|
|
|
|
|
|
| May 5, 2008 |
A Question of Fairness To PortsmouthCityWatch: I'd like to take a moment to correct a glaring error in yesterday's Currents in an ad which states, "Citizens objected to Z-07-01 and were ignored." The ad leaves the impression that all the incumbents currently running for reelection to council ultimately voted to pass the rezoning of property on Airline Boulevard. This is far from the truth: There were two votes at two council meetings as is the custom in these situations. On the second vote, Councilman Ray Smith changed his vote and the re-zoning was defeated. Far from ignoring citizens, Councilman Smith (and others mentioned in the ad) met with the citizens from the neighborhood most likely to feel the impact of the rezoning, not once, but several times. I know this because I volunteered to mediate, and I helped set up the meetings and attended them. After his final meeting with those citizens and conversations with the developer, Councilman Smith decided to change his vote. This decision was made prior to the council meeting where the second vote was held and was in direct response to citizens' voices. I explained all this loudly and clearly to attendees at the Long Point Civic League forum two weeks ago, and discussed the series of events with Mr. Ellis and Mr. Carroll. I was, therefore, quite surprised to see the manipulative efforts of a group they are connected with ignoring the truth and misguiding the public in their ad. It begs the question: How honest would such people be once elected? Councilman Smith's willingness to spend countless hours working with the citizens on this and other issues, his concern for all the citizens of Portsmouth (not just the loudest), and, above all, his integrity, prompted me to offer my time and energy to help in his re-election. He is a good, honest man and has worked tirelessly to make Portsmouth a better place for us all. I hope you all will keep that in mind when visiting the polls tomorrow. |
| April 25, 2007 |
Why I Can Support the Level of School Funding in FY2008 City Budget (In an "Opinions" column on April 24, 2007, PortsmouthCityWatch "assigned" the mayor and council members the task of justifying a $7.1 million allocation to Portsmouth Public Schools for FY2008 rather than the $9 million that the funding formula would have provided. Only Council Member Douglas Smith completed the assignment. In the interests of stimulating civic dialogue, we have posted his thoughtful, well-written response.)
To PortsmouthCityWatch:
Doug Smith |
| April
12, 2007(updated April 23, 2007) |
Order, Please, Mayor Holley! I am proud of the many
positive changes our new City Council has achieved. As a long-time
observer of Portsmouth government, however, I am becoming increasingly
concerned by the If the Mayor is really thinking about running again next year, he should at least demonstrate that he is still capable of performing his job by running City Council meetings in an orderly and respectful way. The Mayor should refrain from attacking citizens who disagree with him, and he should not allow speakers to attack individual members of the City Council and each other, no matter what. I hate to see our City being run down this way. We may disagree on things from time to time, but we may never be disagreeable in doing so. Helen Person |
| September 7, 2006 |
Consider Health and Environmental Issues in Trash Port Assessment I wanted to thank the citizens of Portsmouth for hosting a public meeting on Tuesday, 9 September [at the Cradock Civic League], and for inviting Mr. Hatfield and Ms. Felicia Blow of SPSA to participate. Several members of other cities participated and spoke to members of your community before and after the meeting. Clearly, Portsmouth has an important decision ahead. As you consider the trash port decision with New York City trash, remember the health and quality of life of your citizens. I spoke with a young scout who attended tonight's meeting. As you think of the young people you know, perhaps they should be on your mind as you hear promises of money that Portsmouth might receive. Balance that in your mind against the environmental risks and uncertainty of those pulling the deal together. One of your residents passed out an info paper tonight. Covanta was mentioned in the paper for numerous violations. Two examples:
|
| August 4, 2006 |
No Trash Port for Portsmouth I agree with the points the following flyer makes about the inadvisability of the proposed Covanta trash barge handling facility in Portsmouth. No More Trash flyer
(15 KB) |
| July 6, 2006 |
Another Side to the Garden of Prayer Story (The following letter from Council Member Ray Smith, Sr., appeared in the Virginian-Pilot, on Thursday, July 6, 2006, in abbreviated form. With Mr. Smith's permission, PortsmouthCityWatch has published a longer version of his letter.)
The four majority Council members have no regrets or apologies for the position we took. It is unfortunate that things couldn’t be avoided. As elected officials we represent the citizens who put their faith and trust in us as leaders to represent their best interests. In this case it was the interests of a community we stood for and protected. As a lifelong resident of the city, I can personally recall the problems frequently experienced by those on South Street when major events occurred at the old Garden of Prayer Temple. During those times parking, late hour services, and overflow of worshippers wreaked havoc on a smaller density of residents. Along comes development, houses are torn down, and even more constructed. The leaders of the Garden of Prayer wanted to expand. There was nowhere to go. They relocated to Norfolk where they constructed a sanctuary three times the size of their church on Washington Street. Will the Chases experience similar obstacles [in reopening the church]? Yes, they will. The difference this time is that community, city, and church will work together to avoid unnecessary problems. Could this have happened in the beginning? Maybe yes, and maybe no. Now it is being forced on the community, and that shouldn’t be the case. The Pilot has not printed the fact that there were actually two other legal opinions given besides the city attorney’s. The city attorney recommended one of the attorneys. Both [outside] opinions clearly indicated that the city had a strong enough case to defend. So you see, it was actually 2 [legal opinions] to 1 in favor of defending [the action council took]. [The issue] could have been worked out long before now if council had remained together communicating with one another. The minority once again was on the losing end of the selection of the attorney to defend the city. There was so much hate and discontentment toward the chosen law firm by one of the minority members that it precipitated the demand for a separate attorney. The judge dismissed [the minority] as parties [to the suit], but they continued to insist on having separate representation. There was no need to bring another law firm into the eventual melee of lawyers. Thus, the wall went up, and no real progress was made, until both sides agreed to began settlement talks. Everyone agreed that this could be an option. A simple majority (which is frequently the process) had authority to authorize the talks. Public land disposition issues, however, require more than a simple majority for final approval. In no way were we violating the plaintiff’s rights under Federal law. Especially when we advocated for the use of one of our local schools for worship services in the interim as well as repeatedly offering to find another location for their church. Going to trial, I believe we would have prevailed. But that would have meant even more time and money spent. It was time to stop the bleeding on both sides. You indicated that Councilperson Psimas led the effort to broker a deal. You are again wrong. I recommended to Council that Councilperson Psimas accompany me to participate in the discussion as a representative from the minority side. Sensing that the entire process had reached a stalemate due to the minority members claim of no input, I initiated the talks with the Chases, requesting that no attorneys be involved. We both worked together to conclude the final settlement with the Chases. In retrospect, I will admit, I would not have switched my vote. I believe we were protecting our citizens. I would stand with the community again if I thought they had legitimate claims. We have a right by law and city code to approve or disapprove land uses. This also protects our city and citizens. This matter needed to be resolved sooner rather than later. After personally meeting with the Chases and learning that they sincerely wanted to be good neighbors and establish a relationship with the community and city, I bought suggestions back to the full council. It was after that point that council empowered us to meet and work out another settlement agreement. In my opinion there are lessons to be learned by all council members for the future. First, we have the right and authority to determine land use. Religious organizations fall under those same rules and codes. Secondly, Councilpersons must work together as duly elected representatives for the people without allowing personal differences, attitudes, and preferences to override sound judgment. [Finally, we must remember] that we are councilpersons first, not lawyers, engineers, business persons, developers, etc. To the Pilot, please make it a goal to get all the facts before you render your opinion. I know this can be difficult when legal matters are involved. But after it is over, you have an obligation to seek those facts before you broadcast your opinion. In my opinion, you missed the ball on this one. This represents the accurate events. This is my personal view, however, which is not necessary shared by my colleagues. Ray A. Smith, Sr.City Council Member |
| May 24, 2006 |
New Courthouse: Is It within Our Means? Why do we need a "Palace of Justice"? I did a Google search "Court+Metal+Building" and came up with numerous "hits". The new court house could and more importantly should be done for less. We (the City of Portsmouth) must learn to live within our means. |
| April 30, 2006 |
Picking School Board Members My interest in the Portsmouth School Board is not at all new. As a very involved parent, former teacher of Social Studies and Gifted Education, and as a local businessman, I strongly believe that any city can never be stronger than it's schools. We continue to dramatically drop our student enrollment (hence our economic support from the federal and state governments). We continue to have our dual retention problems (not retaining enough of the good teachers and administrators and being unwilling to NOT retain the weak, incompetent, and corrupt.) We repeatedly under serve our most gifted students in deference to improving SOL scores. We continue to ignore the studies that show smaller class sizes AND smaller schools produce better and higher scoring students. I am somewhat disheartened that more candidates did not come forward to run for the school board. It is a difficult position, unquestionably underpaid in relation to City Council positions, and has been marred by racial and personality conflicts for a number of years. Nonetheless, it is the most important elected official in regard to the real future of Portsmouth. I have not been as active in the campaign this year as I have in the past. I have, however, attempted to do my homework in regard to the candidates, and I have certainly reached my decisions as to for whom I will vote. In that I have been asked by a handful of people for my recommendations, I will put them out there. I am not interested at all in any explanation as to why I will not be voting for any candidate. There is enough negativity out there so that mine is not needed! I will tell you who I am voting for and why, and only request that you give these candidates your serious consideration. I never would expect or desire that anyone replace their own judgments with mine. I believe that Linda Ridenour has been the absolute prototype of what a school board member should be. She is in the schools on a very regular basis, talking to teachers, administrators, and students. She knows what is going on and has consistently spoken up as the voice of the people. She has not been intimidated by antagonistic board members, the media, or administrators. She understands the dynamic that the School administrators work for the people under the leadership of the elected school board. She has not shied away from taking an unpopular stand when she knew in her heart that she was doing that which was right. Four more school board members like her, and we would have that "world class" school system that we like to talk about! If ever an incumbent has earned a repeat performance, it is Linda. I have known and been a friend of V. Pat Burns for a number of years. I feel that I know her heart, and this is a good woman. I have had the occasion to go to appeal to many of you over the past years for financial support, etc., for students who were seeking to better themselves through furthering their educations in spite of great obstacles. Pat is probably one of my least affluent friends, but she has ALWAYS answered the call, and has never questioned what was in it for her. When I have had the need for an extra pair of hands, hers have been available. I greatly value Pat, and feel that she can have a strong positive impact on the school board. I have never known her to make any decision based upon race, religion, or social status. She demonstrates common sense, and she truly listens, a highly valuable and somewhat rare commodity on our school board. I will be pleased and proud to cast one vote for her on Tuesday. I had the opportunity to get to know and work with Jim Hewitt in the last election. Jim and I are of very different political beliefs, at least on state and national issues. I am not without my concerns as to his open-mindedness in some areas. What I do not question is the sincerity of his convictions and his desire to seek that which is best for the children of Portsmouth. As a young parent, he certainly has a vested interest in our doing the right thing by our children. He has made commitments to pursuing a level of excellence for all of our children, not just those who are needed to meet the schools accreditation requirements. I believe that Jim will be open to looking at creative methods of reversing the trend of parents taking their children out of our public schools. I will be voting for Jim, and request that you give him your consideration. There are four seats available on the school board. I have made three recommendations. Those are the three candidates for whom I will be voting. It is not necessary to vote for four candidates, but that is a decision that you have to make. I thank you for giving me your time and consideration to read what I have to say. Regardless of the outcome, may we all hope that the incoming board will find more harmony and will consistently make their decisions solely on the basis of what is best for each and everyone of our precious children in Portsmouth. They cannot vote. May we educate them effectively, so when that is no longer the case, they will have the knowledge and wisdom to do it well! |
| April 23, 2006 |
Even More Facts In response to the April
20 input from Ms. Ann Thomas, I would request a peek at the articles
she quotes. I'd like to add them to my collection, which currently
occupies six notebooks and a file box of newspaper articles, meeting
minutes, reports, memoranda, letters, and miscellaneous documents
pertaining to the nTelos Pavilion.
I spent the last two years pushing city
council and management for better management and oversight of the
Pavilion--you might say I've "spent my share of time around city
hall"--and I never, ever came across anything in print about Mr.
Reid investing $2 million in the pavilion. While I have no doubt
that Mr. Reid originally proposed a significant investment in this
public-private partnership, as early as January 1999, former City
Manager Massie said that "the details of public-private partnership
have not been decided but that the City and Rising Tide Production
were favoring an arrangement of public ownership of the facility and
private management." (TheChesapeakeBay.com, January 1999,
"Portsmouth, VA Announces New Riverfront Project.")
Doug Smith was quoted in the Virginian-Pilot
(June 8, 2000) as having said that "...Reid and
his Virginia Beach-based production company, Rising Tide
Productions, were 'uniquely qualified' to operate the performing
arts center." This was in part a response to SFX wanting to bid on
the project and being denied the opportunity. Needless to say, Mr.
Smith was proved wrong on that particular point, which might show a
lack of judgment but is a far cry from having "presided over one of
Portsmouth's worst fiascos [sic] ever."
I am also curious about the $6 million
figure Ms. Thomas quotes. My records show that the cost of the
pavilion went from the original $5 million proposed by Reid for a
simple open-air theater, to $8 million after the City expanded the
project, to $10 million and then to $13 million. (It's cost much
more than that, ultimately.) I have never seen a $6 million figure
quoted anywhere, so I'd like to see what I missed.
In fact, in the March 14, 2000, council
meeting minutes you can read the following: "Motion by Mr. Moody, and seconded by
Mr. Whitehurst, to adopt the following resolution, and was adopted
by the following vote: 'A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF
FINANCING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
PORTSMOUTH, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER AND RELATED FACILITIES, INCLUDING AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE A
GENERAL OBLIGATION GUARANTEE IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$10,000,000 TO SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY FOR
SUCH PROJECT.'" The vote was unanimous to adopt the
resolution.
And in the January 23, 2001, minutes: "Motion by Mr. Moody, and seconded by
Mr. Whitehurst, to adopt the following resolution, and was adopted
by the following vote: 'A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZING A
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $11,500,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION FINANCING FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.'"
That particular $11,500,000 included "an
additional $3 million general obligation guarantee to the IDA for
the additional amount of bonds needed to fully finance the
[Performing Arts Center] project." The vote was again unanimous. And finally, at the May 15, 2001, public work session (emphasis mine): "Motion by Mr. Moody, and seconded by Mr. Whitehurst, to go into Closed Meeting
pursuant to provisions of Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, to discuss or consider
the following: employee personnel matters, as per subsection 1; and the disposition of public property,
as per subsection 3. The subject property is the Performing
Arts Center." When the open meeting resumed, Councilman Robinett made a motion, seconded by Mr. Benn,
"that Council express its approval of the proposed Agreement for the
Performing Arts Center that has been negotiated by our management
team..." The motion was adopted by unanimous vote. That vote gave us
the famously unenforced contract that we all came to know and love
several years later. For what it's worth, I don't think that
the idea of a performing arts center, where we were supposed to have
a permanent home for Portside and special community events, was a
bad idea. Had I been on council, I might have voted for it myself,
but I would like to think I'd have been curious enough about the
return on investment to keep track of what was happening there. And
I'd like to think that I would have ensured public access as
promised to the citizens in return for their support for the
project. Meanwhile, Ms. Thomas, I'd sure love to see where you got all your "quotes"! Terry
Danaher P. S. "Watchdog" is one word, and this watchdog's site is the only one
around that gives all of us a chance to express our views--or rants--unedited. So
thanks to Mark and Martha Ann Creecy for helping to make it possible. |
|
(Updated June 29, 2006) April 20, 2006
|
Facts Count, or Do They? Your recent uttering's on the upcoming election leave me puzzled. Having spent my share of time around city hall, if you are, as you say, the watch "DOG" for the people, then you should be fired for failure to perform. Looking through my news articles of the day on NTELOS, I have an article in which candidate DOUG SMITH "also known as the former Director of Economic Development & Deputy City Manager of Portsmouth", announcing that Mr. Bill Reid is going to be the city's partner in NTELOS to the tune of $2,000,000. The same article quotes Mr. Deputy City Manager Doug Smith stating that NTELOS would cost the taxpayers $6 million. I have later articles announcing that Mr. Reid's contribution is ZERO, and that the cost is now $13 million. I cannot believe that a self proclaimed WATCH DOG would let his apparent personal views cloud the facts that Doug Smith presided over one of Portsmouth's worst fiascos ever. I also invite you to source article in which then Councilman William Moody spoke out against the cost over runs and the City's (Doug Smith & Company's) lack of oversight of the project. In closing, sir, I can only say that your WATCH DOG DUTY IS SELECTIVE.
As for Mr. Forlines, I appreciate the article that
was run in the Currents on his support of trash.
It is hard to refute one's own words.
As for you, I say it is time to get a new Watch Dog. What a shame that this service that you say you are providing is not on the ballot. From the people I speak to, you would be the night's big loser as you have in the past on election nights.
Submitted from
portssail@aol.com
and represented as the opinion of Ann Thomas, this is a
counterfeit from an as yet unidentified source.
|
| July 22 2005 |
Support Appointive School Board Referendum An effort is currently underway to obtain enough signatures on a petition to have a referendum in the November general election regarding the Portsmouth School Board. The question will be "Shall the method of selecting the school board be changed from direct election by the voters to appointment by the governing body?" You may ask, "Why would we want to give up our right to elect candidates?" Because they have not been held accountable since we shifted to an elected school board. We need to start with a clean slate of professionals. The school board, as it stands right now, is so locked into hating each other on irrelevant issues that they have lost all focus on what really matters: our kids' education and Portsmouth Schools. We need to replace the current board that is bent on dividing the city instead of serving the public's interest. Current and past boards have created a counterproductive culture, and they have not been held accountable. Our school system, our city, and our students have suffered. For almost 10 years we have endured in-fighting, special and personal interests that have created division and discontent in our city. Portsmouth needs to look forward and unite to provide the best opportunities for public education. Making City Council, the governing body, responsible for appointing members to the school board, as has been done in the past, will return accountability and a professional demeanor from school board members. Approximately 5600 valid signatures are required on the petition by August 10th in order to get the question on the November ballot. There is not a lot of time to accomplish this task. We are asking Portsmouth business leaders, civic leagues, citizen groups, and citizens who are not currently assisting us to contact us by email (click below) or by phone at 735-1937. Douglas and Mandy Eames |
|
(Updated June 29, 2006) 3 July 2005 |
Old Glory Needs No Artificial Protections Hooray for Congressman Bobby Scott, and jeers to Congressman Randy Forbes and Congresswoman Thelma Drake on their recent votes on the Flag Burning Amendment. Someone needs to remind Mr. Forbes and Ms. Drake and their Republican colleagues that we live in a country where our flag isn't being burned. Old Glory isn't being burned in our country because our citizens respect it for what it stands for, not because some politicians trying to wrap themselves in the flag passed a law. Those millions of brave Americans who have died in the defense of liberty and the values that our flag stands for would turn over in their graves knowing that politicians feel that we need a law to defend Old Glory. Republicans seem compelled to drag out this unneeded and unwanted legislation whenever their poll numbers begin sliding. They need to unwrap themselves from Old Glory and get to work on finding solutions to the real problems in our country. Thank God, flag burning isn't one of them! Submitted from mwr567@aol.com and represented as the opinion of Bill Russell, this is a counterfeit from an as yet unidentified source. |
| April 21, 2005 |
Council Should Support FOP Pay Proposal
Portsmouth is a fine, very livable city, progressing and improving
against a great number of challenges. One of our most daunting
challenges is in overcoming the negative perception of Portsmouth as
an unsafe community. This perception handicaps the City’s efforts in
economic development and residential redevelopment; restraining us
from being a community of choice.
Our Police Department has a well-earned reputation of being highly trained, competent and professional. The Portsmouth Police Department has lost over 140 Police Officers in the last 5 years. At a cost of over $70,000 each to train new Officers, the bill to Portsmouth taxpayers is well over 9 million dollars, money we can ill afford to expend in such an unnecessary manner. Our City Council can change this by instituting a pay plan that will allow our Police Officers to progress within the ranks with an assured future, leading toward Officer retention rates that will save Portsmouth Citizens millions of dollars in the next few years. There is no pay plan currently in place that allows our Officers to progress in their careers with the Portsmouth Police Department. City Council has the unique opportunity to both solve an important problem and save millions of taxpayer dollars by adopting the FOP's proposed Career Officer Plan. Failure to act will cost us additional millions of dollars in Officer training, result in higher crime rates and add one more issue to the ever lengthening list of Council missteps. Portsmouth City Council members, please do the right thing and support our Police Officers by adopting the Career Officer Plan. |
|
(Updated June 29, 2006) April 3, 2005 |
nTelos Settlement Likely to Shortchange Necessities
Far from being applauded for voting for a new nTelos deal that is
going to cost Portsmouth taxpayers millions, the recent votes by
four members of the Portsmouth City Council fly in the face of logic
and border on malfeasance. I say malfeasance because it is now
revealed that our elected leaders have no idea where the money is
going to come from. Well, since the trees I see around
town only contain leaves and no money, my guess would be
the millions are going to come from money that could be used for our
communities. Come budget time, my bet is Messieurs Holley, Smith,
and Heretick and Ms. Psimas will all join in the same refrain when
citizens come before the city council with requests to correct
drainage problems, build more recreation facilities, boost pay
for our underpaid police officers . . . , and the list goes on. The
refrain, of course, will be that we fully understand your plight,
but we are a fiscally challenged city, and over 50% of our property
is off the tax rolls. Woe is us.
I for one thought the house cleaning that took place last May would mean a change in this kind of logic. Apparently, the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" is now in play, a sad turn for the citizens of Portsmouth. On top of a bad decision on stuffing more of our tax dollars into the pockets of HCJV (aka Bill Reid and company), this foursome also does not want to look into how the city got into this mess to begin with. Rather than hearing sweet music, I hear a real sour note for the citizens of Portsmouth. Perhaps a recall effort needs to be started so the house can really get the cleaning it so desperately needs.
Submitted from
mwr567@aol.com
and represented as the opinion of
Bill Russell, this is a counterfeit from an as yet unidentified
source.
|
| April 1, 2005 |
An Open Letter to the Members of Portsmouth City Council I can't begin to imagine your sense of déjŕ vu all over again. It seems that every week for the past few months you've gone into a meeting with City officials and been told what wonderful people the City has been dealing with all these years, and the best thing for Portsmouth is to sign a contract which gives them $2 million and start again with a clean slate. And then, as in Bill Murray's film "Groundhog Day", the alarm goes off again, and you go into a meeting with City officials, who tell you . . . Mayor Holley stated at Monday's work session that somehow the public had failed to register the fact that Portsmouth doesn't have clean title to The Golden Tent. We hadn't realised this because we hadn't been told, of course. He went on to talk about The Party who stepped in when the City ran out of money to open the new money-spinner (after only $13.5 million) and generously bought the equipment to make operations possible. I am ashamed by these revelations - all this time, I've thought of The Party as a contract-breaking parasite, a black hole for the City's money and City management's integrity. Instead, Mayor Holley tells us, it's "none of our business" how The Party ran nTelos Pavilion, because all this time the City has owed "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for the startup equipment. It seems that the contract between the City and The Party - or at least the one the public have been shown - somehow fails to reflect the actual arrangements that have been in place all these years We thought we only had a monkey on our back, and it turns out to be a 900-pound gorilla. And the costs of feeding it are mounting relentlessly, and include not only the City's tax dollars, but also the credibility of its Council and Management. Every recommendation you make in future will be tainted by this contract, every increase in the property tax, every cheeseparing cut in a budget item will be in the shadow of The Golden Tent. The T-shirt design is already on the computer - the City Council riding on the back of the nTelos white elephant, which is using its trunk to stuff dollar bills into its mouth. The proposal to register the white elephant as the City's official mascot is in the pipeline. Is there really no other, better decision than this?
Paul Danaher |
| February 13, 2005 |
Vice Mayor's Freedom of Speech Constrained by Responsibility of Leadership To Portsmouth City Watch: I agree with Mr. Moody's point that all communities need to have input into and be included in decisions on the expenditure of public funds. I also strongly support each community having a certain, primary, level of self determination, balanced against the needs of the greater community. What I observe specifically in the discussions related to Portside was our City Management, represented by Dr. Patton, engaged in discussion with the primary stakeholders from Olde Towne and the Downtown Business community regarding their concerns about a publicly funded venue. Since the email from Vice Mayor Moody, there have been no discussions in any form. In essence his email ended public input, not expanding the participants to include all civic representation, but to quash all public discussions in their entirety. While all Citizens have the right to free speech, those in positions of leadership carry with their personal rights the responsibility to not limit the rights of those they represent, and in this instance, at this juncture, free speech and public participation has been restrained. |
|
|
|
|
(The email message PortsmouthCityWatch
obtained through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act is below. Click
within the message to enlarge it.)
|
|
|
(Updated June 29, 2006) February 8, 2005 |
Vice Mayor Has Right to Express Himself To Portsmouth City Watch: After reading the recent article on Portside, I can only say that it appears to me that, by your actions, you are attempting to limit the expression of public opinion by our elected leaders. The article stated that you took an email sent by the Vice-Mayor to the Commonwealth's Attorney in an attempt to squash an elected official from expressing an opinion. After your charge was dismissed by both the Commonwealth's Attorney and the City Attorney, you were quoted as saying something to the effect that you thought it was a long shoot at best. Sir, I think your actions in trying to control opinions goes against the right of freedom of speech, which is also enjoyed by our elected officials. I find your actions to be of very questionable nature and reek of politics at its worst. (The Virginian-Pilot article to which Mr. Williams refers is available by clicking here.) Submitted from policelb@aol.com and represented as the opinion of Rick Williams, this is a counterfeit from an as yet unidentified source. |
| Updated January 4, 2005 |
Portsmouth Family Plays Favorites To Portsmouth City Watch: Mayor Holley pronounced, during the Town Hall meeting at Wilson High School on September 20, 2004, that all residents of the city are considered members of the “Portsmouth Family.” Therefore, by their actions, or the lack thereof, it is safe to assume that the Portsmouth City government considers the residents of Cavalier Manor to be the quintessential black sheep of the family (no pun intended). During the 1960’s, brave civil rights marchers and leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., fought government at all levels for the rights already afforded African-Americans by law, yet denied by greed, bigotry and ignorance even as taxpayers. This immoral tradition continued as the City of Portsmouth, dating back to the civil rights era, continues to respond to the business interests of the City of Chesapeake at the expense of the integrity of the community of Cavalier Manor and the livelihood of its residents. Specifically;
|
| November 10, 2004 |
Stop the Monopoly on City Entertainment Management To Portsmouth City Watch: I’m sure everyone here has seen the Oct.
3 [Virginian-Pilot]
article on nTelos? |
| September 16, 2004 | For Vice Mayor Moody's perspective on the upcoming City Council retreat, see below; for Council Member Heretick's, click here. |
|
Your recent website posting titled ''New Council Doing Business in the Tried and True
Approximately two years ago I supported moving the council retreat from Williamsburg to Portsmouth partly because we could save a little money by doing so and mostly because I did not feel it was right to ask our citizens to pay more in taxes without council trying to set an example by spending less, even if the amount saved was relativity small. This was on the heels of a tax increase, which council passed on a 4 - 3 vote. Mayor Holley, Councilman Whitehurst and I opposed the increase. Our council retreat scheduled at the YMCA's Camp Silver Beach in October will cost the taxpayers $3,420 compared to costs of $7,617 for last year's retreat at the Renaissance Hotel and $15,000 when council last met in Williamsburg in 2000. Interim City Manager Jim Oliver felt very strongly that it was extremely important that council get away from phones, calendars and the other daily interruptions that occur when meeting at home. Being the new council's first retreat, he thought being out of town would also offer more of a bonding opportunity. Please know that citizens will not have to pay a toll to attend the retreat. By a consensus of council, any citizens attending the retreat can get a refund on their toll expenses by bringing their toll receipts to the Clerk's Office following the retreat.
Bill Moody, Jr. |
|
 To Portsmouth City Watch:
I'd like to add a word or two about your recent
commentary on the City Council retreat location. This year's meeting is specifically NOT intended to be
another throwback to retreats of past years. In the past, these
"retreats" have been little more than marathon work sessions conducted
in five-star Williamsburg hotels with a host of carefully selected
department heads, boards and commission members, special interests, and
the media in attendance. Who was invited--and who wasn't--fueled city
Kremlinology for months. Often, significant pronouncements on public
policies were formed at these meetings--at equally significant public
expense. You and other city observers, therefore, have ample historical
reason to suspect this year's retreat will not be anything other than
this. |
|
| June 29, 2004 |
An Open Letter to the Citizens of Portsmouth
Today, I learned of a vicious rumor directed to me to the effect that I personally will lead an effort to reverse the decision of the current City Council to hire Jim Oliver as interim City Manager. I learned that this rumor has been around for over a week and it has no basis of fact at all. I called Mr. Oliver who informed me he had heard of it. I do not know how this got started but that is not the son that Bernice and John Whitehurst raised. While the process could/should have been done differently, Jim Oliver is the interim City Manager and has my respect and support.
In my opinion the Council that takes its seat on July 1st should be
about making Portsmouth a better City while taking the time to search
for a permanent City Manager (a process that might take 6-9 months). I have had to deal with rumors over the past almost 6 years and always traced to the same sources. It is my hope that those who stoop so low to perpetrate such matters are no longer in power to do so. I sincerely regret having to take this route but, I needed to get this message out and in the widest manner possible.
Thank you, |
| May 3, 2004 |
As the election for Portsmouth City Council approaches, I must warn my fellow citizens about the duplicity in which the city has engaged in its recent dealings with the north side neighborhoods. As reported in several excellent Virginian-Pilot articles written by Meghan Hoyer, the centerpiece of the Vision 2005 plan for the Scotts Creek neighborhoods has been the development of a marina on the north shore. After a massive protest at city hall last August, the city agreed to work with residents one last time to find a developer to build a marina or a project with a marina component. Citizens had spent hundreds of hours meeting with the Economic Development Department, writing a Request for Proposal (RFP), and contacting hundreds of developers and architectural and engineering service firms. We were assured by City Manager Luke McCoy and Deputy Economic Development Director Tara Saunders that the city was doing everything it could to find a marina developer. The RFP Web page received over 1,500 hits, and over two dozen printed copies of the RFP were mailed. Therefore, we were incredulous when we learned that only one proposal was received, that for the expansion of the Moon Engineering shipyard recently purchased by Earl Industries. Smelling a rat, we then attempted to independently confirm that no one else had submitted a proposal. Here is what we found.
These facts lead me to believe that the city was stringing along north side residents. At the same time, they were secretly planning with Earl Industries to expand Moon Engineering onto the north shore property, discouraging other developers by failing to make existing and necessary information available, and letting it be known that only one developer would be considered. Please take this sad tale of deception with you to the polls on Tuesday and factor it into your decision on whether to re-elect the incumbents and the designated “heir apparent,” Elizabeth Psimas, or to put some fresh faces on city council who will protect our neighborhoods, be honest with us, and represent the will of the people over the interests of developers. I am targeting my only vote for Martha Ann Creecy, and I hope you will, too. Neighborhoods can depend on Martha Ann to include them in the process and protect their interests. |
| Do you have a civic issue you wish to discuss? Send your viewpoint to us at Opinions@PortsmouthCityWatch.org. Please include an email address, mailing address, and telephone number. If we accept your submission (see the guidelines on our Home page), we will publish your name and email address along with your article. | |
| Last updated May 05, 2008 | |
Mayor's inability or unwillingness to maintain order at
City Council meetings. In several recent meetings, an emotional issue
has prompted citizens to speak at length with anger and personal attacks
upon members of the Council and other citizens. This conduct violates
the Council's rules, but the Mayor refuses to enforce those rules. The
result is a disorderly mess.
I believe as a member of the majority who voted against the use of the Washington Street property
as another church, it is high time some matters are set straight. First, let it be known that it is
with the greatest of trepidation that I type this response. Even though the major disputed legal
issues are over and done with, the misinformed editorial staff appears to have
had the last word.
To Portsmouth City Watch:
I
departed Portsmouth on Sunday, June 20th and returned Saturday, June
26th where I attended a solid waste conference in Monterey, California
(I serve as Chairman of the Southeast Public Service authority [SPSA]
and Chairman, Elected Members Committee of the Solid Waste Association
of North America [SWANA]).