Keeping the damned republicans (and their sympathizers like fenwick) marginalized on the fringes where they belong.

Not getting Fenwick elected and having an all democratic city council that doesn't need to listen to anyone but staff. Council is run by Aubrey Watts, director of economic development, who I believe runs the city, and Gary O'Connell is just his mouthpiece. Remember the Wizard of Oz --Aubrey is the wizard behind the green curtain and we need an independent voice to challenge him. Bob is the man !

Fenwick is the only hope in protecting McIntire Park. He will advocate for city residents as he holds the county accountable for meeting their own obligations.

Fenwick is the only hope to save $300 million in city owned assets: the Rivanna Reservoir, the Ragged Mt. Natural Area and dam, and the dam at Sugar Hollow. The present Council is ready to turn all this over to the county and then raise water and sewer rates for $200 million of new infrastructure. People wake up elect Fenwick.

Citizen You are absolutely correct. Voters had better "wake up" and fast. I suggest voters access the comments, past forums. It is clear that Norris and Szakos are willing to sell the soul of the city to the county. Now listen carefully and you'll understand.

Norris/Szakos Platform highlighted at forums:density-density -density-development-development-development-AFFORDABLE --but don't ask any questions how it's done, just get it done NDS.

Everyone is so quick to beatify Fenwick. He seems like a one-issue candidate to me (that issue being the water supply, the only real one in the debate -- the McIntire Park thing is just political theater he's using to collect all the NIMBYs' money for his campaign; the park is not in any real danger from a Y or botanical garden, and it's way too late to stop the road). If a city council candidate can run and win on just one real issue, then we need to give these people more work to do and responsibilities to cover. And if career staff really can burrow in and control us all for life, maybe then we do need to reform the govt'l structure to institute more politico oversight over the pros (but be careful what you ask for -- that can also lead to religious nuts getting elected and burning copies of Huck Finn). Problem is, merely electing St. Fenwick won't achieve that structural reform, and if elected he won't be able to get away with just mouthing off as a gadfly (look how ineffective Rob Shilling was in that role) -- he'll have to actually produce something, reach compromises, and work for the greater good and not just his moneyed constituency during the campaign.

Fenwick has the experience as a contractor and businessman that is presently lacking on Council. He understands what it means to preserve neighborhoods, and maintain and sustain the infrastructure we have, whether it be parks or reservoirs. Even having one voice to challenge the staff status quo will be a start, and then in the next election we can add on a few more independent voices, for preserving the assets that the City has neglected for years and now wants to throw away and start over.

Aren't the poor the ones impacted the most if we neglect our parks and reservoirs? Mr. Fenwick appears to understand this, so I am voting for him.

A biggie that bothers me, Norris brags Charlottesville has been voted a #1 city, yet he also indicates we have severe racial probems,poverty, and we need more affordable housing. Has anyone asked him during the forums how effective as an individual he has been in actually solving these problems for his city? From what I hear,specific questions regarding his individual performance and record are screened,not allowed to be asked during public forums. Why should Norris be protected in this manner? Norris is the only incumbent. Norris' camp should welcome public scrutiny for his true accomplishments as a councilor. Questions of Norris ought to connect to his performance thus far.

If Fenwick is to protect the interests of the poor by preserving the park, exactly how does keeping the YMCA out of the park further that goal? Unlike corporate and for-profit companies, the Y provide exercise and recreational opportunities at affordable rates for all (and for free to people who can't afford anything). You can't seriously think that keeping a couple of aging picnic shelters and presrving a couple holes of a golf course (golf, that traditional sport of the impoverished! hmmm...) to which there is currently no bus service better serves the city's poor than would bringing in a Y for people who can't afford ACAC, Golds, or other for-profit operators. Dave Norris has already done more to help poor people than Fenwick could ever possibly begin to do in his remaining days. It's because a new Y will give poor people more access to recreational options that the rest of us take for granted that Norris voted for the Y. Keeping the park as-is just to keep the golfers and the nearby-homeowners who fear more traffic happy doesn't help the poor any.

How are the poor suppose to get there? Kendra Hamilton was adamantly opposed to putting the Y at McIntire and voted against it.

I'm concerned about all of the idling bus traffic the Y will bring to the park. Let's face it, buses often idle using air conditioners, vehicle heaters (and sometimes for hours), as they wait for students attending swim meets, etc. The Y will also bring more asphalt as parking lots accompany the building. How is it that Norris and others in the government, can condone a organization with a firm Christian affiliation to locate in a public park? Is the law being followed here? Maybe a law suit waiting to happen?

Is traffic really that bad here? Unless there is an accident it seems to move.

Perhaps if people are not speeding they consider it a traffic jam? ? ?

If Fenwick supports the poor and downtrodden, he would admit that much of McIntire Park was first condemend by the City and taken from a poor woman farmer. McIntire paid the fair market value for it, and made the park only for white people. Big government stole it, big money paid for it, and the poor got kicked out in favor of the elite. But that truth doesn't support his goal to get elected, so he's not spreading it around.

He also is hard pressed to admit the fact that McIntire was on the board working to get a YMCA into the City. Fenwick even said in the paper he was willing to go with that assumption "until challenged". Sounds like the same old stale air to me, get in office on people's heart strings based on inflated rumor, and do your real homework later...

Also, the 1880's era Ragged Mountain Dam is falling down while the academics keep talking about dredging. Lives are at stake here, let's fix the dam ASAP.

Do your own homework, don't let anybody that needs your vote for a job convince you of anything. It will always be skewed to thier advantage.

It's unclear why, as a lame duck council member, Kendra cast any vote at all, but from the few public meetings she attended on the subject it doesn't seem she really ever understood the issues. She was so easily led off track by opponents who were thinking only of their own pockets (ACAC, Gold's). The easy answer on how to get the poor into the park (as-is, or with a Y) is for CTS to finally extend service to this public place. Must be one of the few central parks in any American city where you can't get there by public transit -- just another thing that makes Cville "special." As for adding asphalt, look at the actual plans -- with the new Y there will actually be a reduction in old-style paved space compared to the current baseline. A new water permeable parking lot will replace much of the existing anti-eco asphalt one. The bus-idling fear is nonsense -- if school swim meet buses idle, they are already doing that at Crow and will not do it more just because they go to McIntire. Any club team swim meets will be bus free, with parents bringing their own kids. Of course, that will mean more traffic and cars in the park (i.e., the park will be used more than it is now), and maybe that's objectionable to those who live nearby and want to keep it as their own free, quiet, tax-payer-funded backyard. Fenwick is to be their paid representative, apparently. Not sure what the lawsuit would be that plop is suggesting -- is it illegal for a city to lease land to any kind of entity? Perhaps plop can identify the governing legal authority for that assumption. You can't sue just because something makes you mad, not even on Judge Judy.

The Ragged Mt. Dam is not falling down. The State Dam Safety Board has determined it needs an upgraded Spillway to accomodate new climate regulations. This is all factually known by the officials. Gannett Fleming, much maligned for their dredging estimate is a well thought of dam building company with an excellent reputation in that field. Probably superior to the company recently hired. They thoroughly studied the Ragged Mt. Dam in 2002 and produced a detailed comprehensive study of how to fix it for 2.9 million. The repair would make the spillway and dam sound for another 100 years according to their findings. Mention of an unsigned letter from 1912, claiming the dam is cracked by the dam proponents, is just more fear mongering.

The YMCA is a Christian based organization. Should those of another faith (Ex. Jews, Muslems), object to the Charlottesville High School "Public" swim team having a home base in the "Young Mens Christian Association" building? Also absent here, the name WOMEN. Whatever happened to separation of church and the government? Is the city also willing to lease space to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Perhaps good grief can offer clarification with regard to my last question.

Hey plop, speaking of those of another faith objecting, how about spelling the name Muslim correctly. Also, in case ya didn't know - "separation of church & state" is no where in the constitution. Lot's of people think it is, but nope, it's not there.

Sorry, a slip of the finger, spelling. Solomon, you are out of the loop! People are fuming because the city favors a "certain faith" over others. The term,name, (YMCA) is discriminatory and sexist. I assume you believe this is OK.

Solomon, you may have overlooked this up to now, it is in the amendment portion that was added to the original U.S. Constitution. Not every one seems to be familiar with that part. I guess they get bored and stop reading. So, for your edification:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

plop and seal -- um, excuse me for intruding on the debate here, but is the united states congress somehow involved in establishing an official religion when the city of cville decides to lease property to anyone? let's get back to the real issue, huh? in all the save mcintire whining i've heard, the separation of church and state angle has never seriuously come up, since it really can't in this context. yes, the city could lease property to the jehovah's witnesses, or even the taliban, without violating the constitution, since in doing that it is merely engaging in a landlord-tenant business transaction without establishing an official religion. that's why public universities have long been allowed by the supreme court to make space available (for free or not for free) to student religious organizations for meetings and events. anyway, the fight in the park is not about religion, or even preserving nature -- as the article in the sunday daily progress shows, it's about competing recreational interests, namely golf, softball, and gym/swimming. when the save mcitire board says it wants to cut down trees to make up for the lost golf holes from the parkway, it's time for them to get off their high horse about preserving worthy green psace -- very few non-indutrial tbings are worse for the environment than golf courses (pesticide runoff, nitrogen loadings from fertilizer use, loss of CO2-absorbing trees), especially in the cheaspeake bay watershed. last point -- i am a devout atheist, but i have no fear of the y -- if you haven't checked how it operates lately, you'll see it does much less to endorse any religion than the public-school mandated "moment of silence" is meant to by the people who foisted THAT on us.

get real, I replied to an ignorant post that preceded mine.

""separation of church & state" is no where in the constitution." of course that particular phrase isn't there. however, the intent clearly is.

from what i understand, the YMCA's lease would be nowhere near a market rate. what's that if not endorsement? imagine the uproar if someone suggested we put a chabad House in the park, especially if its rent were subsidized.

"christian" still figures very prominently in the YMCA's name. it's simple, if they want to build on public property, that should go.

I too was concerned about the Religous affiliation of the YMCA. Currently, it's an organization that in the US doesn't descriminate on any basis that I know of. That's not to say though that it couldn't go the way of the boy scouts, which does descriminate against other faiths and even some denominations. There's a simple constitutional fix though... just include in the least contract a non-descrimination clause. That's how most government agencies prior to the Bush Administration worked with religious non-profits. They could apply for public funds, but only if they agreed not to descriminate. (Bush's "Faith Based Inititive" changed it so they *could* descriminate and still get public funds).

Sorry, that was supposed to say "lease contract".

Seal, Didn't I also objest to the Christian aspect? You must be real sure of yourself as you label others ignorant. So happy you are perfect. :-)))))0000

oooops..object

plop, did you not notice that i was responding to Solomon, whom i not only mentioned by name but quoted? you must be real unsure of yourself if you've returned here to label yourself as ignorant, eh?

I'm a democrat, but I'm very concerned that the Norris/Szakos platform is heavily weighed to social issues and creating another employee working for the City Mananager to oversee citizen concerns. Isn't this their job ?

Shouldn't education, jobs, and safe neighborhoods be the way to help people ?

Tell Norris/Szakos your concerns and they will listen. Give them your ideas about how to make City gov't more responsive, and they will listen. We have a big problem-- it's going to take all of us working together to fix it.

BTW, this is not creating "another" employee. It involves shifting an already existing employee.

City neighborhoods have been going to Council for months and have been ignored. Citizens complaining about the Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Authorities have been contacting Councilors for months and they are still spending dam money and suing Mr. Van der Linde. Citizens are fed up with being listened to and want someone to do something about these problems and wasteful spending.

People of all sorts, not just "neighborhoods" what ever that means, have been going to council for years and have been ignored. When David Brown was mayor, he sat there on point, looking like he was lost somewhere while people spoke to council about their concerns. David Norris has another approach. He sits there, looks concerned, and plays the nice guy role.

The sad thing is the outcome pretty much stays the same. Norris brought his own social agenda to office and that comes first. That seems to be giving every drifter who comes to Charlottesville a place near the Mall to live as if that would solve the world's problems on its own rather than just create more locally.

Killing the Meadow Creek Parkway once and for all and preserving McIntire Park, fixing the problems we have with both the water and solid waste authorities, and getting rid of Gary O'Connell are what I want my city council working on. Pursuing a Democratic utopian social agenda won't do any of that.

I'm not registered as one, but I've never voted for anyone but a Democrat in my 30 years of voting. Fenwick's got my vote this time though.

" I want to listen to you " should become the Norris/Szakos theme song . I agree, time to elect someone who will make a decision and hold the City Manager and Director of Neighborhood Services responsible for ignoring and misleading the public to favor the developers and the county. I'll be checking Fenwick on Nov. 3rd

Every Democrat who has run for Charlottesville City Council in the last dozen years has claimed deepest devotion to "empowering" citizens and neighborhoods, seeking increased public input, responding to citizen needs and concerns, ad inf. Almost without exception, each and all have done the opposite. Indeed, every day in every way, those at City Hall -- elected, appointed, paid -- become more distanced from the citizenry and the basic stewardship functions that city governments exist to perform.

The suggestion yet again of tax-paying someone to act as liason between City Hall and citizens should be roundly rejected. By charter, Charlottesville has an at-large representative system. That means that every councilor is the representative of every citizen, regardless of who that citizen is, where that citizen lives, or who that citizen voted for. Any councilor who is not willing to accept that responsibility and work hard at fulfilling it has no business on Council.

I believe that Bob Fenwick understands that responsibility and is more than willing to accept it. Further, I know that the mere presence of a non in-crowd member on Council, regardless of that person's politics, will ensure that public policy now made at the Mudhouse will be made in public.

I also know, however, that Fenwick, like any other outsider, can have the opportunity to make a positive difference only if all who want to give him that chance cast a single vote for him and leave the booth. Casting a second vote for either of the Democrats will assure their winning and Fenwick being completely shut out. The math is counterintuitive but undeniable. To use it strategically is not "undemocratic" as Democrats have alleged. It's simply to exercise an ad hoc version of the proportional voting that is becoming more common across the country as communities in which one faction has disproportionate advantage seek ways to level the proverbial and practical playing field.

Antoinette you are so wise, but unless the City electorate calls, e-mails, and knocks on doors between now and Nov. 3rd Fenwick will never be elected as an Independent. Too many people in Charlottesville just vote for the D no matter who is running.

Seal, I'm in a hurry, and won't take time to bother much with you. So never worry, my self esteem is just fine. You appear irritated. Take a break.

Thank you, Liz, for the kind word. You’re too right about local Democrats voting automatically for any candidate who shares the party label. And that’s too bad not just for nonpartisans but for many Democrats. It isn’t just that a single party has a lock on City Hall; it’s that a single faction within a single party has that lock. For that reason, many fine potential candidates who happen to consider themselves Democrats will never come before voters at large or even be appointed to bodies like Planning Commission. Also, given that news media hereabout almost never report the ever-widening discrepancy between what public people say and what they actually do, that reflexive voting means that a lot of Democrats unwittingly support people who, despite their pristine rhetoric, do not apply those supporters’ values or make decisions with which those supporters agree.

Did you notice that while CAAR (the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors) endorsed Republicans for County Board of Supervisors it endorsed Democrats for Council? Democrats would be hard put to earn such support elsewhere but it was easy for them here because our Democratic Councilors work hard for developers. Indeed, they made one of their favorites, county-dweller Charlie Armstrong of Southern Development, chairman of their Housing Advisory Committee at the same time they were in the process of selling City property to SD to enable a massive project about which many and various citizens have raised solid concerns and objections for years.

But about the crucial matter at hand, that is, the election and the fact that even among those who want to see Bob Fenwick as an independent counterweight on Council, there are too many otherwise brilliant individuals who do not understand why they have to single-shot. So if you know any, try this on them:

Let’s say that 100 people go to the polls. Two seats are vacant, so each person can vote twice, although none need do so. Let’s also say that 51 of those 100 people cast one of their votes for Fenwick while 49 cast one of their votes for Norris and the other of their votes for Szakos. If everyone stops there, Fenwick wins a seat. But if even three of Fenwick’s 51 also cast votes for Norris and a mere three more cast votes for Szakos, both Norris and Szakos end up with 52 votes and Fenwick is completely shut out.

Obnoxious and Byzantine indeed, but that’s the way it is.

Your explanation of single shot voting finally makes sense and my accountant told me the same thing yesterday, that she is telling everyone to single shot for Fenwick. We desperately need a counterweight to the pro staff, pro development, listen but don't act attitude on Council. I met Mr. Fenwick and he is a fine person, whose sons both graduated from Charlottesville Schools and he has had his own construction business for 30+ yrs and served in the Army Corp of Engineers.

I believe he will lead the other Councilors to act with more spine when it comes to negotiating with the county and getting jobs for our city.

I am very liberal and quizzed him on all the issues I care about; support for public education, civil and gay rights, affordable

housing, health care and he definitely passed the test, but what most impressed me is his willingness to ask the questions that are not being asked of staff coming from the public, and insisting on preserving our wonderful neighborhoods, parks, reservoirs, and maintaining our infrastructure as a priority.

I plan to get as many people as I can to single shot for him and hope everyone reading this will too --let's start a wave

anyone on twitter ?

Yes single shot voting is Febwick's best chance. It is what got Rob Schilling elected (they say). Basically, a vote for any other candidate is a vote against Fenwick, so why cancel out your own vote? I plan to single shot vote for Fenwick.

Liz – Wish I could help with Twitter, but the only twitter at my house is the one produced by the ever growing population of birds rendered homeless by City policy. “We must increase tree canopy,” say the Democrats. “This is Tree City,” they assert and prove it by putting an outline of a green leaf on the City website’s main page. In fact, dozens of acres of hardwoods have been lost from our “urban forest” during the current Democrats’ tenure – and not by accident, but as direct result of City policies they support and/or specific decisions they have made. Meanwhile, Councilors and their appointees consistently waive the watershed-protecting steep-slope ordinance they so fervently congratulated themselves on passing a couple of years ago.

I have talked with Bob Fenwick just once. Before then, I knew him only from accounts of his McIntire Park advocacy and, much earlier, from his local television version of “This Old House.” (N.B. As someone who lives in a circa 1853 house permanently stuck at Week #3 on the PBS “This Old House,” I find very appealing the idea of having on City Council someone who knows how to operate a screw jack.) We scheduled a cup-of-coffee-length conversation. Although he had places to go and things to do, he took the time to walk my neighborhood – Ridge Street, Cherry Avenue, 5th Street S.W., Oak Street, Dice Street. And he clearly saw without prompting why that fragile old zone cannot withstand the punishing pressure Democratic Councilors (with the notable exception of Holly Edwards) are so eager to foist on it.

Bob described himself as “a born-again historic preservationist and environmentalist.” That spoke to issues of primary importance to me, as did his saying in a candidate forum that he believed in preserving the scale of existing neighborhoods. To me, scale is key to quality of life. In all, I was impressed with his particular priorities and general practicality. My mantra has been for a while “Sidewalks Before Sister Cities.” Bob firmly agrees.

Despite the dismal state of the economy, my real estate assessment went up more than 15 percent this year, which means that my total City tax bill now exceeds 20 percent of my household’s net income – and that’s without taking into account my perpetual effort to do what shopping I can afford within City limits and thereby add my pitiful sales taxes to City coffers. The current Democrats have wasted my money egregiously. Further, they have invested it in projects that directly degrade my and my neighbors’ quality of life.

I do not know that Bob Fenwick could put an end to such waste and misinvestment. But I am entirely confident that he would try.

plop, i'm not irritated at all. i just wonder why you thrust yourself into something that had nothing at all to do with you. i made no mention of you in my post. that should have been very clear if you had been reading. i clarified that because you couldn't figure the obvious out on your own. read before you rant dude!