Archive for May, 2007

You Might Still Have a Boondoggle…

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

The “community” oversight board for CenterStage has been announced by the mayor’s office.

Looks like Friday’s No BS Brass Band will be playing a funeral march after all. For $23 million dollars (at first) of your tax dollars.

Mayor Appoints Performing Arts Board For ‘Richmond CenterStage’ in Downtown
Mayor L. Douglas Wilder today announced today that Thomas F. Farrell II, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Dominion, will chair a volunteer board that will oversee the development and operation of Richmond CenterStage, a $65 million performing arts complex at the former Thalhimers location at 6th and Grace Streets.

Other members of the 15-member Board include:

• Jean Boone, vice president, Richmond Free Press
• Theodore L. Chandler Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, LandAmerica Financial Group
• Joseph C. Farrell, retired chairman and chief operating officer, The Pittston Company
• Michael D. Fraizer, chairman and chief executive officer, Genworth Financial
• William H. Goodwin Jr., president, CCA Industries Inc.
• Robert J. Grey Jr., partner, Hunton & Williams
• Eva Teig Hardy, executive vice president, Dominion
• C.T. Hill, chairman, president and chief executive officer, SunTrust Bank Mid-Atlantic
• Susan Holsworth, research librarian, Afton Chemical Corporation
• John A. Luke Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, MeadWestvaco
• Marvette Monroe, assistant vice-president, First Market Bank
• Michael E. Szymanczyk, chairman and chief executive officer, Philip Morris USA
• Richard E. Toscan, dean, School of Arts, Virginia Commonwealth University
• James E. Ukrop, chairman, First Market Bank

The Richmond Performing Arts Center’s Board of Directors represents a diverse range of experience and expertise in areas such as finance, development, facilities management and community stewardship.

Ah, but what this distinguished crew of Virginia Performing Arts Foundation (VAPAF) board members and corporate friends doesn’t represent is a diverse range of experience and expertise in … the arts.

You can read here why that might be kinda important. That is: If the city and VAPAF are serious about building a “community” arts center and not just writing new chapters in the annals of Richmond Downtown Boondoggledom.

And on that note, with all due respect to the mayor and Jeff Foxworthy…

When no actual performing artists are asked to sit on a “community” performing arts center board… you might still have a boondoggle.

When no neighboring representatives from the grassroots arts community are asked to sit on a “community” performing arts center board… you might still have a boondoggle.

When many of the same people who sat on the board of the group who bankrupted the Carpenter Center are sitting on a “community” performing arts center board … you might still have a boondoggle.

When many of the same people who wasted nearly $8 million in Richmond tax dollars are sitting on a “community” performing arts center board… you might still have a boondoggle

When many of the same people who spent more than $20 million to tear down a building, dig up a hole and then fill up the hole are sitting on a “community” performing arts center board…. you might still have a boondoggle.

When there are more representatives from Ukrop’s / First Market Bank than arts professionals on a “community” performing arts center board… you might still have a boondoggle.

When there are more representatives from Dominion Resources than arts professionals on a “community” performing arts center board… you might still have a boondoggle.

My only question, besides all of these: Which of the just-announced community arts representatives will be the one who brings in the CenterStage “hip-hop”?

(Oh… and please, please no one spill the beans about this. Let it be a surprise.)

Strike Up The Band

Friday, May 18th, 2007

There are quite a few “missing” components in today’s unquestioning Times-Dispatch coverage of Performing Arts Center 2.0 that would seem to be relevant to the discussion of public arts funding — especially if you are going to definitively conclude that the CenterStage project is “on track.”

Of course, you have to read some inquisitive Richmond blogs and discussion forums to find out about these things.

First, great pains — desperate pains — are currently being taken to link the grassroots, “street-level” art scene of Curated Culture’s First Fridays Artwalk to the CenterStage groundbreaking on June 1. (Of course, no member of that grassroots arts revival has ever been asked to join VAPAF’s board of directors… but never mind.) You know that this aspect of the story is something that Save Richmond finds very interesting considering our long-running history of advocating for the city’s indigeous art and music scene, but the irony of this stunt hasn’t escaped the notice of others, like the disbelieving folks at the Urban Richmond? blog. Emphasis mine:

Groundbreaking is set for June 1- with Wilder, Jim Ukrop, Anne Holton, Bio Ritmo, and No BS Brass Band “celebrating” the groundbreaking, then leading a procession to the “First Friday’s District.”The irony is unbelievable. Let’s celebrate this taxpayer boondoggle by visiting the unsubsidized, yet highly successful, grassroots arts community!

To underscore the irony, and put the VAPAF’s $23 million sweetheart deal into some perspective, there is an in-depth interview with Christina Newton of Curated Culture on the URbanstudies blog that talks about the support her highly successful downtown rehabiliation project has received over the years from the city. Emphasis mine:

URbanstudies: How has the city’s government supported the First Friday program and its cause?

Christina Newton: Sadly, all we have received from the City has been $4,000 (in-kind and financial contribution) over the last three years from the Dept of Economic Development. Otherwise, the city has been supportive only in verbal thanks or taking credit for the success of the program themselves (William Harrell). Generally we can’t get a phone call returned. We have received funding from Richmond Renaissance (now known as Venture Richmond which is a public private partnership) of $20,000 over two years.

The paper does reveal the name of the new “partnership” that will guide CenterStage: It’s call RPAC. But did anyone associated with the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, the Times-Dispatch — or, jeez, the city — know that there is already an RPAC — the Richmond Public Art Commission.

Based on national public art models (in 27 states and nearly 200 municipalities), Richmond’s Public Art Program follows well-established guidelines adapted to our particular needs. A 1% allocation for art is earmarked from the City’s Capital Budget of appropriate new or renovation construction projects having budgets over $250,000. Appropriate projects are ones that provide public services and accessibility such as firehouses, police precincts, courthouses and detention centers, hospitals, clinics, passenger terminals, parks, and recreation centers.

And it would appear that internal pressures are overtaking the real RPAC right now, strangely enough. From RPAC board member and artist Vaughan Garland:

Over the past decade at the RPAC the question of “who are we” has floated in and out of every meeting but nobody wants to do anything about it except schedule later meetings to discuss our role for the “CITY ARTS COMMUNITY.” (What a notion—-to have an organization called the public arts and actually be for the public.)

Our favorite Wise Man, PTaylor, poses some other “minor” questions over at Richmond City Watch that the coverage today leaves largely unaddressed (while noting that a mysterious new “parking deck” has been included in the plan). “It’s somewhat ironic to be touting a ‘traditional’ ‘New Orleans style’ marching band,” he concludes. “They are traditionally players in funeral processions. Who’s the honoree here?”

I’m guessing it’s the taxpayers of the city of Richmond. “Serious fun,” indeed.

The Fix Is In

Friday, May 18th, 2007

If it’s on the front page of the local paper, why, it must be true.

Um…

No critical questions asked, no dissenting opinions sought, no reminders of how today’s assertions eerily mirror past claims that cost the city millions of dollars — now this is what you call having “serious fun” with journalism.

Actually, these fawning, cheerleading articles remind us all of just how diligent certain pockets of the local media were the last time the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation said they had $68 million in the bank, a great plan, widespread community support and “reams of documentation.” Check out the following, from a December 2006 Save Richmond entry:

Are We Being Served?

In the past, certain upper management types in the local press have gotten angry and defensive when we’ve written that it has been the Richmond media’s one-source reporting, unwillingness to ask critical (even fairly obvious) questions and propensity to let business relationships trump all other considerations that have enabled the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation to waste millions in taxpayer dollars and close down the Carpenter Center for years.

Guess who seems to agree with this “controversial” view? The Newspaper Association of America… in a legal document submitted to the Federal Communications Commission.

Emphasis mine:

[QUOTE]As the FCC has acknowledged, alternative media can play a critical watch-dog role with respect to the major media outlets. Real-life examples of this phenomenon include local media watchdog blogs, such as Save Richmond, at http://www.saverichmond.com/ (last visited Oct. 13, 2006), which won the 2005 Laurence E. Richardson Freedom of Information Award, for its investigation of funding problems with the Virginia Performing Arts Center, an issue that local Richmond media had declined to tackle. See Conaway Haskins, Editorial, Who’s Watching the Richmond Media?, Bacon’s Rebellion, Sept. 13, 2006, at http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues06/09-25/Haskins2.php (last visited Oct. 13, 2006); Lisa Provence, Richmond Bloggers Score Award, The Hook (Charlottesville, Va.), Nov. 24, 2005, at http://readthehook.com/stories/2005/11/23/newsFoiaRichmondBloggersSc.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2006). [ENDQUOTE]

The disconcerting part of this particular document is that The NAA, a non-profit agency that represents 90% of all U.S. newspapers, is using Save Richmond as an example to support its argument that major media conglomerates should be allowed to own multiple TV stations and newspapers in the same market — when it’s obvious that the opposite can be more reasonably argued. All one has to do is look in the public record and count the ignored elements of the performing arts center story in order to see the punches pulled, the damning facts ignored and the tangled web of influence aggressively heeded. Does anyone seriously think things would change if certain media companies owned more of Richmond’s news outlets?

As the city awaits the unveiling of the Performing Arts Committee report (again: who is writing this report?), and the news coverage of that report, it’s worth asking: Are we being served by our mainstream media?

When one looks at how certain outlets covered last week’s major “announcement” by the Foundation — words like “unquestioning” and “historical revisionism” come to mind — it’s pretty obvious that we need more variety in mainstream media ownership around here, not less, if Richmond has any kind of future.

But it’s nice of the Newspaper Association of America to back us up anyway.

UPDATE 5-20-07: If you want to see a sharp contrast between one-source, leave-no-stone-disturbed local reporting and hard-hitting investigative journalism that really dives into its subject with both eyes open, look no further than this EXCELLENT Sunday package on the increased tax burden of the Metro Richmond area, and how a recent Henrico County land deal went sour. An excellent piece of work all around.

How interesting that many of the same reporters responsible for these potential award winning Sunday pieces — which are multi-sourced, critical news articles not afraid to ask for, seek out and dive into hard details— also had their bylines on Friday’s “don’t worry, be happy” report on the CenterStage land deal.

For whatever reason, Henrico County readers get to know “more stuff” than Richmond city readers about the final resting places of their tax dollars and resources.

Take The Quiz: KNOW Your Downtown Boondoggle

Friday, May 11th, 2007

How well do YOU know Richmond’s longest-running downtown boondoggle? Do you have any idea where $8 million dollars in meals tax money went? Care to guess why it cost more than $20 million to tear down a building, leave a gigantic hole and then fill up the hole? Have you any clue where an additional $23 million of your tax dollars will soon be headed?

Yes, I’m talking to you again.

And since you appear to be awake, I’m sure you won’t mind taking the following “EZ 2 Love That Ongoing Downtown Boondoggle” quiz in order to find out the depth of YOUR knowledge of such things as squandered operating endowments, rigged performing arts committee meetings, music hall shells, expensive PR events and shuttered, boarded-up historic theaters. Right?

C’mon! Have some “serious fun” with this civic quiz. And make sure you turn all final answers in to your City Council member and the Mayor’s office and get them to grade your work — and theirs!

1. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation’s new website has a “Frequently Asked Questions” section that claims to address all of the concerns behind the $23 million in public money the Foundation (a.k.a VAPAF) will soon receive for the revamped “CenterStage” arts center. Which of the following “minor” questions are not addressed in this F.A.Q.?

a. How private fundraising pledges for the project will be verified by the city.
b. Who will pay for the project’s cost overruns - Richmond taxpayers or the private and secretive VAPAF.
c. Who is footing the bill for CenterStage’s much-hyped June 1st groundbreaking.
d. How a June 1 groundbreaking can even be planned since construction bids are due June 15th, and have to be evaluated before construction contracts are awarded.
e. How the city can allow VAPAF to control the center under a long term lease agreement given the fact that the Foundation has no tangible experience, or expertise, in running a performing arts venue.
f. Whether taxpayers will get to see a monthly cash flow statement on construction expenditures for the project.
g. Why there is no mention at all of the oversight committees that were supposed to be put into place to ensure community involvement, diversity and accountability.
h. The exact date that the Carpenter Center’s title will be transferred from the Foundation to the city, as was the original agreement.
i. None of these are addressed on the new website.

2. Which of the following statements were NOT made when Richmond City Council voted in 2003 to raise the city’s meals tax rate to pay for the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation’s privately-run arts center.

a. “City staff has put together a really smart structure for this funding — it splits it into phases and holds the performing arts foundation’s feet to the fire - to raise the rest of the money that we say we’re going to raise. We don’t raise the money, the city is limited as to what it has to provide.” — Brad Armstrong, Then-President of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation
b. “This isn’t a 1% 20-year or 30-year tax that gets imposed whether it goes or not… it’s going to last until June, 2005. At which point the other elements of the financing need to be in place. And I think that’s wise.” — Councilman Bill Pantele
c. “I also like… the stipulation that was put in that if the performing arts foundation didn’t demonstrate that they could fully fund this project by a certain time, then the resources would also be withdrawn from them… so that doesn’t leave us hanging out there. It puts responsibility and accountability on everyone that’s involved.” — Councilwoman Delores McQuinn
d. “We were never as a restaurant industry contacted when this meals tax [hike] came to light. The performing arts center never called us and said, ‘Hey guys, we have this idea … let’s talk about it and see if we can work something out.’ That never happened.” — Rhoda Elliot, then President of the Richmond Restaurant Association
e. “The anticipation, as I understand it, is that some of the funds — maybe at least 50% — would go toward public education… that’s what I understand.” — Then-Interim councilman Walter Kinney
f. “I oppose this center on moral grounds. I don’t have time for niceties - this is a moral vote.” — Ordinary citizen (at the time) Marty Jewell
g. All of the above quotes were given.

3. In Summer 2005, the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation went back to city council asking for a deadline extension because they were unable to fulfill the obligations necessary to retain city funding. What happened next?

a. Feet were held to the fire.
b. The “temporary” meals tax hike was revoked.
c. Resources were immediately withdrawn from VAPAF.
d. VAPAF finally sat down and talked with local restaurant owners.
e. 50% of the Meals tax hike was immediately funneled into the school system.
f. Newly-elected City Councilman Marty Jewell voted not to extend VAPAF’s deadline on “moral” grounds.
g. None of these things happened.

4. Last year, Mayor Wilder and his city staff contemplated the dismantling of the city’s Industrial Development Authority because the IDA could not account for more than a quarter million in lost city funds. Meanwhile, the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation frittered away $8 million in meals tax money and left a huge hole on Broad Street as it contemplated building an empty “shell” of an arts center. What happened next?

a. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation squandered the Carpenter Center’s $3 million endowment and left the historic theatre a boarded-up, shuttered fire trap for more than two years.
b. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation controlled the agenda of — and wrote the reports for a special mayoral committee that was formed to investigate the situation.
c. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, under the guise of the special committee, brokered a sweetheart deal with the mayor to control the lease of the Carpenter Center until the VAPAF chairman’s grandchildren were old and gray.
d. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation held tight to all of the surrounding downtown property its board of directors own, while simultaneously lamenting the stagnant nature of downtown, as they finalized details of the above sweetheart deal.
e. All of it happened.

5. Which of the following things did the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation NOT do when planning its arts center with millions in city money?

a. They never commissioned a single independent feasibility study — and still have not commissioned one.
b. They refused to include any local performing arts professionals or performing artists on their board of directors.
c. They fired the longtime head of the Carpenter Center — the only one on board with arts promotion experience — because he criticized their plan.
d. They never once advertised their executive job openings to the local or regional performing arts community.
e. They never once asked for genuine input from the actual artists who were to use the center.
f. They refused to provide basic data to reporters after insisting that they had “reams and reams of documentation” to support their glowing projections and hazy fundraising figures.
g. All of the above.

6. At first, the instigators behind VAPAF’s planned arts center told the press that the project was initiated in order to help the performing arts companies of Richmond. But please choose another reason given by the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation.

a. To help prop up another failed downtown project — the $170 million expanded convention center — pushed by many of the same boosters.
b. To help spur downtown activity.
c. To make sure Richmond looked good during the Queen’s visit, when the eyes of the world would supposedly be on Broad Street.
d. All of these were given.

7. Under the guidance and leadership of the Foundation, the non-profit arts companies aligned with the project…

a. Are forced to share 1/30th of a seat each on VAPAF’s board of directors.
b. Are forbidden to speak critically of the Foundation and its efforts — the penalty is expulsion from the Foundation’s Alliance For the Performing Arts.
c. Have had to beg for charitable handouts from the Community Foundation because they are in danger of going bankrupt.
d. Will seemingly do anything, or agree to any Faustian deal, to receive taxpayer-funded handouts without accompanying oversight.
e. Everything you see above.

8. In 2005, VAPAF Chairman Jim Ukrop claimed that his Foundation had “raised” more than $68 million. In a special city audit of the Foundation’s pledges, a city auditor found…

a. That, at most, the Foundation had only $17 million in verifiable pledges.
b. That approximately 80% of private pledges claimed by the Foundation could not be counted on.
c. That Richmond city council had failed to adequately define spending guidelines for how the Foundation could use public money, resulting in confusion about which of VAPAF’s considerable expenses were allowable and which were illegal.
d. Concluded that “the Foundation did not fully adhere to Ordinance requirements” and recommended that city council insist on a monthly balance sheet from VAPAF.
e. The city auditor found all of the above plus a bag of chips.

9. At the same time that VAPAF was claiming to have “raised” more than $68 million, this blog (Save Richmond) did something that Richmond City Council refused to do. What was it?

a. Invited Dave Brockie and GWAR to headline the arts center’s first show.
b. Hosted an Alliance For the Performing Arts meeting at Chop Suey Books.
c. Challenged Norfolk’s City Council to some really “serious fun” — an intense game of “Winner Takes City” Volleyball.
d. Checked VAPAF’s assertions by obtaining and publishing their financial statements (which showed the Foundation had just slightly more than $1 million in the bank).

10. Around the time that the city council approved their deadline extension, Mayor Doug Wilder was very critical of VAPAF. Which of these is an actual past quote from the mayor about the Foundation’s arts center project?

a. “I am very disappointed in what is taking place and continues to take place in Richmond on these kinds of things. The people of Richmond deserve better, especially when it comes to the priorities we place on the expenditure of city funds, in terms of education, public safety and social services.”
b. “Two years ago, in an unprecedented move without adequate input from the public or adequate due diligence on the part of those heading city government, the Council and the Performing Arts Foundation passed a new tax dedicated to a private entity, and furthermore, gave that entity control over one of the most valuable pieces of land in Richmond.”
c. “This unprecedented move was justified by City Council and the Foundation on this basis: that the people were protected because the ordinance passed by the city contained a July 1, 2005, deadline for the keeping of the promises made to the public and the reversion of the property to the City upon default. This deadline was put into the law to ensure the public that those running the City were not making an open-ended commitment of tens of millions in tax dollars and other city resources to a private entity.”
d. “The Foundation has repeatedly lobbied for more and more public dollars - more taxes, even a new ticket tax under a different name - while falling short on the promised private dollars.”
e. “This was supposedly a privately funded thing. That all you needed was a little seed money from the public. Now you’ll find that two-thirds of the money that will be generated, if they are counting, will be public when you count the federal, when you count the state and the city. [This occurred] without the city or any locality or any of the government officials having any say-so as to what happens. How anything like that could have gotten off the ground in the first instance is beyond me.”
f. All of those statements came out of our mayor’s mouth.

11. Which of the following is an actual recent quote from Mayor Doug Wilder about the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and its project.

a. “I now believe everything the Foundation says. To prove it, I’m willing to make a donation to CenterStage right here and now. Here’s a personal check for $200,000.”
b. “Ooops. Turns out I was wrong — Jim Ukrop DOES own me.”
c. “I’m convinced with the integrity of the people who are behind this project, [the money] will be there when we need it.”
d. “And you dare ask why I would treat the school board so harshly over their use of city funds and why I would make city employees reapply for their jobs in an attempt to establish accountability, while at the same time allowing the wasteful Virginia Performing Arts Foundation full unfettered reign over millions in taxpayer dollars and a huge patch of valuable downtown land…. I have no clue.”

12. For its hyped June 1st groundbreaking, VAPAF has announced that a New Orleans-styled brass band will accompany a throng of arts center supporters in a parade from the Carpenter Center toward the popular events at Curated Culture’s First Fridays Artwalk. Please choose this ironically-named brass band from the following choices:

a. The Dirty Rotten Scoundrel Ensemble
b. The Trust Us This Time Orchestra
c. The No BS Brass Band
d. The Back Room Deal Brigade
e. The Feet To The Fire Five

13. VAPAF’s new website maintains that “the timing of the groundbreaking fit [sic] in wonderfully with what is already happening in the city to promote and celebrate the arts. Venture Richmond and First Fridays are excited to connect the site of Richmond CenterStage with the existing downtown art walk.
… And how many times is VAPAF’s June 1st groundbreaking and Brass Band parade actually mentioned on the official event calendar of Curated Culture’s First Fridays art walk?

a. Zero

Answers (and links):

1. i 2. g. 3. g 4. e. 5. g. (And this is worth listening to as well.) 6. d. 7. e. 8. e. 9. d. 10. f. 11. c. 12. c. 13. a.

Impeach the Richmond School Board

Wednesday, May 9th, 2007

If you have a child in Richmond’s schools and haven’t moved to one of the counties in utter disgust yet, or started pricing private schools, then you must not have read the Richmond Times-Dispatch today.

[No, not the story about the cheap Jamestown tourist merchandise crap featured on the front page(!), but the story about the future of our schools buried in the Metro section. The one that starts out like this:]

The Richmond School Board will ask the Virginia Supreme Court to reverse a judge’s decision that backed Mayor L. Douglas Wilder’s control over when the board receives funding.

“We feel that the law is fairly clear in the responsibilities of school boards,” School Board Chairman George P. Braxton II said in explaining the board’s decision.

The board voted 7-2 Monday to appeal the case, which was decided in April by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Melvin R. Hughes Jr.

Former mayoral adviser Paul Goldman, who has been watching the ongoing legal wranglings behind the school board’s frantic struggle against being independently audited, had this to say about this latest STOOOPID decision by that distinguished and “entitled” body:

They continue to waste time, money, energy and public tolerance by now deciding to spend another month or more arguing in court what good leaders would resolve in a much faster, more efficient, and more responsible fashion. The School Board says it has no choice because Judge Hughes’ lower court decision sets a precedent. WRONG! There is a reason School Board Chairman Braxton, a lawyer, and the counsel to the Board on this case, are working pro bono: no attorney in Virginia could risk a bar complaint for making a client pay for such bad legal advice.

Keith West of the 7th district, one of two members not to vote to jump off a cliff and take our kids with them (the other was the tireless Carol Wolf), said it best:

“Ultimately, it does no good. . . . The fact is that the constitution of Virginia forces us to rely on them for our money, and we should accept that.”

Honestly, if the seven school board members who voted to prolong this nightmare were kids, they’d be put on restriction and barred from watching “Dora the Explorer” for a month. At the very least.

But how scary — these are the same people making key decisions about the education of our children. (And if you think you know the Richmond Public School System and reflexively blame Doug Wilder for all of this, please take Save Richmond’s handy “EZ 2 Love Those Schools” quiz and get yer lessons).

Richmond’s War on Taxpayers (Continued)

Friday, May 4th, 2007

It just never ends.

Mayor L. Douglas Wilder is proposing a new tax on every Richmond property owner, including churches, to solve the city’s stormwater drainage and water quality problems.

The mayor’s proposal includes a flat $89 annual fee for every homeowner, with higher rates for businesses and nonprofit organizations depending on the expected stormwater runoff from roofs and pavement on their properties. The fees would generate about $15 million in net revenue each year to pay for drainage improvements, maintenance of ditches and catch basins, and enforcement of water-quality regulations.

Scott Burger of the Green Party has been trying to alert City Hall about the city’s considerable water and drainage issues for some time — pointing out that Richmond’s water rates are among the most regressive in the country, for instance, and also suggesting relatively inexpensive conservation efforts to combat runoff. He’s not buying the need for a new tax, or the fairness of it (the city’s announcement that businesses and non-profit groups would be the most affected doesn’t hold much water when you consider that the parking lots of these entities are the main reasons for our drainage dilemmas).

In a correspondence with Councilman Bill “Temporary Meals Tax Hike” Pantele, who seems to support the mayor’s water tax, Burger spilled it out:

This new tax is absolutely outrageous.

We have been very patient about the state of our neighborhood alleys. I have suggested over and over again possible smallscale solutions to stormwater runoff — promoting rain barrels, greenway buffers, and green pavers.

I have also brought attention to the fact that the City has the most regressive minimum water rate IN THE COUNTRY.

Over the years, I have watched the City get millions from Federal and State funds for stormwater runoff…. when Gaston damage happened in our neighborhood, we were told FEMA would pay most of the bill.

Why are you taxing people out of the City? Where is the money going? How can you expect people to pay more for stormwater runoff when its not clear where past monies went?

Citizens can be encouraged to mitigate their stormwater runoff. I have been doing so on my own — promoting rain barrels, greenway buffers, and green pavers. I would even be willing to help pay for green pavers in the public alley by my house. Since the the historic cobblestones have been taken out and replaced with gravel we have seen huge ruts and potholes develop. EagleBayUSA is a local company that is manufacturing and marketing green pavers.

Citizens can also be encouraged to conserve water (by using rainbarrel water for greywater uses, for example) though there is no economic incentive to do so with the regressive minimum water rate.

But what is being done to encourage VCU, government, and the corporations to do more? They should be paying the bulk of the stormwater cost. Its their large parking lots that are producing much of the problem. We only have one or two green roofs in the whole City. Don’t get me started about their propensity for waste and hostility to conservation. To put a finer point on it, VCU and other groups are talking about building giant natatoriums/rec centers when they won’t even build to LEED specifications.

If the regressive water rate was turned right side up, more of these entities would be forced to address their water use AND runoff. They would be more interested in storing and using rain water for their own uses — watering their corporate lawns for instance.

The Green Party have asked that the minimum water rates be adjusted so they mimic Henrico County’s. We realize that it cannot happen overnight, but we would hope that would be the immediate goal or priority. The City sells water to Henrico, Chesterfield, and Hanover counties. I wonder how much runoff is from those counties and how much they are contributing to mitigating the stormwater runoff problem? Why in the world should Richmond residents, who technically own the utility in the first place, pay more in minimum fees than county residents?

How can that be considered fair?

It should be obvious, but if Council and the Mayor are so horrified, why are they in effect raising Richmond’s minimum water and sewer bill even more with this new tax? Again, we already have possibly the most regressive in the country.

The current water structure is not sustainable, but taxing citizens more is not sustainable either.

Burger also points out how water is often wasted in the city, spurred on by Richmond building policies: “Properties without water service are considered vacant. I have a friend who is paying $160/month to have water and gas turned on in a property that’s not being used.” I wonder how many others are doing same, to avoid being put on the building’s “Vacant Property” list (which you can access here)?

Former Mayoral adviser Paul Goldman — more from him here — has also issued a blistering statement that brings up the disturbing political questions surrounding the new, just-announced water tax:

Albert Einstein was way behind Isaac Newton, who had already proven the politics of Richmond in his first law of motion: a body in motion tends to stay in that motion.

When in doubt, raise taxes.

Only this time, instead of all those millions going to a hole in the ground… they are going to another sinkhole.

Despite the Richmond Times-Dispatch story… pointing to the potential of TENS OF MILLIONS in wasteful spending of our city tax dollars… despite the fact that there was extra $500,000 for no-bid contracts that almost got lost in Harry Black’s Black Hole for his favorite venders [these are the ones we know about], MILLIONS in additional fat hidden in the proposed city budget [does the media even bother to check?], another record increase in property taxes, TENS OF MILLIONS… spent on outside lawyers, and consultants, despite these and other things: Richmonders are warned that we will remain underwater unless we have another $15 Million in new water taxes.

Harry Houdini predicted he would come back from the dead, or so the legend says. If he is getting ready to do it, let me humbly suggest Richmond as the place he should reappear. Because his Chinese Water Torture Cell trick doesn’t compare to the magic act in our Capitol City.

According to the City Charter, the city budget - and the requisite utility budgets - had to be proposed by the CAO at a certain date. This new record tax was not included in that budget. It could have been, and indeed, was suppose to be included.

But it wasn’t.

How much is the tax?

Remember how even those who voted for the 1% increase in the food tax said it was a huge increase but would be spent wisely? The new Water Tax would amount to a DOUBLING, a 100% increase in the food tax if it had been proposed back then!

How does the acting CAO justify a last-minute NEW TAX when he admits the city is wasting MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

If that money can not be managed correctly, why will these new MILLIONS get better management?

Richmond’s War on Nightlife (Continued)

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

OK, tell me again why anyone looking to build a successful restaurant or coffeehouse would want to do business in the City of Richmond?

Seriously, I’m all ears.

No, really, I’d like to hear it…

Let’s review: The city forces patrons to use expensive city parking lots by arbitrarily closing off street parking… imposes outmoded and rigid city codes, leading to restaurants closing or never even opening…. and overtaxes customers when they get their bill, with a meals tax higher than neighboring communities (remember that “temporary” hike to fund the arts center? Turns out it was really permanent — sorry about that!).

Under these conditions, maybe the more important question is why anyone in their right mind would want to patronize a Richmond restaurant or coffeehouse.