Author: will-goldsmith

Many political experts will tell you debates don’t matter (“It’s all about the ads, baby”). But incumbent George Allen has seen a double-digit lead in the U.S. Senate race melt away in the months following his “macaca” remarks. And it was obvious Allen’s advisors weren’t taking any chances with the final debate between the Republican and his Democratic challenger James Webb, sponsored by the League of Women Voters in Richmond on October 9.
    Demeanor made plain which candidate was the former governor and which had never run for public office in his life. George Allen playfully recited rhymes during his microphone check; James Webb clipped off numbers in a barely audible cadence. Webb’s face was stuck in an uncomfortable grimace before, during and after the debate; time and again, Allen found opportunities to flash his down-home smile (and always to the appropriate camera). Allen made sure Virginia (and the national C-SPAN audience) saw his red-cheeked mug, arched eyebrows and all. Webb seemed to confuse studio existence for real life, devoting his attention to the people who physically surrounded him, rather than those thousands of unseen eyeballs.
    Both candidates say they want to run on “the issues.” And the debate yielded some clear differences. Those who believe in higher corporate taxes, shelters for immigrant day laborers, and who oppose the proposed amendment banning gay marriage: Webb is your man. If you don’t like the estate tax, believe there should be no amnesty for illegal immigrants, and think that the Virginia constitution should ban gay marriage and civil unions—then consider a vote for Allen.
    Iraq, however, is the top issue for Virginia voters, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And on the Iraq issue, neither candidate cared to quantify years or troops. Allen defined victory in Iraq as when “the Iraqi people…control their own destiny and that Iraq—an oil rich country—does not become a safe haven for terrorists.” Webb, instead, spoke of diplomatic solutions: “We can get our troops out of Iraq, get them out of this internecine violence, and at the same time bring the countries in that region to the table. We did it in Afghanistan.”
But some time was devoted to the “character” issues. Allen called reports of his use of the “n”-word in the 1970s “baseless allegations.”
    “I don’t recall using that word,” he said. “It was not [part of my vocabulary].”
    Webb responded to a question about his 1979 article about women in the Navy by saying his concerns have been about women in certain combat situations. Both recited lists of people (blacks for Allen, women for Webb, respectively) as evidence of their record.
Some time went to plain old bickering. During the portion of the debate when the candidates questioned each other, the “conversation” devolved to two grown men talking over each other. Late in the debate, Webb showed a vindictive side, blindsiding Allen with a question about Taiwanese islands—seeming payback after Allen similarly grilled him in an earlier debate about Craney Island, a manmade island near Hampton Roads.
    Allen made sure to hit his talking points, particularly working to put Webb in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. He repeatedly continued speaking even after being signaled to stop. Webb, on the other hand, often opted not to use his allotted time. Both tried to link themselves with Virginia’s elder senator, Republican John Warner. Presumably to ensure he makes no more impromptu verbal gaffes, Allen skedaddled immediately after the debate (with jogging cameramen in hot pursuit), even though the press was told that both candidates would be available post-debate.
    The race now stands neck and neck, according to The Washington Post: 49 percent of polled Virginia voters support Allen, 47 percent support Webb. With only three weeks left, it seems the race will likely come down to the inertia battle: which side’s supporters actually get out to vote on November 7.

After some debate, the City Planning Commission decided in a 3-2 vote to recommend approval for a nine-storey “mixed-use” building that will include 100 luxury condos at 201 Avon St., just south of the Downtown Mall near the Pavilion.
    The project, which requires approval to increase density from 50 allowable units without special permit, was deferred at the Planning Commission’s last meeting, largely because of concern that not enough of the 57,000 square foot building was devoted to commercial use. That area’s zoning stipulates that no more than 75 percent may be used for residential.
Architect Randolph Croxton, whose firm is based in New York City, seemed to assuage commissioners on the mixed-use point. The building will now include a six-room boutique hotel in addition to the health club-spa originally proposed, totaling roughly 20,000 square feet or 35 percent for the commercial portion.
    At issue during the most recent Planning Commission meeting on October 10 was whether 100 parking places for the project is enough. “It seems to me that the parking requirements would be higher for the building,” said Commissioner Michael Farruggio. Croxton said the project, largely for “marketing reasons,” actually has more spaces than zoning requires.
Despite the objections of Farruggio and Jon Fink, who also voted against the project, the 201 Avon St. project earned the support of Bill Lucy, Cheri Lewis and newcomer Michael Osteen.         The outcome could easily have shifted had all commissioners shown up—the other newly appointed commissioners, Jason Pearson and Hosea Mitchell, missed their first meeting.
Croxton has said he is striving for the building to be platinum-certified for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)—something achieved by only a handful of structures in the country. He also contends that the building will be an asset to a currently dilapidated site.
The building will now go before City Council for their approval.

At least Rich Collins is not a trespasser: Albemarle Circuit Court Judge Paul M. Peatross has found Rich Collins not guilty of trespassing when, in May of last year, he handed out flyers for his General Assembly campaign outside of Whole Foods.
    Peatross’ ruling, which was sent to Collins’ lawyers last week, overturns a General District Court ruling that found Collins guilty of trespassing and fined him $50. Collins, a retired UVA professor and environmental activist, thinks that video of his actions and arrest, recorded by police, was the key to Peatross’ decision by showing that he didn’t have criminal intent.
    “What [Collins] was engaging in is clearly the most protected action,” says Robert O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center of Free Expression. “In-person political campaigning really is at the core of the First Amendment protection [to free speech], so the claim here is an unusually strong one.”
    But that larger issue—whether he had a right to free speech in the private shopping mall’s parking lot—remains up in the air. Distinct from the criminal case, Collins has a civil lawsuit filed against Shoppers World, the center that includes Whole Foods. The Virginia Supreme Court will hear the case, as yet unscheduled.
    Peatross notes that, though Collins thought he had the right to distribute campaign literature outside Whole Foods, he in fact does not, under current interpretations of Virginia law. Collins and his lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and The Rutherford Institute, a locally-based civil liberties group, hope that interpretation will change with the civil suit.
    “If you look at it from a positive way, I am individually acquitted,” says Collins. “But I don’t have any legal right to go back and do what I did before.”
    “Most small towns, if you’re going to meet with anybody, it’s going to be at Wal-Mart,” says John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “So the question is whether or not there is some place in those parking lots or areas of the sidewalk where people have First Amendment rights.…I think it’s something people have to think about because America is essentially becoming a corporate state.”

Common ground was a scarce commodity during an October 5 debate concerning the proposed amendment to the State constitution banning gay marriage and civil unions. House Delegate Bob Marshall, one of the amendment’s co-sponsors, took on Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry. The two stopped just short of direct name-calling (but just barely) while disputing each other’s position in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate at the UVA Law School.
    In Marshall’s opening address—during which two members of the audience stood and turned their backs—the Republican from Northern Virginia contended that the current State laws banning gay marriage and civil unions haven’t prevented a single person from inheriting property, receiving hospital visitation rights or creating a business contract, as some opponents fear the proposed amendment will do.
    “With 7.6 million people in Virginia, the ACLU can’t find one attorney for any of these types of untoward consequences,” said Marshall, who went on to raise the specter of polygamist marriages. “The more dangerous position is to let courts make these decisions, make them on their own whim, and make them outside the tradition of married culture.” Marshall also insisted that “by their own acknowledgement,” homosexuals are more apt to infidelity and that “it is the conclusion of the social sciences that children need a mother and a father.”
    Wolfson called the polygamy argument a diversion. “This amendment would also put a chilling effect…intended to say that this State treats its gay and lesbian people unequally…and particularly does so when they’re trying to build a life together with a loved one,” said Wolfson, who claimed the amendment would affect nearly 14,000 same-sex couples in Virginia.
    “Why is it that marriage is so important—brings so many legal and economic protections that matter to families—when Delegate Marshall is talking about different-sex couples and not gay people, but somehow all that vanishes when gay people step forward and say we, too, want to take on that legal commitment?” asked Wolfson.
    Marshall answered a question about how gay marriage hurts him or his family by saying, “The same way that, if I start passing out counterfeit bills in the economy, [it] would undervalue the price of everything that you purchased.… It cannot stay contained.”
    As the debate wound to an inconclusive conclusion, the only fact apparent was that, no matter whether voters choose to approve or deny the amendment November 7, the discussion is far from over in Virginia.

The contentious issue of rural preservation is at the root of a new proposal for tradable development rights (TDR) from Albemarle County Supervisor David Slutzky. It’s garnering reserved approval from interested parties across the spectrum.
    The question of how to prevent bucolic countryside from being converted to cul-de-sacs and strip malls (a.k.a. How Not To Become Northern Virginia) has been critical lately. Three years ago, the Board of Supervisors decided that Albemarle’s answer would be to designate 5 percent of the county as growth areas.
    Seeing continued rural development, however, County supervisors have since considered what’s known as phasing: delaying rural development rights over several years in order to thwart large commercial builders. But the board has become locked in a 3-3 split on the issue.
    “If we don’t do something soon, we’re screwed,” says Slutzky, a new member to the County board. He cites statistics that 250-300 new single-family detached houses are still being built each year in the rural areas. A proponent of phasing, Slutzky redirected his disappointment into finding a new solution.
    A version of TDR, which gets support from free market types, is used in Montgomery and Baltimore coun-ties in Maryland.
    In Slutzky’s scheme, designated growth areas (like Crozet or Pantops) would remain, but the new proposal would create “boundary areas,” comprising 1 percent of county land, to be established near existing infrastructure. The so-called boundary areas would be zoned to receive development rights from rural areas. In turn, rural areas would be downzoned so that minimum rural lot size would increase to 50 acres from roughly 20 now. With that downzoning, though, rural landowners would have the option to sell their development rights to a person or company that wants to build at higher density in the “boundary areas”—thus they could still benefit financially from the ever-tempting development boom.
    At an October 3 press conference, an unusual combination of local groups offered some measure of support: Reps from the Farm Bureau, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), Piedmont Environmental Council and Free Enterprise Forum all offered encouragement—if not explicit endorsement in every case.
    Morgan Butler of the SELC says the program “comes down to the details.”
Farm Bureau President Joe Jones also cautions that the details will make a difference, but finds the TDR plan more equitable to rural landowners, who would be still be able to cash in on local growth. “In the long run, it all has to do with the money,” says Jones.
    Slutzky says he hopes to make the multiple steps necessary for the TDR plan to become a reality within a year.—Will Goldsmith

The “ultimate bed and breakfast,” as Virginia’s former director of corrections Ron Angelo called the prison system, isn’t a pleasant stay. Such was the theme of an independently produced documentary Up the Ridge, which examines the “supermax” Wallens Ridge State Prison, located in the southwestern tip of Virginia. Several dozen locals turned out October 4 for a screening and subsequent discussion at Sojourners United Church of Christ.
    Drawing on testimony from former inmates, families of inmates, ex-prison guards and various prison officials, Up the Ridge focuses on the ugly side of the facility, and the prison system at large—stun gun overuse, five-point restraints, middle-of-the-night facility transfers and the visitation difficulties for poor families in distant states like Connecticut. In the film, Angelo says that housing out-of-Virginia inmates at facilities like Wallens Ridge produced an $80 million profit for the state.
    “For some people, it’s hard to imagine that human rights is an issue in the U.S.,” says Nick Szuberla, one of the filmmakers. “Doing screenings at community colleges and churches is a different way to get at that dialogue.” Szuberla says inspiration for the film came from prison letters detailing abuses that inmates sent to a radio station, near Wallens Ridge, where he and fellow filmmaker Amelia Kirby ran a hip-hop radio program.
    “In a sea of bluegrass and country music, we were the one hip-hop show,” says Szuberla. “It’s a very community radio station where people thought they might be heard.” Many of the sources for the documentary came from those who called and wrote in to the station.
    Local players with stakes in the prison system shared thoughts following the film screening, though the dialogue consisted mostly of head-nodding rather than contention. Attorney Steven Rosenfield, after attacking Ron Angelo’s tenure as Virginia’s director of corrections, commented that “politics and money still are the driving forces in corrections.” Jim Hingeley, Charlottesville-Albemarle public defender, commented that over the past several years, “we’ve eliminated the concept of rehabilitation in prisons.” Reverend Eddie Howard of The Abundant Life Ministries, himself a former inmate, said that government—and society in general—need to focus on prison aftercare to ease the transition for the 95 percent of ex-cons who rejoin their communities.—Will Goldsmith