I'm Sorry

I must apologize to my reader. I realize that you rely on me to educate you on what's going on in Richmond and the world. And I realize that I have written nothing in more than a week. However, it's not really my fault. It's all the fault of Uncle Doug (formerly His Excellency).

As you know, the adventures of Mr. Wilder constitute a good part of what I have been writing about. In a rather blatant attempt to deprive me of writing material, L. Douglas Wilder seems to have changed his spots (or stripes if you prefer tigers to leopards). Suddenly, he is acting reasonably. He's acting like everybody's beloved uncle. So, I have to struggle to find something to write about.

I hope that you, my loyal reader, will understand my dilemma. I will soon reward you with more wisdom.

Atta Way Doug!

I really have to stop criticizing Mayor L. Douglas Wilder. Despite his antagonizing most of the city by evicting the school administration from City Hall, it is clear that Doug knows what it takes to placate the voters. What it takes is for the city to spend four or five millions dollars to build a 73 slip marina on the James River at the site of the Intermediate Terminal. How can any one continue to criticize Mayor Doug when he comes up with plans that are so beneficial to the taxpayers of Richmond? Now you might say that you don’t have a boat and can’t imagine why your tax dollars should be used for a marina. Obviously, you are short sighted.

There are many ways that the mayor’s proposed marina will help the City of Richmond:

1- Those of you who watched the HBO series “The Wire” are fully aware how spending millions of dollars for waterfront development will turn around our public schools and cut our crime rate, just as it did in Baltimore;

2- Doug can lure the school administration out of City Hall by offering them floating headquarters;

3- The mega-yachts that will dock at Richmond will provide lucrative employment for our high school dropouts;

4- Our children can go on school field trips to the marina to see the big sail and power boats that they will never be able to afford;

5- Richmond Public Schools can provide accessible classrooms for our handicapped children since the mayor refuses to spend a cent to make school buildings accessible; and

6- When shots are fired in your neighborhood, you can invite all your neighbors to spend the night safely on your family yacht.

If none of these reasons convince you, then I recommend that you borrow fifty or one hundred thousand dollars to buy a boat. You then can be one of the 73 Richmonders who will directly benefit from the marina.

To Earn More, Ask Your Boss for a Pay Cut!

If you think the title of this post makes no sense, then you’re gonna love “Krugman Ruined a Beautiful Day,” the winner of the maven’s most wonderful letter of the day for October 2, 2007. This letter was written in response to a TD op-ed by Paul Krugman. I don’t remember Krugman’s column, but today’s letter was surely entertaining.

My favorite sentence in today’s letter is “Even students in Econ 101 understand that tax cuts increase the revenue going into the U.S. treasury. This has been proven many times.” Hey, it’s been a long time, but I did take Econ 101 and I never learned this amazing principle. I learned about supply and demand and all that cool stuff that only works in a hypothetical world. But never did my Economics professor have the nerve to suggest to me that lowering taxes increases revenues.

Now, this is becoming crystal clear to me. The more money we want to raise for the United States government, the lower our taxes should be. Over the years my brain has begun to resemble Swiss cheese. However, I still have enough gray matter to extend our letter writer’s theory to its ultimate conclusion. If lower taxes mean higher revenues, then if we eliminate taxes entirely we will maximize the revenues we collect.

How come nobody has thought of this before? Wait, now I remember. Isn’t this what George Herbert Walker Bush called “Voodoo Economics” in 1980? Isn’t this what became known back in those days as Reaganomics? Isn’t this what created huge budget deficits over the past few decades? Aren’t we in mega trillions of dollars of debt because we had presidents who thought you could cut taxes and increase spending at the same time? Despite what our letter writer claims, this inane theory has not been proven; it has been disproved two disastrous times—in 1981 and in 2001—and our great grandchildren will be still be paying off our obscene debt in sixty years.

Open Enrollment + Busses = Segregation

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to the editor of our beloved Times-Dispatch. I criticized one of the TD’s editorials. The TD chose not to publish my letter. That is no reason why you should be deprived of my wisdom. So here is my letter:

Editor
Richmond Times-Dispatch

I strongly disagree with your September 18 editorial, “More Not Less,” in which you criticized the Richmond School Board for eliminating free transportation for students attending out-of-zone schools. The board was correct in eliminating this costly subsidy. In fact, the board should have gone further and eliminated open-enrollment entirely. Over the years, this policy has contributed to the economic segregation of Richmond Public Schools.

Whatever its original intent, history shows that the open-enrollment policy has been used by middle-class parents to cluster their children into a few Richmond elementary schools. The result has been that many neighborhood schools have been left with high concentrations of poor children. For example, south of the river, middle class parents in Forest Hill, Woodland Heights, Westover Hills, Stratford Hills, and other neighborhoods have used open-enrollment (and free transportation) to enroll their children in Fox, Mary Mumford and Fisher elementary schools. The neighborhood schools, Blackwell, Swansboro and Westover Hills, have been abandoned by these parents. The result of this subsidized movement of students is clear from the latest statistics on free or reduced-cost lunches (an accepted measurement of poverty) appearing on the Richmond Public Schools Website:

Blackwell……………………92% of children
Swansboro…………………..87% of children
Westover Hills………………81% of children

Mary Mumford……………...20% of children
Fox…………………………..22% of children
Fisher………………………..30% of children

The February 2007 audit of Richmond Public Schools indicated that “RPS could achieve a substantial estimated annual cost savings by eliminating out of zone transportation for regular education students.” Since this free transportation also contributes to the further concentration of poverty in many of our neighborhood schools, the School Board was right in eliminating it.

When you write a letter to the editor, you have to be short and sweet. You can’t say everything you want to. So, there were some factors that I did not address in that letter.

First, I know that open-enrollment and free transportation are not the only causes of our economically segregated school system. As I have been pointing out this summer, the main cause of this problem is the perception mostly by middle class parents that Richmond Public Schools cannot give their children a quality education. During the summer I said that parents react to this perception by doing one of three things: 1- enroll their children in private schools; 2- home school their children; or 3- move to the suburbs when their children reach school age. Then I was told that there was a fourth mechanism used by middle class parents. The open enrollment policy and free transportation allowed parents to abandon their local school and put their children in the city’s elite elementary schools—Fisher, Fox and Mumford.

Second, I know that it is not only middle-class parents who use open enrollment. As the articles in the TD have shown, the decision by the School Board not to fund out-of-zone transportation has created hardship for families that are not considered middle class and have taken advantage of open enrollment.

Third, I know that to induce middle class parents to use their neighborhood schools we need to make those schools the best schools in the state and we need to convince parents that in fact their children can get a first rate education in those schools.

Fourth, we’ve got troubles right here in River City. We have a very unhealthy demographic pattern that is the direct result of middle class parents rejecting Richmond Public Schools. It is clear in my neighborhood and I assume it exists in other neighborhoods in Richmond. There are many elders in my neighborhood. They are people who have lived in their homes for a long time. There are also many young couples in the neighborhood. They either have no children or have children who have not yet reached school age. In all the neighborhoods in which I have previously lived there have been a large number of families filling the slot between the old and the young. They were families with children who were attending local schools. In my neighborhood in Richmond there are very few families in this last category. We have a vast demographic abyss. I believe that this pattern bodes ill for the future of Richmond. It will lead to a city inhabited by only the very rich and the very poor.

Since the middle of the summer, almost everybody in the Richmond area has expressed his/her opinion on how to bring Richmond schools to greatness. Unfortunately, most of us have been distracted by recent events at City Hall. Now it is time to stop talking about fixing our schools. We need to take action.

New Civil War in Richmond

On Friday morning I drove up to northern Virginia to visit some relatives and to pray on Yom Kippur with my former congregation. I spent about a day, starting sundown on Friday, fasting, examining my sinful behavior during the last year and asking God to forgive me. I ended up feeling peaceful and refreshed. I drove back to Richmond today bringing that peaceful feeling with me. When I got home I checked two days of unread TD and…

Saturday’s headline “Chaos Erupts at City Hall.” Sunday’s headline “Uncertainty Pervades City Hall Amid Turmoil.” This maven was out of Richmond for only two days and war had erupted. What kind of insanity is going on in our beloved city?

I read the stories. Mr. Doug ordered the Richmond Public School administration to be evicted from City Hall. The police kept the public from attending a School Board meeting. Doug will require City Council member’s personal staff to submit to interviews to keep their jobs. The Circuit Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the continued eviction of the RPS administration from City Hall.

I looked at the newspapers again. Was this Richmond or was it the capital city of some dictatorship? It all would have made sense if this were a military junta ousting the democratically elected government of some country in South America or Asia or Africa. But this is the City of Richmond, Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America, in the Twenty First Century. The mayor of this City of Richmond is ousting the administration of this city’s public schools from its offices! The mayor of this city is threatening the jobs of City Council employees! The police department of this city kept the public from attending a meeting of their elected School Board! Hey, I thought we had defeated totalitarianism in the last century. But what is going on in Richmond is real despotism.

When we voted for an elected mayor in Richmond, and when we elected L. Douglas Wilder to be that mayor, we were not giving our approval to a prolonged civil war between Mr. Wilder and the City Council, School Board, School Superintendent, City Tax Assessor and even the City Auditor. In previous postings I have described the many instances in which Mr. Wilder, rather than seeking to bring unity to the City, has used his claimed power to insist on getting his way Each time His Excellency has acted I have wondered how he could possibly do any worse. And yet a few weeks pass and he does something else to crush opposition to his policies in Richmond. Mr. Wilder’s methods can best be described as “divide and defeat.” He makes outrageous accusations against other civil servants to try to crush any independent thinker in the city. Except for the lack of a dress, Mr. Wilder’s behavior is like our beloved J. Edgar Hoover, former tsar of the FBI. If you oppose Mayor Doug, you have to expect that he’ll never rest until he gets you.

So how did we in River City get into this mess? From nearly the day he was sworn in, Mayor Doug has been thumbing his nose at the city’s leadership and at us its citizens. He has engaged in activities of questionable legality. He has been sued by the School Board and by the City Council for trying to usurp their authority. He has threatened the jobs of city employees. He has used his “Vision Newsletter” to attack people in Richmond who are only trying to do their jobs. And during the entire time that Mr. Wilder has been waging his campaign to become the King of Richmond, hardly anybody has spoken out.

But this time, the mayor has extended his attack to the students in our public schools. He has demonstrated that he simply does not care who gets hurt as long as he can have his way. The question now is how long will the parents in this city put up with a man who is willing to risk the future of their children in his continued attempt to be the King of Richmond?

To both my Jewish and non-Jewish neighbors in Richmond I wish a healthy and prosperous year. To the City of Richmond I wish a restoration of peace and tranquility.

Where Have All The Glaciers Gone?

Just one day after instituting the maven’s “most wonderful letter of the day,” I must announce that I am not making the award today. After carefully reading all the letters in the TD this morning, I have concluded that none of them are good enough to merit this high honor. There is one letter that I do need to mention, however.

The letter “Just How Much Global Warning Are We Causing” accuses Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others of lying when they say that climate change has caused the glaciers in Glacier National Park to melt. The letter indicates that when the author and his wife toured the park in 1998, “[t]he park ranger conducting the tour told us that there have never been any glaciers in Glacier National Park.”

Well this is surely revealing. If there were never any glaciers in the park then it surely is ludicrous to suggest that global warming has melted them.

In the words of the letter’s author, I decided to “set the record straight.” I went to the website of Glacier National Park. I clicked on a short video (http://mms.nps.gov/ram/imr/vglegzbg.mov), which indicated that when the park was formed in 1910 there were about 150 glaciers. When the video was made there were only 27 glaciers left and most of them were shrinking rapidly. The video showed before and after photographs, which even to my aging eyes revealed that where there were once sheets of ice there are now bare rocks or pools of water.

I am glad to report to you that Robert Kennedy, Jr., did not lie to the author of the letter. Despite what a park ranger once told the author there were in fact glaciers in Glacier National Park. Now most of them are gone.

What This City Needs is More Gunfights

My nephew called me this evening and wanted to know whether I had stopped writing. I went on line and saw that, in deed, I hadn’t posted anything in nearly three weeks. To those of you who have been eagerly awaiting some wisdom from me, I apologize. For those of you who couldn’t care less, I assume that you aren’t reading this and to you I have nothing to say.

You people in River City are aware that every day the Times-Dispatch chooses one of its letter writers as “correspondent of the day.” I suppose the award is given to the letter that is best written or deals with the most important issues. Well, to force myself to write more, I am hereby introducing the maven’s “most wonderful letter of the day.” I will choose a letter from the TD that is of the greatest importance and discuss it. Today’s award goes to the letter “Store Manager Made the World Safer.”

Nearly two weeks ago, the Baskins-Robins ice cream store on Forest Hill Avenue was robbed by a man who seemed to be holding a semi-automatic weapon. The store manager, not wanting to be viewed as an easy mark, drew out his own weapon and started firing at the unfortunate robber. Eight shots later, the robber had been hit in the back and in the hand. He fled from the store and was found dying nearby. The weapon the robber used in the robbery turned out to be a BB gun.

Some people suggested that perhaps the store manager had used excess force. Not our winning letter. It states that “[t]he store manager has saved the taxpayers the cost of further prosecution and incarceration. . . If more idiot sociopaths who prey on decent citizens were to be shot in the act of committing crimes—by their intended victims—then perhaps others of their kind would realize that we aren’t going to be intimidated.” The letter then uses the Wild West as a model for our city. “The American frontier was cleaned up, not by courts that were more concerned with the safety and rights of criminals, but by tough-minded lawmen and citizens defending themselves.”

Now you know why I chose this letter as the most wonderful of the day. Its writer has come up with the obvious solution to Richmond’s crime problem—arm everybody. And none of this hidden weapon business. If we’re really serious about dealing with crime the way they did in Dodge or Tombstone, every person in Richmond must be required to carry a hand gun in a holster strapped to their side. There must be no room for doubt that everybody is packing.

This is a great idea for several reasons. First we can save tons of money that we now waste on our criminal justice system. We won’t need the Commonwealth Attorney’s office any more. We also can cut in half the number of judges. Police officers will no longer have to fill out those pesky crime reports. We won’t need trials any more; our criminal justice system will be self-enforcing. When the store clerk sees a teenager shoplifting at the 7 Eleven he can enforce the law with his Glock.

Second, arming everybody will put a quick end to aggressive drivers and road rage. Now, when some idiot cuts you off on I-64 and you bang your head on the sun visor because you have to slam on your brakes, there is no reason to repress that anger. Just take out your Colt and blow the sucker’s head off. You’d be doing the public a favor. A driver like that would surely cause a bad accident and kill some innocents.

Third, packing a powerful weapon would add some excitement to our boring lives. Now if some doofus insults you at the bar at O’Tooles, you can call him out to settle things on Forest Hill Avenue with your Smith & Wesson.

Most important, all these guns will give us a whole new generation of heroes for our kids. We can produce our own Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Ike Clanton and others. Or lawmen like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and Matt Dillon. Our children need to have gun-toting idols to look up to.

So, writer of our first “most wonderful letter of the day” I salute you. When your suggestion is implemented, Richmond will undoubtedly become the safest city in America.

They're Back!

The Richmond 26 are back in the news. Since their first call for replacing Richmond’s elected school board with an appointed one met with such overwhelming approval by. . . well, I guess by Mayor Wilder, they repeated it again in a 17 page paper delivered to the City Council and the mayor. Of course, our School Board, charged by law with supervising the schools in Richmond did not receive a copy of the missive. Nor, for that matter, did this maven. Thus, on this matter, just like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the papers.

Since nobody in Richmond took seriously their proposal to bypass the people in doing away with our elected school board, Richmond’s finest indicated that they were willing to wait for a public referendum on the issue. Of course, by making this concession, the 26 risked that the public might vote to keep the elected board. But, hell, that is the risk of democracy.

As in their first letter, our business elite opined that getting rid of the elected school board is all it would take to fix Richmond Public Schools. The division of authority between the City Council and the School Board guarantees that Richmond schools will fail, assert the 26, although they fail to explain why this same division is working fine in most other school districts in the Commonwealth. As stated in the paper, “This mishmash of accountability violates every tenet of managerial structural efficiency and accountability—and is doomed to failure.”

Of course, I am not a business mogul. I am a mere maven. But, I’m not sure what the mishmash problem is. Our School Board gets funds from federal, state and city sources. It uses this money to operate our public schools. If the board does a bad job managing the money, we, the citizens of Richmond, will hold them accountable at the next election.

Perhaps, the 26 really object to the Constitution of Virginia, which requires that school systems be run by school boards rather than by the legislative authority in each district. The “managerial structural efficiency” they desire would be best served by eliminating school boards entirely and simply having the schools run by city councils or county boards of supervisors. After all, we don’t have police department run by police boards, fire departments run by fire boards, or sanitation departments run by garbage boards. In requiring school boards, our constitution recognizes that education is the most important service provided by government and that a separate body, charged only with running the schools, is necessary. It’s sloppy, perhaps even a mishmash, but that’s the way it works throughout the Commonwealth and the country.

In their epistle, the Richmond 26 set forth ten goals for Richmond Public Schools, which, presumably, an appointed school board will be able to achieve. According to the TD, the goals are

1- a graduation rate of 77 percent by 2012;
2- a rate of 50 percent of entering ninth graders attending two or four year colleges four years from now;
3- increasing average SAT scores, and increasing participation to 60 percent by 2012;
4- improving SOL scores in reading and math, especially in middle school;
5- make Adequate Yearly Progress this year, under the No Child Left Behind law;
6- cut truancy in half by next year;
7- reduce by half the number of weapons-related incidents by 2010;
8- put 50 percent of technology resources into classrooms by 2010;
9- initiate the facilities plan portion of the mayor’s City of the Future plan; and
10- reduce noninstructional per-pupil spending by 2012.

Although these suggested goals are helpful, they don’t tell us how to get closer to fixing our school problems. Not all of them, as written, contain adequate measures of compliance. Further, the 26 have no suggestions on how these goals might be met.

As you know, this maven set forth a five step plan for fixing our schools two weeks ago. And, just this week, Paul Goldman, the man that gave us Doug Wilder, set forth a ten step proposal for improving our schools. See his blog on Channel 12’s Campaign 2008 website.
http://www.decisionvirginia.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,School-Board-Improvements-10-Point-Action-Plan.html/Itemid,130/

Hopefully, more citizens will come forward with their suggestions for fixing our schools. Again, my thanks to the Richmond 26 for bringing the issue of Richmond Public Schools to public debate.

For She’s a Jolly Good County

Years, perhaps decades, ago, while I was sojourning in northern Virginia, the District of Columbia had a sex problem. Well, it wasn’t exactly a sex problem; it really was a problem with too many women selling sex a few short blocks from the White House. (I am not implying that being close to the White House created a good market for these women. I assume it was merely a coincidence.) Anyhow, the newspapers wrote a story about it and the Chief of Police decided that these working women could no longer be tolerated along 14th Street. So, on one glorious night, hundreds of police officers took time off from protecting the city from serious crime and dedicated their efforts to freeing the city from vice. Countless women of the night were arrested and carted off. The next day the police put all the offending women in trucks, drove them across the 14th Street Bridge and released them in Arlington. And for one brief shining moment the District of Columbia had no prostitution problem.

This story popped into my head this morning while I was reading the news on page one of the Times-Dispatch. It wasn’t the story about LandAmerica cutting eleven hundred jobs, which is pretty bad news. It wasn’t the story about speed bumps and traffic circles, which isn’t news at all. It was the headline that read “Hanover boasts lowest poverty rate for its size.” The story was contained in the first paragraph, one sentence long: “New census figures released yesterday listed Hanover County with the lowest poverty rate in the nation among counties of its population.”

At first I was giddy with joy. Our neighbor, only a few miles away, had apparently fixed its poverty problem. This was great news indeed, especially after last week’s depressing cover story in Style Weekly, which suggested that Richmond Public Schools can never succeed because of the city’s high concentration of poverty. Hey, if Hanover County has such a low poverty rate they must be doing something that we can copy in Richmond. So what is it they are doing?

I read the article again. There wasn’t any clear explanation for how Hanover had achieved this great feat. The director of the county’s Department of Social Services was surprised by the low poverty rate. She had expected it to be twice as high. But she did make it clear that this low poverty rate didn’t mean that her job was unneeded. There are “many other residents who can’t make their mortgage, car, and day-care payments without [our] assistance.”

Hey, that’s it! The director of Social Services has been making so many assistance payments to residents of Hanover County that they no longer qualify as poor. Now they are merely strapped for cash. Hanover’s solution is easy. Give money to poor people and they will no longer be poor. Why hadn’t we in Richmond thought of it? How simple! We can eliminate our poverty problem by simply giving out more money.

But, wait! The next paragraph suggests that maybe Hanover didn’t do the obvious. It says that development in Hanover County has concentrated on single-family housing, which attracts married families. As everybody knows poverty is lowest among married families and highest among households headed by single women. (And you thought that the marriage amendment was stupid!) The article quoted a demographer (if you know your classical languages, you may understand what such a person does) as suggesting that Hanover had a lower rate of poverty because it was “family concentrated.”

So now things are making more sense. Hanover has less poverty because it has become unfriendly to the poor. It simply provides them with no affordable housing. They can’t live in Hanover if there is no place for them to live.

But would Hanover County be so Machiavellian? Would it deliberately control its zoning and development processes to exclude affordable housing for the less-affluent? Would government officials act this way in the 21st Century?

Wait! Isn’t this the same Hanover County that has Robert Setliff as the Chair of its county Board of Supervisors? Isn’t Setliff the person who was quoted in last week’s Style as saying that the problems of Richmond’s public schools is “none of [Hanover County’s] business,” and sees no value in regional cooperation? Is it so far-fetched that the leaders of such a county would avoid the problems that come with poverty by making sure that poor people stay in Richmond where they belong? Are they any different than the D.C. police who dealt with prostitution by trying to make it Arlington’s problem?

So, the next time you’re driving north and see a “Welcome to Hanover County” sign be sure to read the fine print that says “unless you’re poor.” Then read the engraving on Hanover’s statue of liberty:

Send us your wealthy and your white,
Your middle class we urge from you to flee,
Your wretched refuse we don’t want,
Keep your homeless and your weak,
Across the Chickahominy they can’t cross.

Choosing the Next Prez: Part II

I was really hoping that this process of picking the best candidate in each party was going to be a dialogue or a trialogue or even a multilogue. However, none of you responded to my first “Choosing the Next Prez” post. So I guess this is going to be a lecture.

Of course, according to the media, both broadcast and print, this is a meaningless exercise. The media have already decided, based almost entirely on how much campaign money has been raised, that only three Democratic candidates—Senators Clinton and Obama, and former Senator Edwards—have any chance of winning their party’s nomination. Among Republicans, the media have decided that only two—former New York City mayor Guiliani and former Massachusetts governor Romney—can win the nomination. (Of course, the media may add an additional Republican if a certain actor who is a former Senator decides to run).

Despite the decision by the media, and despite the fact that I, along with millions of other voters, will never have any say in who our party nominates for president, I will go forward with this analysis.

You and I are hiring the next President of the United States. We have to review the resumes of all the prospective candidates to see who is most qualified. But before we do that we have to consider the job description for the president.

The president is the leader of our country. S/he is also the leader of the Free World (whatever that means). S/he is the Commander in Chief of the military of the United States. Further, the president is the chief executive officer of the Executive Branch of our government. S/he is also our country’s top diplomat. The president also appoints (with the consent of the Senate) all federal judges and the top leadership of all of the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch.

So what kind of experience should we look for in our next president? In what kind of a job would a person demonstrate the kind of talents he or she will need to do the job? The resumes of the candidates show they have filled such jobs as United States Senator, United States Representative, state governor, city mayor, federal cabinet secretary, attorney, college professor, actor, state legislator, state cabinet secretary, minister, business executive, author and military officer. Does any of this experience demonstrate that a particular candidate has the skills and talent to be President of the United States?

The three leading candidates among Democrats are incumbent or former United States Senators. Does being a senator (or representative or state legislator) prepare someone to be president? As we have described the job, almost all of the president’s functions are executive, managerial or diplomatic. Yet, the job of a legislator requires no executive or managerial skills. A legislator drafts legislation, builds coalitions to get that legislation enacted, sits on committees and debates either in committee or on the floor of the legislature. Although serving several years in the Senate or House of Representatives may allow a legislator to develop a great deal of expertise in one or more areas of public policy, it provides that legislator with no executive or managerial experience. Even committee chairs develop only a minimum of leadership skills.

But haven’t senators always been the leading candidates for president. Actually, since the Constitution was amended to provide for popular election of senators, rather than their appointment by state legislatures, only two United States Senators have been elected president. The first, Warren Harding, elected in 1920, will never be considered in the top 50% of presidential quality. He accomplished very little as president and his administration is mostly known for corruption. The second was John Kennedy, elected in 1960. Although Kennedy was a great orator and able to inspire great numbers of Americans, an assassin’s bullet prevents us from judging how good a president he may have been. Based on his less than three years in office, I can say that he was not effective in getting most of his legislative program enacted. He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion then decided to withdraw support when things started going badly. He started the escalation of American presence in Viet Nam. He successfully avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I loved John F. Kennedy; he triggered my life-long fascination with politics. However, I don’t think that being a United States Senator adequately prepared him for being president.

Since Kennedy’s election in 1960, four United States Senators—Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry—have run for president. All of them have lost. If we look at the men elected for the first time as president since 1960, four have been incumbent or former state governors and two have been incumbent or former Vice Presidents. It seems clear to me that the American electorate favors candidates with executive experience.

So, if we look at all those resumes, which candidates have had executive or managerial experience?

Dennis Kucinich, Democrat………… Mayor, Cleveland, Ohio, 1977-79

Bill Richardson, Democrat……………Governor, New Mexico, 2003-present
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, 1998-2001

Rudy Giuliani, Republican…………….Mayor, City of New York, 1994-2001

Mike Huckabee, Republican………..Business executive, 1983-1996

Mitt Romney, Republican…………….Governor, Massachusetts, 2003-2007
Business executive, 1978-84

Sam Brownback……………………………Secretary, Kansas Dept. of Agr., 1986-93

None of the following candidates have listed any executive experience:

Joe Biden, Democrat
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat
Chris Dodd, Democrat
John Edwards, Democrat
Mike Gravel, Democrat
Barack Obama, Democrat
Duncan Hunter, Republican
John McCain, Republican
Ron Paul, Republican
Tom Tancredo, Republican

If I were the H.R. director for any corporation looking for a Chief Executive Officer, I would have to reject the applications of Democrats Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel and Obama, and Republicans Hunter, McCain, Paul and Tancredo (and the actor if he gets into the race). None of them have the executive experience we are looking for.

(Of course, experience isn’t everything. One man, who was a lawyer and whose only public service was a term in the Illinois legislature and a term in the House of Representatives, was elected our sixteenth president. He did a pretty decent job I am told).

(Part III to follow soon).

Richmond’s Invisibles

I am writing this from Emerald Isle, N.C. The weather is beautiful and the ocean is warm. We left Richmond this morning after sleeping at the Holiday Inn on North Boulevard. We had to stay there because our power was still out from Thursday night’s storms. Some day I will find out how it is that our house and the one directly across the alley are the only ones that lose power when the lightening strikes and the strong winds blow. So while most of my neighbors were enjoying a normal Thursday night and Friday, we had to throw out the spoiling food in our refrigerator and find a cool spot to spend Friday night.

Before we checked out of the hotel this morning, I had to drive back home to pick up a few things we had forgotten to pack for our beach trip. As I drove south on Boulevard there were scores of people, mostly women, running. As I passed the Greyhound depot, I noticed a person sleeping on the ground, his head leaning against a light pole. As I started up the bridge over the railroad tracks, there was another person, of undeterminable gender, also sleeping on the sidewalk. I was struck by the contrast between these two homeless people and the many runners going both north and south on Boulevard.

When I returned from my brief trip to south of the James, there were even more people running along Boulevard. I noticed, that as they neared the spots where the homeless people were located, they continued their run as if the two were not even there. I got the feeling that to the runners these two human beings were merely part of the scenery, not people.

It is sad that two of our fellow citizens have reached such a low point in their lives that they have to live out on the street. It is shameful that we can go on with our lives all around them without even noticing that they exist.

Fix Our Schools, Now

The 26 business leaders who wrote to the Mayor and City Council last week asserted that the condition of Richmond Public Schools is “an emergency situation that must be dealt with immediately and with bold action.” The Richmond 26 looked at three statistics in reaching their conclusion. They did not mention several things that provide a more accurate portrayal of the condition of RPS. As I indicated in a previous post, School Board Chair George Braxton has stated this with respect to this year’s RPS graduating class:

“Class of 2007 Statistics (As of June 30, 2007)
Continuing Education Plans
Four Year College - 48.7%
Two Year College - 24.5%
Military - 1.3%
Work Force - 19.6%
Apprenticeship - 1.8%
Voc./Technical Training - 3.8%
TOTAL 99.7%

Students in the Class of 2007 have been accepted into 127 colleges & universities. The states represented in the acceptances are Alabama, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, California, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, Washington, D.C. and of course, Virginia. To date over 860 acceptances have been recorded.”

Moreover, Mr. Braxton’s State of the Schools address this past winter indicated that in the past five years RPS has gone from five accredited schools to forty five, an increase of 800%. Further, the number of schools that meet the federal “Annual Yearly Progress” requirements has gone from twelve to forty, an increase of over 300%.

The condition of Richmond Public Schools is, in my opinion, closer to Superintendent Jewell-Sherman’s “Moving from good to great,” than the “emergency” the Richmond 26 have alluded to. However, the City of Richmond needs a world-class school system, not a good one. And we need it now. Planning for improvements to arrive over the next five to ten years will have no benefit on the thousands of children entering or returning to school next month. Therefore, we need to deal with Richmond Public Schools as if there were an emergency.

In my last post, I explained why I didn’t think that switching from an elected to an appointed school board is the solution to Richmond Public School’s problems. Nor do I think that the Superintendent’s so-called 2015 plan will be sufficient or soon enough to be the answer. We need to take action now.

We need the following:

1- Attitude: Everybody in the City, starting with the mayor, members of the City Council, members of the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools, the Richmond Public Schools administration, school principals, teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, and citizens must deal with the schools as if each action or decision they make affects the future of their own children or grandchildren. I don’t know how many members of the City Council, School Board or RPS administrators at headquarters or in the schools have children or grandchildren in the schools. However, if we are going to make the changes we need to make, everybody must abandon their personal agendas and concentrate only on what is best for our (not somebody else’s) children.

2- Demand Excellence: The Virginia 26 suggests that some of our children “begin their education destined to fail.” Other people, including members of the School Board, have stated that many children in RPS cannot handle a more rigorous curriculum. I say that we must abandon this attitude. We must set standards for all our students that push them to achieve the maximum of which they are capable. We must not be satisfied with SOL accreditation or passing federal yearly progress requirements. These are only based on students “passing.” We must demand, not that our students pass, but that they excel. At the beginning of every school year we must expect that every student in our school system will achieve A’s, not just C’s.

We must engage in best-practices studies to see what is working in other school systems. We must adopt those educational theories that have produced outstanding student achievement in other school systems.

3- Teachers: We must hold all teachers accountable for their students’ achievements. We must have a performance appraisal system that measures how effectively our teachers teach. We must do a regular evaluation of each teacher’s students to see how many are truly excelling. We must not accept as an explanation that “I used the same lessons last year and it worked with those students.” Although ultimately it is the student that learns, we must expect our teachers to prepare lessons that will enable each of their students to perform at their maximum capacity.

We must retrain all our teachers in new teaching methods. There have been many improvements in teaching methodology in recent years and we must make these developments available to all our teachers. We should not settle merely for teachers to be recertified periodically. We must insist that they constantly improve. Since many of our students are at risk because of their background, we must make sure that all our teachers know how to help these children.

4- Budgeting: I was disappointed this year that the School Board did not prepare a budget from scratch. Instead it took last year’s budget and tweaked it a bit. As taxpayers, who already pay much more in real estate taxes than our neighbors in the counties, we must demand that all unnecessary spending be removed from Richmond Public School’s budget. To do this I suggest that we adopt some form of zero-based budgeting. Under this concept, each office or program in Richmond Public Schools would have to come forward periodically and justify its continued existence. At least once every two years each department head must prepare budget justifications explaining in detail how the funds it received last year were spent and how this benefited the students in our schools. At the same time they would have to justify continued funding for that program in the next budget year. Based on these justifications, we would expect the School Board to allocate funding in the budget only to those departments or programs that are working. We would also expect the School Board to reduce staffing in those areas which currently are overstaffed.

5- Accountability: We are entrusting many people with the safety and future of our children. We must hold these people strictly accountable for their performance. If members of the City Council are irresponsible in their oversight and funding of the schools, we as citizens should vote them out at the next election. If members of the School Board are not demanding excellence from students, teachers and administrators, or if they are not adequately controlling the school budget, we citizens should vote them out at the next election. If the Superintendent of Schools is not effectively and rapidly steering Richmond Public Schools toward greatness, we should insist that the School Board replace her. If teachers are not teaching their students, we should demand that their performance improve or that they be replaced. Every person who has authority to spend school funds must be held strictly accountable for the money they spend.

The children of Richmond deserve a world-class education. We taxpayers deserve great schools for the money we pay. We and our children can settle for no less. We must demand that our elected and appointed public servants fix Richmond Public Schools now!

Appointed School Board: Should We Go Back?

The highest nabobs of the Richmond area’s high nabobs have written to the mayor and council suggesting that we go back to an appointed school board. They call the state of Richmond Public Schools an “emergency” and say that only by eliminating our elected school board can the schools be saved. Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Michael Martz described the letter from our best and brightest as having landed at City Hall “like a bomb.” As I might have expected, His Excellency hailed the letter (might he have been an unrevealed co-author?) Eliminating our elected school board would eliminate all those pesky members who have the audacity to think for themselves. City Council Prez Bill Pantele thought it was a good idea to revisit the issue of elected school boards. School Board Chair George Braxton said that the people must decide.

The letter, signed by 26 of the Richmond Metro Area business leaders, asserts that everything in the City of Richmond is great, with the exception of the public schools. It is the state of our public schools that is keeping Richmond from becoming a world-class place to work and live. The letter repeats the mayor’s assertion that Richmond’s schools are the most expensive and least effective of any in the Commonwealth. The Richmond 26 go on to list the problems of Richmond Public Schools: Richmond spends more per student than do other school districts and a smaller percentage of it goes to instruction; Richmond has the lowest graduation rate of any local school district except Petersburg; Richmond schools have a higher number of “serious incidences” of student behavior than the other jurisdictions.

So far, I have no problem with the letter. I too believe that Richmond can never be a great city unless it has a great school system. Although RPS has made significant progress in recent years, we still do not have the quality of schools that we need. Richmond Public Schools must be so good that residents of the surrounding counties move into the City to get a better education for their children.

Where I have problems with the Richmond 26 is their conclusion that all of the problems of Richmond Public Schools are the fault of the city having an elected school board. Our 26 elite conclude that the wonderful teachers of this city “will not succeed under the management and administration of the current Richmond School Board.” Richmond’s best and brightest provide no support for this assertion. They apparently think it self-evident that the elected school board is the cause of all of RPS’s problems.

In the Commonwealth, our local schools are run by school boards. Further, in every county and city in Virginia it is the city council or board of supervisors, not the school board, that has taxing authority. So, in every jurisdiction in Virginia there is a separation of the taxing authority from the authority to supervise the schools. In every jurisdiction, not only in Richmond, school boards propose budgets but have no control over raising revenue. In every jurisdiction, not only in Richmond, the local legislative body has authority to levy taxes for schools but has no direct control over operation of the schools.

In 1992 the General Assembly granted to the voters in Commonwealth school districts the right to opt for elected, rather than appointed, school boards. The citizens of the City of Richmond chose to elect their school board members. So did the citizens of most other jurisdictions in Virginia, including the seven school districts that the Richmond 26 has chosen to compare with Richmond. According to the letter these other jurisdictions have successful school systems. So, apparently, in other school districts the elected school board has worked fine. However, our 26 leaders have assigned the sole responsibility for the condition of Richmond Public Schools to the elected school board.

So, is it the school board that creates the three problems set forth in the letter? It is true that Richmond Public Schools spends more per student than other jurisdictions. I assume that it is also true that RPS spends a smaller percentage of its budget on instruction than do other jurisdictions. But, is this the fault of the elected school board? No. RPS has these budgetary realities because it has a much higher percentage of at-risk students than do other school districts in Virginia. Many Richmond students have special needs that require RPS to provide services, not directly related to instruction, that many other school jurisdictions do not have to provide. Any school board, whether elected or appointed, will have to budget for these services. Further, we need keep in mind that many of these services are mandated by the federal government and are paid for with federal funding.

If the graduation rate is defined as the percentage of students entering the ninth grade that graduate from high school four years later, Richmond has a lower graduation rate than do the other jurisdictions. Is this caused by our elected school board? No. School Board Chair Braxton has indicated that there are many reasons why Richmond students do not graduate in four years. Some must drop out to find jobs to help support their families; some opt to get a GED rather than continue in school; some take longer than four years to graduate; some are incarcerated during their high school years; some have to drop out or delay their graduation because they are pregnant. All of these causes for a student’s inability to graduate in four years are beyond the control of any school board.

What about violence in schools? Before comparing jurisdictions, we must be sure that each jurisdiction has the same definition of “serious incidents.” We also need to know whether each jurisdiction places the same emphasis on reporting these incidents. I can envision some schools where faculty and staff are not encouraged to report many of these incidents because it makes the school look bad. But even if the statistics from the various jurisdictions are comparable, can we assign the responsibility for school violence on the school board? Our children spend a greater proportion of their lives out of school than they do in school. Many come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and live in neighborhoods where an aggressive attitude is necessary for survival. As the letter recognizes, we must provide social services and public health services, in addition to a quality education to “significantly improve the lives of students who now begin their education destined to failure.”

Of course there is room for improvement, but the Richmond 26 have given no reason that an appointed school board is better equipped than our elected one to make the needed changes. By concentrating on eliminating our elected school board and replacing it with a school board of elites chosen by elites, the business leaders ignore a major cause for what they see as an “emergency” in Richmond Public Schools. From the time that Richmond elected its new mayor, the School Board has had to devote far too much of its time and energy defending itself from a hostile City Hall. It is very hard to do much to fix the problems with the schools if you constantly have to deal with withheld money, lawsuits, threats of eviction from city offices, and other hardships that the school board has had to deal with. Perhaps it is our elected mayor that should bear some of the responsibility for our schools not improving quickly enough.

In Richmond, we have the right to vote for President of the United States; we can vote for United States Senator and Representative; we elect the Governor of the Commonwealth; we vote for Virginia Senator and Delegate; we elect the members of our City Council; and, only three years ago we decided that we wanted to have an elected mayor. Now, the Richmond 26 wants to take away from us the right to elect the members of our school board. And, they want to do it not by the method set forth in law (petition and voting by Richmond residents) but by a request to the General Assembly that it amend Richmond’s charter. For some reason, these business leaders don’t think that we residents of Richmond are smart enough to elect school board representatives. They don’t even think we are smart enough to decide whether we should keep our elected school board. They just want to take that right away from us by legislative fiat. Residents of Richmond must reject their proposal.

I welcome the interest in Richmond Public Schools demonstrated by these 26 leaders. Considering that many of them have chosen not to live in the City of Richmond, are therefore not Richmond taxpayers, and probably don’t have any children or grandchildren attending Richmond Public Schools, or planning to attend in the future, I think they should be commended for their offer of assistance to the mayor and city council in fixing our schools. They say they are “eager and willing” to work in “a positive, productive, and candid partnership” with school leadership to “bring the Richmond Public Schools and the City of Richmond to the world-class level of which it is capable.” I hope that they and the organizations that they lead will enter into working partnerships with Richmond Public Schools. We residents are entitled to the best schools in the country.

Okay, Let’s Talk About Schools (Part I)

The rather emotional responses to my post “Shrinking Richmond” (click on “Comments”) tells me that we are dealing with an issue that is very sensitive in Richmond. The subject of Richmond Public Schools involves issues of taxes, race, and economic class that are difficult to discuss without possibly offending someone. Perhaps the fear of offending is the reason that we only deal with this issue at its perimeters. I think we need to get to the heart of the matter.

I am a great supporter of public schools. They are the basis of our American democracy. I was poor as a child and, without the quality public-school education I received in New York, I would not have achieved anything. All three of my children also benefited from a quality public-school education here in Virginia.

In the nearly three years I have lived in Richmond, I have noticed a very strange demographic pattern. About half the people in my neighborhood are empty-nesters like my wife and me. Most of the rest of my neighbors are young couples, either without children or with pre-school-age children. When children in my neighborhood reach school age, their parents do one of three things: 1- they move out of Richmond to Chesterfield, Henrico or Hanover counties; 2- they send their children to private school; or 3- they home-school their children. I think that the only children who attend public school are those whose parents cannot afford any of the other options.

Two days each week, I tutor at Westover Hills School. In the classes I work in, all the children are African-American. In fact, almost all of the children in the school are African-American. I have looked at the statistics on the Richmond City Public Schools website, and I find that in most of Richmond's public schools African-Americans constitute 80% or more of the student body. My experience, and those statistics, indicates to me that although more than thirty years have passed since the end of "massive resistance," Richmond still has segregated schools. This segregation is not the result of the law but of the perception by those parents who can afford other options that their children cannot receive a quality education in Richmond public schools.

What I find particularly troubling with regard to Richmond's segregated schools is that no one seems to talk about them. I hear a lot of talk about building new school buildings or how many children are passing SOLs. But nobody talks about whether children can get a quality education in segregated schools. Nobody talks about how to overcome the perception by middle class parents that keeps them from sending their children to Richmond public schools.

So where does this perception that Richmond has low quality schools come from? We could start with His Excellency Mayor Doug. In his ongoing vendetta against the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Wilder is continuously issuing vision newsletters indicating that Richmond Public Schools are inferior to those in the surrounding counties. In his newsletter for July 9, for example, Mr. Wilder says:

With a dismal, worst-in-Virginia graduation rate – only 47% of our children make it all the way through high school – there is plenty to be concerned about.
* * *
Today, if our students are ill-educated and ill-prepared to enter the world beyond secondary school, we cannot blame it on a lack of money. Richmond Public Schools spends almost 60 percent more per student annually than any of the surrounding jurisdictions, while lagging far behind in critical measures of student achievement.
* * *
Richmond's dropout rate in 2005 was four times that of Hanover and almost twice that of Chesterfield and Henrico. In fact, of school systems with 10,000 or more students, Richmond had the highest dropout rate statewide.

How can anyone in the City have any confidence in RPS with a cheerleader like Mayor Doug? Mr. Wilder’s statements are equivalent to the CEO of Coca Cola advising customers to drink Pepsi because it tastes better. Is it any wonder that families leave the city looking for better schools?

In addition to our cheerleader-in-chief, advertising by the counties and real estate listings support the idea that the counties have better schools. The listing for sale of a house in the counties will almost always include “near to high-quality Chesterfield (Henrico, Hanover) schools.” Have you ever seen a listing for a house in the city that mentions that there is a nearby school?

Anonymous, one of those who commented on my earlier post (not to be confused with anonymous and anonymous, who also commented), takes issue with the idea that Richmond Public Schools are inferior. He attended public school in Richmond from kindergarten through high school. He says,

I know so many graduates who are becoming teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, and many are in school getting graduate degrees from great schools.

Anonymous himself is planning to go to law school.

So, who is correct? Is it Anonymous, who has been through RPS and knows that many of his fellow graduates are very successful? Or is it Mr. Wilder, who asserts that Richmond’s students are ill-educated and ill-prepared to deal with the world.

When asked about the mayor’s vision newsletter, School Board Chair George Braxton acknowledged that less than half of students who enter the 9th grade graduate from high school four years later.

Some earn a GED, some are held back a year sometime during their high school career, some are incarcerated, and some drop out (reasons range from working to pregnancy). We can work on much of this, but a great amount of it comes from the social problems faced when a large percentage of your costumers are at-risk.

Mr. Braxton also provided the following statistics concerning the 2007 graduating class:

Class of 2007 Statistics (As of June 30, 2007)
Continuing Education Plans
Four Year College - 48.7%
Two Year College - 24.5%
Military - 1.3%
Work Force - 19.6%
Apprenticeship - 1.8%
Voc./Technical Training - 3.8%
TOTAL 99.7%

Students in the Class of 2007 have been accepted into 127 colleges & universities. The states represented in the acceptances are Alabama, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, California, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, Washington, D.C. and of course, Virginia. To date over 860 acceptances have been recorded.

Because Richmond has so many students who are at-risk, it is very difficult to compare our schools to those in the counties. We spend more because these students have greater needs than do middle class students. Many of our students do not succeed because of the problems they face at home and in their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, Anonymous’ experiences are consistent with the statistics about graduating students. More than 70% of this year’s graduating class plans to attend four year or two year colleges. Despite Mr. Wilder’s assertion that our students are ill-educated, they are being accepted at colleges throughout the country.

I intend to continue this discussion of Richmond Public Schools until I am satisfied we have fully addressed all the issues. I hope you join me by clicking on the word “comments” below. (If you don’t want to reveal your identity, please use an alias. We already have too many people named Anonymous.)

Should Taxpayers Pay Tech Victims?

I think the shootings at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, were horrific. That so many families should lose their children, spouses, siblings or parents all at once is beyond terrible. I can only imagine how I would feel if a disaster like that affected my family. I empathize with all those whose lives will always be partly empty because of the loss of their loved ones.

Yet, I am troubled by the lead article in the Times-Dispatch of July 30, 2007, indicating that Virginia legislators are advocating that the Commonwealth compensate survivors and families of victims for their losses at Tech. These legislators are not advocating that they themselves pay the compensation but that the taxpayers of the Commonwealth pay it. I ask, “Why?”

Life is dangerous. Bad things happen to people. And, when bad things happen, the victims or their survivors want to be compensated. But, should Virginia, or any other state, compensate every victim of a loss?

Over the centuries, the Anglo-American legal system has developed an entire body of tort law to deal with personal loss. Under that system, it is the person who causes the loss, not the state, that is required to compensate the victim for the loss. And, that person is only required to pay compensation when the actions causing the loss were negligent or otherwise wrongful. The devastation of April 16 was caused by Seung-Hui Cho, not by the taxpayers of Virginia.

The shootings at Virginia Tech were not unique in our history. Similar mass-killings have taken place in other schools or buildings in the past. They will continue to occur in the future so long as we hold dear the right of Americans to purchase 9mm semiautomatic handguns and other killing machines. These occasional deaths are the price we pay for the right to bear arms.

Governor Kaine appointed a panel to investigate the events of April 16. That panel has not yet issued its findings. If the findings, when issued, indicate that the negligent or wrongful actions of some officer or employee of the Commonwealth were a contributing cause of the shootings, it would be proper to consider reaching monetary settlements with victims and survivors to obviate the need for expensive and protracted lawsuits. However, to appropriate public funds for compensation, without any showing that the Commonwealth or its officers or employees caused the shootings, would put the taxpayers of Virginia in the position of insurers. Should we take money from other badly needed programs, or increase taxes, to pay for this proposed compensation? I'm not sure.

Michael Vick: Why Should I Care?

It's so easy being a maven when you deal with the Times-Dispatch. As I predicted yesterday, the TD devoted all five columns on the front page today to the Vick story. And, I was wrong. Vick went to court today, not yesterday. So, we may very well see the main story tomorrow being about Mr. Vick.

I am trying to understand. Mr. Vick is an athlete. He comes from Virginia and played college football in Virginia. He now works in Atlanta. I cannot figure out the TD. Why is this such big news? There were at least a dozen events that happened yesterday that are far more relevant to our lives than Mr. Vicks troubles. Why didn't they make front page news?

Should I be sorry for Michael Vick? Should I have been in front of the court house protesting against dog fighting?

I have a confession to make. I don't care what happens to Michael Vick. I just want this to be over so I can find out what is actually happening in the world.

Hey, I Pay for this Rag

Somebody at our beloved Times-Dispatch has lost touch with reality. I don't know if it's the publisher or one of the vice presidents or the editor, but nobody seems to understand what the word "news" means.

Every day it's there on the front page of the main section. Another story about Michael Vick. And I know it will probably be a five-column headline tomorrow, because Mr. Vick is going to court this afternoon.

I realize that Richmond is not Metropolis and that the TD is not the Daily Planet. I also know we don't have journalists like Perry White, Lois Lane and Clark Kent. But even a cute little city like Richmond deserves a quality daily newspaper. Unfortunately, the TD doesn't seem to be it.

Every morning I read the TD. It takes me about ten minutes. Then I have to read my wife's Washington Post so I can find out what's actually going on in the world, the US of A, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Common Greater Richmonders. We have to stop putting up with this publication that has the audacity to call itself "Virginia's Newsleader."

A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall

Things are getting ominous. Style Weekly has bumped His Excellency out of the number one spot as the most powerful person in Richmond.

I can't see King Doug taking this lying down. He's got to do something to get back to number one.

Any ideas on what he'll do?

Shrinking Richmond: Goodbye to Don and Clara

We met the Thompsons when we moved to Richmond three years ago. They are a great couple. They have two kids; Eric aged 5 and Danielle aged 3. In our neighborhood, where the population is split between empty-nesters and young couples with pre-school age children, the Thompsons are one of the few younger families that I and my maven-ess have been able to be friends with. Usually, it’s hard for younger and older families to find much in common. But it’s been different with Don and Clara.

Well, the bad news appeared last month with a “for sale” sign in front of the Thompsons’ house. I waited until Clara brought the kids home from daycare, and then ran to knock on their door.

“Clara, are you guys, moving?”

“Yes.” Clara didn’t look me in the eye. It was clear she wasn’t happy about this.

“But why and where are you going?”

“We found a place out in Chesterfield County, west of where Hull Street Road crosses 288. We’re moving ‘cause Eric is starting school in the fall.”

“Okay, Eric is starting school in the fall. What does that have to do with your moving? There’s a public school three blocks from here. Besides, I thought you loved this neighborhood.”

“We do love this neighborhood. And we love you and our other neighbors, but we want Eric to go to a good school. Everybody knows the schools in Chesterfield are better than the city schools.”

As we spoke, Don drove up and got out of his car.

“What do you mean, everybody knows? How does everybody know the schools are better in Chesterfield?

Don joined the conversation. “We don’t think that Eric would fit in in the city school; he would be different from everybody else.”

“Is this a racial thing?” I asked.

“No! We are not racists! It’s just that so many kids in that school are poor. They don’t have the academic skills that Eric has. He will be pulled down by them.”

“Have you ever been in the school? I volunteer there. Believe me; those children are getting a good education. They have great teachers. Eric would do fine there.”

“We’re not willing to risk Eric’s future on an experiment. We know the schools are better in Chesterfield. If he goes to city schools he might have trouble getting into a good college.”

“He’s not even six years old,” I said. Then I added. “You realize you’ll be giving up a ten-minute commute to work. And you’ll have to pay tolls on the Powhite.”

“Hey!” He said. “These are our children. If I have to have a longer commute or pay tolls so that Eric can go to a quality school, I’ll do it. Besides, maybe I can find a better job in the county.”

It was clear I was not going to win this argument. Don and Clara were going to move.



You know, some day academics are going to be studying the Henrico-Chesterfield metro area. One will ask the other about the large vacant space in the middle of the area. “Didn’t the City of Richmond used to be here?” “Yes,” the other will reply, “but it was abandoned years ago.” “But why?” the first one will ask. The second will reply—

“It was the schools, dummy!”

Why do we pay more in Richmond?

In Michael Paul William’s column in the July 23 TD he discusses whether it is better to live in Mechanicsville or Glen Allen (notice that the City of Richmond was not even discussed.) Williams refers to the article in Money magazine that lists Mechanicsville 54th best and Glen Allen 66th best among places with between 7500 and 50,000 residents. Williams indicates that the magazine lists the median home price for Mechanicsville at $267,969 while its average real estate taxes were $1624. For Glen Allen the figures were $235,885 and $2055.

It’s been years since I learned arithmetic, but it seemed to me that these figures must be wrong. The homes in Mechanicsville were costlier, but the real estate tax in Glen Allen was higher. I was sure that either Mr. Williams or the magazine must have made an error. Then it hit me. These places are in different counties and therefore they have different real estate tax rates.

So, I went to my friendly Internet to see what the tax rates were for Richmond and its nearby bedrooms. Now, some of the websites have 2006-07 rates and some have 2007-08 rates, so these figures may not exactly match. However, here’s what I found out—
City of Richmond: $1.23 per $100 of assessed value
Chesterfield County: $1.02 per $100 of assessed value (going to .97 at the end of this year)
Hanover County: $0.81 per $100 of assessed value
Henrico County: $0.87 per $100 of assessed value

So what does all this mean? If my house is assessed at $250,000 (which I wish it was), I would pay the following amount of annual real estate taxes in the various jurisdictions:
City of Richmond: $3,075
Chesterfield County: $2,550
Hanover County: $2,025
Henrico County: $2,175
Well, I live in the City of Richmond. So, I am paying between $500 and $1,000 more in real estate taxes than if my house were in the surrounding counties. (These figures do not include various miscellaneous fees that I also pay to the City of Richmond.)

So, why do I pay so much more for local government than do some of my friends? Obviously, I must pay more because I get more. I must get better schools, better maintenance of streets and other infrastructure, more police and fire protection, better libraries, etc. and etc. It’s like the old Yuban commercial (if you’re under 40, you probably never heard of it), “You get what you pay for!”

I'm a newcomer to Richmond (been here less than 37 years) so I'm not sure, but I suspect that more or better services is not the reason I pay more.

In a July 10 TD OpEd, 1st District Councilperson Bruce Tyler gave his reason for why I pay more:
“Richmond is fortunate to be the capital of Virginia. With this blessing comes the hidden burden of providing essentially free police, fire, and infrastructure to state government. Richmond taxes are higher than taxes in surrounding localities because they don't share this burden; therefore, we are less competitive.”

Tyler presents an interesting issue. Commonwealth-owned buildings in the city do not generate any tax revenue. Shouldn't the Commonwealth compensate the city for this lost revenue by means of an annual payment in lieu of taxes? I know that the Federal Government pays the District of Columbia a substantial annual payment to compensate for the revenue the District loses because the Feds pay no taxes. But, does any state government compensate its capital city for lost tax revenue?

In my opinion, making up for the revenue lost because the Commonwealth does not pay taxes can only account for a small part of the extra taxes we Richmonders (Richmondites?) pay each year.

As you all know, our beloved mayor, Doug Wilder, gives another reason for our high real estate taxes. In his Vision newsletter for January 22, 2007, His Lordship said,
“I do not believe that our citizens desire for their real estate assessments to continue to rise in order to support the exorbitant spending by our public school system, which maintains too many half-empty school buildings at a cost of millions each year.”

Well, Mr. Your Honor, I cannot believe that I pay higher taxes in the city simply because RPS has some half-empty buildings. Only about one quarter of the City’s operating budget goes for schools. (http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/budget/pdf/PieChartTotalExp.pdf) Is it just possible that there is some waste in the rest of the City government--the part that you are responsible for?

So, here is my question to Mayor Wilder. Here is my question to the nine members of the City Council. Why do we pay more for municipal services than do our neighbors in Hanover, Henrico and Chesterfield counties?

A reply to River City Rapids

Since you don't allow any comments on your blog (http://rivercityrapids.blogspot.com/), I will have to write my comment on your July 23 post here.


It seems to me like the whole post was written by his Excellency the Mayor. I'm getting the impression that you think King Doug can do no wrong and that the City Council and the School Board are a bunch of thugs. It's amazing that Mr. Wilder has to fight with everybody in the city because he is always "right."

Choosing the Next Prez: Part I

Now that I am officially out of the race, at least for now, I must begin the process of choosing who I will support for president in 2008. Of course I take this responsibility seriously because I know how much the president can effect how I feel for the years 2009 and after. I did not feel good for months after the Supreme Court elected “W” in 2000. And I wasn’t too happy after a second Liberal from Massachusetts blew the election in 2004. So this choosing a president thing is nothing I do lightly.

In fact, before even looking at the remaining candidates, I thought I would determine the qualities I want in my next president. What is most important? Do I care about a candidate’s views on the nation building in Iraq? Definitely not! How can you choose among 15 or 20 candidates who all want to bring the troops home. Besides, I am sure that our wily Mr. Bush will have an October surprise which will neutralize the war issue.

What about a candidate’s views on health care? Hell, everybody is in favor of health care. What about taxes? They’re all against taxes, at least until after the election. What about the environment? Come on, nobody would admit that they favor a degraded environment. And global warming? I don’t think many of the remaining candidates favor more heat.

I think that issues are pretty irrelevant in this upcoming election. For one thing, the issues that candidates raise now will not necessarily be the issues that one of them will have to deal with after January 20, 2009. Did George W. run on a platform of fighting the war on terror? The fact is that the crises that the next prez will have to deal with, we haven’t even thought about.

So, what about the candidates’ qualifications? What traits do they have that will make me confident that they can be the leader of the world’s only remaining superpower? (By the way, if we are the only superpower, how come we get no respect?) Do we want someone who has demonstrated great leadership? Do we want someone with experience in administering multibillion dollar projects? Do we want someone who actually does their current job rather than running around the country campaigning? Do we want a president who will not lie to us?

That seems like a good one: A president that tells the truth. At one time we prided ourselves on truthful presidents. George Washington couldn’t tell a lie, and Abraham Lincoln was known as “Honest Abe.” But among the more recent presidents lying is something we expect. Bill Clinton lied to us; he even lied under oath. And, I’m not sure I believe a quarter of what comes out of W’s mouth.

So, what do you think? Do you want a president that tells the truth?

Not me! In the words of Jack Nicholson, I can’t handle the truth!

A truthful president would have to tell me that in the Mayan calendar everything ends after 2011 except for a few scattered Mayas. (Don’t even try; I already found out that there is no way to convert to Maya.)

Even if the Mayans were wrong, a truthful president would have to tell me that somewhere in the solar system there is a 100 mile long asteroid that has its cross hairs locked on earth and will get here in 2023. Two billion people will die the first day. And the following nuclear winter will kill everybody else except for a few scattered Mayas.

Even if the asteroid misses, a truthful president would have to tell me that some day a volcano in the Canary Islands will tumble into the ocean and a super tsunami, more that 5,000 feet high, will inundate the eastern coast of America from Greenland to Tierra Del Fuego, crossing the Appalachians and creating an inland sea in the Mississippi valley, killing everybody except a few scattered Mayas.

I can’t handle the truth.

But I could use a national leader who will not deliberately lie to me. What if a candidate had the chutzpah to tell us, “Hey, I represent the ultra-wealthy? If I am elected, everything I do will be designed to benefit them. If you happen to get some benefit from trickle down, that's good for you. But I do not intend to represent your interests.” I wouldn’t vote for him (not willing to rely on trickle down), but at least he’d earn my respect.

But, seriously, shouldn’t we expect our president to be honest with us on the critical issues facing our country? How about a president who told us we have to cure our addiction to fossil fuels because in a few decades there won’t be any left? Shouldn’t he or she tell us that we are spending ourselves into insolvency; that continuing deficit spending of any amount will require our grandchildren to deal with crippling taxes (or a government that defaults on its obligations?). Why shouldn’t the president tell us that minimizing climate change will require us to make significant changes in our lifestyles? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who told us that winning the battle against international terrorism will require the American people to make some sacrifices? (Can we believe that this is really a war for national survival when only soldiers and their families are asked to pay the price?)

So, who among the uncountable Democrats, significant number of Republicans, possible independents and unannounced candidates do you trust is telling us the truth now and will continue to do so if elected? Let me know. It will affect my decision-making.

Shrinking Cities

In yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, A. Barton Hinkle wrote an OpEd suggesting that Richmond may want to follow the example of Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown, according to Hinkle is accepting the fact that it has a shrinking population. Rather than fighting this trend, the city has decided to downsize its operations and reduce the tax burden of its remaining residents. I replied to Hinkle on his blog (http://barticles.mytimesdispatch.com/). For those who do not read Hinkle’s blog, here is my comment:

I know nothing about Youngstown. I don't know whether it is a shrinking city in the midst of a healthy metropolitan area as it Richmond. I still have the January 26, 2007, TD article "Ready to brag, Richmond?" It dealt with a study by the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce that showed that Metro Richmond compared favorably with the Nashville, TN; Jacksonville, FL; Raleigh, NC; Birmingham, AL; and Charlotte, NC, metropolitan areas.

We don't have a problem in Metro Richmond; we have a problem in the city. The City of Richmond is losing its middle class and its population is dropping. At the same time the populations of Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico counties are increasing.

So why are people leaving Richmond for the suburbs? I think the main reason is schools. There is a widespread perception that the Richmond Public Schools do not do as good a job educating children as do the school systems in the suburbs. In my neighborhood, Westover Hills, we have a perfectly good neighborhood school. However, nobody in my neighborhood sends their children to Westover Hills School. When children reach school age, my neighbors do one of three things: 1-they send their kids to private schools; 2-they home school their kids; or 3-they move to the suburbs. The result is a demographic bubble; there are hardly any families living in the neighborhood with school age children.

If we are going to stem Richmond's hemorrhaging population, we must first drastically improve our public schools. For Richmond to be a great city, it must have great public schools.

Second, we must stress the things that only a central city can do. The Sixth Street Marketplace was a disaster because we were trying to compete with the suburban shopping malls. There was no way we were going to lure suburbanites to shop in the city when they had big malls much closer to where they live. We've got to stress growth in the city that will keep our residents spending their money in the city and luring suburbanites into the city.

Of course, Richmond cannot solve its problems outside of a regional context. Today’s TD shows part of the problem; the fairfaxization of Chesterfield County. The citizens of Virginia spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build route 288, a road that began nowhere, went nowhere, and traveled through a mostly empty county. This road has single-handedly made many parts of Chesterfield County available for development. It has produced the long strip mall on Hull Street Road that continues westward for a considerable distance. Chesterfield County is adding thousands of homes, which will produce thousands of extra cars on our roads and tons of extra carbon in our atmosphere. We need to institute regional planning which discourages, rather than encourages, continued suburban sprawl. We need to stop subsidizing development that is economically and environmentally damaging.

Perhaps, as you suggest downsizing of the City of Richmond may be inevitable. However, I hope we don't decide to bury the patient while it is still breathing and has a decent chance for recovery.

Michael Vick, Michael Vick, Michael Vick

A few weeks ago it was two days of front page headlines in the TD that local and federal police officials were investigating the home of Michael Vick. There was a suspicion of dog-fighting. This week it was two days of front page headlines in the TD that Michael Vick and friends had been indicted on charges relating to dog-fighting.

There must be something more important going on in the world for the TD to report on than the antics of an athlete. We have problems in this city with our schools, with crime, with transportation, with the hemorrhage of the middle class population. But, all the TD can report about is Michael Vick.

Get real, guys and gals. He is only an athlete.

Why the Fair Tax Proposal will Never Pass

While I was in Chicago I noticed something really interesting. Hotels that cater to business travelers charge a lot. Breakfasts in the hotel restaurant range from $12 to $21. To use the hotel’s swimming pool and fitness facility the charge is $12 per day. To access the Internet they charge $10 per day. Contrast this with hotels that rely on tourists rather than business travelers. The meals at the restaurants are cheaper; the Internet access and fitness facilities are free.

When I stood outside the fitness facility at the Chicago hotel, I was wondering, “Who would pay $12 per day to use this.” Then it dawned on me. The Federal Government is subsidizing this fitness facility and the expensive meals and the charge for Internet access. Business travelers either get all their travel expenses reimbursed by their employer or, if self-employed, they can deduct their expenses from their federal income taxes. The employer, in turn, also treats these meals and fitness facility and Internet charges as business expenses. The result—the Federal Government is paying part of the increased charges that the business hotel is making.

If the Fair Tax proposal were to pass, there would be no Federal income tax. Therefore, the expensive meals, fitness facility fees and Internet charges would not be deductible business expenses. Now business travelers would have to pay for these expenses from their own pockets. Further, under the Fair Tax proposal, all these expenses would be subject to the Federal sales tax. Suddenly, business travelers would think twice before incurring these expenses. They might start shopping around for hotels where the meals are reasonably priced and where the fitness facilities and Internet access are free.

You can bet that the Sheratons and Hiltons and Hyatts and other hotel chains that cater to business travelers are not going to give up these money makers without a fight. They will realize that the Fair Tax proposal will not be good for their business and they will lobby against the Fair Tax.

There are many other sectors of the economy in these United States that also rely on the federal tax subsidy for part of their income. They will also oppose the Fair Tax. Just think of the housing industry. Without the tax exemption for home owners, people will not be able to afford such expensive houses. Used houses will have a strong competitive advantage over new houses because they would not be subject to the federal sales tax. Land developers and builders will therefore oppose the plan.

And, of course, the elimination of the federal income tax deduction will be disastrous for charitable institutions. I could be generous and assume that people contribute to charities for religious or other reasons and that the tax deduction is not an incentive. However, let’s face it. If people were so altruistic, why did we need the deduction in the first place?

I must concluded that even if the Fair Tax proposal was fair, which I’m not convinced it is, it would adversely affect so many interests in this country that it will never become law.

Why Helmet Laws are Necessary

I'm in Chicago, the windy city on Lake Michigan. My hotel is right near the waterfront so I thought I'd take a walk to the Navy Pier, an in town tourist attraction. (For those of you who live in River City, I think that the Navy Pier is bigger than the whole City of Richmond).

Well, I'm walking along the street enjoying the breeze (it's a good fifteen degrees cooler than central Virginia). Then I go off onto a bike trail that enters a park. As I'm walking I hear this loud squawking and then something is attacking my head. I try to shoo it off but it is very persistent. With all the squawking and pecking at my head I felt like Tippi Hedron in Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds." Finally, with enough of my yelling and swinging my arms and walking away from under the tree from whence the red winged blackbirds were attacking, I was able to escape the onslaught.

My head is hurting. I have been victimized. I'm not blaming the City of Chicago for this lack of hospitality shown by its avian population. But...

if I had been wearing a helmet, I would feel a whole lot better now.

Pulling the Ring Off of My Hat

For all of you supporters of the Maven, I have some very bad news. After months of exploring and consulting with many experts and engaging in an extensive fund-raising effort, I must conclude that it makes no sense to continue my campaign for the presidency in 2008. Therefore, I must announce that I will not be a candidate either for the Republican or the Democratic nomination. And, just to eliminate any further speculation, I will not even run for whatever party Michael Bloomberg may put together. I am ending my candidacy.

Why?

Do I think that I am not as good as the other 20 or 25 candidates? Hell, no! I can certainly be a better president than most of them.

Why?

Do I think I can’t win? Hell, in a fair campaign I could beat all of them. If the American people carefully compared my qualifications with the other guys and gals, I have no doubt I would win.

So, why?

The answer is simple—money. In the months that I have been trying, I have only been able to raise $375, and $300 of that is a pledge from my friend Donald contingent on my winning the Iowa caucuses.

Let’s face it friends, politics in America has changed. The day when a retired civil servant living only on his pension could afford to run for president is long gone. No longer is heard the cry, “Let the best (wo)man win!” Now you have to have two or three hundred million bucks just to run for the nomination. Qualifications don’t count. Experience don’t count. Good looks don’t count. Even grammar don’t count. All that counts is money.

Is this maven bitter? Hell no! Let them have their gold-plated, diamond studded presidency. I will be content to just continue spreading my expertise throughout the planet.

Now, I have to figure out which of the remaining unqualified candidates to support. I eagerly await your advice. If there is any of the dirty two dozen that you think would make a good president, let me know. Tell me why you support that lesser candidate. I’ll consider your views, reject them and then announce my pick for the next Prez.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Get Rid of Doug, Donald Urges

My old friend Donald called me this morning wanting to know why we don’t just get rid of Mayor Doug, instead of always complaining. You have to understand that Donald is a bit of a radical; in his day, he marched against the Grenada War and held up a sign in Lafayette Park denouncing the marriage of David Eisenhower and Julie Nixon. So I was not particularly surprised by his attitude.

“We will get rid of him,” I told him, “in November 2008.”

“No need to wait, you can get rid of him now!”

My first impulse was to hang up. I don’t think anybody would understand me discussing Doug’s assassination on the telephone. I mean the guy often drives me nuts, but killing him seems a bit extreme.

“I’m willing to wait for the election,” I replied. “Besides, he has this big security detail.”

Donald laughed for a good twenty seconds. “No, doofus brain, I’m not talking about killing the sucker. I’m talking about removing him from office.”

“Donald, I don’t know what you are talking about.”

Donald then explained it to me. Apparently, under section 24.2-233 of the Virginia Code, pursuant to a petition, a circuit court can remove an official from office
“For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office”
Further, with respect to the Mayor of Richmond, section 3.04.1 of the City Charter provides that the mayor can be removed under the procedures contained in the Code of Virginia, provided that a petition is
“signed by a number of registered voters in each council district equal to at least 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the last general election for mayor in each respective council district.”

“So,” said Donald, “all you need is a petition signed by ten percent of the voters and you can get rid of old Doug.”

“How many signatures do we need?” I asked.

“It says you need, for each council district, ten percent of the total vote for mayor in the last election. Go look it up.”

So I did. This is what I found.

To petition for Mayor Doug’s removal we would need a petition with this many signatures per district:

District 1....... 936
District 2....... 754
District 3....... 675
District 4....... 762
District 5....... 672
District 6....... 354
District 7....... 407
District 8....... 581
District 9....... 461

(And we’d need to add another hundred or more per district because the Times-Dispatch article I looked at didn’t have complete election returns.)

“Donald, there is no way we can get that many signatures.”

“Of course you can. Just get some friends and start ringing doorbells.”