Jeff Sadler 
Member since Jun 3, 2011



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Floyd Ave. Bike Boulevard Approved, Coming This Spring

FanGuy: The Deputy Fire Marshall said at the meeting that emergency vehicles were required to make a complete stop at all stop signs. Three of the four raised cross walks (yes, they are corner to corner and eight feet wide to accommodate wheelchair crossing) are at intersections that currently have four way stops, but will no longer have stop signs. Thus, the raised crosswalks add only one additional stopping point for emergency vehicles.

Lost in the reporting, not to the fault of the reporter, but because it was not discussed at this meeting, since it had been discussed ad nauseous at previous meetings, is that two traffic signals are being removed and also several other stop signs.

Thus, if an emergency vehicle was traveling Floyd from Thompson to Laurel, the entire stretch of the bike/walk street, it will have fewer stopping points after the changes, not more.

I understand that many people feel very differently about the changes and parking, but I felt this point should be cleared up, as the fears of delayed response times are not borne out by these facts.

26 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Jeff Sadler on 02/24/2015 at 7:57 PM

Re: ““Premature” Arts District Signs Unnerve Artists

This is another example of the City pretending to do something. It's like putting a hat on a comatose patient; it may make him look better, but isn't doing anything to revive him.

Vernal Coleman is absolutely incorrect when he says that there are financial and tax incentives attached to this ordinance. All he has to do is read the two-page ordinance to know that it is only a geographical designation, but he obviously has not. This is the main point of contention over the ordinance.

Everyone involved wants a district, its just that the actual artists and cultural organizations and property owners would like a district that offers real benefits. The city says they can't afford to offer financial incentives which leads to two responses:

1 - Then why bother?
2 - Why not use the district designation to delineate a much smaller more focused area to the blighted blocks of Broad and maybe 2nd so that real revitalization incentives could be implemented in a targeted manner to reduce the blight.

This is way that these types of program have been used successfully across the country. Unfortunately, Richmond seems to think that promoting a derelict section of town, combined with the financial district, the Capitol, The Coliseum, the Convention Center, City hall and scores of other City, State and federally owned properties, with no actual plan of action or mandated incentives is a pathway to successful revitalization. Unfortunately for all of us, it is a proven method for making politicians look good but not for long term economic revitalization.

Furthermore, Peter Chapman unveiled this "plan" which he himself said is in progress about 6 months ago and yet it is still unfinished. This leads me to believe that the "plan" of generally available, untargeted and incomplete incentives is just the window dressing to get the ordinance passed.

This could be a great program, but instead, the city is settling for less than mediocre and will reap the corresponding results.

Vernal Coleman should be ashamed of his innaccuracies and laziness, too.

Posted by Jeff Sadler on 06/03/2011 at 6:53 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Copyright © 2018 Style Weekly
Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
All rights reserved
Powered by Foundation