Dear Democrats--

Maybe you've heard about the dust-up at last night's council meeting. All this was started when a posse of the council headed by Blake Caravati and Meredith Richards and their strange bed-fellow Mr. Schilling decided to push the MCP agenda forward by suggesting that council could avoid the parkland protection in our state Constitution, which in this case would require 4 of 5 councillors to vote in favor of selling the land to VDOT for the parkway, by giving the land as an easement.

Last night a trio of sad and angry business men (the chair of the Chamber of Commerce, the Chair of the C'ville Republican Party, and a developer) came to cheer them on and claimed that parkway opponents were misrepresenting the case and that what the council proposed to do was perfectly legal. Of course they're not lawyers (I'm not either) but just to confuse the issue with a few facts, here is what our constitution has to say: "No rights of a city ... in and to its .... parks... shall be sold except by an ordinance or resolution passed by a recorded affirmative vote of three-fourths of all members elected to the governing body."

I've taken out the verbiage that does not strictly apply to our case, so that folks can see in all its plainness what is said, but the full text is below. Do you see any wiggle room there? I sure don't and the paragraph that follows seems to me make the legalities of an easement very suspect for this particular application as well. A limit of 40 years? Then what? Has to go out to bid? Doesn't that mean that anyone could buy the land? Clearly an easement was not forseen as the method for accomplishing this transfer, and it is only by great wilfullness and distortion that it could be construed that way.

There is much more than can be said about this, (why is a 3/4ths majority required?) about the conditions that were agreed by Council [Toscaono, Richards, and Caravati voting in favor of the letter; Lynch and Cox feeling the language on some points wasn't strong enough] which were to be met before the sale of the land could proceed, and so on, but in the meantime, take a look at this bit of our constitution and see what you think. I would hope that in these times when the rule of law is such a big issue in so many ways that at least us Democrats in our little old town could make a good showing on this point.

Mary E. MacNeil (electronic mail, December 2, 2003)
President, STAMP

Constitution of Virginia
ARTICLE VII
Section 9. Sale of property and granting of franchises by cities and towns.

No rights of a city or town in and to its waterfront, wharf property, public landings, wharves, docks, streets, avenues, parks, bridges, or other public places, or its gas, water, or electric works shall be sold except by an ordinance or resolution passed by a recorded affirmative vote of threefourths of all members elected to the governing body.

No franchise, lease, or right of any kind to use any such public property or any other public property or easement of any description in a manner not permitted to the general public shall be granted for a longer period than forty years, except for air rights together with easements for columns of support, which may be granted for a period not exceeding sixty years. Before granting any such franchise or privilege for a term in excess of five years, except for a trunk railway, the city or town shall, after due advertisement, publicly receive bids therefor. Such grant, and any contract in pursuance thereof, may provide that upon the termination of the grant, the plant as well as the property, if any, of the grantee in the streets, avenues, and other public places shall thereupon, without compensation to the grantee, or upon the payment of a fair valuation therefore, become the property of the said city or town; but the grantee shall be entitled to no payment by reason of the value of the franchise. Any such plant or property acquired by a city or town may be sold or leased or, unless prohibited by general law, maintained, controlled, and operated by such city or town. Every such grant shall specify the mode of determining any valuation therein provided for and shall make adequate provisions by way of forfeiture of the grant, or otherwise, to secure efficiency of public service at reasonable rates and the maintenance of the property in good order throughout the term of the grant.