Charlottesville is well known as a Democrat machine town. You don’t spit into the wind and don’t mess around with central party Democrats—that is if you want to do business here.

But, “Republicans need not apply” is a phrase that now goes beyond Charlottesville City Hall and its related dependencies.

A recent “housing” post on Charlottesville Craigslist takes political prejudice to a previously unseen level in both candor and audacity, as a group of nascent neo-Marxists seeking like-minded roomies pre-qualified potential co-tenants as follows:

Hi!
My roommate and I are looking for 2 housemates to share a house in Fry Springs (JPA). Available August 9.
We are looking for someone who shares our values:
*Respectful
*Artistic
*Not all weirded out by vegetarianism.
*Positive
*Voted for Obama
*nonjudgmental. unless you didn’t vote for Obama.

In spite of Craigslist’s ultra-conspicuous housing non-discrimination admonitions, this “non-judgmental(!)” group felt safe in blatantly contradistinguishing any potential roommate who did not vote for Barack Obama. Of course, the Piedmont Housing Alliance, Legal Aid Justice Center, United States Department of Justice and other so-called “fair housing” advocacy organizations will not pursue this potential violation because it does not involve discrimination toward a sympathetic group.

But just imagine if the ad read: “Apartment for rent, Obama-voting Democrats not welcome.” The long arm of the law and the heavy hand of public outrage would certainly have befallen the hapless conservative poster.

Political bigotry reigns supreme in the tolerance capital of the American South. And in Charlottesville, as on Animal Farm, all people may be equal, but some (i.e. Democrats) are more equal than others.

Read the actual ad:

As a graduate of the University of Virginia, I have spent the past three years of my life listening to professors and students sing the praises of a concept I am sure we are all familiar with: Social Justice.  Intellectual after intellectual has told me that the pursuit of Social Justice is the highest endeavor of man because it is only through our devotion to the happiness and fulfillment of our neighbors’ needs that we achieve our own happiness and moral vindication. In order to achieve this particular type of “justice,” these individuals lobbied for higher taxes on the wealthy, extension of unemployment benefits, and praised President Obama’s stimulus package and health insurance overhaul. Of course to the untrained ear, the words Social Justice and Social Equality evoke a certain type of feeling within the listener’s heart. This feeling of obligation and of guilt overpowers a man’s most basic feeling of self preservation and conservation and leads many to ignore the screaming “No!” within their mind and pursue this “higher” cause. I admit, these words are very pleasing to the ear and I can see how many, be they religious or not, can fall prey to the need to be their “brother’s keeper” at the behest of the government.

We, as humans, are engrained with an elemental desire for justice. We, as individuals, are enamored with the idea of the “bad guy” getting what they deserve and such action benefiting the “good guy” or the “victim.” On the surface, the empty term of Social Justice seems like a noble goal; however, after closer examination of the term and of its effects, Social Justice is as antithetical to our system of government as monarchy and resembles the fruits of tyranny more so than democracy. Social Justice is, simply, a contradiction in terms and is an unsustainable system of “justice” that will do no more than crumble the very foundation that our country is based upon.

How has society’s conception of justice been formed? We know that the ideals of John Locke, the English philosopher, were the starting point of our system of government. In fact, Locke’s articulation of our absolute rights of “life, liberty, and property” were practically plagiarized by Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Locke’s basis for government was also adopted for our own: the government’s sole responsibility was to protect us, as individuals, from other individuals who wished to take away our life, liberty, and property. Justice, then, in the Lockean and American sense, is punishing those who actively seek to transgress against our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property (or the more modern term of the pursuit of happiness). In man’s original state, the state of nature, he is his own judge of what he deems to be correct meaning if a man came onto his land to steal his crops, burn his house, confine him to a prison, and eventually kill him, the man had the right to resist by whatever means necessary. Upon entering into a society governed by laws, man gave up this right to be the ultimate judge and thus relinquished that right to a government or more properly, an impartial Court that has his best interests at heart when making their decisions. The justice system is supposed to look out for that individual’s best interests. If it didn’t defend his rights, why would he give up his right to protect himself and instead subject himself to a system that would strip his life, liberty, and property for any reason, even that of the greater good?

Many will argue that Social Justice is simply the highest manifestation of this ideal, however, this could not be farther from the truth. Social Justice in practice deprives an individual of these inalienable rights and thus cannot truly be justice. How is Social Justice practiced in the American system? It is easy to see: look at your paychecks. A portion is taken for the income tax.  A portion of that tax goes to support the American military in their endeavors to protect the rights of our citizens and to spread our knowledge of government and its proper ends to the world. What is the remaining portion of our income tax but a punishment for making a certain amount of money?  Make no mistake, it is a punishment for those who disagree with the way our taxes are being spent, it is indeed a punishment.  Thomas Jefferson wrote that “to force a man to subsidize with his taxes an idea which he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.

We have a tiered income tax that taxes individuals at a higher rate the higher their individual salary. Where does this “tax” go? Into other social programs such as Welfare Checks, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. Who reaps the benefits of Welfare, food stamps and these other programs? Individuals who live below the poverty line, illegal immigrants, disabled workers, and others.  While there is a great number of individuals in this society who meet such requirements, the system is set up in a way that is inclusive instead of exclusive which creates a great amount of fraud being perpetrated in this system.  Social Justice in our country is seen in the taxation of the rich for the payment of those who would rather exploit the system.  Does this fit into our definition of justice? Are the rich, the successful, the hard working, really the “bad guys” in comparison to the poor, the unsuccessful, and the lazy? Are the latter truly being manipulated by the former? Do I make a living at the expense of you? Do you make a living at the expense of me?

The answer is a resounding, “No!” In practice, this lofty ideal of Social Justice does nothing more than encourage a culture of mediocrity. Is surviving off the dole of another human being truly life? Is working to see your wages, your property by the sweat of your brow, going to support someone who hasn’t worked as hard truly liberty and preservation of property? Is never being able to advance past a certain point due to the government de-incentivizing your personal progress really pursuing happiness? Is Social Justice really fair? Of course not. Why?  Because these laws, these regulations, these practices are not created by a impartial Court. These are not sentences handed down by the knowers of the law to the people. They are not reflections of the Laws of Nature and of basic human tendencies.  They are not manifestations of the Hayekian goal of a generally applicable law.  They are arbitrary statues created by a minority (our elected officials) to serve a select portion of the population: the portion of the public that does not wish to work as hard as others, the portion who believes it is the job and function of government to provide for their every need, the portion who does not seek to better themselves.  The portion who believes that it is their right to pursue happiness by financing their struggle with your property.

Thus, Social Justice defies what it means to be human, what it means to be an American. Is not Lady Liberty blind?  If so, then how can we continue to propagate a system that does not rule on objective evidence, that does not adjudicate based on the facts, but rather upon the achievements of one versus the lack of another?  How can we expect to call a thing that condemns you for your very achievements to be anything other than non-justice? Social Justice is everything but justice. And it is a shame that such an idea that is so antithetical to this country is being taught by every professor, spoken by every orator, and codified by every legislator.

Since it is taught, spoken, and made law, however, we must train ourselves to look past the façade of Social Justice.  This term is nothing more than a political ploy to get you to defy what you know to be right.  We all like justice.  But by the addition of “social” to such a noble term, the politicians of this country have set the terms for the debate.  If you disagree with them on Social Justice, you are an opponent of justice and simply cannot be a decent individual.  Their use of the sacred term of justice to promote that which is its opposite is simply a lie and must be treated as such. We must do what we can to stand up against this lie. In this case, we must not be afraid to stand against “justice,” because we know that it is not true justice we fight. If Social Justice is the law which our country should be based upon, we ought to fight against it every chance we get.

Previously, we documented Charlottesville’s outrageous residential over-assessments wherein scores of City property owners have been paying dramatically higher real estate taxes than they should be—thanks to a partially corrupt, partially inept assessment operation, headed by Roosevelt Barbour (in collusion with the Charlottesville City Manager’s office).

But today’s announcement of the Charlottesville Ice Park’s completed sale should trigger righteous indignation and even more so, outrage, by Downtown Charlottesville commercial property owners.

Assessed in January 2010 for $6.55 million, the Ice Park was sold in July 2010 for $3 million—this represents an over-assessment of $3.55 million or of nearly 118% of the sales price.

What this means is that previous owners, Bruce and Roberta Williamson, were assessed taxes of $62,196 in 2010 (.95 per $100), when the property’s true value, as determined by the amount a willing buyer would pay for it, yields a revised tax assessment of $28,500. The Williamsons were fleeced for an annualized amount of $33,696.

And that’s just for this year.

Charlottesville’s purposefully obtuse (and embarrassingly antiquated) online assessment records do not show assessed values for previous years (unlike Albemarle County’s superior modern system). But it does not take much imagination to believe that the Williamsons have dramatically been over-assessed (and, thus, overtaxed) for many of the years in which they owned the downtown rink.

And what of other Charlottesville commercial property?

The Virginia real estate taxation system is rigged in such way that property owners seldom appeal their assessments. Mr. Barbour and his city hall cronies know that many property owners equate higher assessments with greater market value. Thus, owners are loath to request reduced assessments.  Add to that fear the assessor’s sometimes tacit, sometimes overt admonition that appeals may lead to an even higher assessment than originally was calculated. Through these various factors, the iniquitous system effectively neutralizes the vast majority of conceivable complainants.

The “higher assessment = more value” reasoning is easily undermined by examining the fate of the Ice Park. It was listed for sale at $4.1 million, dramatically below its 2010 assessed value. Yet, ultimately, the property was unable to fetch even 75% of the asking price. Fat lot of good the bloated assessment did to “increase” the value of that property. And the same could be extrapolated to other over-assessed commercial properties in Charlottesville.

Though downtown Charlottesville continues to languish with shuttered stores and barren buildings, the City Assessor always gets his dollar.

The Williamsons got fleeced, but the Barbour is laughing all the way to the bank.

The delusory pitch was based on Perriello’s promise that his vote in favor of Marxist medical “reform” in America ultimately would save money for the “working class.”

A November 7, 2009 press release from the Congressman’s office deceptively was headlined: Perriello Supports Health Care Legislation To Reduce Costs, Expand Coverage, and Preserve Patient Choice [emphasis added]

In a March 19, 2010 press release, entitled, Perriello and Local Hospitals Announce Support for Health Care Reform, the boy Congressman employs Alinsky-esque class warfare tactics to defend his advocacy of the government medical takeover:

“This legislation will reduce our federal deficit by $1.2 trillion, and for a family of four making $60,000 a year, they can expect to see their costs lowered by $1,000-$2,000 every year under this legislation, and probably more over time. That is real money back in the pockets of working families at a critical time. [emphasis added]

On March 21, 2010, Perriello reiterated his support for Soviet-style health care rectification by assuring constituents:

“At the end of the day, this decision for me came down to whether working families would see savings at the kitchen table,” Perriello said in a statement Sunday night. “They will.” [emphasis added]

So, imagine the surprise when our household’s first, post-PerrielloCare insurance billing statement revealed that premiums had ballooned by 33%! No recent claims had been filed on that policy, nor had any age-related milestone been passed.

The insurer’s cover letter primarily attributed the “rising costs” to “increasing demand for medical services.”

Yale-educated Perriello, (a despiser of American foundational principles), must have known that flooding the insured demand-pool by tens-of-millions of persons would restrict supply, resulting in skyrocketing prices.

And it has come to pass.

Without doubt Perriello’s risky health care “reform” scheme will increase costs for personally responsible Americans even more so in coming years. The President’s own Department of Health and Human Services says so.

Tom Perriello’s statement that his constituents would “see savings at the kitchen table” was eerily prophetic, but not in the way Tom envisioned. As health care costs continue to escalate, the kitchen table savings will be realized—not by “lower” rates, but because rising insurance premiums will inhibit families’ ability to put food on the table.

Qu’ils mangent de la brioche: Let them eat cake!

That depends on who’s talking. In this case Rob Schilling is invited to examine the hot-button topic on CBS 19’s weekly series, Jay James on Faith.

In this brief segment, which originally aired on June 28, 2010, Rob covers, Democrats: the “party of death,” the Progressives’ left-wing subversion of Christianity, and fraudulent faith-based “social justice” organizations like the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT.)

Watch Jay James’ controversial interview with Rob Schilling:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaj4xC1kxJ4

Times must be flush at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).

At their June 22, 2010 board meeting, the embattled authority (infamously known for raising water and sewer rates to compensate for conservation–related revenue shortfalls) quietly pumped $5,000 of ratepayer money into the caissons of a political ally—the Rivanna Conservation Society (RCS).

RCS, a private, left-leaning advocacy group, requested the funding in a May 25 cover letter to RWSA, entitled: Project Proposal Scenic River 40th Anniversary Celebration

Albemarle County and Charlottesville City ratepayers, already inundated from ballooning water and sewer rates, now will be forced to subsidize RCS and their “partners’” frivolous celebration, termed by the society as a “comprehensive patchwork of activities and events….”

In a June 22 memorandum to RWSA’s board, (reviewed by Executive Director, Tom Frederick) RWSA Water Resources Manager, Tamara Ambler, seeks support for the splashy request:

Board Action Requested:

The provision of financial support for activities associated with the “Year of the Rivanna: The Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of Virginia’s Scenic Rivers Program” is at the Board’s discretion.

Adding insult to ratepayer financial injury, the memo specifies proposed uses of the requested gift:

• Brochure printing
• Underwriting costs of a “media campaign”
• Event development

So, why would a financially strapped, purportedly non-partisan quasi-governmental “authority” float $5,000 in hard-earned ratepayer resources to a local liberal activist association?

Would it be, perhaps, quid pro quo for RCS’ support of the controversial Community Water Supply Plan in 2005?

While the first may be easy to answer, additional questions remain:

• What other advocacy groups now will be granted gifts of ratepayer monies?
• Has precedent been established by the RWSA board’s reckless abandon in support of a “friendly” organization?

Ultimately, RWSA’s financial floodgates must be closed; and the RWSA board must curtail its craving to imbibe the headiness of publicly endowed philanthropy. While $5,000 may seem like a “drop in the bucket” to Director Frederick and his altruistic board, ratepayers certainly must feel “hosed.”

The subject of today’s lead editorial in the Daily Progress, the banned commentary now is revealed here for the first time publicly and in its entirety, brought to you exclusively by The Schilling Show Blog and News:

Ellie Leech
May 20, 2010
Student’s P.E. Groans Might Be Warranted
Every morning as students amble into the locker rooms, complaints of “why do we have to do this?” and “this is stupid” fill the air, as freshmen and sophomores change for gym class.

Why, indeed? It is a common viewpoint that passing gym class as a graduation requirement is simply ridiculous.

In order to understand why exactly gym class is an unreasonable requirement for graduation, a description of what actually happens during class must first be presented, because the average gym class truly does not contain 90 minutes of strenuous exercise.

By the time all students are finished dressing out, the class is typically 15 minutes old. For the ensuing 20 minutes, students jog around the gym and grumble through “dynamic” and “static” stretching. This is followed by what the gym teachers describe to the class as “intense” conditioning, which is basically a jog around the track for most of the class. When all of the preliminary activities are done, 20 minutes remain for the primary activity of soccer or badminton, or whatever recreational activity is favored that day.

During class, three types of students generally inhabit the gym.

First, the average scrub—the kid that does just enough to get an A in gym. Most students fit this description of crushing their classmates in badminton while still refraining from doing push-ups if the teacher isn’t looking.

Student-athletes generally fall under this category, largely because some say that full effort would force them to excessively exert themselves, amid the training they already put their bodies through.

“I think [P.E.] is an unnecessary stress on your body,” sophomore varsity soccer player Lauren Brady said. Brady has missed time this season due to a stress fracture, an injury typically caused by over-working the body.

Brady also mentioned that she doesn’t think the lessons taught in P.E. are on par with what she knows from participating on sports teams.

“I feel that P.E. does not provide adequate information on physical activity,” she said.

The second type of P.E. student is the extreme slacker; the kid that sprints for about 2 seconds during warm-ups and then considers himself done and proceeds to walk for the rest of class. While the majority of the class may be slightly amused by this kid’s antics, they generally roll their eyes at the extreme lack of effort.

Lastly, the rarest type of participant lies on the other end of the spectrum of effort put forth in gym class: the kid that pushes himself to the limit in class just so he can beat everyone else in the current activity. Approximate number of student-athletes that put on such displays of energy in gym class? Zero.

According to estimations conducted by current P.E. students, the time spent on actual physical activity totals approximately an hour per class. Continuing along this line of addition, it can be determined that the amount of time spent actually exercising in gym, during the entire duration of high school is 90 hours (not including another 45 hours of getting dressed and shuffling along from activity to activity).

When this approximation is compared to the amount of time a student-athlete spends in practice, pushing their bodies infinitely harder than they would in gym class, the conclusion can realistically be drawn that it is ridiculous to make student- athletes take gym.

Not including time spent traveling or waiting around at games or meets (which is very much like those 45 hours of wasted time in class), time spent at practice totals to between 75 and 80 hours…in a single season.

And let’s be honest, which is harder; mile repeats or Carolinas during practice, or a one-lap sprint in class?

The numbers continue to support changes to the requirements. The athletic office estimates that over half the population of the gym classes participate in some kind of athletic practice outside of school: 300 freshman and 250 sophomores.

In the midst of an education-funding crisis, could the state save some money by changing the physical education requirements? Probably.

Barrick deceptively headlined his June 18, 2010 press release (see below), “Charlottesville Parks Department to Provide Free Lunch this Summer,” assuming that media outlets would “swallow” and “spit out whole” his pablum.

A fatal flaw in the $93-thousand-dollar-man’s dispatch is the assertion that the “Parks Department” is “providing” the lunch. They are not. Actually, the complimentary chow primarily is being “provided” by the Federal Government’s Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which Barrick references but does not attribute or describe in the release.

Why is this error problematic? Barrick, a prime mover in Charlottesville’s Democrat City Hall Cabal, once again is abusing his office to promote an ongoing Charlottesville Democrat vote-buying scheme, by attempting to paint Charlottesville City government as the “free” lunch benefactor.

If anyone is to be given “credit” for the government giveaway, it is the American taxpayer, who is funding this “free” feeding frenzy to the tune of $360 million!

And it’s not only the citizen-taxpayer who is demeaned by this government program. The United States Department of Agriculture, who administers SFSP, insultingly refers to the “free” lunch disbursement locations as “feeding sites,” as if these federal custodians were tending to livestock.

Fostered dependence upon government is an ugly thing no matter how you look at it: it hurts the providers (taxpayers) by stealing their property, and it destroys the recipients (modern-day serfs) by stealing their dignity—all of this under the guise of a “free” lunch.

Ric Barrick, your government education obviously has failed you miserably. Here’s your summer reading assignment, courtesy of Milton Friedman. We’ll expect a book report in the fall.

Read Barrick’s deliciously deceiptful press release:

City of Charlottesville
Office of Communications
City Hall
P.O. Box 911 – Charlottesville, VA 22902
Telephone 434.970.3129
Facsimile 434.970.3890
www.charlottesville.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 18^th, 2010
TO: Local Media
Contact: Ric Barrick
(434) 970-3129

Charlottesville Parks Department to Provide Free Lunch this Summer

Summer Food Service Program Begins on Monday, June 21^st for City Residents

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ­ The City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department is participating in the Summer Food Service Program starting June 21 and running through July 30, meals will be provided to all children without charge.  Acceptance and participation requirements for the program and all activities are the same regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability.  Meals will be provided at South First Street and Westhaven Community centers on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 12:15.

# # #

Monday, June 7, 2010

Dear Rachana Dixit (reporter) and the Daily Progress,

Your discussion in last week’s issue which clearly revealed the City’s failure to measure bass levels with their sound meters was on point. You clearly reveal the City’s inconsistencies and ignorance of this important issue – indeed, they have been telling residents since day-one that they were not able to measure bass with their meters. Thank you for clearly proving that this is not the case and that these measure are possible.

However, it is disappointing to see that your article contains the same anti-neighborhood slant, misinformation, and flat-out lies found in previous reports in the Charlottesville media. This makes one wonder about the integrity of journalism and news in our city.

First, it is surprising that you failed to quote anywhere in your article the NCC code which specifically states:

“The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods.”

What is happening in our neighborhood directly violates this code due to the parking and traffic issues as well as due to the noise levels that prevent us from being able to sleep let alone enjoy the sanctity of our own homes.

You left out any mention of such facts as:

• the Christmas Striptease Party (photos of which were also forwarded to the City Council, to Read Broadhead at City Hall, and to the Planning Commission) ,
• the drunken patrons using our yards as toilets (to the point where Janet Hatcher was forced to cut down her dogwood tree due to the damage done),
• the drunken patrons damaging personal property (Jennifer Braverman’s car side-swiped, Janet Hatcher’s retaining wall destoyed multiple times)

Why the failure to report these facts? Where are the photos of patrons inappropriate acts that were taken by the paper?

Specifically, your decision to end the article with a quote from Melissa Easter who stated that we residents who are fighting for our rights will have to “get out” leaves the reader with that same thought. This is evidenced by online responses left to your article by certain readers who have been left with this prejudiced viewpoint. Interestingly enough, the Easters DID, in fact, drive out the family behind the BBQ joint, due to their noise (as per this resident’s email to the Council about this fact). Is that what the businesses want…. to drive out families? Is that really healthy for our “established, residential neighborhood”?

Again, we families have personally renovated the neighborhood to make it a place where businesses would even want to come, and then these same businesses turn around and destroy our quality of life directly in violation of NCC code as written above? We refuse to let this happen!

Additionally, I thought that you and your paper were going to research the issues fully and the following quote shows that you failed to do so: ” Baldi said he has been willing to work with authorities and has tried to meet with residents, but they refuse. “I don’t know what other choice there is,” he said.”

This is a flat-out lie.

The fact is that a couple of months ago, at the last minute, the Neighborhood Association switched the venue of our meeting from the Clark School to Bel Rio. Many of us residents and Belmont business owners felt that this was inappropriate given all that has gone on, and a group of residents and business owners wrote Jesse Fiske saying that we would meet with Baldi, but in the normal venue – The Clark School. When the Neighborhood Association refused to honor our request, some of us boycotted the meeting. However, the meeting DID take place at Bel Rio, and there was face-to-face discussion of these matters with Baldi. So, to resume, we have not refused to meet with Baldi, rather a core group of us did not attend that one meeting.

To sum up this point, Baldi has “met with” many members of the neighborhood both formally during meetings and informally on a daily basis as we residents have had an ongoing dialogue with him about these same issues. So you see, Melissa Easter wishing that everyone could just “play nice” without having the city involved is disingenuous at the best. We have gone to her personally and to Baldi personally numerous times to request that they respect the residential nature of our neighborhood. In reality, she has shown her true colors in her quote, i.e. she is saying that rather than respect the neighborhood that we residents should “get out” of our neighborhood!

Also, quoting Tolbert who says that “(Bel Rio is) the only one” is not true. There have been other issues, specifically with the Easters who put the Tiki Bar outside and who put amplified music on their terrace. Melissa Easter specifically, promised residents (after the debacle of “Saxx” with all of their noise) that she would no longer rent out to loud, late-night businesses. She has obviously sorely failed at keeping her word. Indeed, Shirley Shotwell confronted Melissa Easter face-to-face after a Council meeting, flatly telling her: “You lied to us” because Easter went back back on her word by once again renting out to a venue which keeps the neighborhood up all too often until 2:00 A.M.

So, how does one define “working with authorities” when talking about Baldi? Playing the music too loudly – as per our picture below of a reading of 84 decibles (taken on a weeknight) – only to turn it down once the police because they have arrived to ask him too? Of course, that means that residents have already been disturbed/woken up and had to call the police. You have also failed to point out that the police will not cite Baldi unless they are called more than once on the same night, i.e. police have had to be called too many times to count, but because there has not been more than one call on any given night, the police will not cite him “as a courtesy” (as explained to us by Officer Jones of the Cville police force). So, due to the “courtesy” of the Cville police dept., the police would have to be called again, and Baldi would have to be measured again, and the noise would have to be over the limit again in that same night. It’s hard to get cited when you get a 2nd chance every night to disturb prevent citizens from sleeping and enjoying the sanctity of their own homes late at night.

This issue goes much deeper than the scope of your article, and it is shameful that you and your newspaper have fallen short. I am left wondering if the Daily Progress has other motives for not reporting the true story? Is your newspaper afraid of taking a stand that appears to be anti-business for fear of losing advertising revenues, for example?

Our neighborhood is not anti-business. There are many succesful and respectful business in Belmont. However, the current situation is unjust and runs in direct contradiction to the code as it stands. This is a newly imposed monoculture of restaurants (7 restaurants in a 2-block stretch) which compromises our quality of life with their noise, their overwhelming mixture of kitchen odors, and their patrons who overdrink, who yell, who get into fights, who climb fences, who destroy property, and who use our yards as toilets.

Not only is our quality of life compromised, but our property values decrease as a result. This fact has been studied and published comprehensively in many journals, and we have already provided the City with the official studies and data as proof of the far-reaching adverse effects of their poor city planning.

We can only hope that the media continues to research and properly report what is going on. At this point, it seems that that job is being left to the private citizens of Belmont. We are not “the few”, but rather we are the residents who are remaining vocal in the fight for all of those in our neighborhood who are already working full-time, who are elderly, who are dealing with health issues, who are raising children, who are taking care of families, and who are trying to have a decent homelife.

We are quite simply demanding our rights as American citizens – the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our own homes. We are staying in the fight because we are fighting for what is right. The Easters et al. will continue to try and paint us as “the few” and the “complainers” in order to serve their purposes. So, as far as being the “few”, I challenge you to name more than a handful of our forefathers who signed the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, they too were the “complainers” who stood up and who spoke out for the many suffering under an oppressive situation.

The media needs to do better work exposing the truth of this issue.

Finally, over the past year, there have been three murders in the Cville area directly related to the music scene and drinking. For this reason, it is unconscionable that the City is not doing a better job at protecting us from this same presence in our “historic, established residential” neighborhood.

We will continue to demand that our “historic, established, residential neighborhood” and our quality of life not be destroyed.

Sincerely,

Kimber Hawkey (Belmont Ave)
Charles Gendrot (Belmont Ave)
Cheryl Hailey (Douglas Ave)
Janet Hatcher (Douglas Ave)
Shirley Shotwell (Douglas Ave)
Jennifer + Stan Braverman (Douglas Ave)
Megan Vail (Elliot Ave)
Cheryl Hailey (Douglas Ave)
Jessie Hester-Mautner (Douglas Ave
)Joan Dragon (disgusted out-of-towner who can’t sleep when visiting)

All area residents and 5th District voters are encouraged to attend and sound-off.

The rally will commence at 12:00 PM on Monday, June 21. See you there. (Click on map for larger view.)