RECENT COMMENTS
One take on Oakwood Heights
The RTD weighs in on the Oakwood Heights saga with an anonymous and ill-informed editorial today:
The neighbors’ objections are primarily aesthetic. They consider the condo project insufficiently gracile, and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In some respects we might incline to agree. But that objection does not override the more salient issue at hand: The project is permitted under existing zoning, which has called for multi-family use of the site for several decades.
Neighbors have complained that the developer did not give sufficent consideration to their demands. After the City Council vote, some pledged to pursue the issue in court. Before doing so, they might want to reflect on this consideration: Why should their mere aesthetic displeasure give them veto power over someone else’s property rights?
TAGGED: Oakwood Heights
Gary, good points outlined in your reply to this anonymous reporters article – http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/EDOAKWOOD_20090226-181040/216835/
Deaf ears, and type writers, seem to abound in this area. “Mere aesthetic displeasure” is an misinformed and poorly misused analogy of the situation. It appears that no one reflects on the laws governing the Old & Historic Districts. One, that being zoning, does not trump the other.
I’m open with my statements and convictions because I am not afraid to be challenged on them. I research accordingly and strive to get all the facts before I speak or weigh in with an opinion.
It’s sad to see a reporter that can contribute so much to the daily information of his/her readers chooses to do it incognito.
The editorial is not anonymous, it is commonly referred to as a “house editorial.” This means that it represents the collective opinion of the editorial board of the paper, and is not attributable to one particular writer or editor. Every newspaper has them.
Deanna, thank you for your comments, but I must also point out that Gary’s comment regarding this development and how he thinks it will bring apartments and/or the residents of Gilpin Court to Church Hill has some pretty bad undertones to it.
I rarely agree with the RTD and I don’t quite agree this time either. But, I would like our neighbors who are opposed to this unanimous (one abstained) decision by City Council might want to reflect on this consideration as well: OUR neighborhood is not unanimously opposed to this project- I would argue it is darn well split 50/50, and therefore I truly hope CHA funds are not used in any way for ANY legal action. Private citizens have every right to challenge the unanimous decision, but they should shoulder the cost, time, and effort with that futile exercise on their own dime.
Well, Deanna, if you had “researched accordingly” you would know that editorials are not written by reporters. They are unsigned because they reflect the position of the Editorial Page.
Thanks David and Ron for illuminating Deanna on a commonly known newspaper practice.
I think the RTD got it wrong also, but from what I witnessed watching on TV last Monday, the CAR (and with all due respect) your group, did not present your case very well. I doesn’t surprise me that the Council and the media responded the way they did.
Deanna, your comment above about zoning not trumping the Historic guidelines is the argument, and it was not clearly presented by the CAR staff or your group.
Common as it may be, how lame is it that a vehicle for the passing along of facts sees it as appropriate to take stands on political issues? Super-lame, if you ask me. Man, the slant taken by media in the name of “reporting” is startlingly tiresome.
What happened to the days when journalism could be trusted to shake things up in order to protect and educate the commoner, instead of taking the arrogant action of deciding whose side they would support – standardly following the smell of the dollar? Also, who gets to decide what “the paper” believes? Do they take a vote? I kind of doubt it, but I’m really askin.
Don’t fool yourselves that the RTD is, in any way, going to functionally participate in a check and balance system the way good reporting was originally intended. Unbiased reporting, or anything near that idea, no longer applies. It’s all chicken little, death, hardship, and cash. It’s too bad.
At least we should have a good grasp on the source of the trash that so many of us religiously pour into our systems on a daily basis in the name of being educated. Thanks for the reminder.
Magneto – “some pretty bad undertones”…that’s putting it lightly. Maybe we should give garry the benefit of the doubt and assume that his racist/classist comments were presented in an exaggerated manner to clarify to the development’s opposition how they may appear to many in the community. Surely garry is not really that much of a frakin’ douche.
David, Ron & Hillikid,
Y’all are a real hoot!
Journalisimo jefe’s and neophyte newspaper answer gurus….. Who determines the mysterious position of the “Editorial Page”?
Who comprises the “editorial board” and just how do “they” arrive at a “collective opinion”?
Why are there sometimes signed editorials sometimes not?
Ever heard of the PUBLISHER?
Sometimes editorials are written to reflect the opinion of the publisher and the publisher’s friends [usually rich and politically powerful/connected people].
Sometimes those opinions are not necessarily the opinion of the editorial writer or of the reporter, but if one wishes to keep a job in this market, one must plug one’s nose and write what one is told to write.
News articles are supposed to be free of bias, but as we all know facts, included and excluded, coupled with headlines [accurate and not] can certainly skew the bias of a supposedly objective news article.
Actually, with almost 40 years in and around newsroom, I might understand the role of the reporter, the editor, the editorial page editors and the publisher. What I also get, from listening to the arguments Monday night is that CAR over-ruled the staff three times, ignored professional advice, and then tried to apply “guidelines’ which do not have the force of law, to overcome the zoning ordinance, which does have the force of law.
Well, Bub, you left out the publisher in your explanation and for a guy claiming to have been around that much, that is a fairly significant oversight.
Nonetheless, you continue to speak in “monolithic” terms, i.e., “CAR over-ruled …” WHO on CAR? Aren’t these institutions comprised of human beings? Do these human beings have names? Who on the staff was over-ruled?
joe seems close on the newspapers (although i have zero time on the inside there) the rtd has the publishers/cronies view (“if you do not go along with me i will hurt you and your familty”) imbedded in the print. the rfp is nothing much above a publishers editorial from front to back.
ron seems closest on what happened monday nite. a staff bound to the politics of the shabby system got crossed up with the politics of the car. the standards and guidelines have been reduced to mush/impotence to accommodate the politics of both, rendering them useless the face of plain speak. the immediate neighbors assumed that the hd would give them some protection, it should have, but of course it didn’t.
Ron, also, why do you keep baiting? How do you get all of this so called inside info? And why so angry?
I think Ron works for one of the City Council members.
Of course the Times-Dispatch kicked CAR to the curb. They always do. Their “property rights†argument is a tired old war horse that doesn’t work anywhere in the country except at Richmond City Council. The right of local governments to regulate design standards is long settled by the courts as good law. But the RTD will always support a developer, regardless of the issues.
Richmond’s Historic Districts are a huge success economically, a fact the newspaper ignores, and also the reason developers are drawn to those areas. The irony is some developers try to attack the very design standards that make the neighborhood desirable for their projects. They want to capitalize on the hard work of the residents but not be held to the same standards themselves.
Bridg
lamplighter is EXACTLY right.
Remember Dominion’s SUP for their riverfront headquarters? It did not matter that there were over twenty different citizen groups against it, corporate gets what corporate wants with City Council (Keep in mind that Trani, as head of Richmond Renaissance at the time, did the light arm-twisting. I believe it was his son-in-law who was construction manager or something for the Dominion trading floor).
Remember how passionate Jewell spoke against Dominion’s SUP? I don’t even recognize him any more on City Council.
Back to the present,
Freund has done some good renovation work, but she has always supported the corporate line around Richmond- she does not care about citizens’ views.
Ray,
I agree. Question is: which one?
Does it matter who/what Ron works for when what he says is correct? Why is it that no one cares if CAR staffers approved the design, color, size, style, and massing three times- the last time with unconditional approval? If you are against City Councils decision- you are against CAR staff correct?
#18, I view the community news blogs as one way for ordinary citizens to express opinions and positions publicly. I appreciate when officials from various organizations, political circles, or businesses come on and comment under their real names and give the public information they feel we should know. However, I do take issue with anonymous bloggers working to bend our positions to better match his politician boss’ agenda. Instead his boss should listen to the people. Elected officials are to represent the people, not the other way around. I also take issue with developers’ bloggers masquerading as concerned citizens.
Joe –
You’re a good researcher. Any Council liasons you know of that have a media background (see post #10)?
Ron/#10:
I disagree with your statement:
“…and then tried to apply “guidelines’ which do not have the force of law, to overcome the zoning ordinance, which does have the force of law.”
The Chimborazo Old & Historic District is a zoning overlay. It is layered on top of the basic zoning that allows multi-family housing on the proposed Oakwood property.
The zoning overlay for the O&H has the same force of the law that the basic zoning overlay has. Has Deanna said, one does not trump the other. They both work together, they are not mutually exclusive. Based on the O&H guidelines that pertain to massing and scale for this area, 33 units will not fit with the massing and scale required for the surrounding area of single family, two-story properties – it’s not feesable.
The basic zoning may have been adopted in the 1920’s, but the zoning overlay for the historic district was also there when Fulton Properties bought the lot. The overlay is there to protect the area and to keep the size, massing and scale of any multi family buildings on that lot to be compatible with the surrounding area. You cannot adhere to the zoning overlay and have 33 units on those lots. Fulton Properties is in error. They can have their multi-units, but they need to be reduced in order to fit the massing and scale of the rest of the immediate neighborhood.
I believe that neither the CAR staff or Board, from what I saw on TV, argued this point. I don’t know if this point has ever been argued to the Council clearly enough for them to have made a different decision.
JoeRichmond:
The editorials are never signed. You are confusing that with the commentary page where commentary is always signed.
Editorials are not ” news articles.” Editorials are never objective. They are supposed to take a specific stand or view on a topic. The view of editorial we are discussing represents the views of the publisher and editorial staff at the RTD.
Call me old fashioned, (that just made me laugh!) but I’d prefer to see editorial opinions expressed in cartoon form. At least then there can be a little cleverness and artistry about the concept, making it obvious that someone has given the topic at hand some thought.
All of you that object to the content or POV of the RTD article concerning the Oakwood Heights project:
Were you at the Council hearing? Did you watch the Council hearing on TV in it’s entirety including the Dotts decision?
The Oakwood opposition was argued poorly and the Dotts appeal was argued well.
I don’t think you can critique the editorial without having heard the arguments as they were presented at the hearing that night.
Given the arguments as they were presented by all parties, I think the Council acted correctly in both cases.
#10/Ron:
I meant to address another part of your post in #10:
“CAR over-ruled the staff three times”
The CAR staff doesn’t rule on anything. they make recommendations to the board. If they did rule, there would be no need for the board. It could be that you meant that they didn’t accept the recommendations that the staff gave them; if so, I concede the point.
My stand is this:
I’m a private citizen with enough intelligence to know that there are contradictions and perversions of the guidelines and how they are carried out. I don’t want to impose my taste on anyone. It’s not a questions of liking or disliking a design/alteration to a property. It’s about holding the original intent of the Old & Historic Districts in tact. I believe that the Dept. of Interior guidelines that were adopted into the original City of Richmond O&H guidelines are a diversion from and being interpreted in such a way as to erode our historic communities.
I’m not proposing to kill the CAR. It’s an essential tool and custodian for our neighborhoods, Still, there is a need to revisit and amend some of the current guidelines, in particular, the “contemporary” language, and the “of it’s time” language. I’m not saying take them out, but to reword those passages that more clearly indicated that “contemporary” and “of its time” also means being historically faithful to the adjacent buildings and the immediate surrounding area.
The way the guidelines are being ruled on currently are twisted so that review boards ask those building infill and making alterations convey “newness†to the lowest common denominator- typically the bystander on the street.
The guidelines can be satisfied by allowing informed architects, designers and builders to differentiate in a way that is faithful to adjacent buildings and surroundings with subtlety and care that honors the history of that particular area and creates what some folks call a “sense of place.”
Member of the CAR board have argued that new infill and alterations need to show a very distinct sense of it’s time. One member in particular likes to call our historic areas “living museums.” That’s fair enough, but he goes further to say that the areas must be a dynamic evolution of time and each new building and alteration must show to the average passerby, an obvious visual representation of the present. That’s where I believe is the fallacy and the reason our Districts are being eroded.
David – thanks for your very polite clarification.
Ron – That’s a pretty sarcastic overtone in your reply. Are you picking on me? 🙂
My father used to read 3-4 newspapers a day. When I was a little girl he’d share his pot of 8 o’clock coffee with me in the morning (mine, heavy on the milk and sugar but I still felt like a grown up) We’d read them all before everyone got up. Never did pay much attention to the editorials, book or movie reviews, even back then. I always liked forming my own opinion. I would read the letters to the editor however. I liked to read about what people were involved in/cared about. I passed on the sports; we both enjoyed the comics. His favorites – Lil Abner & Beetle Bailey – mine, anything with Snoopy in it. My parents instilled a desire to learn and an absolute love of words in me. At age eleven I was reading at an eight year college level. I haven’t been able to pick up a newspaper, much less 3, 4 or 5 since he passed away. I read the news on line now from several sources. I seek my information. Don’t own a TV.
Magneto – I had no knowledge of Gilpin so would not have had a basis to comment from. I looked “Gilpin” up after reading Garry’s post and found a travel article from 2005 which listed it as a place to avoid in Richmond. I know Garry and respect his opinions – I didn’t read them as rasist/classist. 2005 is history. I’d like to see what the area is like today.
hillkid – you are 100% correct. That point was not argued enough or successfully when it was. I believe that even if it had, it was falling on deaf ears.
lamplighter – I was drawn here because of the historic district, the laws that protect it and chose to invest. I could not imagine ignoring them. Guess I’m a different breed of developer.
Shannon – you “old fashioned”? That makes ME laugh 😉
Ron – would you like to meet over coffee one day? These days I still like it strong but pass on the sugar.
I was saddened by Council’s decision, but I do recognize it was an almost unanimous decision. This made me take a step back and question what I the position I have taken.
What I think I have taken away from this is that we must start building bridges in our neighborhood. The CHA and other neighbors needs to work on coming to consensus with one another instead, especially where is comes to historic preservation. Each side needs to have a greater understanding on other’s position.
No one group speaks for all the citizens in Church Hill. I think it is very important that all the different groups and neighborhood associations would work on building support with one another instead of attacking each other. Otherwise, we remain a divided neighborhood and one that is increasingly not taken very seriously by others.
Deanna,
Not a chance. You are one of a few bloggers who are willing to get your hands dirty.
#26 “I think it is very important that all the different groups and neighborhood associations would work on building support with one another instead of attacking each other.”
You’re right and until this happens, outsiders and political machines will continue to make the decisions for the people of the east end.
Washington Post has an interesting article this morning about the state of the newspaper, at large. Posted by a Facebook friend, I turned the link tinyurl.
I hope it works, because this is worth checking out for those interested. http://tinyurl.com/bjjxpo
Nadine, just because council voted opposite to your stance doesn’t mean you should question your position, unless, you honestly believe you did not have enough information to form an educated decision 🙂
I believe that the council was working with a lack of “absorbed” information, a nicley played smoke and mirrors act which distracted from true issue and heavy lobbying from the 7th’s former Council Woman, Delores McQuinn.
Ron – Not a chance that you were picking on me or, not a chance of ever meeting for coffee? 😉
The second option being the saddest, especially since the recent post about Country Style Donuts. That’s enough of a sugar/caffeine high to sooth the most savage of beasts. I’m sure I’d enjoy meeting you and you, would come away with the same feeling about me.
“I believe that the council was working with a lack of “absorbed†information, a nicley played smoke and mirrors act which distracted from true issue and heavy lobbying from the 7th’s former Council Woman, Delores McQuinn.”
I am sorry, I think this is wishful thinking. Most of those Councilpeople knew exactly what they were doing when they voted. They just don’t care about CAR. Developers trump citizens in their view. I have seen this too often with Council to believe otherwise.
Point taken Scott.
I guess I’m a very strange breed here; a developer, contemplating a council seat who thinks of community/neighborhood impact and citizens first. They may very well think developers trump citizens but forgot developers do not trump the law.
RE #31 – Deanna: Which just reminded me of us running into each other there at CSD not too long ago, and we were supposed to make lunch plans.
What ever happened to that? I’m hungry!!! 🙂
deanna, you seem well know on this site, think about a little door to door.
Shannon… you’re tall, blonde and skinny… Aren’t you fashion model types supposed to be hungry? 😉 OK… Wednesday, Thursday – you pick the place. I’m easy.
bill3 – will do 🙂 gonna start with a little flower shop I know.
Deanna, door to door means meeting people you don’t know, not going to a flower shop where you’re already known or where you already know the people there. I suspect what bill3 is saying is that you’re already known in this little world on this blog, you might want to get out and meet others who are complete strangers. Also, get a precinct map and records of how many people vote in different precincts, then target those areas for your door to door walking tour.
Thanks crd. I know! 🙂
I haven’t “officially” met “Carolyn”, that’s why the reference to starting with her flower shop. Always nice to start a journey, if I begin this one, with a smiling face. I’ll start with meeting with the people that have emailed and get their impression of what the 7th needs in a representative.
Great idea about precinct maps. I do have someone gathering the voting turnouts in “off” elections.
deanna@314n36thst.com
Has anyone here actually met a candidate like that – on foot; someone knocking on your door?
deanna, maybe you should rethink the process
Deanna, there are a few other little details, like registering with the board of elections and filing regular campaign finance reports about money raised…also, the matter of getting sufficient registered voters to sign petitions (provided by board of elections, not something one makes up oneself) to get your name on the ballot. Just a few suggestions of things you might want to check out.
I’ve met most candidates on my front porch. Going door to door is how candidates spend their summer.
Deanna –
Campaigns take a lot of money. Most of the current Council members spent at least $25,000 and $50,000+ campaigns are not unusual.
Can you raise the funding needed or put in in yourself?
Deanna,
All this above is true, but not a big deal, except the money part. Getting signatures, registering, etc is not difficult or time consuming. Filling out the forms takes about 15-20 minutes.
D
Richmond Crusade for Voters is planning a Q & A forum with city council members for March 17, seven o’clock, 2416 Chamberlayne Ave (Letter Carrier’s Bld).
RCV “came from” SOS (Save Our Schools) over 50 years ago. We want to be the voice for the voiceless. The big question facing our town,today, is the
proposed 385 million diamond in the ruff
in Shockoe or on Blvd. Versus the $400 millions identified in needs to update and ADA our Richmond Public Schools. If you do the bonehead math, all the developers need is 5 council votes and the mayor. Hint, we the peoples, cann’t vote on this issue and the next election cycle is three years for most and this
November for the 7th.
All of the constitutional officers of our city and all but one of the Richmond area Delegates and Senators to the GA are
members. In addition to their monthly meeting attendance, these elected officals are often called on to give reports on issues of topical importantance. Or explain a vote or stand on an issue/paper.
A $10 per year dues and 3 meeting per year is required to vote on resolutions and endorsements. All are encouraged to become engaged in our town’s affairs and
welcome.
M.Ashton Cramer, aka ralph
Recording Secretary, RCV
hey crd – looking into all of those you mentioned 🙂 The money does not present a problem either.
ralph – thanks for the RCV info. See you there.