The little engines that could
Jenny Gardiner’s vitriolic personal attack on my mom, Meredith Richards, and her efforts to bring new passenger rail service to Charlottesville [“Choo-choo-choose wisely,” Mailbag, July 12] speaks volumes about the writer herself. How ironic that someone who recently moved to our area from the D.C. suburbs would now oppose train service to Washington because she worries it might “accelerate the manifestation of Charlottesville as but another bedroom community of D.C.” Could it be that Ms. Gardiner is a part of the migration she is decrying? And though it’s hardly worth responding to Ms. Gardiner’s thinly camouflaged hate piece, such claims do feed an unreasonable fear of alternative forms of transportation.
The Washington commute on the proposed Virginia Railway Express would take two-and-a-half hours each way, so unless the invading hordes are willing to commute five hours each day for their jobs, the “bedroom community” scenario is not likely. But by providing reliable daily passenger train service to D.C., the VRE would take hundreds of cars off the road every day, easing our congested traffic on 29 and putting significantly less toxic emissions in the air per passenger than the same trip by car—a desirable end in itself despite Ms. Gardiner’s cavalier dismissal of the fact.
The VRE would help the elderly, the handicapped, school groups, college students, museum-goers and people who just don’t want to drive! The Charlottesville Citizens for Better Rail Alternatives’ efforts to bring a cleaner, better and more reliable form of transportation to Charlottesville represents the right kind of progress for everybody. For the full story about a sustainable alternative to the automobile, go to www.cvillerail.org, and see what you can do to help.
Russell U. Richards
Charlottesville
Master of the domain
Thank you for your coverage of eminent domain in the July 12 C-VILLE [“This land is my land,” The Week]. I take issue with some of the quotes in your article implying that somehow the use of eminent domain by local governments is meant to save the environment. The Institute for Justice, which took the Kelo case to the Supreme Court, has documented more than 10,000 cases of eminent domain being abused to transfer property to private owners. These specifically were not cases of eminent domain being used to build a road, a school, or a park. These were cases of seizing property from one landowner to transfer to another landowner, usually a developer. That is hardly what I call preserving green space!
In fact, eminent domain is much more commonly abused to grant favors to developers, who increasingly find that it is “easier to buy the politicians than it is to buy the land.” Even in cases where the power of eminent domain is never actually used, the mere threat of it often intimidates a homeowner to sell their property to a government for either less than market value or less than they were willing to uproot their lives and move for. This gets to the very essence of private property rights and our freedoms. If I don’t have the right to determine when and for what price I sell my home, do I really own it in the first place?
Many of our local politicians, of all political stripes, are currently saying how strongly they disagree with the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, and that they want to change the law in Virginia to protect homeowners from eminent domain abuse. This is good.
But we must keep the pressure on them, and when the General Assembly session rolls around next, all of us who value our private property must remind them that we bought our property, and only we get to determine when we sell it. Otherwise they may forget between now and January and start to bow to the special interests.
That is why several of us locally have started the website www.VirginiaProperty Rights.org, which includes an online petition that we encourage all C-VILLE readers to sign.
We are also asking all candidates and elected officials at the local and state level to take our Candidate Pledge. We are already gaining support for this across party lines, and we will gladly list the names and contact information for all candidates who sign on our website, so that voters will know in November who will stand up for their private property rights.
Arin Sime
Crozet
Self preservation
I would like to thank John Borgmeyer for his recent article, “Trash or Treasure?” [June 28]. I thought it was well written, and fairly represented both sides of the issue. Dan Bluestone, however, wrote a letter in response that was somewhat misdirected and slanted [“PHA needs a history lesson,” Mailbag, July 5]. I applaud Mr. Bluestone’s attention to celebrating African-American history and culture in Charlottesville, but I have to wonder why he needed PHA’s unfortunate predicament to act as a catalyst for his preservation cause.
Where were Mr. Bluestone and Preservation Piedmont when the Smith-Reaves house was falling so much into disrepair that it warranted citations from the City? I have to think that somewhere near the top of a preservationist’s agenda is to actually preserve the 65 buildings on the City’s “historic” list before they fall into a situation such as the Smith-Reaves house. In fact, John Borgmeyer has done more for public awareness of these historic properties in a single article than Mr. Bluestone or Piedmont Preservationist have since the City named these properties in 1990.
I would like to see these preservationists take a more active role in supporting community awareness, but also creatively find solutions to the financial burdens associated with restoring a historical house. Perhaps Preservation Piedmont should write a grant or participate in fundraising to support the Smith-Reaves house that would eventually house a modest income family. “Supporting and initiating local projects, partnerships, and studies that help to identify and protect important community historic resources” is, after all, in their mission statement (http://avenue.org/pp/). Even if you could renovate this house for less than $175,000, the cost of maintenance and energy bills would likely exceed the means of a typical PHA client. Mr. Bluestone fails to recognize the costs of maintaining a house of this nature, and that in defining affordable housing these costs must be included.
To quote Jacky Taylor, “modest buildings like the Smith-Reaves house need love, too.” Well, I couldn’t agree more. But how about showing the love before it’s on the chopping block? Mr. Bluestone, you are an excellent spokesman for the noble cause of preserving African-American history and culture in Charlottesville, but focusing your energy on criticizing PHA is hardly benefiting your cause. Preserving history in the case of the Smith-Reaves house means realizing history not as a museum piece or a victory of preservationists over developers, but rather a viable affordable house in today’s market.
Tom Holloman
Charlottesville