Member since Sep 14, 2017



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “COMMENTARY: Planners for the Proposed 100-unit Apartment Building, 805W, on West Cary Should Go Back to the Drawing Board

Can we beg them to reconsider? Of course you can, Jennybeth, but dont expect them to just roll over because of your overwrought pleas. Be polite and professional and make them an offer. You can easily solicit the financial support of others using crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter or GoFundMe. You can then preserve the property as you see fit and run it as nonprofit housing, or whatever.

The owner presumably acquired the property with the expectation of making a profit and it would be foolish of him to just walk away from that because some random NIMBYs have a sad. So at a very minimum offer the purchase price of the property plus the interest the owner has paid on the mortgage plus the architects fee to design the new buildings plus the money the owner spent on permitting, etc. Also be aware that the owner may have entered into contracts with construction and or demolition firms and that there may be cancellation penalties which you would also have to cover. Etc. And thats just for the owner to break even. Probably a good idea to offer the owner (at least) an additional ten percent of the total expenses outlined above.

6 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 03/15/2018 at 6:28 PM

Re: “COMMENTARY: Planners for the Proposed 100-unit Apartment Building, 805W, on West Cary Should Go Back to the Drawing Board

One always gets the impression that Slipek views Richmond as his own personal Sim City, a simulacrum of reality where he can fulfil his utopic fantasies. Real living people have property rights and need housing but Slipek feels that his architectural fetishes trump the rights of others.

I love how historic preservation types always want to use other peoples money to fulfill their fantasies. You want to preserve buildings? Fine. Buy them yourselves on the open market and do what you will, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Realist: Excellent question, but we both know the answer. To progs rights are never absolute and inalienable, but always mere playthings - privileges to be doled out to accredited victim groups but denied to the nongoodthinkful.

9 likes, 37 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 03/14/2018 at 6:03 PM

Re: “More Details Emerge on Dominion’s $6.5 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Yes, Realist, they are paid for their land, but its not a voluntary transaction so therefore an initiation of force against the landowner. This is what would otherwise be known as theft. Those property owners also have to take whatever amount they are offered.

Progressives might have gained more traction on their pipeline opposition had they framed this entirely as a debate about property rights and eminent domain. But of course they didnt, being reflexively hostile to property rights.

And while it pains me to have to prop up Galuszka, consistent application of principle requires me to stick up for the property owner.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 03/07/2018 at 6:16 PM

Re: “Rally for residents puts heat on RRHA officials

Tater, the one thing I would question about what you said is whether Creighton Court residents prioritize DirectTV over heat. The other SW article about the heating situation in Creighton Court says that Creighton Court has a centralized heating system shared by multiple units. So it's not practical, and perhaps impossible, for the residents to repair this on their own. And the presence of a DirectTV dish is not necessarily an indicator of service. I'm not a DirectTV customer but based on a few minutes research it seems that the customer owns the dish. There is no incentive to remove a dish once you have cancelled service and it is possible that some of those dishes were installed by previous tenants. I also realize you were talking about dishes in Gilpin Court; it is unknown to me whether GC has a centralized heating system like that in Creighton Court.

But you do raise a good question about whether the taxpayers are subsidizing RRHA residents too much. Basic food and shelter (including heat) are one thing, but luxuries like DirectTV are another matter entirely. IOW, if they can afford DirectTV maybe they shouldn't qualify for taxpayer-subsidized housing.

And what about the working-poor families who pay their own rent and receive no government handouts, yet who can't afford DirectTV? How do you explain to them that the people getting subsidized rent get luxuries that the unsubsidized poor can't afford? This situation only creates an incentive for the unsubsidized poor to give up and become government-dependent.

6 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 01/11/2018 at 4:54 PM

Re: “A community Activist Talks About His Battle with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority

My Dear Realist Friends,

While you are correct that it is dependence on government which is the root of the problem here, it is not just the clients of the welfare state who are demanding more, bigger, and more expensive government; it is primarily the progressives who vote-farm government dependent constituencies like the residents of Creighton Court.

Bread and circuses, lads, panem et circenses.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 01/10/2018 at 8:33 PM

Re: “Rally for residents puts heat on RRHA officials

I would also like to know the answer to the question raised by Native Richmonder. But there are many more questions to which the taxpayers deserve answers, specifically about RRHA and why nobody is ever fired for gross incompetence like this. If the taxpayers must fund facilities like Creighton Court they should be run so that heat, water and electricity work properly.

The only people judging here are Trish Anderson and North Side. Taxpayers asking questions about how their tax dollars are spent is not judgement, but rather proactive management.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 01/10/2018 at 8:20 PM

Re: “Opinion: We Should Save the City-Owned Westham Station from Negligence

Sorry, Richardson, but restoring some random shack at taxpayer expense is so far down on my list of priorities as to not be worthy of serious discussion. Particularly when we have failing schools, massive police overtime because of monument-related kerfuffles, etc. I'm one of the harshest critics of the city government, yet this is not one of their failings. The city acquires lots of properties by default when the owners walk away from them; we can't afford to preserve every structure. Your opinion piece would have been more persuasive and useful if you had a plan of action for monetization or private restoration of this structure instead of just moaning about things as they are.

Alternately, you could start a movement to force the city to divest itself of these excess properties and structures. I'd totally support that. Even if that shack were sold as antique lumber it would be preserved after a fashion, and I'm sure it would fetch a pretty price. Right now it's just a hotel for vermin, a feeding station for termites and potential shelter for junkies and vagrants.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by TANSTAAFL on 11/17/2017 at 9:25 PM

All Comments »

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