Eclipse of Speech; Vacancy On The Corner; Gone in 60 Seconds; No More Dice Rolls.
RVA 5x5 - April 6, 2024
No algorithms. No content filters. No A.I. — Honest and insightful analysis from Richmond, VA.
We have four stories in todays’ edition, and the fifth is Part 2 of our baseball stadium series coming on Sunday…
Is the new speaking policy at City Council meetings an intentional eclipse of the public’s voice?
Virginia Union has big plans for apartments and razing the old Community Hospital, but the old motel they purchased across from their front door of campus still lies vacant and deteriorating with no word about their plans for the site…
Car thefts are up across the region and prosecutions and lack thereof in the city are far from encouraging….
It is finally official that the Mayor and Council can’t put a third casino referendum back on the ballot this fall, which is especially fortunate since the financial position of the company behind the casino teeters on the edge…
STORY #1 — Eclipsing Speech
Last month, City Council applied a few new stringent guardrails to public comment at Council meetings by altering their Rules of Procedure under the guise of “streamlining” meetings.
Now, I am all for free speech, but I also understand that people showing up to Council meetings to push for a ceasefire, fight world hunger, or colonize Mars (i.e., things Council can’t do anything about) take up valuable time on issues that Council should be addressing (or trying to address). City Council is granted specific powers and resolving world issues is (thankfully) not one of them. The business of local government is local and decidedly unsexy - trash pickup, potholes, schools, housing, public safety, transit, development, etc.
Council used to limit each public comment session at each meeting to eight speakers who sign up beforehand with the City Clerk with a brief description of their topic and are given three minutes to speak. The new rules do not apply to people speaking to issue on the Consent Agenda or Regular Agenda or budget meetings; but lately, almost all of these eight Public Comment slots have been taken by people calling for or against issuing an official resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza, even though Council has not discussed any such resolution.
If you look at older Citizen Comment sign up sheets that were filed before October 7, 2023, they are people that talk about drainage issues, the tree canopy, tax assessment issues, utility bills, and so on. Sure, it’s not sexy, but it’s relevant to the job of City Council, which is to oversee the operation of city government. You can make the case that eight speaking slots at each meeting are too few; for example, maybe you could have a few more at three minutes each or increase the slots to 12-15 but shorten the speaking time to two minutes. That is certainly debatable.
While the new rules changes include almost a dozen meeting-related tweaks, there are a few that stand out on the egregious scale. One new rule that borders on anti-democratic is the 90-day exile imposed on people who sign up to speak at public comment but fail to appear or don’t notify the Clerk by noon of the day they are signed up.
"If a person requests to appear before Council & fails to appear or fails to notify the Clerk of an intention to cancel by 12 noon on the date of the meeting...such person shall not participate in Public Comment again until...90 days from the day...that person failed to appear."
The “intent” of that rule, according to the City Attorney, was to free up slots if a speaker doesn’t show up to speak. However, if someone hasn’t signed up beforehand they are not allowed to speak at all; and if someone that has signed up to speak but doesn’t show up, then that spot goes unused — but it can’t be filled by someone else who didn’t notify the clerk to speak by the deadline, according to their circular reasoning.
In addition to the no-show rule, there apparently are no exceptions for things like sick kids, working overtime, natural disasters, or life getting in the way. If you don’t let them know by high noon the day of the meeting that you can’t make it, then don’t bother coming back for three months.
Athens, this is not.
Perhaps even more troubling about the new rules is the one stating that speakers have to submit in advance a “detailed and complete” description that “provides the clerk with an understanding of which city agency the comments pertain to or affects.” That is scary on several levels, especially the “detailed and complete description” part.
Why on Earth do public speakers have to send their complete prepared remarks in advance? Why not just send an email or a letter and avoid the hassle of getting a parking ticket outside City Hall? Anyone who takes the time to come down to City Hall, find a place to park, sit through the minutiae, and get up to speak should be able to speak without a pre-clearance procedure. Many times, people know the topic they are coming down to talk about (a water bill, a neighborhood issue, etc.), but they don’t’ know exactly WHAT they are going to say until they get there. But they would be in violation of the new rule and thus, in violation of the “rules.”
What will happen (and it will happen) when someone submits a description and then goes off topic when they get to the podium? Will the microphone be cut off? Will they be escorted from Council Chambers? Likewise, will City Councilors be required to submit their statements on issues in writing before the meeting and before voting on them?
The rationale for the change is ostensibly so Council knows what the issue is, so they can better direct the speaker to the right person or department for help resolving the issue. But the city has actually always been pretty good at this — if you come to Council meetings to voice your concern or problem, you are almost always told or pointed to a city official or employee in chambers in order to connect and get your issue and information to resolve the problem.
The larger point is that it should never take coming to a City Council meeting — presubmitted remarks or not — to get your issue addressed. If you have come to Council to vent and exasperate, that means your issue has been ongoing for too long, has not been resolved, and you have had enough and want to make sure that someone will listen.
I agree that public comment slots should be reserved, if not exclusively, then generally for people who want to talk about local issues or air it out about what government is or is not doing (and if there are only say, five speakers on local issues, then others can speak to other issues). If someone with a $2,000 water bill can’t get answers through 311 and comes to Council to get help, they should not be turned away at the mic because someone wants to make a statement about an issue half way around the world that is not the purview of City Council’s responsibility.
City Council could choose to join in on adding their voice to issues all over the globe that need attention but they have not; there are serious issues all over the city affecting people’s lives and families that more importantly need addressing and the specific charge of City Council is to try and fix or solve those problems. Council is right to say that they will not vote on global statement resolutions “as it is not protocol to weigh in on matters that don’t involve the city.” However, they need not restrict speech to limit the people that live here and make this city a great place from having a voice in how it is run. There is a balance here that they have yet to reach.
It is too bad (but small wonder) the public participation that dropped off the map during Covid and has not returned to its formally robust status (except for the “NO Casino” contingent, thankfully). These new rules won’t help encourage more participation or make people feel that their voice matters or that they are being heard.
And even more discouragingly, who wants to be part of the public process in planning and running our city if you are hemmed in by laws and rules that stymie your opportunity to be heard, coupled with a Mayor and Administration who never met a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request they wouldn’t deny?
The old saying is that sunshine is the best disinfectant, but between these new rules and the Mayor’s FOIA mess, it seems more like City Hall is more in favor these days of an intentional eclipse of the public’s voice rather than letting the sun shine bright.
STORY #2 — Vacancy On The Corner
The fate of the former Richmond Community Hospital (RCH) by Virginia Union University (VUU) is still hanging in the balance with VUU saying the right things but no one knows what their intentions truly are. VUU announced two months ago that they would demolish the art deco structure that opened in 1932 and served generations of the black community in Richmond because segregation prevented them receiving treatment in white hospitals. VUU’s “vision” is to build 200 apartments on the parcel to create a revenue stream that will help fill the school’s treasury.
The Free Press reported recently that VUU is reconsidering its plans for the historic building, but they have not yet detailed plans or ideas what that might look like. VUU officials attended a Third District Town Hall meeting recently hosted by Councilwoman Ann-Frances Lambert but offered little new information.
However, according to the efforts of a group led by former Delegate Viola Baskerville, she said that VUU “was receptive and committed to rehabilitation of the building and adaptive reuse” in a private meeting they held before the town hall.
“We are excited to hear that they agree to adaptive reuse of the building, but we want to also have them have Historic Richmond come in and do an independent assessment of that building.”
But she also noted that she still has not heard anyone from VUU commit to not demolishing the building. The Free Press reported that Franklin Patterson, VUU’s vice president of administrative services and iInfrastructure management, said the hospital’s removal was not part of VUU’s plans for the area but didn’t give more concrete details for how they may preserve the building.
“Yes, there is an affordable housing project on the table in its early stages,” Dr. Patterson said. “But the [VUU] president has committed to working with community leaders, having a meeting with them on campus in the near future (...) to talk about the Community Hospital and how we can get the best and brightest minds to figure out how to redevelop, reuse, repurpose this hospital into this other project.”
This entire saga is baffling when you consider that VUU has spent years and raised millions to restore one of their original buildings known as Industrial Hall to its former glory rather than forget about it and raze it. The February announcement that the RCH would be demolished in favor of 200 apartments housing project for a needed revenue stream also overlooks another parcel VUU purchased in 2019 and still sits vacant and decaying right across the street from VUU’s front door.
As Richmond BizSense reported in late 2019, VUU bought a dilapidated motel across from their campus on Brook Road for $2.9 million that now sits vacant and in much worse condition than it was five years ago. The deteriorating one-acre parcel at the corner of Lombardy Street and Brook Road was assessed at $543,000 in 2019 and had last been purchased in 2006 for $1.2 million. The current assessment is $720,000 and properties in the area are selling and/or being planned for more density.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to RVA 5x5 to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.