Green acres
Inadvertently, I’m sure, City Planner Ron Higgins misspoke when he told C-VILLE [“Holmes on the range,” The Week, March 1] that vacant lots in Charlottesville “have been selling for as much as $60,000.” In my immediate neighborhood alone, I count five vacant lots that have sold in recent years for between $85,000 and $202,500. The largest of those measured .383 acre, the smallest only .079 acre. By comparison, the two City-owned lots on Holmes Avenue total .344 acre.
I don’t bring this up because I oppose Habitat for Humanity’s efforts. Habitat’s cause is worthy, and under Overton McGehee’s direction the local chapter has shown laudable sensitivity to neighbors and standards. I bring this up because the Holmes Avenue situation is yet another case of Charlottesville officials’ giving away our cash-strapped City’s assets in spite of reasoned opposition and more pressing need.
In December, City Council gave $145,000 to Piedmont Housing Alliance—a big deal developer like any other except for its insulated position as a nonprofit. Since then, PHA has received $6.23 million more from the Virginia Housing Development Authority. Meanwhile, the highly efficient City program that helps poor residents pay their heating bills has literally gone begging because, its director says, the City’s budget shortfall may result in elimination of the $50,000 grant the program desperately needs to meet its modest obligations.
I don’t know whether this is how the majority of Charlottesville citizens want their assets managed, but I do know that informed consent requires accurate information.
Antoinette W. Roades
Charlottesville
Life imitates art
The cosmos are seeming to align, as we’ve read page 9 of the latest C-VILLE and also just checked out Live Arts’ production schedule. It’s too bad that the Woodhayven issue comes to a vote March 7, more than a month before A Raisin in the Sun hits the stage. There is still time to read it or rent the film, though, before the residents make complete asses of themselves. It doesn’t surprise us that the City would resort to giving that Holmes Avenue property away: Imagine paying $180,000 to live next to these neighbors.
The play, written in 1959, concerns itself with a lower-class family trying to gain acceptance into a middle-class neighborhood. Eerily enough, the last line of Live Arts’ synopsis of the play charges, “How much has changed?”
John and Mendy St. Ours
Charlottesville
Burger king writes back
I’m writing to clarify several issues concerning my opening of Riverside North [Mailbag, February 22]. First, I’m not going to Forest Lakes because of some “vendetta,” or to run anyone out of business as some have speculated. I’m simply following through with a commitment I made several years ago to The Kessler Group after being approached about bringing Riverside to Forest Lakes. Neither Ryan Martin nor Martin’s Grill has had anything whatsoever to do with decisions I’ve made regarding the Riverside North location.
Riverside North has been in the works for quite some time. Unfortunately, after initial discussions with Steve Runkle in the summer of 2001, a business decision was made to delay the Forest Lakes Shops and move forward with another project instead. The Kessler Group contacted me again once their focus returned to the Forest Lakes Shops development. Residents of the area might recall a summer 2003 Planning Commission meeting held to address Hollymead Town Center concerns where it was announced that Riverside was one of many businesses coming to the Forest Lakes area. That meeting occurred long before letters of intent or leases were signed by anyone.
The timing of the Forest Lakes Shops’ construction was up to the developer, not me. A formal lease wasn’t signed until January because the building wasn’t completed and because lease terms were still being negotiated. The commitment, however, was made years before.
As Ryan Martin recently acknowledged, before choosing his restaurant’s present location, he approached The Kessler Group about leasing the Riverside North space. Ryan was told the space had already been reserved for Riverside. His “inquiries weren’t embraced” by The Kessler Group for that reason.
Everyone can come to their own conclusions about what inspired the design layout, décor and menu of Martin’s Grill. My letter isn’t intended to persuade people one way or another. It’s intended to provide pertinent information missing from recent media coverage and to explain when and how I made the decision to open a second Riverside location.
I’ve worked hard during the 25 years I’ve owned Riverside to treat people right and make sure the tradition of serving “Flat Out the Best Burgers in Town” is carried on in an environment where everyone feels welcome. I plan to do the same at Riverside North.
Norman “Buster” Taylor
Owner, Riverside Lunch and Riverside North
Earlysville
Superintendent: Stop, collaborate and listen
An argument was made from the floor of the March 1 Charlottesville School Board meeting that self-proclaimed community experts should stop trying to influence the Board and the superintendent [“Small change,” The Week, February 22]. Happily, I don’t live in North Korea, where all decisions are made by the ruling political party, or Iran, where all decisions are made by the ruling religious party, without input from the people. I live in America, where the underpinning of a democracy is the active participation and awareness in any and all of the workings of one’s government.
Depending solely on the “experts” is a dangerous strategy. It is certainly much easier to sit back and hope for the best—that the authorities will get it right and take care of us. Do we depend only on the experts in business in our country, or do we permit the organization and the voices of unions and the press? Do we listen solely to the expert scientists, or do politicians listen to the voice of the community on an issue like cloning? It is the obligation and duty of the community, students, teachers and even City Councilors to be actively involved.
I also refer you to the Board’s rules and regulations concerning the annual budget. Policy 4.1: “The preparation of the annual school budget is a cooperative activity directed by the Charlottesville City School Board and the superintendent with input from the staff, parents, the community and City Council.” Yes, City Council!
The truly astounding moment came when Superintendent Scottie Griffin stated emphatically that the current budget, brought to the board by the superintendent, was not her budget. The superintendent had clearly been tasked to take direction from the Board, meet with the principals and lead in creating a collaborative plan. The Board went to great pains to state that it would prefer not to create the details of the budget.
Given the superintendent’s immediate distancing of herself from the product of the collaboration, I conclude that she is incapable of working in a collaborative fashion in the Charlottesville School System. It appears that the only budget the superintendent can support (and not undermine) is the one that she solely creates. Given that the final product will bear little resemblance to the superintendent’s original budget, we must ask ourselves how the superintendent will possibly work with the principals and teachers to implement and support the city schools plan. Is this the leadership we want for our schools?
Arthur Lichtenberger
Charlottesville
School system should come together
We are new to Charlottesville, but not to the civil rights movement. In Charleston, South Carolina, in the 1960s we registered black voters, etc.—therefore we are distressed to read, and hear, about our school situation.
It would seem that the School Board meeting of a few weeks ago needed more Peggy Van Yahreses to speak up when the race-card was played against parents who never were, and are not now, racists. Old-timers would never allow a tongue-lashing by people who have, it would seem, a “let us divide this group” agenda.
What is to be gained for the community by impugning the ideals of a group of parents who were children during the 1960s? Their agenda is to work for what is best for all our students. The evidence of this is their attendance at this, and many other, meetings.
Their school experiences, race and gender need not divide us, and working toward fairness for all is the goal. Christine Esposito’s letter [Mailbag, February 22] is a prime example of our (young?) people.
The fact that Dr. Griffin and School Board Chair Dede Smith were silent during the inflammatory statements expressed by Dr. Rick Turner and the reverends Johnson is upsetting on many, many levels. Our women leaders need to step forward when outrageous statements are made. We need Dr. Griffin and Ms. Smith to set an example for our women leaders-in-training.
We all labored too hard to offer a level learning field, to have these men with a very strong, and decisive, agenda derail all that has been and will be accomplished.
In a city that enjoys the great talents of so many, there is a good settlement to these problems: let clear and kind minds reach for the solution.
Maureen O’Brien
Charlottesville
Mean streets
How can we, the public, and our elected representatives encourage developers to build in designated growth areas instead of in rural areas? [“Accidental growth,” The Week, February 22] We should refuse to finance rural sprawl through new roads. So often, this option is overlooked in discussions about creating livable, walkable communities. There are three rules in real estate: location, location and location. Rural land is valuable only to the extent it is accessible and conveniently located.
Development in rural areas occurs only because of the assumption that the public will pay to keep commutes to town short through new or wider roads. For example, development interests are pushing the Meadowcreek Parkway to increase the value of their investments outside the city. Perhaps some land is already doomed to sprawl, but what about the ring of land just outside that one, and so on?
I believe it is irrational and unfair for the majority of citizens to financially support those who choose to live in rural areas by subsidizing their commutes through roads. For one thing, it is self-defeating because scattered and rural development increases the numbers of cars and the numbers of miles driven, leading to increased traffic. We cannot build our way out of congestion. Our tax dollars should finance effective public transportation that’s better than driving, not new roads. Compact, pedestrian-oriented development serves us all by helping the most vulnerable who can’t drive or can’t afford to, by enhancing our health with cleaner air and more exercise, and by preserving our green spaces for recreation, water purification and collection, farming, etc.
Joanna Salidis
Charlottesville
Nuclear fission
I would like to address a couple of the objections to nuclear power that Mr. Jim Adams raised in his letter to the editor [Mailbag, March 1]. Mr. Adams says, “nuclear power plants are still not cost effective without massive government subsidies.” I say that existing nuclear power plants produce the cheapest electricity in the United States today, with a production cost of about $17.2 per megawatt-hour (MWh), versus $18 for coal or $57.7 for natural gas.
I also say that the “massive government subsidies” mantra is a myth. Yes, the nuclear industry receives research and development funds from the federal government, but so does every energy technology. The 2006 Department of Energy research and development budget provides $1.2 billion for renewables and conservation, $800 million for clean coal and $510 million for nuclear. These levels reflect the growing awareness that the United States will need a diverse generation portfolio to meet increasing demand, to reduce emissions and to move closer to energy independence. Some technologies also receive production tax credits. The largest such tax credit is currently for wind power at $18 per MWh produced. Currently, no such production tax incentive exists for the nuclear industry.
Mr. Adams goes on to say, “private insurers still won’t insure [nuclear plants].” I say that the “uninsurable” mantra is also a myth. Nuclear power plants are required to show proof of financial protection in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident. This protection has two levels: First, each nuclear plant carries its own liability insurance up to $300 million; second, the Price-Anderson Act allows commercial nuclear operators to purchase group liability insurance that would be utilized only in the case of a major accident. All in all, nuclear power plants provide a total of $10 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident.
As you can see, it took two long paragraphs to provide the facts to refute one single sentence in Mr. Adams’ letter. I could go on responding to Mr. Adams’ assertions on nuclear used fuel (he calls it garbage), or security issues, but that would require a lot more space, so I will stop here for now. To conclude, I’d just like to stress that what I stated above are facts, not “assumptions,” as Mr. Adams calls them. But you don’t have to take my word for it. I also hope you will not just take Mr. Adams’ word for it, either. I encourage all of your readers to question every undocumented assertion they read, do their own research using unbiased sources and then make up their minds.
Sama Bilbao y Leon
Richmond
CORRECTION
In last week’s Table of Contents we included a mention of a PVCC dance recital review. In fact, that show was not reviewed by C-VILLE. We apologize to local dance fans.