House: Incorporates HJ515
02/04/11 House: Incorporates HJ498
02/07/11 House: Passed by for the day
02/08/11 House: Taken up
02/08/11 House: Committee substitute agreed to 11105102D-H1
02/08/11 House: Engrossed by House - committee substitute HJ693H1
02/08/11 House: Agreed to by House (81-Y 18-N)
02/08/11 House: VOTE: ADOPTION (81-Y 18-N)
02/09/11 Senate: Reading waived
02/09/11 Senate: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections

Ridge-Cherry development goes to Council Feb 21

2011-02-09T20:46:00.004-05:00

[ Correction: The City Council meeting may be Tuesday Feb. 22 because of President's Day on Monday. The City's website says City Hall will be closed 8 am to 5 pm but still has Council meeting scheduled for 7 pm on separate pages. ]

Charlottesville, Va. – “A majority of [Planning] commissioners felt the revised plan for William Taylor Plaza fell short of the original project, which was originally approved for Southern Development in October 2009…

"At least two dozen neighborhood residents rose in opposition to plan at the public hearing. Architect and former mayor Maurice Cox said he could not support the project…

"However, not all public opinion was against the plan. The owners of Charlottesville’s Flower Man, a business on Cherry Avenue…[and] Pascal Bussiere, who bought a house on 7 1/2 Street in 2008, wrote the commission” in support of the development…

The item goes before City Council on February 21, 2011.” ( “Commission denies request to add more homes to William Taylor Plaza” by Sean Tubbs, Feb. 9, 2011, Charlottesville Tomorrow. )

Planning Commission Meeting Feb. 8, 2011 Video. City of Charlottesville.

City of Charlottesville Streaming Live and Archive Media.

Antoinette Roades talks to Rob Schilling Feb. 7 about the project the day before the Planning Commission meeting.

Ridge-Cherry development: Green vs Affordable, Jan. 24, 2011.

Ridge-Cherry development proffers for rezoning again, Jan. 5, 2011.

Council: Dueling dams, PUDs, dialogue on race, immigration

2011-02-08T00:44:00.007-05:00

Charlottesville, Va. – Questions of process overshadowed the content of tonight’s City Council meeting.

In response to complaints that no one can figure out which items Council will vote on, Councilor David Brown explained the traditional policy. “If it’s on the agenda, it’s a candidate for a vote.” Only items up for a vote are placed on the agenda anyway. Peter Kleeman complained at the end of the meeting that there was no way to know which items will be acted on.

Mayor Dave Norris accepted “full blame” and understood there had been an expectation of action on the water plan—earthen or concrete 30-foot pool increase at Ragged Mountain. In recent years Council has become more casual. They agreed to postpone the vote but they should have voted to postpone the agenda item. Council is inconsistent.

The Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood Association also had issues with the process of notifying adjacent residents of sale of city surplus land prior to the deadline for proposals or bids. You’ve heard of the pile of other people’s money (OPM)? What about the pile of other people’s property (OPP)? Council routinely redistributes real estate.

Dueling Dams

Two engineering firms presented reports from the two perspectives: earthen vs concrete dam height increase.

Black and Veatch went first with a PowerPoint “summary of where we stand.” Engineer Greg Zamensky said it’s feasible to build onto the existing 1908 Ragged Mountain dam up to a 45-foot pool elevation increase. The actual dam increase would be about 55 feet.

Zamensky explained the process of building onto the existing dam.

(1) Install anchors drilled through the dam into the bedrock. “Don’t want the dam to become unstable.”
(2) Install grout curtain to prevent water seepage through and under the dam.
(3) Excavate the foundation for the new concrete to stand. Remove the “big pile of earth on the other side” of the dam, added previously to assuage fears the dam might not hold.
(4) Construct the dam raise.
(5) Add cap to top later for final 12-foot pool raise.

The project would require 45,000 cubic yards of roller compacted concrete. Cement and aggregate would be trucked in and mixed onsite with water from the reservoir. If the 42-foot is built but filled only to 30 feet, the spillway would be a bigger notch for overflow.

Zamensky estimated the costs with a 40% margin of error. If the project is phased: Primary Phase (30-ft) — maximum $15.3 million. Second Phase (12-ft) — only up to $2.7 Million more. To build the full concrete dam all at once — $18 million.

Chris Webster of Schnabel Engineering gave the PowerPoint presentation given to the last Rivanna Board meeting. Lead Dam Designer Randy Bass was also there and answered questions.

Webster listed the advantages of the earthen dam.

(A) Uses all onsite soils, which means several thousand fewer trucks. Only the cement would be shipped in and mixed onsite.
(B) The rock spillway would provide riprap and fish habitat structures.
(C) Smaller staging area, less stockpiling.
(D) Natural appearance.
(E) Increased opportunity for local contractors.

The full height earthen dam would cost up to $19.5 million. Building the 30-foot extension would cost 99% of the 42-foot dam. Over $3 million of that includes 70 test holes and 340 water pressure tests, which revealed most water seepage below 50 feet of water.

The earthen dam would sit atop the existing dam, but rely on mass instead of tensile strength to hold back the water. The grout curtain would be double layered and 100 feet deep. Closing off the 1908 quarry will eliminate some seepage.

Webster showed photos of one concrete and two earthen dams, which gave a good idea of what dams look like when not filled to built capacity. One hundred percent of the design for the earthen dam is scheduled to be completed for April report.

Webster said you’ll be able to walk across the dam, which blends in with the two ridges it connects. The earthen dam will need two spillways. Bass pointed out that concrete costs $100 a yard but dirt only $3 a yard.

Council discussed among themselves. Kristin Szakos said 30 feet is all she wants to go and was concerned the concrete dam might be ugly, “visually jarring.” Satyendra Huja said he’d rather have a new dam instead of the old since costs are similar. David Brown was comfortable with earthen or concrete but “firm” on the 30 feet.

In response to Szakos saying the earthen dam has less environmental impact, Dave Norris said “not even close.” His plan allows more flexibility, less clearing, less earth moving, less destruction to natural area. Huja interjected that the earthen dam looks like natural area. Norris responded, “It’s still artificial. And that's a fact, buddy.” Huja responded the only place he agrees with Norris is that Black and Veatch did a good job.

The public comment was heated before and after the 3-hour meeting. Joanna Salidis was disappointed in the Jan. 18 move. She addressed these misconceptions:

(1) Obvious more water stored means more available.
(2) 18+ million gallons per day for waterdemand in 2055 is flawed.
(3) We’re using 22% less water than 2 decades ago.
(4) Never wants to hear about DEQ. The Aug. 2 letter didn’t say 13 feet would not be approved. It says the permits would have to be reworked.
(5) Never wants to hear 2006 plan is good for rivers. Salidis closed by saying “I love the Ragged Mountain natural area…I care about my habitat.”

Downing Smith waved a headline: “County praises vote on dam.” He was disgusted and disappointed you’re not representing the city. Smith read anonymous comments from The Hook: “The gang of 3…These 3 stooges don’t care about facts…Dumber than a box of rocks…Landmark Hotel—rooms available in 50 years. Why are Huja, Brown, Szakos selling out? Terrible negotiating on city’s part. Szakos should go out and see what people are saying about you.

In Council comment Szakos pointed out how discourse has reached a new low. She had never been called “dumber than a box of rocks” before.

Bob Fenwick speculated revenue sharing as the real reason City is cooperating with the County. “What sense does that make?” “The point of a reservoir is water supply, not to float a boat.” Where is the dredging plan for Ragged Mountain. There will be a huge cost. His water bill has already gone from $20 to $70 a month. The dam won’t be filled for 20 years. “What do the homeless do?” And food banks? Do they also wait 20 years for food. Payback time for County politicians. “End-around play” $18 million. If city is well off, why not give small business owners a tax break. “We’re not sheep to be shorn”

All the comment wasn’t negative.

The 2nd speaker (whose name I missed) [ Martha Levering ]: Thanks for raising the dam by 30 feet. The cost of 30- vs 42-dam is less than $200,000 out of $19 million. You can spare future generations from tearing up ground again. Trails will be restored. “Please vote to go full height.”

Bill Ross claimed the Ragged Mountain dam is of questionable integrity. City and County are working to 30-ft pool level and option to go to 42-feet. Larger pond a distinctive ability to be available during dry periods. “Opportunity to plan for a more secure future.”

Other Matters

Longwood Park PUD (Planned Unit Development) highlighted another process matter. Tonight was the first “reading.” Council has to hear the item at a second meeting in order to vote the bill through. This two-meeting rule was devised to address concerns that legislation is rushed through.

This ordinance would swap two land parcels in exchange for two larger ones. The change is needed in the redesign of the cul-de-sac to allow two access points through the development and convey to the city two corner lots.

Councilor Holly Edwards has opposed the Longwood Drive development and therefore opposes the change. Brown made the motion. Norris seconded the motion. A minimum of two votes are required to bring a motion to a full vote.

The city is selling 409 Stadium Road, vacant corner lot at JPA, Emmett and Stadium. There were four bidders in response to RFPs with deadline of Oct. 29. One was late and rejected and another not present. John Crafaik and architect Gate Pratt want to build Charlottesville Apartments.

Rick Jones owns the adjacent lot with an old stone house condemned for 5 years until Jones bought it 2 years ago and renovated it. Jones offers the same price, $250,000 for the prime real estate, but promises not to develop the property

This is the first reading. If you want to weigh in on these matters, go to the Council meeting 1st and 3rd Mondays. Loosely speaking, Council is set up so, if you just follow Council, you’ll have some time to comment or make a case. There is a distinct process, but it's not well-known.

City Council Meeting Feb. 7, 2011. Streaming Media Archive Page.

Councilor Huja defends 30-foot dam, Jan. 22, 2011.

Ridge-Cherry development: Green vs Affordable

2011-01-24T21:08:00.006-05:00

Charlottesville, Va. – The proposed William Taylor Plaza will likely change again with yet another rezoning.

In the latest proposal, some environmental standards may be sacrificed if the previous 30% becomes 100% affordable housing. The project would have 80 housing units instead of 50, EarthCraft instead of LEED certification, 120,000 square feet instead of 80,00 to 100,000,

The changes are requested by William Park, who developed Treesdale Park on Rio Road between Towne Lane and Stonehenge Road, an Affordable Multifamily Rental Community, where ground has recently been broken. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) is also involved with Treesdale. (See below for links.)

The next final public hearing is February 8.

Antoinette Roades update January 22, 2011

Folks:

This message updates my alert of 28 December 2010 vis-a-vis what's afoot for the almost 3-acre Ridge-Cherry property. In October 2009, City Council approved a Southern Development project (William Taylor Plaza) for the site. A year earlier, CC had agreed to sell SD two City-owned parcels on Ridge Street without which the subsequently approved WTP could not be built.

Now, however, as the result of an extraordinary act of bait-and-switch that will also constitute a bailout for Southern Development, City Council is poised to approve a radically different project for the site under the pretence of making "changes to the [WTP] PUD" -- a profoundly dishonest maneuver.

Indeed, it would appear that the goal of the "changes" requested is to convert WTP into something very like "Treesdale Park (Affordable Multifamily Rental Community)," a project developed by William Park in concert with AHIP (a nonprofit housing agency in Albemarle County) for which ground was recently broken on Rio Road. And City Council is poised to do that after offering the public exactly one opportunity for comment -- a Joint Public Hearing with Planning Commission at PC's 8 February regular meeting.

RECENT BACKGROUND

I sent my 28 December alert because Neighborhood Development Services had issued notice on 21 December that CC and PC would hold a Joint Public Hearing on WTP changes on 11 January 2011. That hearing would be the only opportunity for any public comment. In that alert, I reported that subsequent inquiry had revealed that approval of the Rezoning Petition to be heard on 11 January would subject the property and the neighborhood to significantly greater impact than the NDS-issued notice had implied.

Indeed, inquiry had revealed that SD, which had begun advertising the Ridge-Cherry property for sale (at $2.3 million) immediately after securing approval for the WTP plan, had (after relisting at $1.8 million) found a buyer in William Park of Pinnacle Construction and Bluestone Land, et al., and that Park intended a project that would be notably larger while also being held to a lowered environmental standard.

On 4 January, I learned that the Joint Public Hearing was being deferred from the 11 January Planning Commission agenda to the 8 February PC agenda because William Park was "interested in additional changes" (quoth an NDS staff member). Yesterday, I was able to review his revised and expanded requests.

Note: Backup documents attached herewith are:
~~copy of my 28 December alert
~~Train &Partners plan approved in 2009
~~Fugleberg Koch plan submitted last month
~~detail of City Tax Map 29 showing relevant parcels
~~spreadsheet of zoning amendment sought by William Park

WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED

The combined "changes” – wich in fact constitute a new project – now include:
~~a project area of 120,000 square feet, rather than 80,000-100,000 square feet (an increase of 20-50 percent)
~~a project inventory of 80 residential units rather than 50 residential units (an increase of 60 percent and a factor that would certainly increase the project's vehicular traffic at what is already one of the City's most burdened intersections)
~~a project placement that would intrude more deeply into the fragile site's most fragile zone
~~a tree-preservation requirement that would allow more latitude for tree removal
~~a building-standard requirement that would apply Earthcraft Certification guidelines rather than the more demanding LEED Certification guidelines
~~a project that would include the two City-owned parcels contracted to SD (but not closed on or paid for by SD) without making the contract-required cash payment of $253,000 (Instead, "affordable housing" units would substitute for cash payment and, presumably, no cash whatsoever would change hands.)

BAIT-AND-SWITCH: "GREEN" vs. "AFFORDABLE"

In seeking to purchase the two project-critical City-owned parcels and secure approval for WTP, SD made much of the WTP project's alleged "green" aspects – aspects that would in no way mitigate the cutting of dozens of mature trees, the gouging of a critical slope, the piping of a stream, the destruction of a natural rain garden, etc.

In approving the sale and WTP, both City Councilors and Planning Commissioners made much of those "green" aspects – precisely the effect SD had sought. In seeking to reduce the project's purportedly "green" aspects, William Park is making much of "affordable housing" aspects seeking to likewise sway Councilors and Commissioners easily.

For some time, "affordable housing" has been the abracadabra phrase that has won for in-City developers anything they have demanded. That's been true despite the fact that the financial formula used to determine what "affordable" means has allowed unit prices upwards of $300,000 – affordable to some undoubtedly, but far beyond the reach of many others. And the process has also been susceptible to abuses as when buyers of "affordable" units have quickly flipped them for profit and as developers have bought the "affordable" units in their projects and turned them into personal income property.

Meanwhile, as William Park dangles formula-defined "affordable housing" as bait, the City is awash in truly affordable housing and especially in cheap condos – a situation experts foresee lasting far into the future. Indeed, no less than an official of Piedmont Housing Alliance told Councilors at a recent meeting that the City now had abundant "affordable" rentals.

DISHONESTY IN BOTH SUBSTANCE AND PROCESS

In sum, what is being sought by William Park via the Rezoning Petition to be heard before the public for the first and last time on 8 February is not a few changes to SD's much opposed but approved anyway WTP project. The Park plan has a different size, a different shape, a different position on site, different standards, different impacts, a different design in the Ridge Street design control district, and a different developer. Therefore, it is a different project.

N.B. On the way to approving the sale of City property to SD and the WTP project, Councilors made much of involving "the neighborhood." A number of meetings – presentations, discussions, etc. – were scheduled and opinions solicited. Nothing of the sort has been done for this very different project. Instead, it is being advanced very fast and very far below public radar.

I question whether Mr. Park even has legal standing to bring his petition, given that his declared status is "Contract Purchaser" of City parcels contracted to SD but never actually purchased by SD. Whether he has such standing or not, however, for City Councilors and Planning Commissioners to address this as mere "changes" (the word NDS uses over and over) of an existing plan is nothing short of dishonest.

WHERE WE ARE TODAY

William Taylor Plaza was the culmination of a process that began in 1999 as the now infamous housing bubble was beginning to balloon. Its specific plan was introduced in 2007 when that bubble was fully inflated. It is in every respect a perfect example of the wretched excess that characterized that destructive and now completely discredited artificial boom. There is good reason that Messrs. Silverman, Cadgene, and Kuttner abandoned a very similar plan for the nearby Ix property. There is equally good reason that Bill Atwood – saying "Fundamentally, the world has changed...” – radically scaled back his similar Waterhouse project on nearby Water Street. And a number of other large projects have also been downscaled or cancelled entirely

David Neuman, U.Va. chief architect and non-voting member of Planning Commission, described WTP in 2009 as essentially "City-sponsored." That was true. Given today's market and forecasts for the foreseeable future, there is every reason that WTP should now be dying a natural death rather than being reinvented by City intervention that can benefit no one other than City Councilors' very good friends at Southern Development. As a neighbor simply put it, "This is nothing but a bailout for SD." Yes, a bailout that would return SD more than $1.7 million on an initial investment of $90,000, the price SD's creator Dr. Charles Hurt paid for five Ridge-Cherry parcels in 1999.

Note: City Council is currently on track to approve in February the sale to SD of an already under-assessed City-owned parcel on Elliott Avenue for a further discounted price. (The 8,268 square-foot, prominently-located, and sidewalk-served City parcel, assessed at $50,000, will be sold to Councilors' very good friends at SD for only $40,000. For comparison, my 6,000 square-foot parcel two blocks away on a sidewalk-challenged side street is assessed at $60,300.)

WHAT YOU CAN DO

If any of this troubles you -- the potential impact, the process by which it is being effected, ad inf. – please let City Council and Planning Commission know that both via e-mails and at the Joint Public Hearing now scheduled for 8 February.

Please note that there is long history of Councilors and Commissioners coming to such hearings with minds made up – and that's been especially evident when Southern Development has been involved. Consequently, stating your position in advance may have more weight than just speaking at the hearing, the primary value of which is often educating the public.

__________________________________________________

WHAT WOULD BE LOST: A NATURAL-ASSET FOOTNOTE

Many of you will have followed the long running water-supply debate and noted its most recent dramatic turn. If the position taken this week by three City Councilors is indeed determinate, the extraordinarily valuable Ragged Mountain Natural Area will be stripped of tens of thousands of trees as its rugged topography is destroyed to build a massive dam and reservoir.

It has always been difficult for people not closely acquainted with the Ridge-Cherry property to understand why those who have fought for its retention as a natural asset believe as strongly as they do. Even in a slow-moving vehicle, its almost 3 acres flash by in seconds and that quick glance, which inevitably captures invasive bamboo and pervasive litter, can suggest that it is of little value. But it has great value.

A MINI RAGGED MOUNTAIN

In fact, the Ridge-Cherry property is in many respects a miniature of Ragged Mountain, with which it shares geological origin. It is a steep-sided wooded ravine bisected by a creek created by a natural spring that was once a deed-cited feature near the intersection of Oak Street and 4th Street N.W.

In more recent times, the declivity formed by the creek has been pressed into use as a storm drain site. That channel now carries massive amounts of polluted runoff into the heart of the property -- a highly efficient rain garden -- from which, after most runoff is absorbed, small residue leaves as a clear trickle. (This creek feeds a creek that feeds Moores Creek, the cleanup and protection of which is a declared priority of both concerned citizen groups and public agencies. Therefore, it is – as former Planning Commissioner Bill Emory noted in '09 – an integral part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.)

Left unmolested for a century and a half – and rightly considered unbuildable until the thoroughly irrational decade just passed – the property suffered serious insult after its purchase in 1999 by Dr. Hurt. An enormous bulldozer cleared a swath through it by knocking over large trees and pushing them into piles. The resulting destruction of canopy and disturbance of earth allowed various alien species – bamboo, Ailanthus, briars, brambles – to rush into what had been an almost undergrowth-free forest floor. Nevertheless, an extraordinary array of both flora and fauna remains.

In July 2004, Wintergreen Nature Foundation director Doug Coleman led a tour of the property. That event did more than any other to galvanize opposition to plans subsequently advanced by Southern Development. People saw for themselves that it was quite simply a treasure.

FLORA AND FAUNA

The property's plant stars are a towering, wonderfully healthy, double-trunked sycamore, which City Forester Tim Hughes calculated to have a circumference of more than 9 feet in 2004, and a naturalized grove of rare-hereabout Kentucky coffee trees (Gymnocladus dioica). The coffees are likely descended from trees introduced by the land's early 19th century owner, Alexander Garrett. Garrett was an associate of Thomas Jefferson, who received the tree's seeds from George Rogers Clark in 1783. (For more on these living artifacts, see Peggy Cornett's excellent article on them in the 2009 issue of Magazine of Albemarle County History .) The property also features particularly fine black walnut and tulip poplar specimens. Those are accompanied by mulberry, wild cherry, box elder, dogwood, catalpa, etc. Meanwhile, a couple of big Norway maples stand as reminders that VDOT demolished a number of handsome, hundred-year-old houses on the Ridge Street high ground in the 1970s.

As for critters, sightings have included squirrels, rabbits, groundhogs, possums, raccoons, a fox, bats, and a wide array of birds – from titmice, swallows, chickadees, cardinals, robins, blue jays, mourning doves, mockingbirds, wrens, and crows to a wild turkey, a sharp shinned hawk, and several woodpeckers including pileated.

HUMAN HISTORY

The property's human fauna have been distinguished as well. The entire block now bounded by Ridge Street, Cherry Avenue, 4th Street S.W., and Oak Street was purchased from Alexander Garrett in 1830 by Allen W. Hawkins. Hawkins had come to Albemarle from Bedford to work as a bricklayer at Mr. Jefferson's new Academical Village and stayed on to build both buildings and builders -- white and black, slave and free. Four houses that can be traced to Hawkins' skilled hands still stand on the block, including his circa 1831 brick-cottage home at 418 Fifth Street S.W. and the landmark Greek Revival residence at 505 Ridge Street. Others stand nearby.

In 1857, Allen Hawkins was buried in a family graveyard on his property. Evidence both documentary and eye-witness points to Parcel 157 on Tax Map 29 as the site of that graveyard, which could contain as many as ten burials. Parcel 157 bore the brunt of the 1999 bulldozer onslaught. It would also bear a large portion of William Taylor Plaza, which William Park seeks to intrude even further.

Again, people, if you care whether such assets are degraded and/or destroyed by a massive project that is also a massive developer bailout please speak up forcefully and soon.

Thank you.

Toni

Antoinette W. Roades

Ridge-Cherry development proffers for rezoning again, Jan. 5, 2011 Includes 2 schematics of William Taylor Plaza, 6-page rezoning application, public notice of the Jan. 11 hearing postponed to Feb. 8.

AHIP: Affordable Housing: Treesdale Park “Treesdale Park is a planned 88-unit multifamily community, to be located on East Rio Road in Albemarle County. A mix of two- and three-bedroom units, the new neighborhood will be home to households who earn up to 60 percent of the area median income. (Sixty percent of area median income is about $36,000 for a family of four.)”

Albemarle Planning Commission weighs in on Treesdale, Sep. 1, 2007 “AHIP wants 6.6 acres to be moved from R4 zoning, which would allow 4 units per acre, to Planned Residential District which would allow between 3 and 34 units per acre. "What the applicant is proposing is 90 units," said County Planner Sean Dougherty. The plan is to have three multi-story buildings, with parking underneath. By right without a rezoning, 39 homes could be constructed. “The applicant has proffered to do 15 percent affordability, but that’s in case the developer is not able to get federal tax credits. If they’re able to do it with federal tax credits, it would be more like 100% affordability.”

County Planners approve Treesdale Park affordable housing development on Rio Rd., Nov. 11, 2009 “Because of federal tax credits, all units in the development will be made available for rental to residents who earn below 60 percent of the area median income.”

Affordable Housing Treesdale Park in Charlottesville Breaks Ground Photos of the site.

Albemarle County: AHIP Welcomes Funding for Treesdale Park: First New Affordable Multifamily Rental Community of its Kind in Greater Charlottesville in 15 Years. 11/19/2010

Councilor Huja defends 30-foot dam

2011-01-22T18:29:00.006-05:00

“People before us planned for our water supply we are benefiting from. We need to do likewise for future generations.” – Councilor Satyendra Huja.

Charlottesville, Va. – Following Tuesday’s City Council vote, Councilman Satyendra Huja explained Friday the shift away from the 13-foot dam height increase, the Mayor Dave Norris plan.

On Wednesday Norris claimed he didn’t know about the vote ahead of time. But Huja said Councilor Kristin Szakos had told Norris prior to the meeting. During the actual meeting, Norris did not seem surprised as the vote unfolded.

Appearing on Coy Barefoot’s “Charlottesville Right Now” radio talk show Friday on WINA AM-1070 (Podcast 16m 50s), Huja was treated with disrespect by the host and two callers: Richard Lloyd, a civil engineer, and Dede Smith, a former school board member.

Barefoot poisoned the well by setting up his own view before Huja spoke. Barefoot ganged up on Huja and repeated the questions from Lloyd and Smith. “Who told you” this or that? – they cross-examined repeatedly. Is Huja not able to look at a situation and draw his own conclusions?

Huja is the only councilor born outside the USA. He is a Sikh Indian. Now an American citizen, Huja received in 1968 his degree in urban planning from Michigan State University.

Huja was Charlottesville’s official chief urban planner 1973 to 2004, during which time much has changed. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority formed 1973; negotiations began March 1972. Huja was city planner in 1977 for the city and county’s first mandatory drought restrictions. He was city planner when the Buck Mountain Reservoir was acquired in the early ‘80s. Guess what: Huja was city planner in the 2002 drought.

Huja is the only person of political power in the city or county with enough local historical knowledge of water issues to plan 50 years into the future. The water supply is not an engineering problem. It’s a political question.

Caller Frank reminded us there is an upcoming election. He and caller George applauded Huja, Szakos, and Brown for taking a stand. Huja’s campaign slogan was “Think outside the box.”

On Friday Huja got a taste of the demonizing the critics Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply have used against RWSA director Tom Frederick and Chairman Mike Gaffney at public board meetings. This contempt and incivility are headed for city council and a broader audience.

On previous shows just this past week, critics have stated that those in disagreement are either stupid or dishonest, misinformed or being manipulated. In a spectacle at a recent Council meeting, a fourth grader said basically – if you disagree, you’re dumber than a fourth grader. This is the level of discourse.

Angel in the details

As to why the majority of Council split from the mayor, Huja explained what has changed since the September unanimous vote for 13-feet.

(A) We now know the Department of Environmental Quality would not approve the 13 feet because it does not provide enough water.
(B) We now know the University will double their water use from 1.5 to 3.1 million gallons per day (MGD), a hundred percent jump.

Huja said most of the plan is still the same: dredging and conservation. But now the dam is to be “at least” 30 feet high for water supply and if needed go to 42 feet. The taller dam would also provide normal stream flows for the Moormans and Rivanna rivers.

Richard Lloyd called and said the DEQ was misinformed in its letter to Mayor Norris and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Ann Mallek. Lloyd asked “who had told him [Huja]” the Norris plan would not work.

Huja responded, “I don’t quite agree with you. I think DEQ did say very clearly that, with the current assumptions, we need more water than we could employ with 13 feet.” Lloyd claimed the letter was based on a 45-foot dam.

Barefoot rephrased the question. Huja said, “You can change the plan anytime you want to change the plan. But you need to meet certain basic water requirements…People before us planned for our water supply we are benefiting from. We need to do likewise for future generations.”

Barefoot kept asking questions based on the spin from Mayor Norris. Where does this change put dredging and does it obviate the need for dredging?

Huja: “I don’t agree at all.” He said we need to perform two types of dredging: restorative to regain the 22% volume lost to siltation in the last 50 years and maintenance dredging to maintain the supply. “We hope there will be a market for the silt.”

Dede Smith called in and started with this line: “Hello, hello Huja. How are you?” She asked, “I would like to know who told you the DEQ letter said we could not, they would not permit 13 feet plus dredging? Because it has been refuted many times and I’m just curious where you are getting that information?”

Smith tried to muddy the water with numbers in an effort to say UVA is not a major consumer of municipal water. Barefoot repeated the question: Who told you that?

Huja: “First of all the letter itself says that.” Smith repeated the question several times more and then answered herself. “DEQ never said that…In fact Dave Norris has made this point many, many times and Dave Norris has talked to the DEQ [in secret meetings]…UVA is being used as a tool but in fact it’s just not a big player in this projection of adequate growth.”

Huja: “UVA is a big player, not a small player.” Smith’s opposition to the latest plan has led her to claim the University of Virginia is a “small player” in the community’s water needs.

Barefoot followed up with another biased question. You clearly knew Tuesday’s vote was coming because you had a “prepared statement” and Norris said he had no idea the vote was coming. “When did you know…?”

Huja said the dam change had been discussed at a couple meetings. “We wanted to take some kind of action. We don’t want to talk about this for the rest of our lives…Szakos did talk to Mr. Norris.”

Barefoot: “Before that meeting?” Huja: “Yes…I’m not sure how the mayor is surprised because at the last meeting before that, we indicated we are going to discuss this matter again on January 18.”

Barefoot conducted the toughest interview of his career. The Council Agenda did not call for a vote. Huja said Council can vote anytime they want and Barefoot was forced to agree. Barefoot asked: Who else knew? Did the Board of Supervisors know? – implying that Huja now represents the county and not the city. Is Huja part of a conspiracy?

Huja didn’t know how the Board of Supervisors could have known. Council doesn’t typically get approval from the county on anything. But again, since Huja is in disagreement, innocent things are called into suspicion, like being prepared for a Council meeting.

Barefoot eased up and let Huja make a final statement before the last call. Huja said the plan is for 50 years, not one or two years. The latest plan is for 109 gallons of water per person per day.

The Norris Spin Machine

The interview made clear which side has the misinformation. As you would expect, the ones crying Misinformation! the loudest are the ones disseminating the false and misleading information. How many untruths can the mayor speak until no one pays him any mind?

It was clear Barefoot doesn’t follow local politics except for what his favorite politicians tell him. This anti-water, anti-growth campaign has relied on smear and grandstanding. The critics accuse dissenters as anti-intellectual, not wanting more information. But it is the critics who are locked into a position.

The Citizens group have worked themselves in to a frenzy. It’s now a power struggle. Any plan other than theirs is a personal attack against them – just as they turned their disagreement into personal attacks. Don’t expect the alternative compromise – the Brown-Szakos-Huja dam – to be treated fairly on “Charlottesville Right Now” as we have seen.

Maybe there are other media outlets where diverse views can be discussed on their own merits, and not through the lens of a mendacious mayor or misleading activist group.

Council wants 30-foot dam, nixes Norris plan, Jan. 18, 2011.

Council wants 30-foot dam, nixes Norris plan

2011-01-18T22:10:00.003-05:00

“Going down this road is like going down the rabbit hole.” – Councilor Holly Edwards

Charlottesville, Va. – Council has changed the compromise plan from a 13- to now a 30-foot dam height increase. They voted 3 to 2 to amend their September resolution calling for a 13-foot dam height increase at Ragged Mountain.

Councilors David Brown, Kristin Szakos, and Satyendra Huja voted yes, with Mayor Dave Norris and Holly Edwards no.

Brown made the motion. There was some confusion right before the vote, whether it was for 30 feet or a range of 13 to 30 feet. But all three compromising councilors stuck by their decision even though the mayor argued against them.

Mayor Norris said his plan would not encroach on Interstate-64, would preserve biologically diverse forest to be inundated, and allow for expansion.

Szakos said 13 feet is not enough according to Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Norris responded that “DEQ never said no.” In some semantic game, Norris said his plan would satisfy the permit requirements for stream-flows but it would take years longer to reach those goals.

Edwards said it best: “Going down this road is like going down the rabbit hole.” The hypocrisies and ironies were breath-taking.

Edwards thanked City Public Works Director Judy Mueller for telling the truth when describing the process as “adversarial.” On the latest study’s ability to trump all previous studies, Edwards made the analogy: would you rather take medicine from 2006 or meds from 2008 or 2009?

Mueller said the city and county have been negotiating the Cost Share Agreement for two weeks so far. All the councilors wanted the county to pay as much as possible.

Szakos asked Mueller if the cost sharing agreement includes dredging and conservation. Mueller responded no. Szakos wanted a slush fund for rebates and incentives for conservation. Mueller said the only thing they’ve done is to subsidize rain barrels.

Chris Webster of Schnabel Engineering, designing the earthen dam, answered questions from Council. He said the full 42-foot height built all at once would be the most practical for the price and would take 18 months to construct.

City Council and County Board of Supervisors met this afternoon to discuss the water issues.

It’s unclear whether Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply will be upset. In public comment, Betty Mooney was okay with the 13-foot compromise. She promised “we won’t march on the city.”

The main buzz in the public comment was the issue of a Special Use Permit to play music in a restaurant. Music + restaurant = Music Hall. Cville Coffee may need a cabaret license for open mike night. “For-profit only” music venues were derided.

No Council meeting would be complete without a real estate shenanigan. The city wants to sell the Region Ten site at 4th and Preston as a Single Room Occupancy public housing project owned and operated by Virginia Supportive Housing. Council voted that this first reading is the second reading and voted again unanimously to sell the property. The actual ordinance was not read, only discussed with two people speaking in the public hearing.

Also Southern development wants another two city surplus lots, for $40,000, this time in the southwest corner of Ridge-Cherry-Elliott adjacent Burnet Commons housing project.

City Council Jan. 18, 2011. Streaming Media Archive Page for Charlottesville City.

City to take over 2006 water plan, Jan. 3, 2011.

Ridge-Cherry development proffers for rezoning again

2011-01-05T22:48:00.018-05:00

"This is yet another shameful act in a seemingly endless series of shameful acts." - Toni Roades

Charlottesville, Va. – The northwest corner of Ridge Street and Cherry Avenue, like most issues in town, has been a controversy for decades. The proposed site includes two surplus lots sold by the city.

It’s located in a distressed area of town known as Fifeville, now a historic conservation district despite neighborhood opposition to the regulatory designation. In 2006 the city threatened to seize two allegedly blighted houses across the street. At the last Council meeting, the city discussed leasing the city-owned house at 608 Ridge at the south[east] corner of Ridge-Cherry-Elliott.

In the rezoning application at a fee of $2,000, Bluestone Land LLC agrees to “contribute approximately $253,000, per the terms of the Land Purchase and Sale Agreement, to a Fifeville neighborhood affordable housing fund, another affordable housing fund designated by the City, or for improvements to Tonsler Park, in the discretion of City Council. The contribution shall be made within 30 days of the approval of the final site plan or final plat approval, whichever occurs later.

– OR –

The Developer shall provide at least 20 Affordable Housing Units or 30% of the total number of units, whichever is greater, on site, as part of the project….”

But that’s not all!

A city bus stop.
Public arboretum.
LEED or EarthCraft Certification.
$10,000 in cash to Capital Improvements Program for pedestrian safety or traffic calming.
$15,000 right turn lane from Ridge onto Cherry. (Cash proffers required for Certificate of Occupancy.)
Below ground parking. Cars not visible from street.
6- to 8-foot wide sidewalks.
$5,000 for striped crosswalks and countdown pedestrian signals.
One bicycle rack for every 10 parking spaces.
Minimum 45% total area to remain Open Space.
Minimum 20% site to be the arboretum open to the public in daylight hours.
6-inch+ diameter trees to be saved unless blighted.
Retention basin for storm drainage.
Plant and maintain landscape trees along Ridge-Cherry.
Document that only local construction debris recycling facility is used.

Needless to say, this property has flipped several times in a half-decade. The application lists Cherry Avenue Investment LLC as the current owner. Southern Development was the owner in the 2009 rezoning Planned Unit Development (where developer is exempted from zoning laws in exchange for money).

In Sep. 2007, the former Mooney Oldsmobile at Vinegar Hill was approved to become a 9-story tower. The proffer for BAR approval was $300,000 to the city’s Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the agency which bulldozed Vinegar Hill but spared the then-new Mooney Oldsmobile built 1957. After doing business here for six decades, the Mooneys seemed surprised that the Planning Commission also wanted proffers to approve the development. Currently the site houses a furniture and book store.

Concerned citizen Antoinette Roades has been following this story and researched the many details. She will talk about the Ridge-Cherry project with Rob Schilling on Thursday.

Antoinette Roads on Schilling Show on WINA AM-1070.
Airs 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. Thursday Jan. 6, 2011. [Corrected date.]

The only remaining public hearing is on Tuesday Jan. 11, 2011.

[ Update: Charles Hurt has owned since 1998 the site parcels except the two owned by the City. Hurt also owns Southern Development, Cherry Avenue Investment, and Bluestone Land, according to Antoinette Roades on the Schilling Show. A developer called in and said it's not unusual to buy a property but not close until the second buyer closes the deal so the deed records two sales on the same day.

Jan. 6, 2011 podcast first hour with Antoinette Roades. | Schilling Show Podcasts ]

Antoinette Roades’ Email December 28, 2010

People who care about such things:

As some of you already know, City Council and Planning Commission will hold a Joint Public Hearing on 11 January at which PC will decide whether to grant a request to rezone the Ridge-Cherry property (aka William Taylor Plaza). That hearing will be the only opportunity anyone will have to comment on this matter.

As this request is summarised in the 21 December notice mailed from City Hall and a newspaper advertisement that will run in The Daily Progress on 28 December and 4 January, changes asked seem relatively small. In that summary, what stands out most is a retreat from the much touted LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards that Southern Development pledged when Councilors voted to sell SD two City-owned parcels on Ridge Street in 2008 and when Planning Commission approved WTP in 2009. But there's much more to this situation and much more at stake.

Within weeks of obtaining key approval for WTC from PC in '09, SD put the property up for sale. Initial asking price was $2.3 million. By this fall, it had been cut to $1.8 million. Apparently, that attracted a buyer.

On 15 December, William Park of Bluestone Land LLC -- styled as "Contract Purchaser" -- submitted a Rezoning Petition to Neighborhood Development Services. (N.B. The property package described in this petition includes the two City-owned Ridge Street parcels that City Council voted to sell SD but that SD appears in City Assessor online records never to have closed on or paid for.) With it was a drawing prepared by Fugleberg Koch for Pinnacle Construction & Development Corporation (same address as Bluestone Land) and dated 20 December. A supporting owner's statement dated 15 December was signed by Charlie Armstrong for SD on 21 December. That same day, notice of the Joint Public Hearing was issued from NDS. So this matter is proceeding at warp speed under cover of holiday distractions and City Hall closures. (And it thereby follows the same scrutiny-dodging strategy that has characterized the whole sorry Ridge-Cherry saga.)

The submitted drawing and related text show a plan with a building area 20 percent larger than the projected maximum approved in '09 -- 120,000 square feet versus 80,000-100,000. Not surprisingly, it also shows greater intrusion on the core of the site -- that is, on the super fragile creek and ravine bottom area. Further, it shows a much modified facade on Ridge Street, which lies in both local and national historic districts.

(Of course, nothing about any of the plans submitted for this site has conformed to oft pronounced City goals vis-a-vis critical slope protection, storm water management, water quality maintenance, tree canopy preservation, green space retention, traffic mitigation, historic recognition, global warming reduction, ad inf. Indeed, all plans have violated all those goals. Also, all plans have heavily impinged on the parcel where all empirical evidence and sightings place the Hawkins family graveyard.)

Despite the profound and diverse impacts of the changes proposed, however, the matter's scheduling allows no more than a very few days for concerned parties -- individuals, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, neighborhood and other community groups, relevant agencies (e.g. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), etc. -- to review the matter and formulate a position before the one and only opportunity to comment (11 January) comes and goes. (Note: The staff report on this item is not expected to be available until the end of the day on 4 January.)

In my opinion, this is yet another shameful act in a seemingly endless series of shameful acts. I will register my disapproval of both the request and its timing with City Council, Planning Commission, and BAR (which seems not to be involved but should be). I hope that some of you will speak out as well.

I wish us all a better New Year than this matter foreshadows.

Toni

Antoinette W. Roades

William Taylor Plaza

William Taylor

Historical summary of Charlottesville

“Mixed use development at Ridge-Cherry intersection recommended for approval” by Brian Wheeler, Sep. 11, 2009, Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Minutes from Planning Commission Aug. 11, 2009. Rezoning from R-2 to Planned Unit Development deferred because “there was discomfort about the level of clarity about the existing proffers and whether they would be enforceable and whether all of the possible impacts from this development have been effectively mitigated by the included proffers.” The PUD was approved Sep. ’09.

City to take over 2006 water plan

2011-01-03T22:33:00.006-05:00

Charlottesville, Va.—At their next meeting, City Council will vote whether to hire engineering firm Black & Veatch to proceed with final design for the city’s “compromise” plan, the 2010 water plan.

Black & Veatch delivered its first study to Council July 19, the most optimistic of all the studies and critiques dating back to 1912. The latest plan is to build a 13-foot addition atop the 1908 Ragged Mountain Dam.

Company rep Greg Zamensky said it would take only 3 to 4 months to get within 50 to 60% design process where the 2006 earthen dam is now. The mayor asked the spokesman to place a warranty on the compromise dam, 30 to 40 years or longer? He wouldn’t specify a number and said dam failures are rare in the U.S. and depends on many variables such as flood or earthquake. As a result the infrastructure is often neglected.

Black & Veatch sent the right spokesman—combination of athletic presence and confidence talking numbers and scientific jargon. Zamensky was feeling it himself when he described a dam spillway design as not as “sophisticated and sexy” as the other two designs. The line was accompanied by a potent smile.

After two hours—heated public comment, report that PHA wants to “take” 24 rental houses for affordable housing, lease city-“owned” 608 Ridge St to Local Energy Alliance Program, and lengthy questioning by Council of the dam study report—the drama reached a fevered climax.

Councilor Satyendra Huja, city’s urban renewal planner 1973-2003, got in the face of RWSA executive director since 2004 Tom Frederick and called Frederick out to speak for County Supervisors. Frederick has been demonized by the Citizens for Sustainable Water Supply, who packed the Council meeting.

Frederick came to the podium and replied: “What’s your end goal? Take over and run the project?” A few other remarks, then Frederick sat back down. A few councilors spoke.

Councilor Kristin Szakos ridiculed Frederick sitting in the front row by asking: How could anyone be “upset” if someone found a cheaper plan, “saving money largely for the county.” Characteristically, audience members laughed.

But Frederick came back to the podium and called Szakos out on her insolent remarks. Frederick said the city and county are “in different places right now” as he threw up his arms. The city and county need to talk to each other. Frederick is caught in the middle.

Szakos questioned why Frederick used terminology like “take over the project.”

In the last few sentences before the intermission, Mayor Dave Norris made clear the take-over threat:

— As owners of the dam, we have a responsibility to maintain assets. We are moving forward with the compromise plan. —

After the intermission Voter Registrar Sheri Iachetta was at it again—trying to get Council to update the election precincts. Council has refused at least four times this decade to make the improvements. A 2004 commission on Council representation, 2006 commission of School Board Elections, a subsequent request from Iachetta and the Electoral Board were all ignored by City Council.

Jan. 3, 2011 City Council Meeting

Streaming Media Archive Page for Charlottesville City.

“Why city & county can’t coopreate on water plan”, Dec. 14, 2010

“Public Hearing on 125-year-old Water Plan”, Sep. 19, 2010. Includes links to stories by this author on this topic since 2001.

"City to revisit election precincts", Sep. 23, 2008

Why city & county can’t cooperate on water plan

2010-12-14T20:18:00.002-05:00

Hate is clouding their judgment. They can’t see that more water for the County means more money for the City [due to revenue sharing].

Charlottesville, Va.—The City of Charlottesville has reneged on the 2006 community water supply plan agreement. The city offers a revised plan under the rhetorical name “compromise.” Albemarle County has responded in a letter that they see no compromise.

A compromise occurs before an agreement, not after. For example, President Obama is compromising on the tax cuts. Why is he not compromising on the health care bill? Because health care has already passed. Congress can revise the bill and compromise on the revisions yet to be agreed upon.

The City is calling the revised plan a compromise to project a false reality, to give the appearance the City is not going back on their word.

The opponents of cooperation on the water plan cite the “false” assumptions the plan is based on. These assumptions were known to be faulty as the 2006 plan was debated. At the water forums in ’05 and ‘06, there was much public comment and input at each of the meetings. A third to half of the time was set aside to public comment. More than a few people questioned every assumption.

If the assumptions were publicly known to be false when the plan was approved, why was it approved? Because the county wants the water. The County and the University are planning massive expansions and new developments in the next 50 years.

Once I accepted that the real reason for the water plan is desire, not need, I began to support the plan as a goodwill gesture from the city to the county. A win-win for everybody.

Below is an email I sent to Rob Schilling of WINA Friday evening Dec. 10. It explains the situation better than I could write it again.

Challenge to the reader: Name a 2006 water plan assumption and I’ll try to find the documentation to show the assumption was argued in public in '05 or '06.

EMAIL TO SCHILLING SHOW

Dear Rob,

Thanks for playing my call about the dam studies on the air today. And thanks for asking my emailed question about sovereign immunity yesterday of your libertarian guests.

You have an open invitation for supporters of the water plan to debate the opponents. I’d like to offer my theory as to why there are so few takers. I certainly don’t want to go up against a charismatic, fast talker.

Remember the Saturday Night Live skit where characters George W. Bush and Bill Clinton held a joint press conference. When Bush spoke, people booed and jeered. When Clinton said the exact same words, people smiled and applauded with approval. Without charisma, logic often loses to specious arguments and logical fallacies. This was evident when Ken Boyd debated the issue on your show.

You need only listen to the Coy Barefoot show (First Hour Fri. Dec. 10, 2010) for more examples as to why the county and city are not compromising. A compromise is something that occurs before an agreement. The county and city agreed in 2006 to build the new dam. Imagine compromising with your bank to pay half the mortgage you agreed to.

http://www.cvillepodcast.com/2010/12/10/charlottesville-right-now-dede-smith-joins-coy-barefoot/

A caller offered revenue sharing, the annual rent the county pays for the city not to seize county territory and revenue, as the underlying reason the county doesn’t trust the city enough even to have discussions.

Coy dismisses this concern, the most basic foundation of any stable government. Coy says Mayor Norris is on the record saying the county can stop revenue sharing and the city will immediately begin annexation proceedings. Some compromise! Give us some of your revenue, or we’ll take it all and your ability to generate revenue. Coy underestimates the importance of county sovereignty because he’s okay with the city exercising powers that have caused many wars throughout history.

So, given the city’s long history of not compromising, not keeping agreements (Meadowcreek Parkway, Solid Waste, etc.), and not respecting the county’s sovereignty, Coy and Dede Smith hammered that the county refuses to compromise. This is a rhetorical technique: Speak of a recent event as if there exists no historical context or historical irony. Criticize one party to give the appearance that the other party is not deserving of the same criticism.

The 2006 water plan began to fall apart in 2007 when Rivanna decided to drop the routine maintenance dredging. During the decision process, many people spoke in favor of dredging. Rivanna repeatedly assured the public that dredging should be conducted but this was not included in the written plan. This reversal is probably the biggest mistake Rivanna has made: its tragic flaw in the current cycle of water supply expansion.

The assumptions of the plan were known to be “false” as the plan was debated. Back in Aug. 2001 Councilor Caravati made the point that demand projections had over-projected by half. In 2006 (and since 2002), it was known the 2002 drought was not the worst on record and the water shortage was exaggerated. But politicians sided with authorities who offered conclusions but no data. The politicians ignored the grassroots and bloggers (the new media) who found the data indicated contrary conclusions.

I still support the mega Ragged Mountain reservoir, originally conceived in the 1800s. If you actually read the Rivanna Four Party Agreement 1972, you’ll see the county is paying for the new dam and pipeline 100% because the new water storage is requested (now due to city breaking its agreement) by the county alone. Of course, the city hates the county and that hate is clouding their judgment. They can’t see that more water for the county means more money for the city, normally a win-win situation.

The city and county are like Lucy and Charlie Brown. Lucy promises to let Charlie Brown kick the football this time. But every time, she pulls the ball away just as Charlie Brown kicks and comes crashing to the ground. For some reason, Charlie Brown keeps falling for it. Maybe the county has finally had enough.

Rob, sorry for the tangent about a different radio show. You’re doing a great job. Best wishes for your family.

Merry Christmas,
Blair Hawkins

Public Hearing on 125-year-old Water Plan

2010-09-19T20:21:00.010-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—City Council will hear from the public Monday evening on the latest phase of a civic water plan set in motion in the late 1800s when all the land for the latest expansion of Ragged Mountain was purchased. Two reservoirs have already been built here in 1885 and 1908.

The city has allowed hiking trails and other public uses until the community decided to further enlarge this water storage. In June 2006 and again June 2008, City Council approved the water plan resulting from an unprecedented series of community forums held by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority beginning in 2005. The County has also repeatedly approved the plan.

The purpose of the latest public hearing is to delay the plan. Vocal opposition has arisen from previous supporters of the plan and former water officials who want to dredge the South Rivanna Reservoir instead. This reservoir went into operation 1966 and flooded the African-American community of Hydraulic Mills.

Typically Council counts the number of speakers for and against a project. If Council agrees with the majority of speakers, Council will act accordingly. If Council disagrees with the majority of speakers, Council will hold hearings until the latest majority agrees with Council. Then Council will say they’re acting on the will of the people.

But the current community water supply plan is the will of the people. The community could have chosen to dredge. But instead they decided to build a new dam. All the permits have been granted from state and federal agencies. The only issues to be ironed out are funding and the size of the new dam.

Previously, following the community’s record drought of 1977 and first mandatory conservation, the Rivanna agency purchased land in 1983 for Buck Mountain Reservoir near Free Union before permits had been obtained. The reservoir was never built but Rivanna refuses to give the land back to its legal, rightful owners. This abuse of eminent domain is one reason people don’t trust the Rivanna agency, whose creation was initially negotiated in secret meetings in 1972.

To further show that Council is now blocking the project, they have commissioned more studies and are now formulating guidelines for Request For Proposals on dredging even though proposals have already been submitted and rejected. We already have a wide array of cost estimates for dredging.

The most recent study of the 1908 dam shows the old dam can safely support as much as 51 feet of additional height. Previous studies have indicated fractured bedrock under the existing dam and an earthen dam might be built more cheaply. The integrity of the 1908 dam was called into question as soon as it was built and an earthen face was added for strength. State officials have said the old dam does not meet new the new safety rules.

Under new leadership since 2004, the agency has built a great deal of trust despite the complex subject. Meanwhile, the dredging supporters, some who didn’t dredge when they were in charge, have not been able to gain traction. The dredgers have used personal attacks, rhetorical gimmicks and omissions.

However, the administration has been professional and shown restraint while doing their job—building a new dam as the community has instructed them to do.

One thing the new dam has in its favor is accountability and transparency. You can see it. In the future when ask if that dam was ever built, you can point and say: Yep, there it is. Did they ever build the Buck Mountain Reservoir. Nope, nothing to show for it.

What about dredging? There is no accountability. The project is invisible and under water. How will we know if the right volume of sediment is removed? We'll have to commission yet another study and be forced to trust yet another group of people.

The benefit of building the new dam is we can see it. If we make this century-old plan a reality, we will truly have something to show for all those forums and for all those millions of dollars spent.

Related stories and background

'Crying Drought' Fatigue, Mar. 9, 2009

"Rivanna Four Party Agreement 1972 to 2012", Feb. 15, 2009

"Ex-Councilors oppose their own water plan", Jun. 5, 2008

"Council approves water plan again", Jun. 2, 2008

“Dredging alternative at Citizens forum” May 5, 2008

"The emperor has no water" Hoax, Mar. 16, 2008

“2007: Year of the Non-Drought” Jan. 3, 2008

“50-year Water Plan for 76% more population: Ragged at same phase as Buck Mountain”, Sep. 18, 2007

“Rivanna uncomfortable using Buck Mountain land for Ragged Mountain plan” Nov. 2, 2006

“Council approves Ragged Mountain option: Water for another 50 years” Jun. 6, 2006. Includes Tom Frederick’s report to Council Feb. 7, 2005

Historical Society: Jefferson School 1865

2010-08-17T18:34:00.007-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—In contrast to a decade of news reporting, Fred Dove set the record straight today on the Schilling Show. (Podcast of First Hour Aug 17, 2010) Dove is a board member of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society and seventh generation native of Charlottesville.

Jefferson School began in 1865 on West Main Street. Since 2000, politicians and media had reported 1926 for Jefferson School because that’s the date of the current location. In 2007, after an archaeological dig at the site, the date was pushed back to 1894, when Jefferson School moved to Vinegar Hill.

In 2006 the Historical Society’s annual magazine published a thirty-page article on the first Jefferson School, which also talks about the lost history of Charlottesville’s first public school 1870 where J.W. Lane (of Lane High School) was the town’s first public school principal on Garrett Street.

Last week, The Hook weekly newsmagazine made history by printing 1865 in the first few paragraphs of the story.

A week before, The Daily Progress refused to print a letter to the editor from Historical Society board member Fred Dove.

Dove had spoken with reporter Rachana Dixit the day before at the Historical Society. Dove says he specifically pointed out 1865 as the earliest date for Jefferson School.

The next day, the Progress story repeated 1894. So Dove wrote a letter to the editor.

The editorial page editor Anita Shelburne responded that she had sent the letter to the news department. In July 2007, Shelburne refused to print a letter from Blair Hawkins on the same topic. Shelburne rejected the letter as “fact-based.” Hawkins read the letter at a City Council meeting and posted the letter to the internet.

Hawkins was criticizing a small part of a story by Seth Rosen. Dixit has been plagiarizing those two paragraphs in at least three articles so far.

Back to Dove’s letter: Dixit responded that what she had written is factually correct and she added one sentence to the plagiarized passage:

“The history of the Jefferson School goes back to the late 1800s…”

Late 1800s = 1865? Dixit explained she never said 1894 is the earliest date. But the earliest date in her story was 1894. Late 1800s = 1894?

In her email response, Dixit quotes the plagiarized passage, confident nobody will notice the plagiarism but irked that attention is being brought to bear.

She added the “late 1800s” opening line and, this time, flipped the 2007 article’s next sentence from 1926…1894 to 1894…1926. This time she split the two paragraphs into three.

So Dove took his message to WINA’s Rob Schilling. Now that WINA and The Hook have allowed the 1865 date, what harm has it caused? What’s the real reason the Progress is excluding readers and customers?

The letter too radical to print:

Dear Editor,

As a seventh-generation Charlottesvillean and board member of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Historical Society, I am flummoxed to still see 1894 as the earliest date associated with the Jefferson School in the latest newspaper article (“Organizations eye site,” Aug. 4, 2010, The Daily Progress). I spoke with the reporter the day before the story appeared and specifically pointed out an earlier date. But it must have fallen on deaf ears.

So I invite your readers and reporters to visit the Historical Society at 200 Second Street N.E., behind the downtown library. Please get a copy of our 2006 magazine, which details the 1865 birth-year of Jefferson School, now at its fifth location. Our research is a fascinating read and one of those times when an esoteric journal actually answers questions raised by the community.

Sincerely,
Fred Dove

[ The online version of the Progress article is called "Jefferson School tenants lined up", Aug. 3. ]

Reporter’s recalcitrant response:

From: rdixit@dailyprogress.com
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
To: ftd22901@yahoo.com
Cc: CMcCance@dailyprogress.com, jrector@dailyprogress.com
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 10:45 AM

Mr. Dove,

Thank you for your letter. If you re-read the story that was in Wednesday's Progress, here are the paragraphs detailing the beginnings of the Jefferson School:

"The history of the Jefferson School goes back to the late 1800s, when a small school for black elementary students was built in Charlottesville. The old Jefferson Graded School was built in 1894, and the Jefferson School was constructed in 1926 on land adjacent to the old graded school.

Starting as a high school, the newer Jefferson School became an all-black elementary school in 1951. The school was closed 13 years later, and then was primarily used as classroom and office space, as well as for preschool and PVCC programs.

The school closed for good in 2002."

I never said 1894 was the earliest date of the Jefferson School - rather, the story points out that a small school was first built in the late 1800s, and then the old Jefferson Graded Elementary was built in 1894. If you need further clarification, please let me know. I maintain that my story is accurate - one of my sources was a report that the Jefferson School Partnership itself put together.

Thank you,
Rachana

Seth Rosen’s plagiarized passage:

“The Jefferson School was built in 1926, adjacent to the old Jefferson Graded Elementary School, constructed in 1894. The newer building functioned as an all-black high school until 1951, when it was converted into an elementary.

Thirteen years later it was closed, and then was primarily used as classroom and office space, as well as housing preschool and Piedmont Virginia Community College programs. The building was shuttered for good in 2002.” (“City mindful of preserving Jefferson School legacy” by Seth Rosen, July 5, 2007, The Daily Progress.)

Rediscovered History

(Excerpted from Fed Dove’s emailed talking points preparation for the radio show.)

(5) What’s the big deal whether Jefferson started in 1894 or 1865?

1894 is when Jefferson School moved to Vinegar Hill.
1865 is when the school opened.
Jefferson was one of the Freedmen’s schools after the Civil War, funded by the New England Freedmen’s Aid Society.
It was the largest of the dozens of Freedmen Schools in Albemarle County that appeared after the Civil War.
Jefferson was designed to train teachers and mentor students to become future teachers such as Benjamin Tonsler.
The school was highly visible on West Main connecting UVA with downtown.
The school gained some fame when student writing samples were sent back to New England. There was incredible insight into living conditions pre-Civil War.
Virginia’s public schools opened in 1870.
Jefferson became a public school in 1875.
Jefferson moved to Vinegar Hill in 1894, and the starting date for most newspapers. The white public school moved 1893 a few blocks to the top of Vinegar Hill into the Midway House, a failed hotel venture by Alexander Garrett. Midway School was the Charlottesville High School until Lane High at the foot of Vinegar Hill.

(6) Is there a connection between Jefferson School and Virginia’s public schools?

Jefferson School was the inspiration and used the same graded system. The model was adopted by Jefferson School in 1869, when a proper schoolhouse was built and most of the adult and older former slaves stopped attending. Previously in 1865 classes were in part of the Delavan Hotel, built by a leader in the temperance movement. Since 1866 classes had been next door in the Union Barracks left behind when federal troops returned north.
The model was adopted by the state's public schools when they first opened 1870.
State Superintendent W.H. Ruffner (Ruffner Hall, UVA School of Education) and Professor John B. Minor drafted the original bill that established the state’s public school system
They visited Jefferson School many times, which had high visibility.
They met at Pavilion X on the Lawn at UVA in April 1870 and “spent four days pouring over legal and technical details.”
Jefferson School supplied many of the black teachers in the early segregated school system

(7) Other famous people

Benjamin Tonsler—student, becomes teacher 1871, 4th principal 1883, continued as principal when Jefferson School moved to Vinegar Hill 1894
Anna Gardner—1st principal 1865-1870 from Massachusetts, tireless and outspoken
Philena Carkin—2nd principal of Jefferson 1870-1875, and another Freedmen school called Lincoln School 1865-1870. Received letters from former students for decades after her time in Charlottesville.
Thomas Cayton—3rd principal 1878-1883. (Apparently no principal 1875-1878.)
J.W. Lane—1st principal of the Charlottesville public school on Garrett Street, then a brand new section of town. Lane High 1940-1974. The city names its new schools after previous principals. Buford is named after the first principal of Clark, for example.

More Background and Resources

“Origins of Jefferson School and Public Education in Virginia” by Blair Hawkins, Dec. 4, 2006. Excerpts pages 230 to 234 in Albemarle: Jefferson’s County, 1727-1976. John Hammond Moore, 1976. The Albemarle County Historical Society.

“Jefferson School: The Original Model for Public Education in Virginia” by Blair Hawkins, July 16, 2007. Letter to the editor delivered as speech before City Council and copies handed out at meeting.

"Newspaper suppresses Jefferson School history" by Blair Hawkins, Apr.12, 2010. Includes photos of 1926 and 1894 school building and modern location of 1865, 1866, and 1869 school building.

Newspaper updates 38-year-old Levy Avenue urban renewal

2010-07-27T20:06:00.004-04:00

The Housing Authority bulldozed these Levy Ave houses 1972 and has been trying to sell the stolen land ever since.

Charlottesville, Va.—The latest episode in a 4-decade drama unfolded Monday, according to Daily Progress reporter Rachana Dixit. Here are the updates:

(1) The Levy site now faces Garrett Street.

(2) The city now wants 36 units on the Levy site.

(3) The only concern voiced was 36 units seems like “over-concentration.” Belmont resident Cass Kawecki expressed the concern. All the other quotes and data came from the city’s urban renewal agency.

(4) Current participants named in this abuse of eminent domain:
(A) Consultants Wallace, Roberts, & Todd.
(B) Amy Kilroy, Housing Authority Redevelopment Director.
(C) Alex Morris, Project Manager.
(D) Jason Halbert, member of the oversight commission for the Redevelopment and Housing Authority (urban renewal agency).

(5) The authority only claims 376 units public housing across 11 sites.

(6) The agency wants to expand to between 558 and 720 units, at a cost between $115.8 and $150.8 million, “transforming into a mix of public housing, affordable [public] housing, and market-rate [public] housing.”

(7) The master plan for redevelopment is a “living document.”

(8) The expansion could result in 376 official public housing units, “192 affordable [public housing] rentals, 139 market-rate [public housing] rentals, and 12 affordable [public housing]homes for ownership.”

(9) The only historical perspective is Wallace, Roberts, & Todd saying they’ve been working more than a year to come up with the “living” master plan of re-redevelopment.

(“Belmont residents voice concerns: Public housing overhaul provokes questions” by Rachana Dixit, July 27, 2010, The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Virginia.)

If you Google Levy Avenue Charlottesville, Blair’s Blog appears on the second page. But it’s an old story from 2006. So let me tell you what’s too true for the Progress to report.

Rents for $1 a year (Photo Aug. 16, 2002).

(“Levy Avenue update: All 5 owners identified” by Blair Hawkins, Nov. 17, 2007)

“Eight of the 10 parcels that make up the Housing Authority’s Levy Avenue site were acquired in three condemnation lawsuits in 1972. Lots 7 and 11 were purchased by the Authority under threat of condemnation in 1971. The 1891 plat of Belmont shows the original development as Lots 2-11 Block 4, south side of Levy. The site now rents to the city as an employee parking lot for $1 a year.

On this block, the last of the three holdouts were Dennis F. and Mildred B. Hensley. They had bought lots 2,3,4, now vacant and overlooking Friendship Court, in 1964 from Mary E. and Haynes C. Settle. The Housing Authority paid the most for this property, $50,000, and took title June 26, 1972, Deed Book 337 Page 528. Real estate tax of 1971 and half of 1972 were deducted. Nine thousand went to the bank. The balance was deposited with the Clerk of the Court.

The second most expensive property was $28,500 for lots 5,6,8,9. Better Living Inc. purchased the lots 1963-65 to secure bonds for the company. Charlottesville Lumber Company Inc. was renamed Better Living Inc. in 1968 (Charter Book 15 Page 86, July 20, 1968).

Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, petitioner, v. Better Living Inc, defendant

“This cause came on this day to be heard upon the papers formerly read and more particularly upon the report of the commissioners dated and filed April 18, 1972, and was argued by counsel…CRHA has paid to Carl E. Hennrich, Clerk of the Corporation Court of Charlottesville, Virginia, the sum of $28,500 as ascertained by the commissioners in said report to be the value of the land taken in this cause…The property hereinafter described is necessary for the development of an urban renewal project.” (Deed Book 335 Page 251, April 18, 1972)

Lot 10 was owned by Irene Payne Draper and six siblings. $8,500 were deposited in the Clerk of the Court’s Office to be split among 7 children of Emma E. Payne, who died intestate 1956 (Deed Book 337 Page 446, June 1, 1972). Emma Payne had acquired the property June 15, 1945 (Deed Book 120 Page 350).

[…]

When I requested from the Housing Authority the deed numbers for Levy Avenue, Randy Bickers gave me the deeds for the 1971 acquisitions. These appear as normal sales where the property is for sale and a buyer pays the selling price. When I requested the remaining deeds, Bickers referred the request to the city’s legal department.

Thursday afternoon, after I published my previous update, Barbara Ronan of the legal department called me and gave me the other three deed numbers from a Nov. 5, 2005 title search. Friday afternoon I spent an hour researching the deeds. These deeds were written by the court as a result of condemnation.

Also Thursday afternoon, the Carter G. Woodson Institute returned my morning call. They referred me to Scot French, now the director of Digital Knowledge at Alderman Library. French said he has only digital files and assumes the original archives are back at the Historical Society, or wherever they came from.

French said the files should be online and searchable within two months. He took my number. I said I would follow up in January 2008. [French did not keep his word.]

1891 Plat of Belmont showing Lots 2-11 (red) Block 4. Lots 7 and 11 (green).

(“Levy Avenue update: Proof of ownership incomplete”, Nov. 15, 2007.)

It now appears the Housing Authority has been unable to sell the Levy Avenue parking lot because of deed problems.

In response to a Nov. 12 request for the deed numbers for this property, Randy Bickers of the Housing Authority found three deed references for Levy. One deed is the original 1891 plat of the Belmont neighborhood. The other two deeds identify 612 Levy acquired Aug. 23, 1971 from Carrie L. Tooley, and 620 Levy acquired May 26, 1971, from the estate of E.M.Charlie.

Eight of the ten lots that make up the site are unaccounted for.

Last night (Nov. 14) at the Westhaven community center, executive director of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority since Jul. 25, 2005, Noah Schwartz mentioned “Levy Avenue” at least ten times as a high profile example of redevelopment to come. He also said the Housing Authority owns Levy free and clear. But he never said when the Authority acquired the Levy site.

The city’s Housing Authority is actually a real estate company. They buy and sell property. Some of the property they keep to rent out to low-income residents. They don’t call it the Housing Company because the company has the authority to buy property that’s not for sale. This unusual power is the main source of the agency’s controversy and motivation against preserving history.

Also last night, when Joy Johnson was saying Westhaven’s history should be preserved since it was “birthed” from Vinegar Hill, Schwartz said the history of all the properties should be preserved. How do you find out a property’s history? You trace the deed back. But you need to know the deed to start. As a real estate company, which has recently done a full inventory of assets, the Housing Authority should have a master list of all its properties and their deed numbers.

The main theme of the community meeting was trust. Again and again, people asked, how can we trust the Housing Authority given the agency’s past and current history?

Chairman of the Board of Directors who direct the Housing Authority, Kendra Hamilton said City Council appoints all seven members of the board, but the Authority and the City are “completely separate.” Hamilton undermined the trustworthiness she was projecting by falsely asserting that CRHA is somehow not a city agency.

Hamilton nodded in agreement when Johnson said we should preserve the history. Hamilton is unfriendly to preserving local black history and refused, along with the rest of Council on Nov. 20, 2006, to allow public access to Housing Authority Archives. She pretended not to know about the research effort despite a Jan. 2005 email and numerous newsblog postings that document the unwillingness to cooperate with historic preservation.

(“2007: Levy Ave one of Many Stories” by Blair Hawkins, Jan. 28, 2008.)

On November 11, the latest plans to redevelop the 600 block of Levy Avenue made the front page of the Sunday Daily Progress ("City reworking mixed-income project" by [disgraced] Seth Rosen).

Of the 10 parcels that make up the site, the Housing Authority purchased 2 in 1971 and seized the other 8 in 1972. The original purpose of the acquisition was redevelopment, "necessary for the development of an urban renewal project" as court documents record. Established by referendum 1954, the Authority rents the cleared and consolidated parcel to the city as an employee parking lot for $1 a year.

The Progress story traces the history of this particular project only 4 years, 3 requests for proposals and 4 public meetings. They have an update on the latest developer to think twice after due diligent research.

Small sampling of the coverage for Levy Avenue:

"City has plan for Levy site: Mixed-income idea novel for housing," Jun 19 2003, The Daily Progress. Elizabeth Nelson covers up for urban renewal and placed a blackout on urban renewal when it came up at forums she was covering.

"Levy Avenue Design Workshop," Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association Newsletter, Summer 2003.--"This spring, neighborhood residents and city leaders, including Mayor Maurice Cox, gathered for a design workshop sponsored by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to explore options for development of the Housing Authority property at 405 Levy Avenue, next to Walker's Auto Repair... On the ground level at the Avon Street and 6th Street corners of the property, participants recommended higher density buildings, housing apartments above, and uses like cafe, video store, laundromat for the spaces at sidewalk level. At the center of the block, participants recommended construction of rowhouses, like those in Richmond's Fan District, with a shared private park/garden behind, and garages with 'Granny-flat'studio apartments." [Mayor Cox loves urban renewal if you look at his record instead of quoting his oral history.]

“City Planning Commission weighs in on public housing redevelopment plans” by Sean Tubbs, May 27, 2010, Charlottesville Tomorrow.

That’s like saying “City Planning Commission weighs in on urban renewal urban renewal plans.” I’m sorry to add Mr. Tubbs to the public list of those who support urban renewal and who are knowingly reporting less than the whole truth. I’ve already documented Tubbs’ bias and discrimination against Republicans.

Sean, why are you doing this? You now join the list of other reporters who lack integrity. Please don't play dumb. Your decision to cover up for civil rights abuses could follow you for the rest of your career and always be a mere Google search away.

Of The Daily Progress:

Rachana Dixit’s legacy is unfolding. She can talk about 1974 in a Sunday story but no dates in any urban renewal story.

Seth Rosen covered up Jefferson School’s history and Dixit plagiarized from his 2007 article.

John Yellig reported that “Levy Ave” is the colloquial name for the site. No, that’s its legal name on the city land records and deeds in the courthouse at 315 East High Street.

Matt Deegan made up the history of Friendship Court so he wouldn’t have to report that this is the city’s largest and most controversial public housing project acquired by eminent domain, now on separate books.

"Truthiness: Sounds true but isn't."

Don’t leave out C-ville Weekly and The Hook. They don’t research their urban renewal stories either. They just print whatever government officials tell them. Yes, it’s a strange universe where you take pride in stealing houses from little old ladies and children. Does anyone really think you can commit Constitutional felonies and not have any bad karma because a judge somewhere ruled stealing to be legal depending on who you are and who you're stealing from? Remember it’s not slander if it’s true, no matter how shocking that truth might be. Besides there are zillions of legal documents in my corner.

The State of Race in Charlottesville

2010-07-26T22:48:00.004-04:00

More on the black lady Charlottesville is named for.

Charlottesville, Va.—This essay attempts to describe the local race problems as I see them. The issues are relevant to the current discussions on race at the national and local level, which seem ongoing if you look back at the ten years I have been following local politics.

Let’s start with the most immediate story first: Racial violence in the public schools.

It wasn’t until 2006, after a spike in violence at Buford Middle School, the omission from media of any description of the violence, and a teenage thug walking down my street with a baseball bat tapping his hand as he looked at me in Black Panther style, that I decided to become less subtle about the race discussion. All those emotions from decades earlier came flooding back.

Here’s the letter The Daily Progress declined to print because I couldn’t prove what’s common knowledge. That’s right—everybody knows about it. I also take Kendra Hamilton and Charles Barbour to task for their racist remarks (“Race Violence in our Schools?”, Apr. 10, 2006). A couple weeks later I exposed School Board members Ned Michie, Lea Puryear, and Juandiego Wade for sympathizing with the violent thugs. At the candidates forum, Karen Waters let slip that she’s known the violence has been going on a long time. The outrage at the lack of school safety was just the latest “obsession with violence”. The two most informed candidates, Charlie Kollmansperger and Vance High, were not elected (“Democrats regain monopoly in Charlottesville: School Board weak on safety”, May 4, 2006).

History of Restraint

However, I didn’t bring up race on April 13, 2000 at the Education Summit at Charlottesville High School when I was running for City Council. The first words out of my mouth were “This is a violent school,” as my voice trembled. I was the only candidate of the nine that year who had attended city schools. The solutions I proposed that night apply to any student or teacher regardless of skin color. None of those proposals has been adopted.

I didn’t bring up race on June 5, 2000 at the City Council public hearing to name the 9th-10th Street Connector after Sally Hemings. That night I delivered two speeches on urban renewal, widely perceived as an anti-black government program. I explained the Constitutional guarantee against this program for redevelopment and public housing. I received thunderous applause from a mostly black audience.

But not so for the second speech. My opening and closing lines were:

The connector should be named for two people, Sally Hemings and Laura Dowell, a black woman in a white country and a white woman in a black neighborhood, a slave who was property and a free woman who slaved to own property [taken by urban renewal]. Call it Property Street…

I was trying to bring the two races together by showing one thing they have in common—blatant due process violations. But only a handful of people applauded at the rear of the auditorium. The applause from this tiny minority was a gauge as to how unpopular my calls for civil rights would be.

No newspaper recorded the history of some dude asking Mayor Virginia Daugherty to investigate urban renewal followed by thunderous applause. So the papers haven’t reported on City Council ignoring racial issues. No reporter spoke to me although I handed them copies of the speeches. So the public didn’t know an anti-urban renewal campaign had just begun. But everyone I talked to knew. (Does anyone have video of City Council June 5, 2000? What a blast from the past that would be!)

I didn’t bring up race in 2002 when I exposed a Daily Progress letter-to-the-editor trick when five pro-Bern Ewert letters appeared the three days prior to the Democratic convention. Each letter cited housing rehabilitation as a reason to vote for Ewert. But I knew it was code for urban renewal, which occurred on a larger scale than Vinegar Hill and from 1971-1976 while Ewert was assistant city manager.

If not for me, Ewert may have been elected. But he indirectly addressed my charges in his convention speech, came across as angry, and the rhetoric didn’t make sense to a younger generation. At that convention, the word “property” was not spoken in 2 hours of 18 speeches. I was there.

I didn’t bring up race the same year when I broke the story that our record drought is 1977—not 2002 or 1930 as Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was claiming. It turns out that urban renewal officials in 1977—Rich Collins and city manger Cole Hendrix—were in charge of our water as chairman and executive director. Why didn’t they tell anybody about this drought? It’s still too controversial for people even to refer to 1977. Now they’ll say 1930 and 2002 and 1970s. (Anyone remember the “Cole Hendrix Reservoir of Shame” cartoon?)

I didn’t bring up race in 2003 when I campaigned for the Republican nomination to oppose Mitch Van Yahres. The chairman of the Republicans Bob Hodous had been on the Housing Authority board of directors in 1977 when the Housing Authority bulldozed for the location of Garrett Square / Friendship Court public housing. But Hodous seemed unfamiliar with events he played a role in. I bear some blame because I expected strong resistance and may have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Can you imagine seeing a debate between a man who voted for urban renewal and a man whose family was displaced and disempowered by those votes? That’s how I planned to hype the campaign. Two years later Van Yahres announced his retirement March 5 on my birthday and in the neighborhood that disappeared from history with Van Yahres’ support and decades of silence.

But I did bring up race briefly in 2005 when I applied for the last appointed School Board before it became elected. One reason I gave for seeking the position was I would address race issues directly. What would you do if you were on City Council and covering up black-on-white violence in the schools? Well, you wouldn’t appoint someone who might speak the truth and let the chips fall.

The final interview of applicants was open to the public thanks to Councilor Rob Schilling. Previously and subsequently—when an interim appointment was made before the elected school board took effect—the interview was held behind closed doors. On that day June 23, 2005 the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling that eminent domain for economic development is somehow Constitutional.

And the next day Charlottesville celebrated in the ACAC urban renewal area at Fridays After Five with band American Dumpster. So many ironies were in effect that it seemed surreal. Mayor David Brown and Blake Caravati were quoted in the newpaper that they couldn’t imagine this city ever using eminent domain. Caravati was a Councilor when I delivered my first speeches on eminent domain. Assistant city manager Rochelle Small-Toney called me and presented 8 photos of 6 house at site of Friendship Court. Small-Toney later claimed I had been given access to the full archives—over 1,000 photos and over 6,000 documents. Councilor Holly Edwards, “historian” Scot French and Housing Authority director Randy Bickers since Jan. 7, 2009 are the ones currently pretending to care about our history.

So I knew what I was up against. I’m not sure anything has changed. But I was inspired by Glenn Beck this afternoon when he talked about the 8 Steps in the Movement Action Plan. I found my 10-year campaign at Step 7—where the majority agrees with my position. Step 6 was the Kelo case and what seemed to be the movement’s failure. But you can’t give up now. The next step is success where the Supreme Court is overturned or overruled, and locally Charlottesville stops abusing eminent domain and adding to the injustice.

The Next Step for Race

(1) Resolve the urban renewal issue.

(a) Stop abusing eminent domain
(b) Tally the number of cases
(c) Compensate the victims
(d) Promise not to do it again
(e) Change the city charter

(2) Stop expressing racist sentiments.

This would include the local NAACP. The president is M. Rick Turner, best known for his support of ousted School Superintendent Scottie Griffin (who has not been erased from this blog) and for smoking crack with a female police informant and for resigning from UVA over the scandal.

Turner was also racist when he favored Holly Edwards at a candidates’ forum and called for racial quotas on city council. But the grand-daddy of them all was when on the Rob Schilling show Turner described his politics as progressive.

The NAACP came into existence in 1909 to oppose the Progressive Movement, which called for lynching of blacks, jews, and catholics. What internal torment that must present. Turner also encourages learning black history but he seems not to mention our local history. I hope it’s not because a white person has been digging up that history.

This would include the Charlottesville Tribune, established 1954 and now owned by Agnes Cross-White, the lady who campaigned against naming a street for Sally Hemings because it would glorify a slave concubine and slavery is no accomplishment.

In August 2009 in an editorial, Cross-White explained in some detail how she teaches her daughter to be racist. The police might harass you if you’re black. Bad things might happen to you if you’re black. So white people are never harassed by police? Bad things only happen to black people?

The advice was good except it was poisoned with racism. When Cross-White was young, people with white skin mistreated blacks. When her daughter goes out into the world, she may never encounter the Jim Crow people who grow old. But she will encounter the children of white people. And they probably taught their children to be racist in the same way—a never-ending cycle.

I have not picked up the Tribune since and have no plans to do so. Is it racist for me to segregate myself from racist material? I should have kept a copy but I threw it with other papers that got thrown out.

(3) Don’t jump to conclusions.

I only have one real-life anecdote and then I’m signing off from this essay. The blog names names along with other stories too true for local media.

…Black guy says it’s unfair that white guy has car…

There are 2 mechanics, one white and one black. A customer offers to both mechanics to sell his car broken down at home for $500. A few days later the white dude goes to look at the car and offers $200. The sale is made.

In this case it’s fair because the black dude had the same opportunity to go look at the car and negotiate a deal. If the black mechanic had seized the opportunity, he would have the car and the white mechanic would be crying “Not fair! Not fair!”

Inequality is totally fair if the opportunity is equal.

Downtown Mall gives up secrets

2010-04-25T19:43:00.017-04:00

(Photos Albemarle County Historical Society)

Charlottesville, Va.—At an April 12 forum, former City Councilor George Gilliam remembered when half a city block burned down at Central Place on the Downtown Mall. A central park a block away was being considered but the fire burned with it the need for condemnation.

The fire occurred Thursday evening Aug. 9, 1973 and consumed five businesses: a restaurant, Hallmark Card Shop, Carmichael Shoe Repair, Kirby’s Jewelers and McCrory’s variety store. The offices of WVIR-TV and WELK radio were temporarily evacuated.

The 3-alarm blaze raged from 8:25 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. with 80 firemen from 8 engine companies and 2 truck companies, some overcome by smoke and heat. Flames leapt 50 feet into the sky. It was the worst fire since 1968 when a furniture store burned, according to Fire Chief Julian Taliaferro. A crowd estimated in the thousands watched the action from behind rope barricades (“Five businesses in Charlottesville destroyed by fire” (AP) Friday Aug. 10, 1973, Page 11, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Virginia).

“John Graham McCrorey opened his first store in Scottdale, Pennsylvania, in 1882… Born with the last name "McCrorey", the owner legally changed his name, dropping the e, to save money by not paying the cost of the extra letter in store signs… McCrory had only 200 remaining stores in December 2001, when the company announced that all stores would be shuttered permanently by February 2002.” (Wikipedia)

At the latest mall forum, Beth Meyer asks about the reaction when Central Place burned down in the middle of architectural drawings. Another site was being considered a block away on the other side of Paramount Theater. No name of any business was mentioned in the exchange. Meyer commented, in the research of this story, many things don’t make sense.

Gilliam reacts: “There was a decision that was made very quickly and easily. It avoided any notion of having to go through condemnation or do any of that. So I think there was a small restaurant, kind of a greasy spoon there, there was a kitchen that started it.” Charles Barbour agrees in the background.

(Charlottesville Tomorrow podcast, Central Place question at Minute 53:40 || “Former Councilors share memories of early days of Downtown Mall”, Apr. 13, 2010, Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

The idea of a central place on the downtown mall must have evolved from plans for a park at each end of the mall. One park is cheaper than two. Those sketches are on display at the Downtown City Space, the old Social Security offices in the Market St. parking garage. The controversial vote to approve the mall came six months later in Feb. 1974. The first 5 blocks were completed June 1976.

It seems, at every forum, a little more history comes out. At the 2006 forum commemorating the Mall’s 30th anniversary, the public opposition and economic cleansing aspect were talked about. It was news because it hadn’t been talked about for so long that the public came to think the mall had always been popular.

At the latest forum, the speakers, former mayors and councilors, Francis Fife, Charles Barbour, and George Gilliam made it clear they were aware that most downtown businesses would leave within ten years but it took 20 years for the mall to become successful with new tenants.

One reason downtown was failing is the population drop because downtown neighborhoods were “redeveloped.” There’s not enough foot traffic to make a grocery store profitable.

Among other things, the Mall was an abstention controversy. It’s now easier to say “not able to vote” than “abstain.” The conflicts of interest, according to then-Attorney General, were bona fide conflicts. The three unable to vote served on banks, which served as trustees for the Downtown store owners.

The controversy is that a minority vote by Council moved the project forward. The same attorney general ruled the minority vote to be a legal mandate. Of course to the common man, it looks like there was not majority support in or out of Council. Descriptions like “heated public opposition” by Gilliam seem to confirm.

It’s also easier to say “scattered site housing” than public housing. Local public housing has most of its growth and opposition in the 1970s.

Remember the podcast is oral history. We all have a tendency to omit things that might make us look bad. Fife was not just a bank employee. He was the president of Virginia National which formed 1963 when People’s Bank (formed 1875) merged with a Norfolk bank. In addition to being trustees, banks also hold mortgages not just Downtown, but elsewhere. Peoples’ claim to fame was it turned a profit during the Great Depression and had many small account holders.

Barbour said great changes occurred in the 1970s. It was a transformational decade. He listed the mayors responsible: Van Yahres 1970-72, Fife 1972-74, Barbour 1974-76. This period (1970-78) was the demolition madness. More old and historic buildings fell than at any other time, not just Warehouse District and Midway School, but West Main and scattered about. During these years, Vinegar Hill was vacant except for McIntire Road.

In context, the Mall seems a distraction from much bigger changes. Thanks to the forum participants who asked tough questions and shared memories.

“The men behind the mall: we did it to save downtown”, July 1, 2006. Forum with Alvin Clements, Cole Hendrix, Mitch Van Yahres, Shane Edinger, Satyendra Huja, Charles Barbour, Mayor David Brown June 30 2006.

“Rebricking of Downtown Mall stirs memories”, Dec. 26, 2008.

Revenue Sharing Summit: More city-county cooperation

2010-04-25T01:08:00.008-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—The City Council, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and the two school boards and superintendents met Saturday to discuss revenue sharing. The county board members each represent an electoral district whereas the city boards are at-large and each member represents the entire city.

On July 12, city and county school board staff will meet to develop a “project charter” of ideas for greater cooperation, cost savings and how to move forward. The school boards will discuss the report at a meeting in early fall. Several small groups were formed to study consolidating schools and social services to address the problem of students moving back and forth between city and county and having to change school each time.

The four bodies will meet again in a year to discuss any progress or lack of progress. Even though the city and county share more services than most communities, the strategy is to increase cooperation instead of addressing the unfairness of the 1982 revenue sharing agreement and the state’s composite index for funding the schools.

Under the agreement, the county purchases the city’s annexation rights. This year the county paid $18 million, 10% of its real estate taxation, for the city not to annex. But when the state computes how much school funding to give each locality, the payment is not counted as city income. So last year the County School Board asked state representatives to change state law to make the school funding formula more fair.

The moderator of the summit, Delegate David Toscano introduced but later withdrew the bill when city constituents demanded the double benefit continue: revenue from county for general expenses and extra school funding. Toscano would not say if he would re-introduce the bill in 2011 if the county makes the request. He represents the city and county’s urban ring.

Delegate Rob Bell, whose district includes northern Albemarle, carried the bill.

Also at the summit was State Senator Creigh Deeds, who has kept a low profile in this debate. He said Virginia is the only state where cities are independent of the surrounding counties.

County School Board Member Brian Wheeler wanted to take off the table the possibility the county would seek to re-introduce the bill in 2011. But there were objections and no agreement.

The two sides of the issue were made clear late in the two-hour meeting.

Councilor Kristin Szakos said the issue is divisive because the county wants to take $2.8 million from city schools.

She was quickly rebuffed by Supervisor Ken Boyd and County School Board Chairman Ronnie Price. They said it’s a fairness issue. The city is actually taking money from county schools, in addition to the revenue sharing, which could be going to county schools.

The panel spent some time talking about how city and county schools could share purchasing. If they bought supplies as one customer, they could get a bulk discount. Then someone pointed out that they already share purchasing. And County School Superintendent Pam Moran confirmed.

There was consensus that similar meetings in the past were all show and talk but nothing becomes of it. That could be the outcome of this meeting.

The History

On March 21, 2010, three former City Councilors wrote an editorial in The Daily Progress to inform newcomers “a few facts” about the 1982 agreement. (“Revenue sharing—how it came to this: A brief history between Charlottesville and Albemarle”) The authors were Nancy O’brien (Councilor 1976-1980), Elizabeth B. Gleason (1980-88), and Virginia Daugherty (1992-2000).

(1) “First, the payment to the city is not a gift—it is a legal obligation in exchange for Albemarle maintaining jurisdiction over and receiving taxes from the income producing land adjacent to the city.”

Think about that for a minute. “In exchange for maintaining jurisdiction.” Is the revenue sharing a form of rent? The city really has jurisdiction but rents it to the county? If the county defaults on its legal obligation, it loses territory. The county exists at the pleasure of the city.

(2) “Second, the fact that annexation is no longer allowed is irrelevant to the current discussion.”

Isn’t it relevant? Since annexation is no longer allowed, the city no longer has a right to annex. The General Assembly eliminated that right. So this year the county pays $18 million for the city’s right to annex. But there is no such right. So the county is literally paying for nothing. They’re paying the city to allow them to exist even though the city has no power to take over the county. The city should look to the state to pay for the annexation rights the state has taken away.

(3) “Had it been successfully pursued, the city would be receiving about $25 million from the enlarged tax base.”

So the city claims 72% of the revenues from county land it could have annexed. But there’s a flaw in this logic. City and county taxation and regulation are not equal. Just as higher tax rates limit the tax revenue because people work less when taxes are high, it’s more likely higher city taxes would have meant less development and less value.

(4) “the amount shall not exceed 1 percent of the total locally assessed value of taxable real estate.”

Does that make you feel better in the county? Right now the total county real estate tax is about half of one percent. Yes, the revenue payment cannot exceed double the county’s total property tax this year.

(5) “So fair was it deemed to be that the county voters overwhelmingly approved the agreement in a referendum.”

The vote was 60%. So to end the agreement, all you need is a referendum.

(6) “It is similar to a bond, or, for an individual, a mortgage.”

Not really. Maybe a mortgage where the owner changes every two years, every time’s there’s an election. Each time a new person buys the house, they can negotiate new terms of payment and interest.

(7) “Annexation requests could not be made any more frequently than every ten years.”

That statement contradicts the chart and other evidence. The chart shows annexations in 1963 and 1968. Mayor Mitch Van Yahres was holding closed City Council meetings in 1971 to discuss how and what to annex. According to Van Yahres at a 2006 forum, his attempt to annex Fashion Square and Pantops Shopping Center was rejected by the courts, the last attempted annexation before the state-wide moratorium.

The three authors of this editorial reference a history book commissioned 1976 by the Albemarle County Historical Society, Albemarle, Jefferson’s County 1727-1976 by John Hammond Moore. Below are the pages that talk about annexations.

That section is in the chapter called “Race Relations, Annexation, and Rural Change.” The connection between annexation and rural change seems clear—where rural areas become urban, you have annexation. But what has it to do with race relations?

In the 1850s and 1860s, blacks outnumbered whites in Albemarle County including the town of Charlottesville. The 1870s and 1880s saw such rapid growth that the town incorporated as a city in 1888. Then things went downhill for blacks. The black vote was diluted with every annexation. Then as now whites settled the suburbs, which would soon be annexed.

A 1920 referendum approved the at-large city manager form of government ending the 12-member bicameral Council system with an elected mayor. Now the 51% white majority could consistently outvote the black minority with devastating results.

1982 Revenue Sharing Agreement, includes all 9 pages, table of payments, and the formula.

Revenue Sharing speech 2000 and summary of Blair Hawkins campaign for city council

City-County joint venture Jefferson Madison Regional Library ("Post Office Sale Signed," Oct. 11, 1977, The Daily Progress)

Second Tax Day Tea Party

2010-04-16T16:10:00.010-04:00

Henry Lee of Nelson County creates disturbance

Charlottesville, Va.- The Jefferson Area Tea Party held its second annual tax day protest at the main post office on U.S. 29 North, the Cpl. Bradley T. Arms Post Office, slated to be closed.

Of the four counter-protesters, only one was asked to leave. Radio talk host Rob Schilling captured the verbal altercation on video. ("Free speech: Liberal hippie goes ballistic at Charlottesville Tax Day Tea Party")

Newspaper suppresses Jefferson School history

2010-04-12T11:26:00.008-04:00

Jefferson School 1865-2002, this incarnation 1926

Charlottesville, Va.—Today’s Daily Progress updates the redevelopment and preservation of the traditionally all-black Jefferson School. The front-page article repeats, almost verbatim, the historical myth of a controversial 2007 article.

Despite a letter to the editor to assert 1865 as the earliest Jefferson School, a call to the editor where she rejected the letter as “fact-based,” and a speech to read the letter at City Council, the Progress continues to imply that the first Jefferson School dates back to 1894. Yes it does, but it goes further back than that. They never say 1894 is the first or original. By omitting the previous 29 years, the foundational years, the Progress official policy is to minimize the legacy of Jefferson School.

In 2007 the Progress could have claimed an omission or mistake, that they simply didn’t know about the 2006 Historical Society article or the 1976 book, both detailing the 1865 origins, or the blogs, speeches and pamphlets ongoing since 2000. Now that they know, it makes no difference.

The omission of history is clear. But what’s the motive? How does the Daily Progress benefit, how does anyone benefit by denying the first three decades of Jefferson School? Why are they doing it?

That piece of history is yet to be revealed.

“Jefferson School set for rezone” by Rachana Dixit, Apr. 11, 2010, The Daily Progress.

“The Jefferson School was built in 1926, adjacent to the old Jefferson Graded Elementary School that was constructed in 1894. The newer building functioned as an all-black high school until 1951, when it was converted into an elementary.

The school was closed 13 years later. It then was primarily used as classroom and office space, as well as for housing preschool and Piedmont Virginia Community College programs. The school shuttered its doors for good in 2002.”

“Jefferson renovations to begin in summer” by Rachana Dixit, Oct. 28, 2009, The Daily Progress”.

“The school was built in 1926, adjacent to the old Jefferson Graded Elementary School that was constructed in 1894. The newer building functioned as an all-black high school until 1951, when it was converted into an elementary.

Thirteen years later it was closed, and then was primarily used as classroom and office space as well as housing preschool and Piedmont Virginia Community College programs. The school shuttered its doors for good in 2002.”

“City mindful of preserving Jefferson School legacy” by Seth Rosen, July 5, 2007, The Daily Progress.

“The Jefferson School was built in 1926, adjacent to the old Jefferson Graded Elementary School, constructed in 1894. The newer building functioned as an all-black high school until 1951, when it was converted into an elementary.

Thirteen years later it was closed, and then was primarily used as classroom and office space, as well as housing preschool and Piedmont Virginia Community College programs. The building was shuttered for good in 2002.”

“Origins of Jefferson School and Public Education in Virginia” by Blair Hawkins, Dec. 4, 2006. Excerpts pages 230 to 234 in Albemarle: Jefferson’s County, 1727-1976. John Hammond Moore, 1976. The Albemarle County Historical Society.

“Jefferson School: The Original Model for Public Education in Virginia” by Blair Hawkins, July 16, 2007. Letter to the editor delivered as speech before City Council and copies handed out at meeting.

“2007: The Jefferson School Rule” by Blair Hawkins, Jan. 5, 2008. Includes timeline of links.

Historical Marker at site of 1894 (fourth) schoolhouse. The marker mentions Freedmen's schools in 1860s but doesn't distinguish Jefferson.

1960 Vinegar Hill photo shows 1894 school at (E).

Site of first Jefferson School at 632 West Main in the Starr Hill neighborhood.

Site of 2nd and 3rd Jefferson Schools. In 1866 classes moved from Colored First Baptist Church (left) next door to Union Barracks when troops returned to the North. These barracks were torn down and a new Jefferson School built 1869.

Union Depot (Wild Wings Cafe)

Vinegar Hill Condo Tower Canceled

2010-03-08T20:24:00.004-05:00

Charlottesville, Va.—The proposed 9-story condo tower at Main and McIntire, approved by City Council September 2007, is the latest victim of the economic downturn. But the property owner blames city officials for their stingy approval process.

Russell Mooney wants to sell the site for $4.8 million. Assessed at about $1 million, the annual taxes are around $9,500. The buildings now house a furniture store and a book store. (“West Main property waits for purpose” by Rachana Dixit, March 7, 2010, The Daily Progress.)

The 1957 and 1936 buildings survive the 1964 urban renewal clearance of Vinegar Hill. The historic nature of the site was brought up in BAR meetings in 2006 when demolition was approved contingent the BAR approve the plans. Besides being a historical marker for Vinegar Hill, the site is historic for other reasons.

John West was a black real estate speculator who owned and developed Vinegar Hill following the Civil War. The Westhaven public housing project, the city’s first, is named to honor the contributions of John West.

But Westhaven is rentals. West was a developer, not so much a landlord. A developer buys land, builds houses, then sells the land. In the 1890s Booker T. Washington visited Vinegar Hill numerous times and held the area as a model for blacks to empower themselves through land ownership. Because of high-profile lynchings and torture in the 1850s, Charlottesville was more tolerant of blacks following the Civil War until the Progressive era of the early 1900s.

If not for a barber who inherited the wealth of a famous local madam, the City’s deed records would not record this piece of history. Charlottesville was incorporated in 1888. You have to go to the County’s Courthouse for city deeds older than that.

Clarence Andrews was Madam Marguiretta de Crescioli’s sole heir. Andrews sold this particular property April 2, 1951 (City Deed Book 156 Page 470) and proclaimed in the deed John West to be a previous owner. Frank L. Herndon flipped the property the same day at the same price to Russell D. Mooney and Marvin S. Mooney.

The Mooney’s have owned the property since 1951. They witnessed Vinegar Hill, Garrett Redevelopment, Downtown pedestrian mall, the decline of West Main and clearance of Preston Avenue.

In historical irony, the Mooneys proffered $300,000 in 2007 for rezoning to allow the condo tower. The proffer would go to redevelopment of Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority properties, the same agency that spared Mooney Oldsmobile when they cleared Vinegar Hill.

That proffer was for the rezoning. Where’s the proffer for the BAR approval? Why were they expecting anything else? Has anyone noticed vacant stores and apartments multiplying all over town? Will more regulation or less regulation fix this problem?

Will the Mooneys get their $300,000 back? (The Progress story never mentioned the proffer.)

“City CVS design shot down” by Will Goldsmith, Dec. 5, 2006, Cville Weekly. Includes sketch of proposed business not approved by BAR.

“Tower plan could alter downtown” by Seth Rosen, Aug. 13, 2007, The Daily Progress. (Link returns “file not found”. )

"ONARCHITECTURE- Squeeze play: Planners stymie West Main developer", Published August 23, 2007 in issue 0634 of the HooK. By DAVE MCNAIR.

“Proffer Bribes on Vinegar Hill to fund urban renewal” by Blair Hawkins, Aug. 22, 2007.

“Proffer on Vinegar Hill to fund redevelopment of seized properties” by Blair Hawkins, Sep. 3, 2007. Includes photos, Sep. 4, 2007 Council background and Nov. 28, 2005 BAR Minutes.

“Land for Vinegar Hill condo tower once owned by John West and Madam Marguiretta” by Blair Hawkins, Sep. 13, 2007. Includes vignette history of the madam made famous in 1972 when Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority bulldozed the house. Marguiretta’s large stash of cash buried in the brick walls came flying out.

(A) Mooney Oldsmobile
(B) Midway School (Charlottesville High) 1893-1940, building 1828-1970s.
(C) Lane High 1940-1970s.
(D) (To right of letter) McGuffey School 1916-1970s
(E) 1894 Jefferson School house. 1926 Jefferson School and 1958 additions to left of E. First Jefferson School 1865 at 632 W. Main at Colored First Baptist Church in Delevan Hotel/Civil War Hospital torn down 1883.

Madam Marguiretta de Crescioli's opulent brothel 1922-1951 at 303 Fifth St. SE. House built 19th Century, razed 1972. Date of photo unknown.

More Urban Renewal Archives Online

2010-01-18T12:21:00.005-05:00

Charlottesville, Va.—Maybe a third of Housing Authority photographic archives are now on the internet. Only a handful of the 6,000+ text documents have been made public.

"The Vinegar Hill Project" we’ve been waiting for since 2005 is now finished. The researchers are clear that the project focuses exclusively on Vinegar Hill and other documents in the collection were disregarded. No deeds or assessments seem to be available, in contradiction to the project’s promises in Feb. 2007.

"Since 2005, researchers from the Virginia Center for Digital History and the Carter G. Woodson Institute's Center for the Study of Local Knowledge have been working with local residents, the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society, the Public Housing Association of Residents, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the City of Charlottesville to digitize photographs, oral histories, and public records related to Vinegar Hill, with the aim of building an online archive and virtual tour of this urban "memoryscape." " (Source)

"Aerial Timeline" with news summaries does mention the 3 referendums in 1967, the world war two of Charlottesville’s urban renewal. (Visual Eyes)

Flickr has more photos, including the students and researchers who created the project.

Below are other archives published by Blair Hawkins. They include 152 notebook pages of photos adding up to 287 photos, copied Feb. 5, 2007. A page can have a single photo, 2, 3, or 4 photos. They also include 8 photos of 6 particular houses on Ware St. and 17 photos (10 unidentified houses and 7 aerial photos), which Hawkins photographed on separate visits in August and June 2005, respectively, when former assistant city manager Rochelle Small-Toney telephoned and presented these selected excerpts to Hawkins. Hawkins’ first request to view the archives was March 25, 2004. The archive pursuit has been documented in many publications ever since.

In Feb. 2007, the Carter G. Woodson Institute and Dr. Scot French said the archives comprise 1,189 photos, 189 maps and blue prints, and 6,845 pages of written documentation.

The archives below include Vinegar Hill pictures, but makes no effort to exclude other pieces of history, or to present Vinegar Hill as the only history we have.

You can browse the archives below. Some photos are identified because this researcher knows the detail. Others are identified from what someone else wrote on a post-it note. Many are not identified. Some notes are incorrect.If you know anything related to the photo, please leave a comment so we can piece all this history together eventually.

The photos are not limited to Vinegar Hill, or even Garrett Street urban renewal. The existence of a photo may or may not mean the agency used or threatened eminent domain. We don't have the text documents to cross-reference.

Highlights

Corner of Garrett, 6th SE & Levy—

SW corner with "Garrett Street Redevelopment Project" sign (View today)

Looking west down Garrett with H.M. Gleason on left.

"ALLENS STORE" at NW corner other side of bridge over Pollock’s Branch

Levy from Avon looking toward 6th SE. (View today)

Missing is SE corner (View today), lots 2,3,4 of Levy residential block, the final holdout on this block, most expensive compensation of $50,000 to Dennis F. and Mildred B. Hensley, June 26, 1972. More history and deed numbers for just this block of 10 parcels.
　

Lafayette and Jefferson Theaters in one photo on Main Street before the Mall

The condominiums behind McGuffy School Art Center Also Pics 19-22 and scattered about.

13th St. NW. May 1970

Page St.Dec. 8, 1970(Lower photo)

Garret Zone Street Map 1967 (Aerial photo missing from the archives so far)

Garrett Satellite Feb. 1, 2006

Vinegar Hill 1960 aerial

Vinegar Hill post-1964 clearance

Vinegar Hill Satellite Feb. 1, 2006

Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority photographic archives, copied Feb. 5, 2007 by Blair Hawkins.
　
Pic 0. Cover Page "Vinegar Hill"

Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority photographic archives, copied June 2005 by Blair Hawkins.

Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority photographic archives, copied August 2005 by Blair Hawkins.

The first 10 pics from June 2005 and the 8 from August 2005 are also published in "An inconvenient truth: Report from Housing Authority: Update on archives, HUD request", July 17, 2006. On all 3 occasions where I had access to the archives, assistant city manager Rochelle Small-Toney presented only these hand-picked items. Later Small-Toney claimed I had been given complete access.

Below are a few newspaper articles you can read. It just seems so illiterate to have only pictures.

Daily Progress news articles.

"Historic 'Cold Steam Building' Yields To Modern-Day Needs", Apr. 16, 1952. Picture of Alexander Garrett's mansion built 1820s on 117-acre Oak Hill Farm. "Garrett was a friend and financial advisor of Thomas Jefferson and the first bursar of the University of Virginia. He was present at Monticello when Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. The following is an excerpt from a letter he wrote his wife shortly thereafter: 'Mr. Jefferson is no more. He breathed his last ten minutes before one o'clock, almost without a struggle. No one here but Col. Carr and myself, both of us ignorant of shrouding, neither ever having done it ourselves or seen it done. We have done the best we could and I hope all is right. his remains will be buried tomorrow.'"
"Cab Company Owner Thinks Fire Was Set", July 15, 1969. "Fire broke out in the Yellow Cab and Transit Co. garage early this morning and caused an estimated $75,000 worth of damage to the Garrett Street structure and equipment inside. Owner J.T. Graves said this morning, 'I think the fire was set.'"
"Transit Garage Ablaze", July 15, 1969.
Picture of Kenneth and Dorothy Allen of Allens Store at Garrett and 6th. "Tree-Shaded Diggs Street Is One Slated For Removal", May 1, 1977, by Ray McGrath of the Progress Staff.
"Tree-Shaded Diggs Street Is One Slated For Removal", May 1, 1977, by Ray McGrath of the Progress Staff. "But any day now, though most likely not until the summer's end, Allen's Store may go the way of all old buildings in urban renewal. That way is down. For the time being the area has been converted into a ghost town, only without the buildings. Of a total 184 structures formerly in the clearance zone, more than 80 percent residential, seven remain, according to A.E. Arrington, executive director of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority...But this tale is not one of the bureaucratic ogre mercilessly trampling over the unsuspecting little guy...By all accounts, the Authority's handling of Allen's situation appears to be reflective of its dislocation policy generally toward residents and businesses in the project area. For one thing, Allen has been holding on to Arrington's letter since Jan. 15. Originally he was supposed to move out before Christmas, but obtained an extension to stay in business through the holidays...The present redevelopment plans call for both federally subsidized and private housing projects and the maintenance of a few large industries...This would not be the first time Allen has had to surrender his property. (Technically, he already has since the Authority owns it and charges rent.) He is also a former resident of Sixth Street, but had to give up his house to urban renewal."
This article is an example of propaganda to spin the situation favorably for the Authority. How merciful they must be to seize your life's work, then allow you to stay and pay rent. How merciful they must be to let you stay with a 3-day lease instead of 30 days or 60 days. We won't know the accuracy of the number of "184" structures until the merciful Housing Authority has released the full archives--minus the ones gone missing over the years. Yeah, in 2004 Small-Toney said the archives were shrinking even under the safe-guard of the Authority.

Cuccinelli wins AG, city election analysis

2009-11-09T22:55:00.004-05:00

Charlottesville, Va.—On Tuesday Nov. 3, an eminent domain reformer since before the 2005 Kelo case, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R- Fairfax) won election as Virginia’s Attorney General. Cuccinelli won 57% of the 1.9 million votes statewide but only 23% of 4.9 million voters.

The Democratic opponent was Steve Shannon. The seat was open because Bob McDonnell had resigned to campaign for governor. McDonnell was elected Attorney General 4 years ago by 360 votes against Creigh Deeds.

This time the winning margins were decisive. McDonnell won 59% of Tuesday’s vote and 23% of total voters, 344 thousand more votes than Deeds. McDonnell had a plan for the economy. Deeds had a plan to form a commission to come up with a plan. The only incumbent Bill Bolling won 56% against Democrat Jody Wagner.

The offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor are at-large at the state level. If the House of Delegates were at-large, all delegates would now be Republican because the statewide majority is Republican. At the local level, Charlottesville City Council remains one-party because of the at-large system, the majority of participating voters are of one-party.

In the city the margins for victory for Democratic statewide candidates were just as decisive. But the rest of the state outvoted Charlottesville.

Democratic Mayor Dave Norris was reelected with 6,300 votes, 63% of Tuesday’s voters, and 23% of total registered voters citywide. It’s hard to say how many people actually participated in the Council election. Fewer people vote as you go down the list. The results given from State Board of Elections and used in The Daily Progress coverage give percentage of total votes not voters. It appears as if 16 thousand people voted once in a 5-way race for Council. City turnout was 10,056 of the 27,516 possible.

Democratic Kristin Szakos received 5,083 votes, 51% of 10,056, and 19% of 27,516.

Independent Bob Fenwick had 3,293 votes, 33% of turnout, and 12% of potential voters. Fenwick campaigned to save McIntire Park from the Meadowcreek Parkway and YMCA facilities.

Independent Paul Long got 1,214 votes, 12% and 4%. Long spent his adult life in Philadelphia and advocated legalizing marijuana.

There were 382 write-ins. Presumably most went to Andrew Williams, who announced his campaign last winter but the Voter Registrar ruled he lacked enough signatures in June’s petition to qualify to be on the ballot. If all the write-ins were for Williams, that would be 4% and 1.5%, respectively. Williams is a student at Piedmont Virginia Community College and the only African-American in the race.

The city Republicans offered no candidate for a second Council election cycle. The last Republican candidate was Rob Schilling in May 2006, who lost a reelection bid with more votes than his 2002 win. Council elections moved to November in 2007 as a way to increase local turnout. And the percentages have increased some since 2004 when one-term Councilor Kendra Hamilton received 17%. While more people vote in November, they skip over the local offices and issues.

In September the city Republicans adopted a platform of issues. Previously they had only vision statements, nothing specific or actionable. Individual candidates had their own positions but the party stayed neutral and vague. The lack of positions gave rise to the notion that their only goal was to replace Democrats with Republicans and continue identical policies.

After 9 years of lobbying the party by a single person on a single issue, the platform addresses eminent domain. Blair Hawkins first approached the party a few days after his two speeches on eminent domain at City Council June 5, 2000. The Council meeting gained national attention because of the Sally Hemings/Thomas Jefferson debate and whether to name the 9th/10th Connector after Hemings. After the furor died down years later, the connector was named for Roosevelt Brown, NFL football star. Nobody at the Republican meeting had attended or watched the Council meeting on TV.

At the 2002 Republican mass meeting, where Schilling was nominated, Hawkins handed out business card flyers advertising the newly created “Healing Charlottesville" website (under reconstruction/ many links broken). The slogan on the card: Testing the First by talking about the Fifth Amendment.

In 2003 Hawkins campaigned for the Republican nomination for Mitch Van Yahres’ House of Delegates seat, which no one else was seeking. Hawkins addressed directly the local issues of urban renewal, public housing, redevelopment, eminent domain, due process, civil rights. “Convert public housing apartments to condominiums owned by the current residents.” (Timeline with documents.)

In 2005, with the Kelo case in New London Connecticut, the universe changed. No longer was Hawkins viewed as a fringe lunatic with radical ideas. The views espoused by Hawkins turned out, in fact, to be the highest laws in the nation.

Under new leadership in 2009, Charlottesville Republicans stand for something. And that something is the opposite of the Democrats on Council, who are strong supporters and proud participants of urban renewal. Republicans stand for due process and civil rights—in principle at least.

Charlottesville GOP Platform Sep. 10, 2009

• Homestead Program: We support a program for city-owned public housing stock that would be modeled loosely after the Homestead Act of 1862.

Eligible residents of public housing would be given the opportunity to occupy the city-owned units and demonstrate responsibility and self-reliance over a finite period of time. Upon fulfillment of certain predetermined criteria, they will be given clear title to their property.

Clear title to property would provide leverage for further economic advancement and would encourage, rather than discourage, the formation of nuclear families.

• Property Rights: Clear title to property is virtually meaningless when local governing bodies can use the power of eminent domain to take private property and pass it to another private person or entity solely to generate tax revenues.

Long-time minority residents of Charlottesville have experienced this extreme use of governmental power first-hand.

We support an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that would restrict the power of government to take private property to those situations where the taking is truly for a public use.

Related Story: The Kelo case takes another turn.

Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
11/09/09 1:47 PM EST

The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.

But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost. Five justices found this redevelopment met the constitutional hurdle of "public use."

The Hartford Courant reports:

Pfizer Inc. will shut down its massive New London research and development headquarters and transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to Groton, the pharmaceutical giant said Monday....

Pfizer is now deciding what to do with its giant New London offices, and will consider selling it, leasing it and other options, a company spokeswoman said.

Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told me: "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain."

Why no monument for Queen Charlotte in Charlottesville?

2009-09-30T21:36:00.003-04:00

Photo credit

Why is there no monument in Charlottesville, Virginia for the queen the town is named after? No painting. No statue. No historical marker.

An apparent British loyalist raises this question in a letter to the editor in today’s Daily Progress. The letter is speculation based on assumptions, not research.

Maybe people don’t want to memorialize scandal or the circumstances of the town’s creation. But it was only after a Google search that I learned the more likely reason:

Queen Charlotte was black.

Wikipedia has the scoop on Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, who lived 1744-1818. She married evil King George III in 1761.

“At the age of 17, Charlotte was not thought conventionally pretty; she had a wide nose and mouth, and dark hair. Nevertheless, she was selected as the bride of the young King George, although she was not his first choice. He had already flirted with several young women considered unsuitable by his mother…”

On December 23, 1762, the General Assembly approved the town charter and moved the county seat from Scottsville. Thomas Jefferson was 19 years old. (Albemarle: Jefferson's County, 1727-1976, John Hammond Moore, Albemarle County Historical Society.)

The most likely reason for the new town named after the new queen was to influence the Crown to favor Albemarle in the next redistricting. At the time the British government would subdivide counties as population and settlements grew. Albemarle was created in 1744 but lost territory in the 1761 redistricting.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the closest towns, Milton and Shadwell, were much bigger than Charlottesville. The only charge Jefferson made against the queen was standing idly by while atrocities were committed in America.

Queen Charlotte has her own MySpace page.

Google Queen Charlotte Sophia

Queen Charlotte deserves attention

Eugene ‘Jeep’ Meyung
Published: September 30, 2009

There is irony that the closest town to the residence of the author of the Declaration of Independence was named after George III’s wife.

Most cities have some recognition of their namesake such as a painting or a statute, but Charlottesville has none. The woman had 14 children, an accomplishment worthy of recognition in itself and, for a royal, was a good mother. A statue on the Downtown Mall would be appropriate.

Paying for this would be an act of atonement for the Monticello Foundation, since a majority of the accusations Mr. Jefferson made in the Declaration against her husband are without foundation.

Eugene ‘Jeep’ Meyung
Albemarle County

Long Branch, NJ drops eminent domain scheme

2009-09-21T22:21:00.003-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—The case reported in Parade Magazine on Aug. 6, 2006 reached as many as 78 million readers. Long Branch, NJ began the process in 1996 to force out about 35 oceanfront homes to make way for luxury condos.

“The Long Branch City Council voted 4 to 1 Tuesday [Sep. 15] to accept an agreement in which the city will pay $435,000 in legal fees for the residents and give up its eminent domain claims for the neighborhood” (“Agreement reached to end NJ eminent domain dispute”, Sep. 16, 2009, Associated Press).

New Jersey is not one of the 43 states that have reformed eminent domain since the June 23, 2005, Susette Kelo v. New London, CT Supreme Court ruling. New Jersey is not one of the four states where the state supreme court has overruled the US Supreme Court on this issue.

A pending bill in New Jersey's Senate would revise existing law to "remove the possibility of property owners losing their homes simply because a 'better' use could be envisioned by a local government" (“Long Branch victory heats up eminent domain debate" by David Porter, Associated Press, Sep. 21, 2009 ).

Eminent domain spotlight on Long Branch, NJ, Aug. 10, 2006

Perriello protest in Garrett zone

2009-07-02T22:30:00.027-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—This afternoon protesters assembled outside Congressman Tom Perriello’s office. At ground zero for eminent domain abuse, the protest came 42 years after the referendum that set in motion the city’s largest, ongoing urban renewal project. For me, the context overwhelmed the content of the protest.

Ridge Schuyler is the congressman’s spokesman and took notes as he stood behind the speakers atop the stairs leading to the office. Schuyler left the Nature Conservancy to work for Perriello. Schuyler has come under criticism for supporting the Community Water Supply Plan to expand Ragged Mountain reservoir instead of dredging.

The protest began at 4 pm. After saying he would not be in town, Perriello was scheduled to speak at the University of Virginia at 5:30. Technically the university is in the county. People shouted, “Where is Perriello?” Schuyler promised to pass on to Perriello the crowd’s displeasure.

The only candidate for elected office with a presence was Bradley S. Rees. He’s running for the Republican nomination to oppose Perriello in 2010. A single campaign volunteer handed out flyers.

Condos built 2004 on land vacant since 1972.

"Luxury Gleason Condos: urban renewal still not over", Nov. 27, 2006

Landmark Hotel stands blighted. Photo shows proximity of Garrett and Main Streets.

Levy Avenue parking lot rents for $1 a year.

Levy Avenue razed 1972.

Levy and 6th SE, Old Scottsville Rd. Site of the final holdouts on this block and most expensive property 1972. "Levy Avenue update: All 5 owners identified", Nov. 17, 2007.

Garrett neighborhood Feb. 1, 2006.

(A) Perriello's office.

(B) Garrett Square / Friendship Court.

(F) H.M. Gleason.

(G) ACAC.

(I) Ix Factory, 1929-1999.

(Red Outline) Garrett Street urban renewal project, now called the Warehouse District. Alexander Garrett built his mansion in 1820s on Oak Hill farm (hill removed in 1977 clearance) across from Gleason and torn down 1952. Garrett Street developed 1860. Town's first public school 1870. Fourth St. (Ware) developed 1915 site of Garrett Square. There is much more history of this neighborhood only two blocks from Main St.

1935 Charlottesville.

Vinegar Hill Feb. 1, 2006.
(A)Crossroads. Main, Ridge, South, and McIntire. Lewis and Clark Statue.
(B) Lane High 1940, County Office Building 1970s.

(D) 1894 Jefferson School lost with Vinegar Hill clearance. 1926 Jefferson School to left of (D). First Jefferson School 1865 on W. Main.

1960 Vinegar Hill.
(A) Mooney Oldsmobile / RSC equipment rental. Site of future condo tower. "Land for condo tower once owned by John West and Madam Marguiretta", Sep. 13, 2007.

Kelo Anniversary on Schilling Show

2009-06-23T02:14:00.004-04:00

Charlottesville, Va.—On Monday, WINA’s Rob Schilling talked about eminent domain on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision June 23, 2005 in the case of Susette Kelo versus New London, CT.

Steven Anderson of the Institute for Justice updated listeners on the Kelo case. The 90-acre neighborhood is now vacant land and not paying taxes. Nothing has been built. Kelo’s pink house has been relocated and stands as a historical marker for due process. Kelo now resides just outside of New London. The land was stolen in order to entice Pfizer Pharmaceutical to move its headquarters there. The Supreme Court ruled the theft to be legal in a 5-to-4 vote.

Anderson spoke about this case in Charlottesville Feb. 15, 2005, a week before the court heard oral arguments Feb. 22. Since the infamous ruling, 43 states have reformed eminent domain to varying degrees.

Jim Lark of the Jefferson Area Libertarians also appeared on the show. Schilling exposed Delegate David Toscano (57th, Charlottesville) for his position against private property civil rights. According to Schilling, Toscano said in a Feb. 2009 newsletter that he opposes a state constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain to legitimate public uses. If state senator Creigh Deeds is elected governor, Toscano may run for this office. And former city councilor Blake Caravati may run for Toscano’s seat.

Toscano has long opposed civil rights when it comes to ownership of homes and businesses. On Dec. 14, 2006 both Toscano and Deeds said eminent domain was not a problem in Virginia. Yet a month later, they both voted for the reform bill introduced by Delegate Rob Bell.

Toscano spoke at the city council meeting Nov. 21, 2005, where Caravati introduced a city charter amendment to dramatically expand eminent domain in Charlottesville for “affordable housing" again. Of the five councilors, the sole Republican Schilling voted against the amendment in favor of civil rights. Current Mayor Dave Norris supported the amendment.

Citizen journalist Blair Hawkins spoke at that meeting against the amendment. Hawkins asked Toscano to vote against the amendment in the House of Delegates if it passed Council, obligating Toscano to introduce it into the General Assembly. Hawkins followed up with a letter in opposition. A state senate committee blocked the bill until the eminent domain language was removed.

Toscano was present and a city councilor when Hawkins delivered two speeches on eminent domain June 5, 2000, the public hearing to rename the 9th-10th Connector for Sally Hemings, slave of Thomas Jefferson. (1) Letter to Mayor Daugherty to investigate urban renewal. (2) Property Street for Sally Hemings and Laura Dowell. Toscano is a long-time supporter of public housing and forced relocation of minorities.

Hour 1, Schilling Show, Steven Anderson in 2nd half-hour.

Hour 2, Schilling Show, Jim Lark in 1st half-hour.

“UVa alumnus talks about eminent domain”, Feb. 16, 2005, Charlottesville Independent Media. Reprinted: “Arin Sime for Va Senate”, Oct. 23, 2007, Blair’s Blog.

Deeds and Toscano: Eminent domain not a problem in Va., Dec. 14, 2006.

“The letter that stopped Charlottesville’s eminent domain amendment” Jan. 8, 2006 – Includes text of proposed Section 50.7, passed by the Council Nov. 21, 2005, introduced by Blake Caravati who only weeks later announced he would not seek reelection. The amendment passed 4-1. For: Kendra Hamilton, David Brown, Kevin Lynch, Blake Caravati. Against: Rob Schilling.

“Response to David Toscano and Tammy Londeree on my endorsement of Rob Schilling published on George Loper's blog” April 30, 2006 – Toscano claims credit for stripping eminent domain from Charlottesville charter amendment introduced in ’06 session. In so doing, he claims the bill was passed, then amended by him and later passed again. The Daily Progress reported that a Senate committee, not the House of Delegates, made the changes.

John and Nancy McCord speak in Charlottesville Jan. 13, 2007.

2007: Virginia Reforms Eminent Domain, Jan. 12, 2008.

Latest Archive Request on WINA”, Feb 12, 2009.

Blair to be on WINA, May 5, 2009.

Audio on car tax, archives, May 6, 2009.

On the air, I gave Councilor Holly Edwards credit for trying to get a meeting with Housing Authority Director Randy Bickers and UVA’s Dr. Scot French. I have not heard from Edwards since then. I’m seeking to publish the Housing Authority’s urban renewal archives, which comprise 6,845 documents and 1,189 photographs. Or they could publish what remains of the archives. Except for about 300 photos, I have been denied access since my first request Mar. 25, 2004.