If this development is upscale – good for the tax base and bringing more professionals to Church Hill then it is good for Church Hill. The Oakwood developers are taking a substantial risk by investing in our neighborhood in the midst of a scary economy. Let’s make them feel welcome here.

Noted. I’ll stop by this week and introduce myself. Looking forward to meeting you.

Shannon… then I will never question your eyes again.

Ron – so what did you think?

Keep us informed – I know you will.

I think that there are some pretty intelligent people from diverse back grounds and opinions posting here. The purpose of my post for information was to feel out what you all believe are the important issues that need to be dealt with throughout all of the 7th district and what you would like to see in a candidate.

I believe it would be wise for all prospects to meet and see who might be the best candidate and of those, who would have the best chance of winning the election.
…………………………………

John M – gray asked some great questions… would you like to start another post for this subject to keep the topic of your original Oakwood Heights post on track?

If so, here are her ?’s:

anyone out there be open to a gathering of neighbors to come up with some nominees for city council? So far we all know that Newbille will be running in this election. Who else? Who would we like to see run? Will anyone who applied for the appointment run?
…………………………………

Shannon – beautiful? we must get thee to an eye doctor stat. Thanks for the thumbs up.

Ron – I believe you are right, my friend.

All – if you have not met Deanna, please take the opportunity if it presents itself. She is a beautiful, warm, intelligent, and free-thinking woman, as well as a great listener. Could be a real boon to the East End, an area that seems to have often felt ignored or underrepresented by playas with their own agendas.

To all:

Would anyone out there be open to a gathering of neighbors to come up with some nominees for city council? So far we all know that Newbille will be running in this election. Who else? Who would we like to see run? Will anyone who applied for the appointment run?

FYI – just to let you all know, I’ll keep your personal info private. This is an open forum here and those of you who choose to use a pseudonym don’t have to worry about that being revealed.

It is not out of the realm of possibility. I think it would be wise to gather all the information, talk amongst those who may be considering a run and find the best fit for the needs of all of the 7th district.

Are you running for office?

I’ve received some great emails from you all about what you would like to see in a council person AND some good feed back on what some of the important issues are here in the 7th district.

Keep them coming in. Thanks!

deanna@314n36thst.com

Now that things are on the table and we found that no one wanted to run anyone over, and no one is letting their dogs foul Joe’s lot as an insult you should put it behind you.

For me, kd, no need to accept, or expect, an apology if what prompted you to speak was based on a misunderstanding. You’ve all made some candid personal statements and I hope you will all seek those forgiving smiles, hand shakes and hugs. It feels good clearing the air in here.

Garry – I will certainly smile and wave from now on. You are a very kind man. I hope that I can be as diplomatic as you some day.

To all my other neighbors – I hope you can accept my apologies. I am not asking you to be nice to me, but do know that I feel terrible for handling things the way I did.

Scott – I’m with you on Council — the decisions at Council this week have punched gaping holes in the ability of CAR and its protection of Historic Districts. Council became the arm of the developer and not the protector of its own city. Not all agree with Historic Designation but if you’ve built your city on History and plan to continue to market and grow that branding out to the world in order to attract dollars from tourism and events, then not protecting the Historic fabric is foolhardy at the least and detrimental to the marketing of Richmond as a tourist destination in Virgina.

I see why you had a very good reputation on the School Board.

To kd – Correct me if I’m wrong but I was sure at one of those CAR meetings where your husband stood up for Fulton Hill that one of his points was to state that he liked the development and it would be a place you (or he) would like to live.

On neighbors being on the property next to your house — Fulton Hill does not own the property at the end of the block and many neighbors who know the owner of that property were given the okay to walk there. If you were not informed that there could be traffic next to your house, then join your neighbors on that one — we’re awaiting the massive car traffic and fumes running next to our houses in the next few years courtesy of the proposed Oakwood development. I would choose foot traffic over vehicle (cars and construction) traffic any day.

On Dogs – Many people in the Hill have dogs and many people walk dogs and it happens to be the nature of that beast that they bark when other dogs are near. Like all dogs, your dogs bark when dogs cross in front of your your house on the public sidewalk as well as on the other owner’s property next to your house.

I’m sorry you had to call out particular neighbors and people who have tried to be neighborly in order to feel better. They don’t deserve it. Public figures and Politicians set themselves up to be critiqued (for better or worse) — people who invite you to dinner or act neighborly don’t.

It is sad that you weren’t given the perspective of the neighborhood on the impending development by your landlord before you moved in so you could make an educated choice on whether you felt comfortable here but since your landlord (Fulton Hill) wasn’t listening to the neighbors perhaps that perspective wasn’t available. It is again sad it all fell out this way – it could have been different. Your animals seem adorable. I didn’t get to know you but I hope you and they find peace wherever you go and whatever you decide to do.

Thank you … I appreciated your remarks!

I supported the “idea,” but voted against it because it was poorly written and needed more time to be refined to work out the problems.

And, as we all know, the Mayor-at-large legislation as it exists today continues to be flawed policy and is clearly a work-in-progress. Witness this most recent election in which the various candidates essentially chose five districts they thought they could win and concentrated their entire efforts on winning those districts — instead of attempting to find a way to win the “whole city.”

As a believer that Democracy is supposed to be by, of and for ALL the people, I know that the old system of having the Mayor chosen by members of Council was bad and had no doubt that we needed a different way of choosing our Mayor.

I simply wish we had all taken a collective deep breath and worked out the details before we plunged into the deep end of the pool with a policy that many people knew had significant problems — independent entirely of the personalities involved. But, sadly, complicated and compromised by those personalities.

Lively and heart felt discussions here from both sides of this event and others. Good to see.

Those interested in sharing please send me an email outling what you, as a residents of the 7th District, would like to see in a council person. What issues are important to you, what would you like to see accomplished here?

thanks,

deanna@314n36thst.com

I agree with Mr. Hill’s concerns as well as some of yours. Sadly I voted for the charter change. My vote against Doug Wilder doesn’t mitigate that mistake. I now believe our charter was a choice of form over function based on a not well thought out hope for a better future. The past four years proved that the form of government is only as good as the people who occupy it. Now we have an odd amalgamation of power that no one clearly understands. Too bad we never got a definitive answer to O. Hill’s questions. We could have saved ourselves a lot of grief, time and money.

I agree with you that discussions concerning the Mayor at-large proposal was “never so simple as whether one was for it or against it” as you say.

But, the question on the ballot in 2003 was a simple “for it or against it” choice. No equivocation here.

I was for it — despite the fact Wilder and Bliley supported it! It wasn’t about personalities for me, just policies.

I take it that your position with regards to the November 2003 direct election of the Mayor referendum was much like that of Mr. Hill, Henry Marsh, Delores McQuinn, and Bobby Scott and that you, therefore, voted NO to the proposal that year. I apologize if I am wrong about this but am sure you will correct me if I am!

Thank you again.

Given the history of our city and the larger-than-life personalities of the players involved, the question was never so simple as whether one was for or it against it.

I believe that the concerns I had were most clearly articulated by Congressman Bobby Scott and Mr. Hill. I have always admired their ability to stand alone — and apart from the pack — on issues of integrity.

I believe that I presented information to refute your implication and would appreciate it if you would reconsider your statement.

For the record, I do agree with you that there are far too many past and present elected officials in the 7th District (and elsewhere) who seek to use racial and economic issues to divide citizens. As Mr. Hill so eloquently articulated and the election of Barack Obama affirmed, our elected officials should be chosen based on their intellect and the content of their characters — not by race, gender, faith or economic status.

I will readily concede that YOU did not defame Mr. Hill. My remarks about that were directed to “july 4″ for comments made in Posting # 50.

Thank you for your response.

Just curious since I’m sure you knew both Wilder and Bliley well(at least you knew their reputations) during the discusions about the at-large Mayor proposal.

Did you take the Doug Wilder/Tom Bliley side and support the proposal or the Oliver Hill/Henry Marsh/Delores McQuinn side and oppose it?

Thank you again.