Extension will come up short
The proposed Hillsdale extension adversely affects a retirement community [“The road less traveled,” Fishbowl, June 24]. People in the retirement neighborhood can be seen walking along Hillsdale. There are senior citizens who live in one of the several areas like Brookmill and Branchlands Estates. The availability of a place to walk was an attraction for many here.
Recently on a Sunday afternoon, as I walked Hillsdale, the driver of a car came speeding toward Greenbrier. He didn’t slow down to turn right. Fortunately, no one was coming from either direction. This is a concern many in this neighborhood fear. Even today, more police patrol is needed. With what will we deal with if Hillsdale is connected to Hydraulic Road? Nursing home facilities, retirement communities, an established child care facility and a senior center—the first in the State to be nationally accredited—line present-day Hillsdale. Therefore, I feel it would be unconscionable to do what is being proposed.
People in this community are gravely concerned about the negative effects this proposed thoroughfare will have on their quality of life. Quality of life is a terrible sacrifice to make to satisfy the interests of those who stand to be accommodated economically. The funds could be better used to upgrade existing streets.
Lena Bish
Charlottesville
Conservative? Hah!
John Borgmeyer’s story “Proactive or reactive?” [Fishbowl, July 15] said in the headline that “John Q. Public” (the average person) in Charlottesville has a “conservative bent.” A few statistics:
In the 2002 House elections, Charlottesville gave Meredith Richards (D) twice as many votes—65.92 percent—as it did Virgil Goode (R), 33.77 percent. Same for the 2000 Senate race: Chuck Robb (D) received 69.49 percent, George Allen (R) 30.38 percent. Same for the presidential race: Al Gore (D): 58.70 percent; George W. Bush (R): 30.51 percent. The Green Party’s Ralph Nader even got 9 percent of the local vote, versus a statewide 2.2 percent.
In 2001, same again. Mark Warner (D): 72.87 percent; Mark Earley (R): 24.89 percent; Tim Kaine (D): 68.24 percent; Jay Katzen (R): 25.52 percent; Donald McEachin (D): 63.94 percent; Jerry Kilgore (R): 35.79 percent. And let’s not forget Delegate Mitch Van Yahres, who got 98.31 percent of Charlottesville’s vote in his re-election. By Borgmeyer’s own admission, Rob Schilling won his Council seat with “woefully few votes”—2,169 votes out of 22,065 registered voters. So, most Charlottesville voters are die-hard Democrats.
Are they “conservative” Democrats? Well, in 2002, two ballot initiatives passed, each with more than 85 percent of the local vote, requesting more than $1 billion in State bonds to fund “capital projects” at State schools, museums, parks and recreational facilities. Does that say “conservative” to you?
To be fair, Borgmeyer is saying that Charlottesville doesn’t want change. But that’s hardly the contemporary socio/political vernacular for “conservative.” And it’s not even right, at least by Borgmeyer’s own reasoning.
He cites the July 7 Council hearing as evidence central to his theory/opinion—that “most people who approach Council tell the government…in short: Don’t change a thing.” Yet, according to the clerk’s records, most speakers at the hearing cited actually supported rezoning. Seven of the 16 speakers were in full support for what the City planners proposed. Four other speakers actually asked for further changes. Two speakers liked some changes, but not others (especially when it applied to their particular block). Three speakers expressed caution, but were not completely opposed to change. Only two speakers would fit the “don’t change a thing” category and one of them doesn’t even live in the City.
Anyway, the conservative/liberal thing is a red herring. The real issue is: Who would you rather envision Charlottesville’s future, coping with sprawl, inequity and traffic congestion? A pro-active, publicly accessible, representative City Council, or unaccountable big-box/condo developers, given free reign in a market economy? Let’s put it to a vote.
Brian Wimer
bhappi@earthlink.net
John Borgmeyer responds:
Sure, most City voters are probably “liberal” in the context of State and national politics, and I appreciate Wimer’s careful tally of the speakers at the July 7 hearing, but the article in question actually draws on a much wider body of City reporting. Plenty of so-called liberals still believe that Charlottesville (or at least their own neighborhood) can stay a bucolic Southern hamlet forever and ever.
Wimer and I can probably agree that Central Virginia is urbanizing rapidly, and that we as citizens can choose who will lead the City through the inevitable changes––but you can’t tell who’s who based simply on the “D” or the “R” beside their names.
Maybe the real question isn’t whether the City is “liberal” or “conservative,” but rather why merely 20 percent of the City’s registered voters actually care who oversees the changing face of Charlottesville.
Correction
In our zeal to involve citizens in local democracy, last week we selected City Council’s regular Monday night meeting as a C-VILLE Pick in GetOutNow. Unfortunately, we listed the wrong date. Council next meets on Monday, August 4. Really. In related news, look for our upcoming voter’s guide, to be published in December.