Melissa Savenko's Richmond Real Estate Review

The Victory Rug Factory Proposal and the Special Use Permit Process - Ironies Abound

Well, this story appeared in Richmond BizSense yesterday, only a few days after the story of the Georges versus the Snows, which I am also calling "the Tempsford Road Kerfuffle."   I was struck when I read this story and the comments, in comparison to the story covering the feud over the Snow's special use permit application to subdivide their lot. Ironies will be addressed later, most likely in another post.

The Victory Rug story outlines the dispute between the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association ("OHNA") and a developer, Guy Blundon of CMB Development, over the conversion of a commercial building into apartments.

Let me be clear on the front end. I don't know Mr. Blundon. This is not personal.  I am sure he is a lovely human being. He may do nothing but "high-quality developments wherever he's been in the Richmond area," and he may indeed have a "social conscience," as one ** cough ** commercial real estate broker commenter noted. However, what is indisputable is he does not live in Oregon Hill.

Blundon wishes to turn the old Victory Rug building into 18 apartments, with an adjacent 18 space parking lot. The proposed unit mix is one studio apartment, 6 one bedrooms, and 11 two bedrooms.

The neighborhood proposes 6 apartments and 2 single family homes, which would be supported by the current R-7 zoning.

The issues: The neighbors say the project is too dense for the urban neighborhood, doesn't provide enough parking, and they don't want more VCU students. The developer says the 18 units proposed are the bare minimum necessary to make the project work financially, and he plans to rent to young professionals.

Let's unpack this.

First, some basic facts and principles to underpin the analysis:

Oregon Hill is a dense, urban residential neighborhood of early Victorian (1890s+) rowhouses tucked between VCU's Monroe Park campus and the river.  The neighborhood was a blue-collar, working class neighborhood for families who worked in the tobacco warehouses, manufacturing facilities, and docks in Shockoe Slip and Shockoe Bottom. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the demographic of the residents for whom it was developed, there is not nearly as much masonry construction as there was in more affluent Victorian neighborhoods of the same period, such as the Fan and Jackson Ward. Much of the neighborhood housing stock is frame.  Consequently, the property values have traditionally been lower than in other neighborhoods immediately proximate to VCU, most notably the Fan.

Oregon Hill has already suffered some serious urban planning damage from the creation of the Downtown Expressway, which cut a swath right through the middle of the neighborhood.  The historically African American neighborhood of Jackson Ward suffered as well.  I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say these neighborhoods bore the brunt of these massive development projects because they were poorer and minority, and did not have the clout of their more affluent neighbors, such as the Fan.

In the last _____ [10? 15?] years, Oregon Hill has transitioned from a predominantly owner-occupant residential neighborhood to become a residential neighborhood with an unusually heavy influx of VCU students and other renters.   As in any college community, in the areas surrounding the university, there are tensions between the home owners and the student renters.  Think noise, parties, drunkenness, petty vandalism, and trash, plus tons of extra cars.  And VCU's rapid expansion (over 20,000+ students) and transformation from a commuter college to a true residential urban university means there are very real growing pains exacerbating the typical "Town vs. Gown" challenges.

I think one could fairly argue that Oregon Hill, and the property owners of Oregon Hill, have born a disproportionate share of the burden from the creation of the Downtown Expressway and the expansion of VCU.

[NOTE: I'll have to validate this later with some citations. This post is getting too long as it is. But especially in the Trani era, VCU did pretty much as it pleased in its insatiable march to expand its footprint. VCU expanded into the neighborhood, despite the OHNA objections, and despite previous representations from President Trani himself. Remember the controversy over tearing down historic stables? Or the construction of the VCU gym at old city Stadium? The Carver neighborhood is now suffering the same fate].

So, with that background and underpinning, let's unpack this Victory Rug proposal.

1. The likely tenants will not be "young professionals," as Mr. Blundon claims. Let's be realistic. There is a strong likelihood they will be VCU students.
2. 18 parking spaces is not enough space to accommodate all the project's residents. That's one space for each UNIT. However, you should be calculating car needs based on BEDROOMS.  So, that would be a need for 28 parking spaces.
3. Are there REALLY 18 legitimate parking spaces? If these parking spaces look anything like spaces I've seen in some other urban deals, and aren't even appropriate for a compact car, as indicated by one commenter, that is a legitimate concern raised by OHNA.
4. Commenters claim that Mr. Blundon was told BEFORE he purchased the property that the neighborhood association would oppose a project they considered too dense. I presume there were discussions about what "too dense" meant. If that is indeed the case, then I agree with the commenter that says Mr. Blundon now can't fall back on some position that 18 units is the bare minimum that is financially feasible. He knew the risks.

People may not believe me, but I am actually pro-development, and especially urban infill development. I think recycling old buildings is the greenest thing we can do. Creating appropriate living spaces in urban areas means - theoretically, at least - eating up less greenfields with sprawling suburban development.

BUT, I also believe residents and particularly home owners have the right to oppose any development in THEIR neighborhood that requires a special use permit. If the OHNA says this development is too dense, and has legitimate, reasonable, and rational reasons why, the City Council should give the neighborhood association's official position great deference. I mean, really? How dare these commenters essentially suggest, if not outright say, that the people who live in this area and own their own homes should be grateful that this developer is going to come in and put up some shiny new apartments? 

 Here some examples:

"It seems like this property could potentially bring better residents to the neighborhood than those who currently reside in the unkept rowhomes."

"...[f]rom my perspective, a new small apartment would be better than what is there now…a run-down vacant commercial property. Richmond on a whole seems to run into this a lot. The people who live in the neighborhoods have a vision for what they want but not the financial ability to do it. Is it worth it as a community member to allow the improvement of your neighborhood even if it doesn’t necessarily match your vision?"

Condescension, much? I guarantee these commenters don't live in Oregon Hill. They are also probably the first people who would be jumping up and down if any such project were coming to THEIR neighborhood. Shades of Tempsford Lane.  But my disdain for the attitude expressed by those commenters will need to be worked out another day.  For now, what to do about the Victory Rug project?

Maybe there is a middle way. How about compromise? I understand that it has to work financially for the developer.  And I know I haven't seen a pro forma.  But the property owners in the neighborhood have to live with the results long after the developer is gone, and have deeper and detailed insights into what the true day-to-day issues are going to be.  In the interest of trying to be creative, here are some ideas:

• If it's really supposed to be for single professionals, how about 18 one bedroom units? That makes it more likely that there is only one car per unit. Not a perfect solution, but worth a discussion.
• If the developer intended for it to be for young professionals, make it an age-restricted community. No one may occupy a unit unless they are 25 or older.
• I believe the area is zone for parking.  So you can't legally park on the street for longer than an hour without a parking sticker.  So, how about as a condition of special use, make the apartment tenants ineligible for a parking sticker?
• Can you give your apartment dwellers a discount or a credit if they certify that they are car-free? Maybe that's the wackiest idea yet, but if you are trying to reach a compromise, maybe we have to throw out some nutty ideas.

 What do y'all think?

The Tempsford Road Kerfuffle - I Can't Believe This is News - Only in RVA

In yesterday's Metro Section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the paper decided to cover the sad, sad story of a property dispute pitting neighbor against neighbor in a tony,  south of Cary Street neighborhood, further described in the article as "near the Country Club of Virginia."  Clearly, it was a slow news day for the Times-Disgrace.  Or perhaps the Georges have friends on the editorial staff.  Who knows.

Short version:  Page and John George, a Realtor and developer, respectively, are opposing their neighbors' attempt to subdivide said neighbors' current 3.7 acre lot into a new 1.5 acre building lot and a 2.2 acre lot with the existing home on it.  The big deal:  The new building lot will be adjacent to the George's property line, and anything built on said new lot will interfere with the George's currently pristine views.  I love the pictures, with the Georges staring pensively off into the distance next to white poles marking the battle....in mean, the property line. 

Did I mention that the neighbors seeking to subdivide their own land are Former Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow and his wife, Carolyn?  The Snows have applied for a special use permit, as required by law.  Their application is moving through the process, and the City Planning Staff has recommended approval of the application.  It appears the neighbors who don't much like that possible result have taken their case to the court of public opinion. 

My favorite quote in the whole article has to be this:

****

Bill Chapman, who also lives on Tempsford, said he opposes the permit because he does not want to set a precedent for subdividing lots in the neighborhood, which is located near The Country Club of Virginia.

"One of the things that attracted us to the neighborhood is the size of lots … and the lack of density, and we want to preserve that," said Chapman, a developer.  (my emphasis added).

****

Yeah, you have a real density issue there.  1.5 acres, 2.2 acres - whooee! Wouldn't want these folks to be living right on top of one another, now would we?

And is it just me that finds it absolutely hilarious that the complaining developer is currently constructing a ginormous 15-unit condominium complex on the corner of Libbie and Guthrie, in a primarily residential area of small Capes and ranch homes, tearing down several small houses in the process, after going through a special use permitting process to get the necessary approvals?  Whatever happened to that whole "he who lives in glass houses..." thing?  Pun definitely intended.

 I have an idea.  If Messrs.  George and Chapman continue to oppose the Snows' application, I respectfully suggest they agree to forgo the special use permitting process themselves in their own development projects.  Seems fair to me, sauce for the goose and all that good stuff.

Now, does anyone mind if we get back to real news, like the foreclosure crisis, or average folks struggling to make a living, or students graduating with exorbitant amounts of college debt?

 [NOTE: After a quick check of public records, it appears that both Messrs. George and Chapman own lots that are.....1.45 acres.  Yup, that's right.  Smaller than the new 1.5 acre building lot the Snows are proposing to subdivide.  I swear, I could not make this stuff up if I tried]. 

Richmond School Board Proposes Cutting IB Programs and Governors School Slots - Now THAT Ain't Smart!

More budget hoo-ha between the City of Richmond School Board and the Mayor's appointed Special Task Force. If you haven't been keeping up, the short version is this. The City School Board proposed a budget that has a $23.8M shortfall. In other words, they want to spend $23.8M more than they have been allocated. Mayor Jones is [understandably] irritated with the Board, since they are asking the City of Richmond to fund that $23.8M shortfall. He contends the School Board is responsible for finding a way to operate within their means, and coming up with cuts to make the budget work.

The School Board refuses. Mayor Jones appoints a Special Task force of independent educational and business leaders to look for ways to cut the budget. Yvonne Brandon, the Superintendent of City of Richmond schools, proposes certain ways to cut costs, including:

• Eliminating school sports
• Eliminating the International Baccalaureate ("IB") program
• Cutting the City's available slots at the Maggie Walker and Appomatox Governors Schools in half
• Furloughs
• Pay cuts for staff
• Layoffs

Of the proposals, the second and third items, eliminating IB and cutting Governors School slots, is just plain stupid. These are programs that raised the level of educational offering to the children we tax payers are paying to educate. The IB program is academically rigorous and requires application and acceptance. The Maggie Walker Governor's School is considered one of the best, if not THE BEST, high schools in the Greater Richmond area, even when put up against the private school powerhouses.

Personally, I think these "options" for budget savings are on the table in an attempt by the Superintendent and the School Board to create a huge public outcry, and to force the Mayor and his task force to give in to their demands for another $24M. Maybe I'm too cynical, and that's not their goal. But suggesting the elimination or limitation of the most academically rigorous and respected options in the City system - how does that make ANY SENSE?

The beneficiaries of the school system are supposed to be the students, not the teachers and staff. If the only options to balance the budget are furloughs, pay cuts, and/or layoffs, or more preferably eliminating staff and teachers by attrition, that's what the School Board should do. Don't eliminate outstanding programs, creating fewer academic opportunities for all Richmond kids. That's just plain dumb.

How Do People See Richmond - And What Does Real Estate Got To Do With It?

In the Sunday Commentary section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, there are three - THREE! - pieces alone that really struck me.

First, there is John Bryan's piece, "So, What Do You Think About Richmond?" Mr. Bryan is the President of CultureWorks, a non-profit umbrella organization that supports arts and entertainment groups in Richmond. He details his informal interviews with marketing professionals at a conference in Louisville, Kentucky. The question was "Tell Me Everything You Know About Richmond." Apparently, what the thirty three (33) folks interviewedknew was basically nothing. So, Mr. Bryan followed up with each of the interviewees and sent a "pitch" about the City. The remainder of the piece details exactly what he highlighted, things about Richmond, Virginia that make it special and unique.

The second piece is by Mike Hughes, President of the Martin Agency, and Ella Kelley. It suggests turning the Huguenot Bridge into a public park/pedestrian and bike byway, a la the New York City High Line. What a super-cool idea!

The third piece is Tom Silvestri's editorial titled "Four Buddies Discuss How to Play Ball." I'm not too sharp, so it took me well into the first read to figure out Chester was Chesterfield County, Hans was Hanover County, Henry was Henrico County and Rich was, you guessed it!, the City of Richmond. Duh me. But the piece cleverly lays out the various jurisdictions' attitudes towards funding a new ball park for the Diamond. If you have read my blog for any length of time you know I am pro-baseball on the Boulevard, and all for a new ballpark for the Squirrels.

More on all of these topics later, but if you haven't read them, do. Great things are happening in Richmond.

Reynolds North Plant Being Redeveloped - New Life to Richmond's Riverfront

In today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, a front page story announced the redevelopment of the former Reynolds Metal manufacturing facilities north of the river into apartments and ancillary retail.  That this has been coming is common knowledge in the real estate community, but perhaps not well-known outside of those circles.

This development is being described as "the linchpin" that Richmond has been waiting for for over 15 years.  I think it's an amazing opportunity, and I'm glad to see WVS and Fountainhead Properties, both experienced players, running this show.  WVS is a Northern Virginia developer responsible for The Village at Rocketts Landing, and Fountainhead is a local developer of Artworks, Manchester Flats, and numerous other projects in the Manchester and Downtown areas.

I am sure this is a state and federal tax credit renovation, meaning the developers can recover 45% of the value of "qualified renovation expenses" ("QREs"). The newspaper describes this as a $35M project.  Now, that number may include the acquisition cost ($7.3), and not all renovation expenses are QREs, but for the sake of making the math easy,because I suck at math, let's just assume they are.  So 45% of $27.7M = $12.46M.  WAY more than chump change.

Forget Justin French and his misuse of the tax credit programs.  I hope Richmond realizes just how lucky we are to have one of the most generous state tax credit programs in the country, allowing 25% recovery of QREs.  You put the state tax credits together with the federal tax credits (20%) and it makes these deals work.

So good luck to WVS and Fountainhead, congratulations on getting the North Plant deal closed, and we can't wait to see the finished product.  I know we have just won in a landslide the title of "The Next Austin," up-and-coming hipster city, but I'm hoping we end up looking like another Great State of Texas city, San Antonio, with their thriving canal walk.

P.S.  I just learned how to add pictures!  How exciting.  I know I have just outed myself as a tech-idjit, but I'm so proud I just have to give myself a virtual pat on the back nonetheless.

Richmond Public Schools Rezoning - What Do the Closures Mean?

Well, the City of Richmond is proposing to close three (3) elementary schools, and the proposals are generating all kinds of wailing and gnashing of teeth.  The three schools are Summer Hill, J.B. Fisher, and John B. Cary.  The only one I am going to talk about is Cary, because it is really the only one with which I am familiar.  And just to be clear, I have no dog in this fight, other than wanting all of the City elementary schools to be shining examples of excellence.  My daughter went to William E. Fox Elementary from Pre-K through Grade 5, and we had an AMAZING experience.  I can't say enough good things about that school.  In fact, Fox was one of the main reasons we moved to the Fan when we bought our first house in 1999.

John B. Cary ("JBC" or "Cary") serves the Byrd Park, Carillon, Carytown, and Museum District neighborhoods.  Apparently it is WAY under capacity, with only 210 students.  The more concerning statistic is that only 39% of the kids in the JBC zone actually attend JBC.  That means a lot of parents are either sending their children to out-of-zone schools with capacity - perhaps Mary Munford? - or sending their children to private school.

Michael Paul Williams wrote a column about Cary and its glory days as a magnet school.  I'm dating myself, but I remember how disappointed I was that I didn't get into Cary and my best friend, Kara, did.  My neighborhood school was Ginter Park, and that's where I went.

Cary is fairly close to both William Fox and Mary Munford.  I don't know much about Munford's enrollment levels, but it was my understanding that William Fox was at physical capacity.   So I'm not sure how Fox could absorb the JBC students.  Also, if given the option to attend William Fox, which consistently wins awards for excellence, you have to presume that more than the 39% of eligible neighborhood kids would sign up.  How would that be managed?

[NOTE:  According to the draft Study, Fox isn't anywhere near capacity.  That's odd.  I remember it being a big deal when my daughter was there, so much so that out-of-zone kids from the Museum District, who had regularly attended Fox rather than Cary, were no longer accepted unless they had an older sibling already at Fox.  It caused all kinds of hoo-ha.  I also thought there was some prohibition on Fox having trailers to house overflow students, maybe some sort of deal with the Fan District Association?  In any event, I really hope this doesn't mean that Richmond Public Schools doesn't consider Fox at capacity because they are advocating a substantially higher class size than what Fox's normal, uber-successful operations look like.  Does anyone know the answer to that?  Or is it just that attendance has dropped off significantly in the three (3) years since my daughter graduated?]

From a purely real estate perspective, Cary occupies a prime piece of real estate between Sheppard and the Downtown Expressway, adjacent to the City tennis courts.  Not only could the City save money from closing an unnecessary physical plant, but that property would be perfect for private redevelopment.  Could the City sell it?  For that matter, why don't they sell Maymont Elementary too? 

I agree with the commenters that object to fewer, bigger schools.   From a facilities standpoint, I am sure that makes more sense for the Richmond Public Schools system.  Fewer facilities = fewer costs.  But I do not think mega-schools are a good pedagogical approach.  Neighborhood schools should be the objective.   Oh, and P.S., by the way?  Those plans to put Grades K-2 at one school and Grades 3-5 at another, splitting current Fox kids by grade between Fox and Carver, that's  TERRIBLE idea.  Sucky-McSuckster.  Awful.  Kill it.  Immediately.

So...what happens when next to no one in the neighborhood is attending the neighborhood school?  I guess we will find out.  I predict they will split the Cary kids between Fox and Munford, although I have no idea how that will work from a pure physical capacity standpoint.  Stay tuned....

RVA Creates and Venture Richmond and Now the "Shockoe Design District" - Really? I Mean REALLY?

I am so sick of these folks just getting it wrong, over and over again.  Apparently, someone told them that the "Creative Class" was the key to urban revitalization.  Per Richard Florida, the leading academic researcher and publisher on the topic, that's exactly right.

But Florida doesn't characterize the "creative class" as only designers, artists, restaurant owners, architects, etc.  In fact these categories of folks are the significant minority of Creative Class members.  However, it appears that Venture Richmond, RVA Creates, and the founders of the Shockoe Design District didn't bother to read "The Rise of the Creative Class," "The Flight of the Creative Class," any of the numerous academic studies and papers Florida has published on the subject, the City of Richmond's own commissioned studies, including "The Young and the Restless," the Crupi Reports I and II....I could go on and on.  In fact, it doesn't appear the folks responsible for these (costly and time-consuming) Richmond initiatives have read ANY of the extensive published materials about what the Creative Class is, what it wants, and how to attract and retain it.

Because if they had, they would have found this definition on Wikipedia:

*****

Florida describes the Creative Class as comprising 40 million workers—30 percent of the U.S. workforce—and breaks the class into two broad sections, derived from Standard Occupational Classification System codes:

• Super-Creative Core: This group comprises about 12 percent of all U.S. jobs. It includes a wide range of occupations (e.g. science, engineering, education, computer programming, research), with arts, design, and media workers forming a small subset. Florida considers those belonging to this group to “fully engage in the creative process” (2002, p. 69). The Super-Creative Core is considered innovative, creating commercial products and consumer goods. The primary job function of its members is to be creative and innovative. “Along with problem solving, their work may entail problem finding” (Florida, 2002, p. 69).
• Creative Professionals: These professionals are the classic knowledge-based workers and include those working in healthcare, business and finance, the legal sector, and education. They “draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems” using higher degrees of education to do so (Florida, 2002).

In addition to these two main groups of creative people, the usually much smaller group of Bohemians is also included in the Creative Class.

******

This took me five (5) seconds to find, with a Google search for "Creative Class" and Richard Florida.

Now, people may not believe it, but I appreciate what the Powers That Be are trying to do.  But it bugs the ever-living-you-know-what out of me when it is done poorly and wastes resources that could be better spent on other initiatives that would benefit the entire City, rather than one limited area.  I'll explain later the specifics of why I'm completely annoyed with Venture Richmond, RVA Creates, and now the Shockoe Design District.  Here's the very short version:  Labels and perceptions matter.  You are intentionally or unintentionally excluding a huge number of the Creative Class you want to keep, by focusing only on the "design professionals," restaurant owners, and Bottom-dwelling urbanites.  I sure as heck don't see any resources being flung around to attract and retain the bankers who live in the Munford School District, or the realtors who live in Westover Hills, or the young lawyers who live in Bellevue.

You've got the Creative Class wrong.  And I'm also sick of constantly hearing about Shockoe Bottom.  I've got an idea.  I'll make and sell a T-shirt that says "Richmond.  It's All About the Bottom."  With a big ole' graphic of a hiney on it.  Maybe then I can get my creative punch card stamped.

Meantime, this non-creative, non-young, non-hipster urban dweller and lifelong Richmond resident needs to go make a living.

Squirrels Stadium Controversy - Is It About Baseball or Strategic Development?

Lordy be.  Here we go again.  There are articles, and editorials, and letters to the editor, about whether or not "Richmond," which really means the Richmond Metropolitan Authority ("RMA"), made up of Richmond, Henrico, and Chesterfield, should contribute the money to build a new stadium for the Squirrels AA team.  If they won't commit to building a stadium, there are rumblings that the Squirrels will go away.

Major public reaction seems to be: "Tough noogies. Who cares what the community promised to lure the Squirrels here. Times are tough. That money should be spent on ______ [insert your favorite cause here: education/roads/downtown development]." I should also note that it appears from a very unscientific review and poll that the vast majority of the letter writers and commenters are from the counties. Shocker.

Here's the Letter to the Editor du jour:

I may not be the target audience for the Richmond Squirrels.  I'm just a casual baseball fan who will go out to see the local team a couple of times a year.

This year, I went near the end of the season, when the club was trying to make it into the playoffs. The stands were not full.  I also went to the first home playoff game, and again the stands weren't full.  I fail to see how a new ballpark will increase attendance after the novelty wears off.

I had an enjoyable time at the game, and it didn't matter that the Diamond isn't state-of-the-art.  But I will object strongly to subsidizing a new building just for the sake of keeping this or any other team.

I think people are missing the point.  It's not about the Squirrels per se.  It's about committing to strategic development in a specific part of the City that has the greatest possible likelihood to leverage additional private investment in the City.  A successful City of Richmond is the rising tide that will raise all boats.  Even though Henrico and Chesterfield will never believe that.

And by the way, my recollection is the Shockoe Bottom Stadium proposal was about exactly that, driving private investment in the area and how the cumulative effects of a new baseball stadium would benefit the City. So people who wanted a Shockoe Bottom Stadium can't talk out of both sides of their mouths, and claim in their priposal a new stadium would be an economic driver, but a few years later and in a different location, a new stadium would be an economic suck.

I'm sure this debate is going to continue.  I think next I am going to lay out the reasons a stadium on the Boulevard is the right strategic investment.  And if you want more background on why I felt then the Boulevard was the right place, or more accurately that the Bottom was the wrong place, there are a bunch of old posts on the topic.  Go wild.

 

How Generous Is Richmond? VERY Generous!

The Amazing Raise is off and running, and in only 9+ hours, Richmonders have donated over $223,000!  The entire objective of the Amazing Raise is to raise as much money as possible by encouraging online donations of $50 or more during a specified 36 hour period, which began this morning at 6 A.M.  The Community Foundation is offering at least $100,000 in matching grants, possibly more.  There are also various contests that allow the nonprofits participating to win additional grant money, for things like most donations during a time period, etc.

Everyone has their own charity of choice.  Sometimes folks have multiple.  I am on the Board of the Byrd Theatre Foundation, so that's the organization I'm giving to.  After all, we were just named one of the "Top Ten Places to Watch a Movie in Splendor" in USA Today only five days ago!  [As an aside, I'm personally hoping Stephen Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis saw that article and plan to slip into the Byrd incognito sometime real soon].

 I hope you will consider giving to the Byrd Theatre Foundation during the Amazing Raise.  Here is the link directly to the online donation page for the Byrd Theatre Foundation.  Even if the Byrd is not your charity of choice, I hope you will each consider giving a donation of at least $50 to some worthy local nonprofit organization.  Each and every one of these groups does great things, often on a shoestring budget.  So, I know times are tough.  But consider that $50 donation.  You'll feel good about yourself for the rest of the day!

Richmond, pat yourself on the back.  You are very generous.  That's yet another thing for us to be proud of!

Ready, Set, GIVE! The Amazing Raise Is Off!

Starting at 6 a.m. TODAY, in just fifteen minutes, 36 hours of the Amazing Raise - Richmond's online fund raising challenge - begin.  Here is all the information about the Amazing Raise.  Please consider donating $50 - or $100, or $500 - to the Byrd Theatre Foundation.  Heck, donate a dollar, donate $5, donate $10!  Only online donations of $50 or more are credited towards our standings in the competition for up to $10,000 in grant money from the Community Foundation.  But we would be ever-so-grateful for ANY financial support. 

So Richmond, are you generous?  I think you are.  Do you LOVE the Byrd?  I think you do.  Ready, set, GIVE!