52 Responses to “3rd District race heats up with newsletter charges”

1. posted by Lucy Gandeline at August 29, 2008 5:28 am :
   

   I received the newsletter in question and there was nothing remotely political about it. Maybe the timing wasn’t perfect, but by my calculations 92 days is still 2 days before the 90 day deadline. That clearly is not a violation of the law.

   Further, Mr. Hilbert has been one of the most vocal members of Council on matters of integrity, accountability and honest reform. His actions have raised the bar for elected officials and we need more people like him.

   Frankly, I’m surprised by Mr. Davis’ accusation. I would think he’d be spending his time coming up with a plan as to how Richmond would function as a debt-free municipality. In a recent Style magazine article, this is something Mr. Davis said he wanted Richmond to be moving towards. If we were to operate on a cash basis with no debt, I’d be interested to know how sees us being able to pay for the costs associated with roads, capital improvements and basic infrastructure expenses.

   It would also be nice if Mr. Davis explained why he abandoned his position as Chair of the North Team. After taking on this volunteer assignment, he apparently changed his mind and literally abandoned the group — just stopped coming to meetings and didn’t even find a replacement for his position.

   Is that the kind of “leader” we want on City Council?

2. posted by Rick at August 29, 2008 8:58 am :
   

   I have to agree with Lucy comments 100%. It is funny that as part of his campain, Mr. Davis lists Chair of the North Team. If this all that Mr. Davis has he should fold up shop now.

3. posted by Northside at August 29, 2008 9:32 am :
   

   I’ve never received anything from Mr. Hilbert until now when he faces opposition. He ran unopposed two years ago and never communicated with a newsletter or mailing. Very transparent.

4. posted by Rick at August 29, 2008 4:20 pm :
   

   Yes. He had sent out newsletters in the past. There was a time he couldn’t cause his assistant was dying and then did die. But Chris has sent out newsletters in the past. Chris came out to ABC Board to help Battery Park get the Chervon liscense restricted. He got the Target Enforement zone done. I could go on and on.

5. posted by reachemteachem at August 31, 2008 3:26 pm :
   

   From the Richmond Times-Dispatch article:

   “Hilbert said that the newsletter was created from a template and that the May date was an oversight. He said he may have sent out one newsletter earlier in his tenure.

   “Since June, the council approved two requests by its members to use council district funds for newsletters — Hilbert’s request for $1,800 and City Councilman E. Martin Jewell’s request for $3,500. Jewell said his newsletter was sent out early enough to avoid a conflict with the ordinance.”

   Here’s the part that disturbs me:

   “He said HE MAY HAVE SENT OUT ONE NEWSLETTER EARLIER IN HIS TENURE …”

   Either he did, or he didn’t. Hilbert needs to answer this one definitively. Otherwise it is reminiscent of Clinton’s line …. about how it depended on what one’s definition of is is … may have, may not have ….

   Haven’t Hilbert and Marty Jewell wasted enough taxpayer dollars already?

6. posted by Lucy Gandeline at August 31, 2008 6:43 pm :
   

   In regards to Northside’s comments on 8/29/08 at 9:32am, Mr. Hilbert did send out a mailing in 2006 when he was running unopposed. And he did send out a previous newsletter.

   I think what’s transparent about Mr. Hilbert is his work in communicating with 3rd district resident. Whether its through his town hall meetings, held every month since January 2005 or his participation in the resident association meetings, Chris has always been there for his constituents.

7. posted by reachemteachem at August 31, 2008 9:26 pm :
   

   This isn’t about whether Hilbert has had town meetings.

   WHEN DID HE SEND OUT A PREVIOUS NEWSLETTER?

8. posted by Lucy Gandeline at September 1, 2008 1:42 pm :
   

   Chris did send out newsletters in December 2005 and January 2007 and another mailing was sent in October 2006. Regarding the issue of wasted taxpayer dollars, Mr. Hilbert has been one of the leading members of Council who has fought against waste at City Hall. Just to name a few things:

   * Led the investigation into the attempted school board eviction resulting in the identification of $1 million in wasted tax dollars (including attorney fees).
   * Cut the car allowance for City employees.
   * Eliminated 3 positions from the Mayor’s public relations staff.
   * Cut back the Mayor’s PRIVATE security details saving appx $200K.
   * Abstained on vote to approve performing arts center because he felt that citizens had not been provided enough information.
   * Cut the real estate tax rate by 13 cents saving $26 million.

9. posted by John at September 1, 2008 6:00 pm :
   

   So, let me summarize. There is some criticism that Mr. Hilbert did not communicate enough. He attends civic association meetings on a regular basis. And, when he corrects a situation by sending out a newsletter 2 days before a deadline that no communication can go out.. there is an issue raised that the newsletter that has information and no campaign information.

   Either you want communication or you do not. You cannot complain both ways. Two days before a deadline is before a deadline. That is what makes it a deadline.

   I, for one, would want someone to fight for the citizens of the district as Mr. Hilbert has done… and fighting for the money that was supposedly spent on the school board move that might have come from Battery Park funding. Would Mr. Davis and his FULL team (including the on the side consultants/advisors .. that might include a relative of the Mayor) fight that fight?

10. posted by Jonathan Davis at September 2, 2008 5:26 pm :
    

    I want to take this opportunity to first thank Lucy and everyone involved in this discussion for their commitment and concerns about our community. As a concerned and involved citizen of Richmond, I am always going to take the responsibility to express my views and to question improprieties whether I believe they originate with the mayor, the administration or any member of City Council. This is the right and responsibility of citizenship.

    Lucy references a debt free municipality. Just like the Commonwealth of Virginia, I believe it is imperative the City operates with a balanced budget. Virginia law prevents the state from running at a deficit, forcing the state government to live within its means. The City should do the same so we do not become a servant to our lenders. We simply cannot and should not spend money we do not have! Increased debt will eventually lead to an increased tax burden for our residents, something I believe is unacceptable. We must eliminate waste, become more efficient and prioritize our spending so we have resources for infrastructure, capital improvements, public safety and education.

    I want to take this opportunity to correct the misinformation about my North Team resignation. Let me be perfectly clear – I did NOT abandon my position. After consultation with the vice chairs of the North Team and with my family, I made the decision to resign. The organization had two vice-chairs, both very competent and more than capable of fulfilling the remainder of my term. Before I made my decision, I ensured there were not one, but two qualified and ready replacements.

    As a city councilman, I will focus on solving problems and creating a cooperative, working relationship with my colleagues, the citizens and the administration. The city will never reach its full potential unless we work together, supporting what is best for the citizens. The incumbent has wasted valuable time and energy bickering with the administration, trying to make and win points instead of solving problems.

    We need to modernize our school system and attract and retain the best and most committed teachers. We need to deliver services in the most expedient, low cost manner and eliminate waste and inefficiency. We need to eliminate open air drug markets and prostitution and expand and build on reentry programs. We need to focus on economic development, rehabilitating neighborhoods, and revitalizing small business corridors, while attracting larger corporations to help supplement our tax base.

    This will be my focus – ensuring Richmond lives up to its potential as a Number One City, a place that families and businesses will be proud to call home.

11. posted by Shannon at September 2, 2008 8:09 pm :
    

    Wow, Mr. Davis. I am struck by your eloquence.

    Nice post!

12. posted by Johnny at September 2, 2008 9:57 pm :
    

    A few points from the last comment. The city is required by the charter to have a balanced budget and work with that budget. Mr. Davis talks about eliminating waste, yet criticizes the incumbent bickering with the administration. As far as has been reported, he has been “bickering” about wasteful spending and how money was spent for a move for the school board that was allocated to Battery Park. I would want my council person to bicker over money allocated to my district and that was to be used to solve a problem that occurred. That is sound fiscal management.

    A second point on these so-called bickering sessions – the Council has gone to court and the council has won each one. So, legally, that bickering is correct. A true leader stands for what he/she believes in, no matter how hard the road. If a person just goes with the flow to not fight for what is right, then we get the status quo or get railroaded. Or, money that is allocated for one item is spent on moving out the school board in the middle of the night.

    Problems have not been solved? Battery Park, money for the Northside Y children’s program, creating a business zone in the Brookland Park Boulevard area, ending prostitution areas along Chamberlayne. Those problems have seen tremendous progress with the incumbent. Everything takes a step at a time and that takes cooperation with the community and other members on Council. So, I find it hard to swallow that Mr. Hilbert has not worked well with others when things have been completed and that Council seems the most cohesive in years.

    I want a person who stands for right and wrong rather than a lapdog.

13. posted by mildred at September 2, 2008 10:59 pm :
    

    Sounds good, but all of us can say what we need in Richmond. I would like to know how you plan on getting these things done.

14. posted by Mark at September 3, 2008 7:49 am :
    

    Mr. Davis since you are answering questions. Why did you take or solicit campain money from the Chevron Station? Did go to the ABC hearing?

15. posted by Scott at September 3, 2008 10:41 am :
    

    Mr. Davis,

    If you are so committed to end bickering, then why was this article even printed? Mr. Hilbert got his newsletter out BEFORE the deadline. Just curious.

16. posted by Jennifer C. at September 5, 2008 8:15 am :
    

    I think you guys are hilarious. You speak about the upstanding moral authority of Mr. Hilbert and then get upset because someone had the good sense to question why a sitting city council member would send out a newsletter so close to an election. Its not fair, he CAN NOT use he access to resources and influence for his re-election campaign and clearly that was what that was. I mean comeone I saw him at the meeting where the motion was passed. So lets not pretend he just didn’t know, or its the post office’s fault, or my favorite his assistant accidently put a May header on August news. Martin Jewell also asked for money to send out a newsletter, how did he manage to get his out on time? Oh I see it was just luck hun? You guys must work for Chris Hilbert because you are ignoring common sense staring you right in the face. He didn’t send the newsletters out to reveal key political information. It was simply to show to “easily led people like you” that he was doing his job, caring like he should, communicating like he should, and deserving of another term. So don’t tell me of the great moral fabric of Chris Hilbert, because that “stacking of the decks,” is not what someone who is moral would do.

    P.S. Also it was not two days before the deadline, it was after the deadline for many citizens of the third district. You cant have it both ways, exaulting the morals and good character of someone who has done something questionable. SMH…

17. posted by Jennifer C. at September 5, 2008 8:54 am :
    

    Sorry for the typos in my last post. I meant to say he CAN NOT use his access to resources and influence for his re-election campaign and clearly that was what that was. Also I meant to say Come on not Comeone I saw him at the meeting where the motion was passed.

18. posted by JS at September 5, 2008 10:02 am :
    

    I am a public official in a different jurisdiction and it incites me to see statements and promises from those in office or running for it that simply reinforce the rules that are already in place. Running a city government on a “cash basis” is a rather lofty proposal. As Johnny mentions, the city must produce a balanced budget which, more than the city charter, is required by state code.

    It is my desire that those who hope to be elected really know how local government works. I believe local government is the most complicated of all the levels of government and requires elected officials to have an understanding of many complicated topics. Instead of being struck by eloquent political statements we, as citizens of the third district, should demand that our elected officials, both the incumbent and the hopeful, truly have the knowledge required to take a leadership role in local government. What is their background with complicated issues such as urban planning and land use, the budget process, setting a tax rate, choosing which items belong on a capital improvement plan, and maintaining the city’s bond rating?

    My friends, I will not be assuaged by blanket political salvos which do nothing more than create sound bites and slogans. I want real, technical answers and proposals from which I can truly glean the knowledge that candidates have pursuant to running a city government. You should all require the same!

19. posted by Anonymous at September 7, 2008 12:05 pm :
    

    I find Hilbert’s politics to be petty, self serving and offensive. He postures at the expense of the well being of the city.

    * Led the investigation into the attempted school board eviction resulting in the identification of $1 million in wasted tax dollars (including attorney fees).

    Instead of dealing with the phenomenal incompetence of the Richmond school system and using the leverage available to the council to force them to do something, Hilbert spends valuable time, money and energy “investigating” (AGAIN) the actions of the mayor. It is offensive and wasteful. The waste of the tax payers dollars on these constant, petty endless investigations this city council continues to pursue with absolutely NO end result, except their petty clucking.

    * Cut the car allowance for City employees.

    Instead of dealing with a single issue of a single over sight Hilbert and the Gang of Petty cut (by thousands of dollars) the pay of city employees. Car allowances are a part of pay packages to compensate employees agreed upon when they are hired. This wasn’t a big secret and Hilbert knows that. Municipalities all over Virginia and all over the country use this tool every day to close the gap of the ridiculously low salaries the city pays. How would you like to have your pay arbitrarily cut so a blow hard politician could posture? As usual Hilbert jumped on the band wagon instead of evaluating a situation on its merits.

    * Eliminated 3 positions from the Mayor’s public relations staff.

    So? Is the purpose to invoke “doing something” to the mayor supposed to given credence to this incompetent?

    * Cut back the Mayor’s PRIVATE security details saving appx $200K.

    Again, jumping on the band wagon for political posturing. If you think Mayor Wilder is a local figure who has the same security needs as these pitiful wannabes you have not stepped outside of Richmond. I find this to be incredibly disrespectful and in keeping with the pettiness of this council. To over ride the security needs established by the police department demonstrates the ignorance and arrogance of this council. Putting political posturing over the safety of the mayor makes my stomach turn. This, once again, demonstrates the inability to analyze an issue rather than posture.

    * Abstained on vote to approve performing arts center because he felt that citizens had not been provided enough information.

    Again, a knee jerk vote to posture.

    * Cut the real estate tax rate by 13 cents saving $26 million.

    While virtually every other jurisdiction in the state increased taxes to gird for the difficult economy. While cutting taxes, Hilbert gripes about what is not getting done.

    Hilbert is a whiner and an egotistic. His political career has been playing gotcha with this adminastration. You forgot to add, he stopped all progress on the round about because his butt wasn’t personally kissed. The fact that surrounding neighborhoods had their questions answered wasn’t good enough for him. He does not lead, he pouts and whines. Enough is enough. He has taken a personal vendetta against the mayor and halted most progress in this city for far too long. The only thing I have seen from him is endless reaction as opposed to any action. He does what he views as politically expedient over doing what is right. Shame on him and shame on this council.

20. posted by A Teenage Point of View at September 7, 2008 5:02 pm :
    

    In my opinion, the people who are “attacking” Jonathan Davis are not as educated in his political point of views. I happen to know for a fact that Mr. Davis’ ideas on how the city should be ran are extremely efficient. He has plenty of GREAT ideas about children, elderly, and families. The statements against Jonathan Davis should be proven statements.

21. posted by Lauren S. at September 8, 2008 10:33 am :
    

    To Anonymous (posting #19): I challenge you to identify yourself. It is easy to attack someone from behind the blanket of anonymity. It is also particularly shameful to attack someone’s personal character while remaining anonymous. I would like to counter some of your badly written arguments. As a resident of Battery Park neighborhood and a longtime Richmonder, I would like to qualify my writing by explaining that my education and my profession, both, are government.

    Argument #1: You argued that Hilbert’s investigation of the school board’s eviction to be petty. I would counter that using $1 million in the span of one weekend to “move” a school board is not something to be taken lightly. The city’s expenses add up to over $658 million for 2009 (see citings below). Using that $1 million, which is less than one percent of the city’s expenses, could be seen as meager; however, for one arguing that Chris Hilbert was doing his district, and the city, a disservice needs to examine his/her ethical stance on the misappropriation of funds by an elected official. Yes, $1 million is not a lot of money to miss from a large budget, but is there a minimum price at which citizens should start to judge that the mishandling of funds, much less a situation, is wrong? Also, it should be noted that, while the council is investigating the school board’s move, any legal action would most likely come from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, which is a state office.

    Expenditures (expenses):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/GenFundExpenByAgency.pdf
    Revenues (incomes):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/PieChartByTypeRevenue.pdf

    Argument #2, #3, #5: You said that cost saving measures to City of Richmond citizens were at an unnecessary expense of city employees. I will address these three arguments together as they, at heart, are dealing with the same issue. Recession or no, every economic expert agrees that the economy is slowing. I hope that “Anonymous” does not need a citing for this statement.

    During a time of recession, everyone makes cuts to their financial outflow. This rule applies from the individual all the way to the federal government. Localities and the state alike are currently cutting budgets in order to stay afloat. And, unlike the federal government, local governments cannot simply run on a deficit. Ethically, when in a time of financial hardship, it is prudent for a locality to be responsible to its citizens. This means cutting any expenses that, arguably, are not vital to the majority of its citizens.

    Financially, a locality cannot spend what it does not have and, when the real estate market is faltering, localities, which derive most of their revenue from real estate tax, must deal with the immediate blow. A locality cannot overtax its citizens’ property when the potential of those properties is lessening.

    The City of Richmond offers a higher number of services than do its county neighbors, as this is required by law. It also receives a much higher amount of money from the state and federal governments (see Richmond versus Henrico below). But, when comparing the real estate tax between the two localities, Richmond’s is much higher than its neighbor. The two localities are not completely comparable as Richmond must provide more services to its citizens, but I am including this tax rate comparison to rebut your argument that other localities are spending more during this financial slowdown.

    The City of Richmond’s revenue:
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/PieChartByTypeRevenue.pdf
    Henrico County’s revenue:
    http://www.co.henrico.va.us/finance/budget0708/Fund01.pdf

    The City of Richmond real estate tax rate is $1.23 per $100 of assessed value (2007-2008):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/TAXRATES.pdf
    Henrico, one of the nearby localities with a higher tax rate than other local counties, has a real estate tax rate of $.90 per $100 of assessed value:
    http://www.co.henrico.va.us/faq/living/reTax.html

    Argument #4: I will leave this issue to anyone else who would like to respond. I have not followed the arts’ center proposal with enough scrutiny to develop an educated opinion.

22. posted by Mike at September 8, 2008 1:07 pm :
    

    To Teenage: Mr. Davis made statements, or attacked Mr. Hilbert regarding the newsletters.

    I have not heard one word from Mr. Davis as it relates to his ideas. The ONLY thing he has come out with is HIS issue with the newsletter. And the statesment that Mr. Davis makes against Mr. Hilbert should also be proven.

23. posted by Steve at September 8, 2008 5:09 pm :
    

    People are not “attacking” Jonathan Davis they are only responding to Jonathan Davis attacks on Chris Hilbert. Mr. Davis has yet put out detailed plan.

    I think Jonthan Davis statements against Chris Hilbert should be proven statements.

24. posted by Doug at September 9, 2008 6:17 am :
    

    To answer the question that Anonymous posed, no I don’t think the purpose of eliminating 3 positions from the Mayor’s public relations staff was to invoke “doing something” to the mayor. Instead, I think it was just one more example of how Council has sought to cut wasteful spending — funding that could be used to help improve the city rather than the Mayor’s image!!!!!!!

25. posted by Lauren S. at September 9, 2008 12:59 pm :
    

    To Anonymous (posting #19): I challenge you to identify yourself. It is easy to attack someone’s personal character from behind the blanket of anonymity. I would like to counter some of your arguments. As a longtime Richmonder, I would like to qualify my writing by explaining that my education and my profession, both, are government.

    Argument #1: You argued that Hilbert’s investigation of the school board’s eviction to be petty. I would counter that using $1 million in the span of one weekend to “move” a school board is not something to be taken lightly. The city’s expenses add up to over $658 million for 2009 (see citings below). Using that $1 million, which is less than one percent of the city’s expenses, could be seen as meager; however, for one arguing that Chris Hilbert was doing his district, and the city, a disservice needs to examine his/her ethical stance on the misappropriation of funds by an elected official. Yes, $1 million is not a lot of money to miss from a large budget, but is there a minimum price at which citizens should start to judge that the mishandling of funds, much less a situation, is wrong? Also, it should be noted that, while the council is investigating the school board’s move, any legal action would most likely come from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, which is a state office.

    Expenditures (expenses):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/GenFundExpenByAgency.pdf
    Revenues (incomes):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/PieChartByTypeRevenue.pdf

    Argument #2, #3, #5: You said that cost saving measures to City of Richmond citizens were at an unnecessary expense of city employees. I will address these three arguments together as they, at heart, are dealing with the same issue. Recession or no, every economic expert agrees that the economy is slowing. I hope that “Anonymous” does not need a citing for this statement.

    During a time of recession, everyone makes cuts to their financial outflow. This rule applies from the individual all the way to the federal government. Localities and the state alike are currently cutting budgets in order to stay afloat. And, unlike the federal government, local governments cannot simply run on a deficit. Ethically, when in a time of financial hardship, it is prudent for a locality to be responsible to its citizens. This means cutting any expenses that, arguably, are not vital to the majority of its citizens.

    Financially, a locality cannot spend what it does not have and, when the real estate market is faltering, localities, which derive most of their revenue from real estate tax, must deal with the immediate blow. A locality cannot overtax its citizens’ property when the potential of those properties is lessening.

    The City of Richmond offers a higher number of services than do its county neighbors, as this is required by law. It also receives a much higher amount of money from the state and federal governments (see Richmond versus Henrico below). But, when comparing the real estate tax between the two localities, Richmond’s is much higher than its neighbor. The two localities are not completely comparable as Richmond must provide more services to its citizens, but I am including this tax rate comparison to rebut your argument that other localities are spending more during this financial slowdown.

    The City of Richmond’s revenue:
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/PieChartByTypeRevenue.pdf
    Henrico County’s revenue:
    http://www.co.henrico.va.us/finance/budget0708/Fund01.pdf

    The City of Richmond real estate tax rate is $1.23 per $100 of assessed value (2007-2008):
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/TAXRATES.pdf
    Henrico, one of the nearby localities with a higher tax rate than other local counties, has a real estate tax rate of $.90 per $100 of assessed value:
    http://www.co.henrico.va.us/faq/living/reTax.html

    Argument #4: I will leave this issue to anyone else who would like to respond. I have not followed the arts’ center proposal with enough scrutiny to develop an educated opinion.

26. posted by JS at September 10, 2008 7:18 am :
    

    Anonymous, you have truly done whomever you are supporting, and I am assuming that to be Jonathan Davis with your posting, a major disservice. I can understand, in a forum such as this, that those who post will bring to light arguments which are detrimental to the person whom they do not support, and complimentary to those whom they do support. You my friend have managed to accomplish neither with your insipid referendum on City Council.

    First, you must not believe in the time old American tradition of checks and balances. In the strong mayor form of local government, since both the mayor and the council are elected, there is a balance of power by design between the executive (mayor) and the legislature (council). One could glean for your first argument that you are disgusted by council for investigating the mayor’s actions with regard to the attempted eviction of the school board. It seems that it bothers you that council led the charge to investigate how the executive branch spends your hard earned taxes (if indeed you are a resident of the city of Richmond). I find comfort in the fact that council is not a rubber stamp to the will of the mayor; furthermore, I am comforted in the fact that council is willing to investigate a matter which involved what can seemingly be construed as misappropriation of public funds to the tune of a million dollars. That being said, can it be inferred that one you support in the third district council race will be a rubber stamp for the executive, and not pursue responsible spending of public funds?

    Let us continue further with your contrived diatribe to point out that you must be the first person I have seen (and as both a former student and current servant of government, I may say with some authority), to ridicule those that attempt to consolidate government, reduce spending and ultimately lower taxes. I cannot believe, that in these economic times, you would make an argument against lowering property taxes and alas, berate those have attempted to ease the tax burden for those who live in the city. You do realize that the housing bubble has burst and some houses are not worth what they used to be. Judging by the fervor of your argument, one can only assume that the person you support would find it necessary to increase taxes and promote wasteful government spending.

27. posted by Shannon at September 10, 2008 6:58 pm :
    

    JS – With all due respect, I think that it’s faulty reasoning to hold Jonathan Davis accountable for the fact that you disagree with a person who posts on a blog. Critical statements about the status quo do not necessarily mean that the person posting those statement is a supporter of, or supported by, the alternate candidate.

    Unless someone states that they are representing another when they share their opinion – whether it be in a forum such as this, or in the line at the grocery store chatting about the price of milk – I think it would be best to simply take their statements at face value. One individual’s opinion from one individual.

28. posted by JS at September 10, 2008 8:03 pm :
    

    Shannon – Your point is well received. Let me clear the air by saying it was not my intention to hold Mr. Davis responsible for the statements made in anonymous’ posting. Furthermore, I would be surprised if Mr. Davis would want to have a posting such as this associated with his campaign. That being said, if the intent of the posting was to slander Mr. Hilbert in light of supporting Mr. Davis, than feel the posting did more harm than good. This is what I was hoping to convey by dissecting the points brought forward.

29. posted by Anonymous at September 10, 2008 9:32 pm :
    

    First, I will post on a public blog any way I see fit. If you don’t like it – tough.

    Second, I do not support anyone. Frankly, I do not know who is running against Hilbert, but I can almost assure you I will vote for them. I am not a supporter of any candidate. Jump to all of the nefarious conclusions you want – you will certainly be in keeping with your candidate Hilbert.

    Third, I said nothing slanderous about Hilbert. I said EXACTLY how I view him. As a resident of Northside for 30 years I will speak my mind, and I will speak it as I see fit.

    Fourth, all of the whining and sniggling in these responses (with the exception of Shannon) represents, to me, exactly what Hilbert is. I strongly believe in checks and balances. I strongly believe in a responsible government and responsible government spending. Whether you like it or not, many citizens of Richmond are sick and tired of adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. Hilbert postures and pontificates against the mayor. He doesn’t actually DO anything. I (and many others) are sick of it.

    Whether you like it or not people are completely fed up. Shannon is correct – this is one individual opinion from one individual.

30. posted by Anonymous at September 10, 2008 9:50 pm :
    

    One more thing. Here is what I would like to see investigated: Why is city council giving Richmond City School Board free (excuse me – $10 a year) rent in City Hall? Show me any other locality that gives that much square footage – for free – in City Hall to a school board??? THAT is waste and fraud. Where is the big investigation on that?? What is the possible excuse to continue to subsidize this incompetent and unaccountable school board??? Where is the city council accountability on this issue??? That seems to have fallen completely off the radar screen. They have no business in City Hall – and they certainly have no business in City Hall rent free. What has Hilbert done about that?? Oh yeah, given them a life time lease. Ridiculous.

31. posted by Gary at September 11, 2008 8:15 am :
    

    FYI – the school board was going to leave (reluctantly) until Hilbert gave them the sweetheart rent deal. After that, they had concrete shoes and refused. The problem was all but solved and the rent deal screwed it up. Kind of like outlawing a roundabout because you don’t like it.

32. posted by JS at September 11, 2008 8:24 am :
    

    Anonymous – Here is a local government lesson for you. Local public school budgets derive their budget through a transfer from the General Fund of the locality. So in essence, any rent that is charged, the locality would be paying to themselves. A little research goes a long way…

33. posted by Lauren S. at September 11, 2008 8:25 am :
    

    Oh, Anon, you just made this dreary Thursday morning a much brighter day. I got a great laugh from your postings.

    You are correct on one item – you are definitely speaking YOUR mind. However, I’d like you to back up your statement that “people are completely fed up.”

    I haven’t whined or sniggled (eel catching just isn’t my thing). But, I have definitely sniggered at your ranting, which, just to inform you, means to snicker. Snicker means to laugh at in a not so nice way. Perhaps I could lend you a Webster’s, heh?

    But, truly, I have cited everything I’ve stated with facts. Perhaps you have the mettle to do the same?

34. posted by David at September 11, 2008 9:15 am :
    

    I’ve attended 2 presentations by the city about the roundabout. Both sessions contained answers and, in some cases, not quite full answers. Some people have not had their questions fully answered and don’t believe that the round about is the best solution to the AP Hill intersection. People are concerned about the round about and they have let Mr. Hilbert know. He, in support of his constituents that have vocalized their concern and opposition, put in the ordinance which has yet to be voted on by council. That sounds like constituent service to me. And I disagree with Mr. Hilbert on this issue and I fully support the roundabout.

    And, I’m supporting his re-election bid as well. Why? Because where some see posturing, I see a council member who is willing to upset people to hold an administration to account, especially when that administration insists that ordinances, law, and rules do not apply to it. Where some see retribution for not having “his butt personally kissed”, I see someone who is listening to the valid concerns of constituents.

    The good thing about our home of the free and the brave is that if you support Mr. Hilbert, check the box. If you don’t, check the box next to the person whom you feel will better serve the 3rd district. I’ll be checking box for Mr. Hilbert, and I encourage others to do the same.

35. posted by Mike at September 11, 2008 10:23 am :
    

    Anonymous,do you know where the funding for the School Board comes from? It comes from the General Fund. The General Fund, which is another way of saying The City of Richmond’s budget. That money comes us, the taxpayers. So Wilder wanted the School Board to leave and pay a landlord a couple of million dollars a year. That is a couple of million dollars less going towards education of the children.

    Did you know that $500,000 that was to go toward rehabbing Battery Park was used in the attempted move. That money is gone. Hilbert lead the investigation into that. Herring, the Commwealth’S Attorney declined to proceed. Hilbert actually saved the City some money.
    The missing $500,000 seems to have fallen completely off the radar screen.

36. posted by Scott at September 11, 2008 11:32 am :
    

    Anon, what I don’t get is your statement, (and don’t know why no one has brought this up)… “Frankly, I do not know who is running against Hilbert, but I can almost assure you I will vote for them.” Are you saying that whether or not you know what a candidate stands for you will vote for thim simply because they are not Hilbert? If you are that ill informed, you really should abstain from voting at all. And that is MY opinion.

37. posted by Jennifer C. at September 12, 2008 1:51 pm :
    

    This is a personality issue, between Chris Hilbert and the mayor. POINT BLANK….What could he have been doing for our district. The negative opinions of the mayor should not have denied me additional economic growth on Brookline Park Blvd, or long staying removal or prostitution on Chamberlayne or a FIXED and CLEAN Battery Park. COME ON lets stay on some issues…So me where Chris Hilbert really cares about his people and not about his political vendettas.

38. posted by Jennifer C. at September 12, 2008 1:55 pm :
    

    This is a personality issue, between Chris Hilbert and the mayor POINT BLANK…What could he have been doing for our district. The negative opinions of the mayor should not have denied me additional economic growth on Brooklayne Park Blvd, or long staying removal of prostitution on Chamberlayne or a FIXED and CLEAN Battery Park. COME ON lets stay on some issues instead on critizing someones grammer. Show me where Chris Hilbert really cares about his people and not about his own personal political vendettas.

39. posted by Jennifer C. at September 12, 2008 2:03 pm :
    

    LOL…to the Lauren S. who said, “To Anonymous (posting #19): I challenge you to identify yourself.” You need to grow up this is a free country and this person can say whatever he wants. If he identifies himself what are you gonna do? Beat him up. GROW UP. I tire of people who talk really big and bad on the internet. Grow up. What about Battery Park. Grow up What about no supermarkets in the area. Grow up. I am seeing more and more prostitutes resurfacing. Grow up. Lets deal with these things lady to make the district better instead of leading a witch hunt for someone who excercised his FREE SPEECH.

40. posted by Lauren S. at September 15, 2008 9:15 am :
    

    Jennifer, I would like to address some of your concerns:

    I challenged the individual’s anonymity not because I don’t believe in free speech, but because the attacks were personal, going beyond a difference in policy. If you tire of people who talk “big and bad” on the internet, then you should agree that s/he was talking “big and bad” by anonymously attacking a candidate’s character, not his policy record.

    I live in the Battery Park neighborhood. I, personally, “deal with these things” by actively participating in our neighborhood watch. As for the prostitution issue – most of Northside’s prostitutes were arrested a few weeks ago. This bust was due to a culmination of neighbors, on both sides of Chamberlayne Avenue, who noticed the recent rise and called the police. The police, then, operated a sting, which took only a few weeks to conclude.
    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-08-0209.html
    I did notice this past week that the Brookland Park Car Wash prostitute was back. Perhaps you could join in and call the police when you see her servicing customers?

    As for our park, Chris Hilbert donated to the Battery Park Civic Association, which has been engaging the city’s Parks and Recreation Department to open the park within a scheduled timeline. The department, falling under the executive branch, had neglected to keep area residents informed of a major delay in the park. But, the civic association has since been insisting on their presence at the association’s monthly meetings with updates for the residents.
    http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/parks/battery_park_newsletter.pdf

    It would be nice if there were a very close supermarket, but Kroger is only a short hike down Lombardy. Even without a vehicle, it can be reached within ten minutes by bike and about twenty by foot.

    P.S. Thank you for your concern about my height. I have thought another inch or two would be nice.

41. posted by Steve at September 15, 2008 12:16 pm :
    

    It is not the job of any city official is to put a supermarket in certain parts of town!

    And as for Battery Park, did you see it flood last week? Me either.

42. posted by northside at September 15, 2008 12:23 pm :
    

    Dave – you are right about the right to pull that lever and disagree. But I went to one of the meetings and I am not sure what was NOT answered. Constituent service is or should not be defined as stopping the process of government just because some people disagree with a project. Officials sometimes have to tell their constituents a project must go forward, esp. when an overwhelming number of people, associations, and other Council people support it. Outlawing something because you can is consitutent DISSERVICE.

43. posted by JS at September 15, 2008 2:01 pm :
    

    Jennifer – Please, relax! I do not want you to have a heart attack over a public blog which by design is a place for those on both sides of the third district council race to offer their opinions.

    Your postings, which might I add are elegant in their interesting use of grammar and pros, seem to be way off point. It is hard to take you seriously when you offer a plethora of complaints, which are simply that, complaints. Now I realize we are all entitled to our own opinions, or as you put it our own free speech. It fair to offer a counter argument to those who disagree with you, but if you are going to do so, perhaps you should use facts as opposed to conjecture, and perhaps you use use complete sentences if you are going to be taken seriously.

    Finally, if you are tied of those “people who talk big and bad on the internet,” (which more appropriately would be writing big and bad) than perhaps you should should quit blogging all together. After all, the blog exists on a website, and thus is the only place to be, as you put it “big and bad.”

    Just to add, are your postings not a bit adversarial (”big and bad”) in their own right?

44. posted by JS at September 15, 2008 2:19 pm :
    

    I feel sheepish about my posting. Here I am going on about grammar and I made some mistakes of my own. For my own sake please replace pros with proes, please replace tied with tired (third paragraph) and strike the second “use” in the second paragraph. Sorry for these, it just goes to show you cannot proof read enough.

45. posted by Steve at September 15, 2008 3:18 pm :
    

    Jen, you sound ver concerned for your community. Did you live within the Battery Park? If you do you should come to our meetings. We are always in need of helping hands.

46. posted by Jennifer C. at September 23, 2008 6:38 pm :
    

    JS, “sheepish” wasn’t the word that sprung to mind. I was thinking you should be embarrassed. I never, not once, criticized anyone about the quality of their writing or the use of their grammer. You on the other hand spend the first paragraph of your attack on me talking about my use of complete sentences. How dare you sir? And how ironic it is that YOUR post is riddled with errors. Look towards yourself before you let out a barrage of petty insults. WE, who live in the third district need to be fighting about the issues that face us all. Now maybe you have life so good that my concerns are merely groundless complaints, but I encounter the real victims of these issues everyday. I have however, found it difficult to correct a problem unless you acknowledge it exists. The third district can improve and I will continue doing what I can to see that it does. You should feel silly for attacking me on my prose and not the content of my arguements.
    Shame on you sir. You are not the grammer police, as your post clearly shows.
    Jennifer C.

    P.S. I am a part of a North Richmond Civic association. Additionally, I volunteer with two organizations that are geared toward issues in our district.

47. posted by Rick at September 24, 2008 11:40 am :
    

    Jennifer. So you don’t live within the Battery Park. I’m quessing you have not been to recent Battery Park Civic Association meeting since you are part of North Central assocation.

    If you haven’t been to a recent Battery Park meeting then you have not gotten the information on what is or going to be done with the park.

48. posted by Jennifer C. at September 26, 2008 10:58 am :
    

    Rick,
    I belong to a Civic Association in our district, I never said I belonged to North Central specifically. Although, I have taken an interest in the status of repairs for the park, it is all possible that I may have missed a new development. Do you know when the football is being finished or the playground replaced with grass? Please let me know, what I have missed.

49. posted by The Original Jennifer C. at September 28, 2008 2:59 pm :
    

    Since quite a few people cross-post on several of the neighborhood weblogs, I wanted to be sure that people know that the “Jennifer C” posting on this one is not the same one who posts on CHPN and H&H. Also, Jennifer C the Second, I’d appreciate it if you’d pick another screen name. I don’t want people getting confused.

50. posted by Barton Heights at September 29, 2008 8:59 am :
    

    To the 2nd Jennifer C. – Perhaps you should go after a different office holder for official dates. Wilder is in charge of the executive branch, which is responsible for restoring our park.

    The BPCA and representatives of the Dept. of Parks and Rec. have made announcements at every monthly BPCA meeting for the entire 2008 year. While in no way are the developments new, the executive branch of the city has provided the BPCA with multiple opening dates, most of which have passed with no opening of the park. Perhaps the best way to “fight the issues that face us” in regard to the opening of the park, is to call Wilder’s office directly.

51. posted by Steve at October 11, 2008 4:43 pm :
    

    Looks like Jonthan Davis broke state election laws by using his state job to design and print his stuff for his campaign. Even if Mr. Davis truly believes he didn’t nothing wrong, this shows his lack of good judgement and should not be running for City Council.

52. posted by Doug at October 11, 2008 6:13 pm :
    

    I completely agree with Steve’s assessment. While I certainly think that job training for the incarcerated is important, to defend the training of these youth for something that he himself has benefited from is beyond ridiculous.

    In the hope of enlightening Mr. Davis he should know that if he didn’t pay the youth’s $2/hour wage (which is obviously the case per his quote in the RTD), it is we, THE TAXPAYERS, who footed the bill.

    It’s clear by his responses to the times dispatch that Mr. Davis doesn’t believe he did anything wrong and that in itself is almost more disturbing. I hope the residents of the 3rd district are outraged by what is clearly unethical behavior.

Leave a Comment