‘Watchdog’ C. Wayne Taylor Holds His Bite On 2nd Street Connector

I have written before about how C. Wayne Taylor has taken on City Hall on the 2nd Street Connector and Special Use Permit Issues. Here’s the latest: April 12, 2012 The Honorable City Council City of Richmond 900 E. Broad St., Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23219 USA Re: 2nd Street Connector Information Dear Honorable Members […]

April 13, 2012; 6:12 AM • by Oregon Hill

I have written before about how C. Wayne Taylor has taken on City Hall on the 2nd Street Connector and Special Use Permit Issues. Here’s the latest:

April 12, 2012

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Members of Council,

On March 15th 2012 I requested certain information from Councilor Tyler regarding the proposed 2nd Street connector. He said he would give me a response by the end of the week. On April 2nd I send an email to Councilor Tyler advising him that I had not received anything. As of this evening, I still have not received any of the information I requested.

The citizens of Richmond are being denied a meaningful voice in the political process if you do not give them the relevant information. Will you please take the appropriate action to obtain and make public the information I requested.

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Attachments: Copies of the emails are included below.

Links: http://cityhallreview.com/tag/2nd-street-connector/

Copy: Liaisons, Planning Commission via Secretary, Press, Interested Citizens

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: C WAYNE TAYLOR
To: Bruce Tyler
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 4:41 AM
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Mr. Tyler,

I have not received the information.

C. Wayne Taylor

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member”
To: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

Mr. Taylor:

I will give you a response this week.

Bruce W. Tyler

1st District Councilman
City of Richmond

City Council
900 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

cell: 804.357.6007
fax: 804.343.0909

From: C WAYNE TAYLOR [mailto:cwaynetaylor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thu 3/15/2012 4:16 PM
To: Tyler, Bruce W. – Council Member
Cc: C WAYNE TAYLOR
Subject: Tyler – 2nd Street Connector Information

March 15, 2012

VIA EMAIL TO: Bruce.Tyler@Richmondgov.com
The Honorable Bruce Tyler
City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: 2nd Street Connector Information

Dear Honorable Council Member,

The proposed 2nd Street connector would cause a major change in the character of the area. I think it is very important to fully understand the proposal and the various factors involved.

As you know, the administration has not been transparent in this matter. Economic Development even tried to charge me for copies of the documents discuss with city council.

Therefore, I request that you help insure that citizens have all the facts. Will you please provide or obtain answers to the following for the public and me:

1. Has an elevation rendering of the proposed crossing of the historic canal been presented to council?

2. Has a perspective rendering of the proposed connector been presented to council?

3. What is the acreage of the land that is proposed to be conveyed to the city west of the connector?

4. Why does the Planning Commission letter state that the area on both sides of the connector will be privately owned?

5. Why is there a proposed parcel boundary down the middle of the historic canal?

6. What is the acreage of the land that the city is providing for stormwater detention.

7. Does the stormwater detention facility essentially block access of city land to Tredegar Street?

8. Does the parking area connect to Tredegar Street or the connector?

9. How many parking spaces are gained or lost?

10. Does the city have the right to require that the connector be put on the Tredegar Ironworks parcel under alternative B-3 of the 1995 agreement?

11. Does alternative B-3 provide better topography to cross the historic canal and provide more clearance for boats.

12. Why was the connector project assigned to Development rather than Planning?

13. Has Planning been prohibited from commenting to citizens about the connector?

14. Has the planning director issued an analysis of the pros and cons of a connector?

15. Has the city traffic engineer issued a report on the connector?

16. Who prepared the traffic analysis report?

17. Has part of the traffic analysis report been redacted?

18. Is it correct that the connector is not shown on the Downtown Master Plan?

19. What elements of the connector are not consistent with the Downtown Plan and UDC Guidelines.

20. Why were the trees cut down after the Planning Commission reviewed the connector concept plan?

21. What happens if the city requires clearance over the historic canal and refuses to pay the cost?

I believe the following is correct:

22. Road construction grading will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

23. The stormwater detention facility will cut into the profile of the historic canal.

24. Water flowed in the historic canal until about 1970.

25. Slave labor was used to construct the historic canal.

26. An 1880 bridge was built over the unused canal in a traditional arched style.

27. The historic canal is on the National Register of Historic Places.

28. The top executive at Dominion Resources received total compensation of $16.9 million in 2010.

I have attached copies of the documents that the Jones Administration attempted to charge me to have.

Thank you for your attention,

C. Wayne Taylor
www.CityHallReview.com

Copy: Council, Liaisons, Press

  • error

    Report an error

Oregon Hill

April 13, 2012 6:12 AM 0

This article has been closed to further comments.