i’ve finally managed to attend a meeting of the historic resources committee! they weren’t publicly noticing the meetings for a very long time, didn’t meet in august, and i was in court during their september meeting. excited to see what they’re up to!
here’s a link to today’s agenda:
charlottesville.org/home/showdocum…
charlottesville.org/home/showdocum…
the agreement with the developer of the CODE building on the site of the former ice rink is that they will return the surrounding area to its previous condition. there is some confusion if that will leave that area of the mall ADA compliant.
specifically, that area of the mall is the future site of the vinegar hill park. it would seem the city has an obligation to make a city park ADA accessible, but the confusion appears to lie in what state the area will be left by the developer & how much the city would have to do
genevieve keller says she doesn’t understand why this is an issue for the historic resources committee. “our role is protecting that space,” “i don’t know why we are responsible for ADA,” but does think that important space should be accessible to everyone.
“the question right now is what is the park?”
“it’s an idea, an idea with signs,” keller says.
the park itself is just a 3 year old concept drawing.
“it’s an idea, an idea with signs,” keller says.
the park itself is just a 3 year old concept drawing.
the proposed park would commemorate the vinegar hill neighborhood, a black neighborhood razed in the 60s
afrovirginia.org/items/show/457
afrovirginia.org/items/show/457
members of the committee all seem to agree that the historic resources committee shouldn’t be taking the lead on community engagement or park design. their role is to provide historical guidance & advise on signage.
someone from the city attorneys office says the law limits what the city can impose on the developer re: off-site public improvements. heather hill says it was her understanding that the developer voluntarily offered to make this improvement.
assistant city attorney sebastian waisman says generally speaking, any modification to a public right of way does require ADA compliance. there’s caselaw about what constitutes an alteration or modification but this project definitely seems to qualify as such.
heather hill says she will take up the accessibility issue with city management & remove that concern from the historic resource committee’s scope, which makes sense.
if i had a time machine that could only transport me to municipal government meetings, i would without a doubt go to the meeting 2 days after unite the right where they approved these historic markers.
moving on to discussion of proposed markers in court square - here’s a look at what markers already exist in that space
it is already pretty densely populated with plaques and historical markers and statues and memorials!
one committee member says they should just move forward with what’s ready to go. jordy yeager pushes back, saying fast tracking any of these markers is half hearted and inadequate.
keller says we have to face that this committee was once run by the religious right and it’s taken a long time and a lot of work to get to where we are now.
“in 2019, we cannot put out something that is going to enrage the public.”
“in 2019, we cannot put out something that is going to enrage the public.”
a committee member says they’ve spent whole meetings coming to consensus on single sentences on those plaques. yeager says maybe these meetings aren’t the right format for that work. (the idea of a dozen people trying to write a sentence together makes my stomach hurt)
“each day that we’re not replacing them is a day we’re not serving the public & getting a better story out there,” says one committee member.
“the language has evolved in terms of historical interpretation so drastically in the last couple of years,” says yeager. he says we should get out in front of that so we don’t have to do this again in a few years.
“we’re living in provocative times in our city,” keller says about the value of putting in the time and effort to produce markers that the entire committee is comfortable with.
“there’s already a cacophony of information going on there,” “more may not be ideal,” says a city employee at the table. (there are SO many markers already in that space that i don’t really think add anything to the landscape)
“let’s do something, anything,” “let’s just do something that we can get done,” says a committee member who is tired of “arguing about where commas go.” she says she doesn’t think people even read the signs.
dede smith says she worries they’re trying to do too much, force too much information into that space & people are just going to be overwhelmed and ignore them.
another committee member asks who the signs are for? are they for tourists or for locals to give them a deeper understanding of the space they inhabit?
a motion is introduced to re-open discussion of the text of all the court square markers on this list & establish a subcommittee to work on them.
motion amended to rephrase that the markers will be reviewed by the subcommittee & they’ll present a proposal to the committee about modifications.
passes with two votes in opposition (including the woman who doesn’t think people even read them)
passes with two votes in opposition (including the woman who doesn’t think people even read them)
(sorry, i only know the names of the people at the table who i know from other contexts - keller used to be on the planning commission, hill is a city councilor, smith used to be on council, and i know jordy & jalane. everyone else is a mystery to me!)
glad to see some formation of subcommittees. 90 minutes once a month is not going to get this large group of people to a consensus on anything ever. here’s hoping those subcommittee meetings are properly, legally noticed!
