30 Responses to “Agenda, July 1 City Council meeting — UPDATED”

1. posted by Chuck at June 30, 2008 3:08 pm :
   

   Noticed on the agenda $500K for Appomattox Channel Dredging Project - is that the same thing as Petersburg’s Downtown Harbor Initiative?

   http://www.petersburgharbor.org/index.html

   That would so so cool to have a waterfront/harbor SOMETHING to take advantage of the river! Looking at that website though doesn’t look like there has been anything happening since 4/16/07 - really…over a year with nothing going on?

2. posted by George Els at June 30, 2008 3:29 pm :
   

   People of Petersburg please don’t be confised. Your council members are not actively looking for business to come to Petersburg, they are signing off on those companies seeking Petersburg.
   Election time for some is nearing and they will began to tell you that they are bringing the world to Petersburg when they are only casting their vote to allow then to be in Petersburg.

3. posted by brenda p at June 30, 2008 8:59 pm :
   

   Sorry for no re-posted agenda yet… when I noticed that I spaced converting the Word file to a pdf, I also noticed that the file wasn’t the usual looking short/sweet agenda… haven’t heard back from the clerk’s office yet re: whether to post that file anyway, or whether to hang tight for the usual more pithy agenda.

4. posted by brenda p at July 1, 2008 12:07 pm :
   

   The agenda is now up. :-)

5. posted by shawn at July 1, 2008 8:42 pm :
   

   George,

   I think you are a little confused. Petersburg’s GVMT isn’t doing anything to prevent businesses from moving here — they are delighted when one comes, because it means they are willing to play by THEIR terms. Most businesses, it seems, won’t.

   City council is not entirely to blame for this situation. If they cut business taxes, they’d have to cut expenditures to people who have been raised to believe they should be dependent on government. To such people, such behavior would be intrepeted as an “abandonment” of “the people” and a catering to “special interests” (whichever one, take your pick — whichever one they don’t like.)

   More businesses means more people they can tax, which means more money they can buy popularity with.

6. posted by billy e at July 1, 2008 9:04 pm :
   

   Still no news on the police salary increase?

7. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 8:27 am :
   

   Please note the P-I reports that the council deferred a decision on whether to overturn the ARB action that stopped a landlord from vinyl siding his historic house on Harrison Street. The council should NOT overturn the correct ARB decision on this issue.

   Moreover, it appears the good landlord wants to install another group home in Petersburg (we don’t, it seems, have enough of them) The house is zoned two-family. Here is the owner’s statement about his intentions for the house:

   ” He said he was looking at the home as an investment and was planning on saving the home so that he could renovate and rent it, preferably to soldiers. I’m really hoping to get some people in there soon, Hennessey said.”

   The landlord should be required to keep the original siding and he should not be allowed to rent to an unrelated group, soldiers or otherwise.

8. posted by John H at July 2, 2008 9:25 am :
   

   Hey Shawn,

   I read George’s statement as it is saying that they are welcoming businesses to the area, yet they are not acutally the ones bringing these businesses to the area, but come election time, it will appear on their flyers as something they did.

9. posted by shawn at July 2, 2008 10:43 am :
   

   Well, john, if you are correct about his meaning, then I agree with him, as politicians are like that everywhere. Businesses love having dignitaries at ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and politicians love showing up, associating themselves with positive developments.

   Win-win.

   Where I am from, the mayor (and most other politicians) would never wear a hat, and would only wear an overcoat, not a true parka, even if it was twenty below, at some positive event — so they’d look good for the cameras.

   My father used to hope they’d catch cold.

10. posted by Chuck at July 2, 2008 10:49 am :
    

    JWM, I am idly curious what you meant by:

    “he should not be allowed to rent to an unrelated group, soldiers or otherwise.”

    Figured I would ask before assuming.

11. posted by David P. at July 2, 2008 1:40 pm :
    

    Was there any word about ARB appointment(s)?

12. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 2:17 pm :
    

    The Petersburg slumlords rent rooms in these old houses to people who often are unknown to one another until they come together as renters. They are not related by kinship. They rent the rooms for cash by the week. This may be good for slumlords but its not a neighborhood builder. Don’t confuse this with young academic scholars renting rooms in university towns. One lord that I know of had six to eight renters, renting at rates up to $165/week with a common kitchen. Some of the “renters” were crackheads. There was great diversity in drug usage and drugs of choice. The place was well-know to the police and the city leadership.

    BTW, David P, I don’t see you raising hell about ARB violations on Harrison Street as you did on Washington. Isn’t it time we considered Petersburg’s problems in their entirety rather than focusing our concerns on just our particular neck of the woods? More effective, I would say.

13. posted by Chuck at July 2, 2008 2:30 pm :
    

    Okay - Glad I asked, I was worried you didn’t want a Ft. Lee Service person and his/her family renting a house in the area OR wanting say a same-sex couple (unrelated group is where I got that) renting the house.

    Keith and I just had a bad experience moving back to VA from NY when a narrow-minded, bigot didn’t want to rent us an apartment when he realized we were a couple and used the ‘I don’t rent to unrelated/unmarried people-groups’ type excuse. Worked out well in the end but…..

14. posted by Victoria Hauser at July 2, 2008 2:57 pm :
    

    Tony Gattuso was appointed to the ARB by Council last night. So now the board has the full seven members.

15. posted by David P. at July 2, 2008 3:09 pm :
    

    “BTW, David P, I don’t see you raising hell about ARB violations on Harrison Street as you did on Washington. Isn’t it time we considered Petersburg’s problems in their entirety rather than focusing our concerns on just our particular neck of the woods?”

    I can’t argue with the fact that you have not observed me raising hell about events I judge to be negative in other “necks of the woods.” You should not hastily conclude, however, that I am not doing so, but only that you are not observing it.

    By the way, I am generally opposed to putting vinyl siding on historic homes, but not so rabidly as I oppose placement of a trailer in a historic district. In fact, on Wyth St. a once horribly purple house (still partly purple) is being covered with vinyl siding. I don’t oppose that even though it is in “my” neck of the woods. That’s just my opinion.

    In any case, as I read it, the question on last night’s City Council agenda is not about an ARB violation, but an appeal of an ARB decision about which I don’t have very strong feelings — but *not* because of the location.

    The establishment of group homes is a different matter to me. The term “group home” seems to have a specific meaning in the City code and I do not believe it applies to the sort of residences you describe in your post 12. In every case in which I have been aware of a proposal for a group home in the City, regardless of the proposed location, I have vehemently fought it and have spoken to this effect at the relevant public hearings. As I read the agenda for last night’s council meeting, I did not read anything indicating that a group home was under consideration.

    What you describe as a group home, I believe — I could certainly be wrong — is more accurately described as a “boarding house,” or a “rooming house.” I didn’t see anything about one of those on the agenda, either.

    I don’t claim that I lack self interest. I *am* more motivated to watch my neighborhood more closely than others. However, if you should ask me to show up to speak against the destruction of a neighborhood (or part of its historic fabric) by some nefarious means, and I agree with your assessment, I’ll be there and speak out if I can!

    Clearly, I don’t always agree with ARB decisions. Nwvertheless, I believe that the lack of enforcement of ARB decisions and processes has long been a problem matter in the City. Harrison St. was not in an historic district when I was on the ARB — neither were the Triangle, Halifax St., or the heights. Many residents of these areas live in architecturally notable buildings. These areas and these neighborhoods, and others in town, have been long neglected and need protection. *One* important means of protecting them, in my opinion, is including them in historic districts and enforcing ARB decisions.

    One last point, then I’m off my soap box (for a while): I believe that one of the groups most damaging to Petersburg and its residents, is the slum lords (loose definition: persons who seek to make a profit by providing substandard housing to desperate and sometimes ignorant persons). If I had my way, we’d identify them and find a means to get rid of them all.

16. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 3:16 pm :
    

    Excellent response, David and bravo.

    Re: same sex couples, in my opinion same sex is their own business and in my observation over many years, their presence translates into a significant contribution to the community fabric at every level.

17. posted by shawn at July 2, 2008 3:39 pm :
    

    I don’t think this is a case where someone wants a group home, illegal or otherwise. Just wants to get in on the rising demand for rentals that fort lee will bring.

    In defence of David, David will/has opposed ANY group home anywhere in petersburg. Try opening one in blandford, and he will be a thorn in your side.

    As far as “scholars” are concerned, they aren’t much better tenants than vagrants due to their transient nature and immaturity.

    Also, it is only natural to be a little hotter about things that effect your own “back yard.” I, for instance, care about some buildings that were torn down in Richmond, but you didn’t see me in front of the dozers.

18. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 4:22 pm :
    

    The house is zoned for two families. I know what I am talking about.

19. posted by David P. at July 2, 2008 6:03 pm :
    

    I know this may be confusing but, as I understand it, the use of a (for two family, single family, multiple families, whatever) is not the purview of the ARB. It is rather under the larger umbrella of zoning. Again, my understanding: if a use for a property is desired and that use is at odds with the use permitted under zoning regulations (for example, “The house is zoned for two families” but the owner wants to place multiple unrelated individuals in it, a zoning variance is required, for example, in the form of a Special Use Permit (SUP). An SUP request is heard by the Planning Commission rather than by the ARB. In contrast with the ARB, which renders decisions appealable to the City Council, the Planning Commission renders recommendations to the City Council which makes a decision appealable in court.

    It doesn’t make this a less interesting topic, but the responsibility for this is not with the ARB.

20. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 7:04 pm :
    

    Yes, I know. That’s why I said “moreover..” A case of one evil compounded by another prospective one on the horizon.

21. posted by Julia at July 2, 2008 8:36 pm :
    

    Aren’t there plenty of healthy, reasonable group homes in the city rented by Fort Lee folk? I seem to remember a townhouse or three on High Street that fit the bill nicely.

    “Group Home” by itself is not a four-letter word, JWM. A landlord and his/her tennants aren’t the business of the ARB or anyone else’s. What does two-family zoning have to do with anything else, other than maximum occupancy limits?

22. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 2, 2008 9:58 pm :
    

    I can only respond by saying…tenants is spelled with one n.

    Good night and good luck.

23. posted by Julia at July 2, 2008 10:32 pm :
    

    And I found four grammar and spelling errors in your post, #12. Come on, go through it and take a look, JWM! It’s more fun than Sudoku!

24. posted by shawn at July 2, 2008 11:15 pm :
    

    Hey, I LIKE it when I see spelling/grammatically errors, it gives me intellectual cover!!

    You think I have time to PROOF my blowhard posts!

    I don’t even have time to write them.

25. posted by Julia at July 3, 2008 1:06 am :
    

    Shawn–yeah, we’re all a little too passionate to spell correctly, it’s why I love this board. Almost as much as I love taking the pomp out of the wonderfully pomp-ous JWM. Post made my night!

26. posted by James Wesley Medlin at July 3, 2008 6:05 am :
    

    Whew! Chill, Julia! A tad of counseling would not hurt. Again, bless your heart!

27. posted by brenda p at July 3, 2008 7:32 am :
    

    Wow, from a convo on group homes to ‘pomp-ous’ in 4.5 seconds. Now would be a good time to remind everyone that the folks you are chatting with are your neighbors. Please focus on points of agreement/departure without getting personal.

28. posted by David P. at July 3, 2008 9:10 am :
    

    Sorry, Julia, but in my mind, “group home” may not *be* a “four letter word,” but the phrase surely comes close. Look in Poplar Lawn, on Shore Street, on Market St., on W. Washington St. and in too many other places in town and you will find group homes. These facilities are typically require licensing from the state and specific permission from the City to operate. Again, they typically purport to provide some sort of services to the residents, whether mental health care, medical attention, necessary social support, etc. To my own socially liberal bent, this sounds good.

    In Petersburg, in my mind, the problem is the concentration of such homes. Distributing pockets of good care facilities in this model, abstractly, is a good idea. In practice, the more of these homes you place in a neighborhood, the more the neighborhood starts to resemble a complex of treatment cottages, a distributed “hospital”, rather than potentially vibrant neighborhood.

    Some of these group homes in Petersburg seem to be well run (I have have heard no complaints, at least within the last four years, for example, about Ray Dillard’s group home up the street from me on W. Washington St.). Some are run down (Market St.) or seem to permit their residents to be a nuisance (Shore St. has been complained about during at least one City Council meeting).

    Group homes are hard to fight because their supporters present them as a means of being kind, or charitable, or supportive, or spiritual endeavors. Some, of course, are. But they seem never to be purely so. These are highly profitable *businesses*. And, I believe, they should be evaluated as such.

    Those group homes, such as the one on Market St., that are run down and in poor condition inside (I have this last information only second hand) also fall into the same boat, to me, as those properties run by slum lords (as I defined them in post 15, above).

    The phrase “landlord,” Julia, may not be a “four letter word,” either, but it also raises a red flag to me. I won’t go into my economically liberal been here since it is not the reason for my concern. Rather, the reason is that the preponderance of slum properties in Petersburg has hardened me to the assumption that rental property in Petersburg is slumlord property, unless I find out otherwise.

    Even good, non-slumlord, rental property can be a problem for a neighborhood, in my opinion. This is because, as is the case in Petersburg, there are too many renters rather than property owners living in a concentrated area (a neighborhood, or substantial area in a neighborhood). The likelihood that property owners will pay attention to the conditions of and activities in the neighborhood seems much higher to me.

    At any rate, I *really* would appreciate it if we could keep distinguished the categories, “group home” and “slumlord property.”

29. posted by Julia at July 3, 2008 9:26 am :
    

    David,

    Ok, that cleared up a great deal for me; a concise, cogent response. Thanks so much for helping me to understand the underpinnings of this.

30. posted by shawn at July 3, 2008 10:25 am :
    

    “Group homes are hard to fight because their supporters present them as a means of being kind, or charitable, or supportive, or spiritual endeavors. Some, of course, are. But they seem never to be purely so. These are highly profitable *businesses*. And, I believe, they should be evaluated as such.”

    I’m with you 100% here, david p.

    When I was 23-25, I worked at a residental treatment facility for people with severe CP and brain injuries. We were located in an affluent suburb and were not exactly LOVED by the neighbors, but their attitude changed from fearing the effects of living near the residents to being slightly suspicous of the downscale workers, who like myself mostly reverse commuted from downtown albany, NY. Some of us had been top students with degrees and futures in health and human services, and some were single mother, cronic mistake-makers who could not find a better job, but we were ALL poor.

    My point is was that it was WE who were the only possible reason for complaint — the residents were SO restricted in their freedom of movement, and the facility was SO regulated in every sense that the place couldn’t help but be a good neighbor, except for my 15 year old car in the parking lot…

    Things are much different here… In NY, these homes are usually run by HIGHLY regulated charities that receive state support and SUPERVISION. Here, in VA, they seem to be very lightly regulated and supervised, and the main concern by the state govenment seems to be to keep the care of these people in as privite an enterprise as possible.

    Because of more economic conservatism, I feel this is wise if the state exercises enough control, but unfortunately it seems like the rights of the residents is emphasied, while the rights of the neighbors are not even considered. Our company, The Center for the Disabled, was even considered a good place for lefty middle class young people to get their feet wet in the caring professions, because the facilites were so well run, aethetically unobtrusive, and the neighbors did not have to interact with anyone if they didn’t want to. Certainly not the case here.

    “Even good, non-slumlord, rental property can be a problem for a neighborhood, in my opinion. This is because, as is the case in Petersburg, there are too many renters rather than property owners living in a concentrated area (a neighborhood, or substantial area in a neighborhood). The likelihood that property owners will pay attention to the conditions of and activities in the neighborhood seems much higher to me.”

    Here, I disagree. To many people on the left, ANY landlord is a slumlord, unless it is the government, their landlord of choice.

    I know of countless examples, especially in expensive urban areas, where the landlords keep their landscaping immaculate, are always upgrading the property, and then raising the rent. I have known landlords (like my best friend) that do very thorough due dilligence on tenants and have been responsible for turning-around whole nieghborhoods by first upgrading the property, then upgrading the tenants.

    Good, reliable, non-destructive tenants are often their own reward.

    Some people also seem to forget, because shelter is a necessity, that landlording is a business like any other, just like lawyering. But just because this society has decided that EVERYONE has a right to council, no matter how irresponsible and horrible they are, they don’t have a right to the BEST council. Same goes with shelter. Often landlords are way TOO GOOD for prospective tenants. That’s why there’s credit and employment checks, that’s why many people won’t rent to students, not even MIT students…

Leave a Comment