Thanks for the additional history, your personal insight on and behind the article.

Reality is, history and sometimes family histories may not be glorious tales to tell, but the stories need to be told. You’ve raised some great points.

As for other posters’ interest in who owns what, Billy Pearsall (mentioned above in connection w/Eveyln) still owns multiple properties. To my knowledge, the bulk of the property owned by John W. Pearsall has been sold with the exception of 2 or 3 pieces in Shockoe Bottom entrusted to his children/grandchildren (I believe the last Church Hill property to which I was beneficiary was sold this past year, but I will have to check).

Without detracting from the negative impact my family’s ownership of these properties has had on these neighborhoods, there is another side to the story that potential developers and those with a serious interest in urban development should consider. First, it is practically unrealistic to assume that people who were willing to make their money in this way would be suddenly keen on giving the property away (and this is usually what is required as the resale value declines to zero). As has been noted in the comments, too often, new absentee landlords simply buy up the lots and take the place of the old: this seems to be the case with several properties Pearsalls once owned. Government sponsored redevelopment also has a pretty poor record in Richmond…witness the large scale demolition of properties and the building of low-income projects over the past decades throughout city’s East End. It is a testament to the society at large that the horrible conditions my family provided were simply replaced by the public housing nightmares of the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s.

Another issue that has been important to my family is restoration. Redevelopment of old properties is much more expensive than building new and, while I personally don’t think this is an excuse for condemning whole neighborhoods to poverty, the redevelopment of the historic area of Church Hill the article mentions is something my grandfather poured time and money into. (It should be noted that most of the areas that sell for the high prices and look very nice these days looked a lot like the areas you picture on this website when I was growing up.) It takes a lot of commitment to turn a neighborhood around without simply tearing it down and I have respect for the work, if not always the history or motivation, the various owners (sons of slumlords and concerned individuals alike) put into the neighborhood.

On that note, I would be interested in seeing how members of the community are dealing with the added problem of gentrification. It is my understanding that within my family (especially during the depression) the rationale for this business was that these were places the poor could live for very little money, taken ‘as is’. Obviously, this reasoning politely leaves out the massive exploitation allowed by racial segregation of the city. But though I have no doubts my family has made money off the backs of the poor over the years, at the same time, I’m struck by how difficult it is to remedy the situation even when you want to. When not faced with the continuing decline of neighborhoods, the drug lords trying to buy your property, etc., there is the opposite problem housing those displaced by redevelopment. Houses simply cannot be restored to a livable condition without requiring a purchase price above the means of the people who used to live there, so then you have a nice-looking neighborhood like the restored sections of Historic Church HIll, and brand new displacement of people who cannot afford a place to live. How is this supposed to be done?

Anyway, as I don’t live in the city, I am not trying to offer an apology for what was done, nor do I have any solutions. I don’t expect the name ‘Pearsall’ will have any but negative connotations for those who lived in the properties who survive, but I would ask folks interested in this site and in developing the neighborhood in general to try talking across the divide. I think you’ll find the younger members of the family, especially, to be open to reason. I know Billy, for one, is often in the neighborhoods, working on these vacants himself. Though he may be hardened a bit by bad experiences, I expect he is ultimately open to ideas if you’re willing to listen to his concerns as well.

Most of all, thanks for posting this article. I probably never would have had the chance to read it otherwise. I agree with posters who cry out for further investigation of this city’s past (tobacco, coal, lead in gasoline anyone?)…just remember those we may see as being on the ‘wrong side of history’ are also people. It’s been my experience I can learn better what not to do by bothering to hear their side of the story. In the meantime, more postings like this please!

For instance, John W & Laia W PEARSALL sold this vacant scrubby lot to E FRANK II & DONNA N PEARSALL in 2000. Combinations of these names are listed with EVELYN and/or every other name that shows up, including, JAMES, except for HALEY and JOHN. Except that when you look, JAMES sold HALEY and JOHN their property, which is on the same block (1400 East Main) as multiple properties owned by other PEARSALLs.

I’m not saying that any or all of this current property is slum property, though I haven’t mapped too much of it either. I did run across a few vacant lots. It does appear that Pearsalls that are probably related to John Wesley Pearsall continue to own a lot of property in the city.

There are 7 properties under PEARSALL on the January 2010 vacant property registry (PDF), all in our area.

John M – The Safety Health & Welfare Bldg. is on 9th Street, as #4 states. It’s on the right as you head north on 9th Street, just past the court building which is on the left.

I’d also think about the 1948 Chamber of Commerce stuff in context – at that time, Brown v. Board of Educ. was a few years away, and black housing wasn’t considered an issue. I’m most certainly NOT apologizing for the slumlord, just saying that that was the way it was then – pitiful and painful in today’s context, but true, as also evidenced by some maps and other news of that era.

This is one thing i found about Pearsall vs City re:blight..

Virginia Supreme Court Reports
PEARSALL v. RICHMOND R & H AUTHORITY, 218 Va. 892 (1978)
43646 Record No. 761445.
March 3, 1978.

In this eminent domain proceeding instituted under Virginia’s Housing Authorities Law (hereinafter the Act), Code Sections 36-1 to — 55.6, we consider a question of evidence and the problem of so-called “condemnation blight”, a condition which often stems from urban renewal projects.

@publius804 – I don’t know, & don’t know how to really dig. The Pearsall name turns up a lot, though the connections are unclear to me.

Any connection/relation to the Evelyn Pearsall Trust–the owner of dozens of properties in the city, including multiple listings on the vacant property registry?