Author: will-goldsmith

Only a few tinkerings to the discipline system will result from the recommendations of the Charlottesville schools’ Discipline Task Force. Then interim superintendent, Bobby Thompson, appointed that group of 25 parents, students, teachers and principals after last year’s well-publicized violent incidents in City schools—particularly at Buford Middle School, where reportedly 13 staff members were threatened or assaulted. The City School Board received the proposals in July, and new Superintendent Rosa Atkins quickly moved to implement many of the most important changes.
    For most students, not much will be changed. Parents will notice a few pieces of paper they haven’t seen before—principally, a “mutual accountability agreement” that spells out the roles of students, parents, teachers and administrators. The agreement is nonbinding, but the idea is to set up accountability and expectations among all parties involved.
    “We’re not foolish enough to think this is a panacea,” says Task Force member and parent Grant Brownrigg. “The School Board wasn’t all that enthusiastic about it at first, but many persons on the task force said this was the most important thing we recommended.”
    The task force examined changes to the Code of Conduct (which was due for review anyway), but most changes were in format and not in actual policy. Because the Code of Conduct is a legal document, little could be altered to simplify the language—so instead parents this year will see a “Highlights” version, which boils 40 pages of policy to three and a half pages written at a more accessible level.
    In terms of cost and procedure, the biggest changes come to the alternative school, for those students who are suspended long term. It returns to a full-day schedule this year—last year it was only a half-day program, which left problem kids with less school time and more street time. Administrators say they will hold re-entry conferences with students returning from the alternative school and also ensure that they get assignments in a “timely manner.”
    As for a presumed gang problem, the task force recommended punting it to the City Council, requesting they set up a city-wide task force on the issue.

In an uncharacteristic decision, the City Planning Commission flexed its muscles August 8 and unanimously voted to reject the preliminary site plan for a four-storey, 27-unit Fifeville development that would be located a few hundred feet from Walker Square.
    Developers of the 850 Estes St. property call it “mixed-use” despite reserving only 835 square feet, a mere 1.9 percent, for commercial “office” space. Commissioners found that such a small percentage violated a zoning ordinance, despite staff recommendation to approve the project as it fit the letter—if not the spirit—of the zoning.
    Situated in the Cherry Avenue corridor, 850 Estes isn’t required to have a certain percentage of commercial space, though most parts of the city require 25 percent for mixed-use development.
    “We didn’t want to put a commercial piece in,” says Rich Carter, vice president of Southland Homes, who is developing the project with Mickey Dickers. They composed the current by-right plan after City Council effectively denied a special-use permit for a 30-unit, all-residential development last fall.
    “I found that 1.89 percent is not true mixed-use, certainly not the type of mixed- use we want to see in these quarters of the city,” says Cheri Lewis, commission member.
    “I envisioned a coffee shop, a bakery, a convenience store—something that would bring some life to the street level and engage the neighborhood and attract residents.”
Part of the scorn for the Estes project stems from frustration with the Walker Square “mixed-use” development. Lewis’ original understanding was that a daycare center would go there, but instead the so-called commercial space is used for a private gym for their residents. “The commercial element there did nothing for the neighborhood,” Lewis says.
    Estes developers now have essentially two options: go back to the drawing board and redesign the project to meet guidelines from the planning commission, or appeal to the circuit court within 60 days. Unlike permit requests, site plan appeals don’t go before City Council.
    “We’re looking into all available options,” says Carter, who was on vacation when the meeting took place. “We’re obviously very disappointed at how the outcome came about.”
    There might be legal questions for the decision to deny the by-right plan. “The planning commission is clearly of the belief that they’ve done the right thing,” says Lisa Kelly, deputy City attorney, who says she hasn’t seen a court appeal in her six years working with the commission. “We’ll have to see how it plays out legally if the applicant decides to appeal.”

Over the past several months, Qroe companies, the Bundoran Farm developers, have built considerable trust with neighbors, planners and officials. At an August 8 meeting, they parlayed that trust into unanimous County Planning Commission approval for a large number of waivers for their 94-lot limited development on the 2,301-acre property formerly owned by Fred Scott.
    Staff recommended the planning commission deny most of the waivers, which largely concerned privatizing roads with lower design standards for width and critical slopes. Bill Fritz, a County planner, considered 28 acres for road construction too much and suggested instead clustering lots to reduce road lengths. Questions also arose about emergency vehicle access on the 16′ roads.
    But Robert Baldwin, Jr.—who has taken the role as Qroe president after his father died in a June plane crash on the property—presented the Qroe planning process to protect viewsheds and viable farmland. Two neighbors spoke in favor of the project as other supporters and Qroe employees filled the meeting room.
    The four commissioners in attendance gushed in response, telling stories of their negative initial reaction to Scott selling and their subsequent relief and excitement when they met the developers. In the end, commissioners overrode staff recommendation on virtually all counts, though with some conditions. They will review the final site plan when it is prepared.
    “I thought it was absolutely unique that most of the roads were not laid out by engineers but by cattle—and they generally know the right way to go,” said Commission Vice Chairman Calvin Morris. “I would love to see it work.”
    Commissioner Pete Craddock commented, “I don’t know of any projects that we’ve had come before us…that we’ve had everybody come out in support of it instead of pitchforks and torches to burn the place down.”
    “I was very pleased to see they took the time to understand what we’re doing,” says Baldwin, who sees the result as a testament to his father. “That speaks volumes, frankly, for the commission and the County.”

Late on Sunday, August 6, police discovered the body of Randall R. LaForce, 39, just off the CSX railroad tracks in northeastern Albemarle County. LaForce was first spotted by the crew from a passing train along a remote stretch near the Louisa County line, at least half a mile from the nearest road. LaForce was a resident of Beaverdam, roughly 40 miles north of the site, just beyond Richmond.
    How LaForce got to the remote location—as well as the cause of his death—remain unanswered. “We don’t know what happened,” says Lt. John Teixeira of the Albemarle County Police Department. “That’s why we’re hoping to get a fairly detailed autopsy report.” Investigators cannot estimate when that report will be ready.
    Police do not think the death was train-related. Though they are backing away from a homicide theory, as of now nothing has been ruled out.

With the first football game of the season less than three weeks away, UVA has yet to ink a contract for their multimedia rights, including radio broadcasts, coaches shows, video production and corporate sponsorships­—virtually everything except for televised game broadcasts. Those rights are worth roughly $4 million in revenue and almost $2 million in projected profits during the 2005-2006 season. The legal teams from UVA and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, which operates Virginia Sports Properties, are still hashing out the specifics, though officials from both groups hope to have a deal signed in the next few weeks. The original request for proposals was released in September, and staff originally hoped to wrap up negotiations in January.
    Rich Klein, director of CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, says that the company has operated as long as eight months without a contract. His group also handles the multimedia rights for ACC rivals Maryland and Florida State, among others.
    Even without a contract, the company has had to make deals with subcontractors for the coming season. Gray Television, which owns Charlottesville Newsplex CBS 19, ABC 16 and Fox 27, was recently awarded “flagship” status by Virginia Sports Properties. That means that the stations get the rights to air all coaches shows, weekly athletic previews and special programming such as bowl games or tournament previews (though this doesn’t relate to game coverage). Televised coaches shows are new for UVA, and will help them match coverage provided for other ACC markets.
    “There’s instant credibility that goes along with being partnered with [Virginia Sports Properties],” says Roger Burchett, general manager at Charlottesville Newsplex. “We’re going to do whatever we have to do to make sure they’re proud of their choice.”
    “Virginia Sports Properties” represents a name change from the earlier “Cavalier Sports Marketing.” Klein explains that the change was made to eliminate confusion with the UVA marketing department, and to introduce a “fresh new brand” in the marketplace.

In light of several behavior issues last year, the Charlottesville school system has been searching high and low for disciplinary solutions. A fixation on “restorative practices” further manifested itself July 31, when high school Principal Joseph Roy spoke to an audience of more than 100 teachers, administrators and citizens about how restorative practices work in his Pennsylvania school, Springfield Township High.
    Restorative practices (also called restorative justice) refer to a comprehensive conflict resolution and prevention philosophy. Rather than focusing solely on punishing the perpetrator of an offense, restorative justice demands a broader resolution that involves the primary victim, secondary victims and, at times, the community
at large.
    “The thing I find most compelling is…that it’s not permissiveness,” says School Board member Louis Bograd. “It’s about holding people accountable for their actions in a way that is constructive—restoring a sense of community and order in the schools.” In his presentation, Roy noted that if one of his students breaks a law, the police are notified immediately. Then, after the student returns to school, they go through the restorative process.
    Time and teacher buy-in—not cost—seem the biggest impediments to implementing a system that requires conferences and group “check-ins” to augment traditional disciplinary measures like suspensions.
    Spending more time on community culture rather than standardized testing materials is a hard sell for teachers already crunched for minutes in the day.
    Different demographics might present further issues. “I think the biggest challenge is the great diversity in our school system,” says Bograd. While Roy’s school is one-quarter minority students, and has a relatively low poverty rate, Charlottesville’s minority schoolkids comprise 58 percent of the total student body. In addition, local students are generally less affluent than those in Springfield Township: 51 percent of Charlottesville students received free or reduced-price lunches last year.
    With the new school year only weeks away, there probably won’t be a move toward restorative justice this year. The School Board has, however, included language about restorative practices in their strategic plan.