Mayor Levar Stoney

Dude, Where’s my Bolt?

RVA Staff | August 5, 2019

Topics: bird scooters, bolt scooters, City of richmond, city of richmond pilot program, e-scooters, jailbreak, jailbreak bolt, jailbreak scooter, jailbroken, Mayor Levar Stoney, public transportation, scooter program, scooters, stoney

E-scooters may be here to stay, but with concerns about accidents, underage driving, and even “jailbreaking” scooters for free rides, it seems there are still issues that need to be dealt with.

Everyone remembers Bird scooters… In the dumpster. In your yard. On fire. In a dumpster that was thrown into your yard that also happens to be on fire.

Bird are gone, their impounded scooters sold off at rock bottom prices by the city earlier this summer. But e-scooters are here now, for better or worse, and have continued to increase their presence in the city. They come out of nowhere, from companies we’ve never previously heard of. And while convenient, they have largely been a nuisance, causing injuries, vandalism, and accidents police don’t know how to regulate. If the City of Richmond had a plan for what transportation looked like in the city, E-scooters had never really been a part of it. Until Bolt.

Set up through a city ordinance last June, Bolt Mobility is the newest company to enter the Richmond market. Despite its promise to play by the rules, Bolt is now dealing with a problem far worse than occasional towing or lack of sidewalk space.

As it turns out, their scooters are pretty easy to hack.

*PHOTO:* *Bolt Scooters* *via Instagram*

Any iPhone user knows the term “jailbreaking,” which, through some warranty-violating programming hacks, eliminates all restrictions in the software and allows the user to essentially own the object — phone or scooter — free of charge, to use as they please.

It may be morally wrong, but for many it seems financially sound. Like other e-scooter companies, Bolt operates through a smartphone app that riders can use to locate scooters and pay to ride them. They’re not cheap: scooters cost $1 to start, 15 cents per minute, and require a security deposit of $5 per scooter (which gets refunded to the rider in 5-7 business days). In essence, according to Bolt, a 20 minute ride should cost no more than $4 (once you get your deposit back a week later). But four dollars adds up; it’s almost two gallons of gas, or the minimum price of an Uber ride.

Over the past year or so, scooter hacking has become a cottage industry around the world. In fact, the market for jailbroken scooters has become more enterprising and lucrative than that of the legitimate scooter companies.

Online forums and videos on YouTube itemize operation costs for use of the scooters, and demonstrate within six to eight minutes that any Richmonder will be financially better off hacking their ride instead of paying. Some even itemize the step-by-step process of hacking and selling the scooters.

And for riders who live outside of major cities, paying a flat fee of $200-$250 for their own scooter can be more convenient than spending the better part of the day searching for one to legally ride.

Another upside: when a different rider approaches the jailbroken scooter, they cannot access it the way they can a non-jailbroken scooter. Jailbroken scooters are personalized to each rider, and cannot be used by anyone other than the owner.

Richmond is the third city in Virginia, and the 13th nationwide, to allow Bolt to operate legally on their streets. Richmond was deemed a prime location to bring these e-scooters due to the tremendous growth the city is experiencing.

“Richmond will do this the right way,” Mayor Levar Stoney said in a press release, “We will implement a legal and appropriate dockless scooter and bicycle program, with proper safety regulations to protect scooter users, pedestrians, and other citizens.”

Bolt announced their summer arrival at a public ride event with Mayor Stoney in Monroe Park. Bolt paid the city $45,000 to drop an initial 500 e-scooters throughout city, and will continue to pay $1500 for every new scooter they register.

Will Nicholas, Bolt’s executive VP of operations, does all of the ribbon-cutting and hand-shaking.

“Bolt is super excited to take part in the massive and impressive growth that this city has gone through, in order to provide simple, sustainable, and safe transportation options for everyone,” Nicholas said.

The Department of Public Works oversees the pilot program, while the City Council is in charge of determining which neighborhoods should be targeted. According to Nicholas, Bolt offers discounted rides to people who apply and demonstrate a need based on enrollment in a federal safety net program or living in subsidized housing. However, Bolt not commented on which neighborhoods have been chosen for these programs, and whether scooters have been distributed to them or not.

“Bolt is committed to the positive, productive partnership it has with the city of Richmond,” Nicholas said. “We continue to collaborate with the DOPW and the City Council to provide affordable and reliable e-scooters to all neighborhoods throughout Richmond.”

Donna Chen, professor of engineering systems and environment at UVA, sees these scooters as the next variable in the ever-evolving transportation algorithm.

“We didn’t have a massive number of privately-owned scooters before these descended upon our city, so they are an interesting case, because they are giving people — cities in particular — a lot of headaches in terms of how we regulate these things,” Chen said. “Should we regulate them? What types of infrastructure should they use? Should the people who use scooters have some kind of training or license before they’re allowed to hop on them?”

Concerns with the scooters’ speed (which maxes out of 15 mph — still relatively fast depending on the neighborhood one is riding through), safety, and reports of underage driving could leave Bolt facing a California wildfire in its own right.

“The true problem is that they reside in this sort of grey space, somewhere between non-motorized modes [of transportation], such as bicycling or walking, and fully-motorized modes such as driving,” said Chen. “Driving is much more regulated than the non-motorized modes, because they travel at faster speeds — therefore [there] is a safety liability.”

According to Bolt, the age limit to operate these scooters is 18. An age restriction is set into place to help with safety issues, just as it is with motorized vehicles and bikes.

“We strive to ensure that not only are all riders above the age of 18, but that riders are educated on the proper use of our scooters,” Nicholas said in a statement to NBC12. “Helmets are available free of charge to anyone who requests one, and we have delivered hundreds in Richmond so far.”

According to Bolt, a self-certification process that allows Bolts to be operated without a driver’s license is in the works, but has not yet been implemented. Bird scooters required drivers to provide a picture of a valid driver’s license before operating a scooter — but Bolt uses a different monitor system.

Bearing in mind the mistakes of scooter companies past, Bolt has implemented its own form of security system with a warning signal that says it all: “Stop moving the e-scooter or I will call the police on you.”

The system, according to Bolt, is on from 5a.m. to 9a.m., seven days a week. The Richmond Police Department stated that the warning signal is handled by the Department of Emergency Communications. Bolt Mobility also has a 24/7 customer support service to address riders directly.

However, there’s still very little they can do to deter children from using the scooters.

“Our terms and conditions, printed on our scooters and in-app messaging, clearly state that anyone under the age of 18 is prohibited from using our service,” Nicholas said. “Unfortunately, Bolt does not have the ability to restrict use [by] the parents and guardians who choose to allow their sons and daughters to ride using their accounts.”

E-scooter companies like Bolt Mobility were founded to profit from gaps in transportation access in cities across the country. Emission-free and much smaller than any car, let alone the SUVs that are increasingly prevalent on our streets, scooters are a vital alternative for next-gen transportation. Unfortunately, the focus on bringing something new and different to Richmond’s streets seems to have resulted in some factors not being taken into consideration.

“No city wants to feel like it’s being left behind,” said Chen. “There’s a lot of transportation innovation happening, and every city wants what every city has. You don’t want to be that city that said no to scooters when everybody else is doing it, especially if it really is impacting mobility in a positive way.”

By working with the city rather than illegally invading our streets, Bolt has taken a more positive approach than any previous e-scooter company. However, it seems there are still a few bugs left in the system.

Written by John Donegan and Brea Hill.

Landrieu Urges Reflection On Monuments In Meeting With Stoney

Madelyne Ashworth | March 22, 2019

Topics: Confederate monuments, Jefferson Davis Monument, Mayor Levar Stoney, Mitch Landrieu, New Orleans, racial reconciliation, robert e lee, Virginia Museum Of History & Culture

In his meeting with Mayor Levar Stoney this week, former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu challenged Richmonders to consider the continued impact of Confederate monuments on our city’s image and reputation.

It was a meeting of the Mayoral minds on Tuesday, as Richmond’s Mayor Levar Stoney and New Orleans’ former mayor Mitch Landrieu engaged in thoughtful discussion at the Virginia Museum of History and Culture.

About 100 people listened as Mayor Stoney recounted Richmond’s struggle with Confederate iconography and race relations in Richmond, while Landrieu recalled his experience presiding over the removal of his city’s Confederate monuments.

“We created things with regard to race, and we can’t fix things without regard to race,” Landrieu said. “Our public spaces speak to who you are. It’s intended to say something, especially monuments and statues.”

At the crux of this discussion, Landrieu asked of Richmond: What do we want to be known for?

Overhead view of New Orleans’ Battle Of Liberty Place Monument in 2006. The monument was erected in 1891 to commemorate an 1874 riot against New Orleans’ Reconstruction-era government by the White League, a white supremacist group. It was taken down by Landrieu’s administration in 2017. Photo by Infrogmation, CC BY 2.5, via Wikimedia

In 2015, Landrieu called for the removal from prominent public display of four monuments in New Orleans, three of Confederate generals and one memorializing a violent coup of the state government by the Crescent City White League. All the monuments in question were removed by May 2017, although not without two years of legal battles, public criticism, and even threats against Landrieu’s life. His opponents criticized him for a lack of transparency during the process.

In a discussion moderated by Julian Hayter, an associate professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond and member of Stoney’s Monument Avenue Commission, Stoney and Landrieu discussed racism in the South, and how to reconcile its history with its people.

“We can’t ignore the fact that we’ve had an ugly history,” Stoney said.

Last year, Stoney’s Monument Avenue Commission recommended removing the Jefferson Davis monument, while adding context to the other four Confederate statues.

*Jefferson Davis monument on Monument Avenue. Public Domain, via Wikimedia*

Landrieu’s charismatic, animated oration offered blunt, third-party observations about Richmond’s race relations and Confederate iconography. Ultimately, he posited Richmond must find a solution that is right for Richmond, regardless of any other city’s actions.

“There is a difference between remembrance and reverence,” Landrieu said. “Remembrance is what you always want to do, so you don’t let it happen again. Reverence is honoring something, so you might be able to do it again.”

Stoney stated that if it were in his legal power to remove them, the statues would be gone. He also said that while removing the statues were important to many Richmonders, his real concern was providing reparations to deprived communities negatively affected by past racial injustices.

In this context, reparations are not about putting cash directly in the hands of disenfranchised people; they are about funding schools that never get funded, putting money in parks and community spaces, and reforming previously exclusive places into safe, inclusive space. They are about allowing a city’s architecture, aesthetic, art, and monuments to reflect the citizens it houses.

“Does that man standing on top of that thing send a message that you are welcome here, and that we want you to be here?” Landrieu said. “I was the mayor of a majority African American city, and I was the mayor of a city that has a monument that doesn’t represent our city. We decided in our specific circumstance, it was the best thing to do. What you cannot do is forget who put it up and why they put it up.”

Landrieu urged Richmonders to consider that a single plaque is not contextualization. To provide an adequate frame of reference would require the statue of a “lynched man” to reside next to Jackson and Lee.

*Hayter, Stoney, and Landrieu. Photo by John Donegan*

It may be prudent to point out that by erecting those statues, we are actually disobeying the wishes of a dead man, one who is at the epicenter of this entire debate: Robert E. Lee.

“I think it wiser,” the retired Lee once wrote of a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

After the Civil War, Lee swore allegiance to the Union, publicly denounced any sentiment toward Southern separatism, affirmed the need to move on, and believed that by keeping those images alive, so would the sentiments of division live on and thrive.

Mayor Landrieu asserted similar sentiments in asking us to question that reverence associated with Confederate iconography. We have an entire avenue on which we all but worship the leaders of a failed nation, then act as if this is a presentation of historical events rather than a deep respect and longing for that failed nation.

“People are watching y’all,” Landrieu said. “I want to ask, do y’all want to be known for that?”

America has a history of building grandiose, reverent monuments to what Lee described as “civil strife,” and compared to those left by other countries throughout the 20th century after their own national conflicts, it calls us to examine how Americans display memorials to bloodshed.

*The American cemetery at Normandy. Photo by* *Leon Petrosyan*, *CC BY-SA 4.0, via* *Wikimedia*

Our memorial to the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks has turned into a multibillion dollar shopping mall, the Westfield World Trade Center. The American cemetery in Normandy, France, honoring those soldiers lost to WWII, boasts a $30 million welcome center, a chapel, and a 22-foot statue. Compared to the somber, understated French, German, and Canadian cemeteries in the same area, America’s message is clear: We are dominant, we are proud, we are strong, we are to be seen.

And while direct, this isn’t entirely inappropriate. Our culture differs from European countries in that we are opportunistic, and have a free-market capitalist economy. We honor our tragedies, but we simultaneously find a way to make money from them. We are clever, competitive, and fierce. Albeit occasionally sporting a tone-deaf quality, it is true to our nature. For better or worse, it is what we are known for. And, ultimately, even the aforementioned monuments honor soldiers and innocent lives lost to tragedy and terror, rather than the lost cause for continued human oppression that the figures on Monument Avenue commemorate.

And so, Mayor Landrieu’s challenge to Richmond resonates. In the wake of his visit, we must ask ourselves the same question he asked of us: What do you want to be known for? And how will you display it?

Top photo by John Donegan

Can Restorative Justice Help Fix a Damaged System?

Maggie Campbell | July 6, 2018

Topics: Chief Durham, Marcus-David Peters, Mayor Levar Stoney, Police Accountability, restorative justice, Richmond Chief Of Police, Richmond police department, RPD

In the wake of the shooting of Marcus-David Peters, who was shot and killed by a Richmond Police Officer on I-95 after appearing unstable, demands from community organizers and local citizens have introduced the notion of using restorative justice within law enforcement reformation.

These demands have forced RPD (Richmond Police Department) and Richmonders alike to ask what type of reformation do we need, and how would restorative justice help ease complicated situations between law enforcement, victims, and even criminals. Princess Blanding, Peters’ sister, said she is calling for reformation within the Richmond Police Department after the death of her brother.

“The Richmond Police Department needs to take accountability and ownership in regards to what happens and acknowledge that things went wrong, so we can move forward in preventing this from happening again,” Blanding said.

Protest for Justice for Marcus-David Peters

Blanding and other activists hosted a community meeting at Second Baptist Church on June 30 to discuss these reformations. They had publicly and personally invited Chief Alfred Durham and Mayor Levar Stoney to the meeting, but neither appeared.

Blanding said Stoney contacted the family on the day of the meeting to say he would not be able to attend, but is keeping the Peters family in his thoughts and prayers. Stoney’s press office said in an email that the mayor would consider engaging with the family at the appropriate time, but he is not able to talk about the investigation until it is completed.

Blanding said she received no response from Durham; however, Durham said he would hold a community meeting about the investigation, once the case is handed over to the Commonwealth Attorney. Blanding said the invitation requested both Durham and Stoney to attend the meeting in order to listen to community concerns, but were never asked to speak.

Daniel Foxvog, executive director of The Virginia Center for Restorative Justice (VCRJ), said it is critical that the victims’ needs are recognized in any instance of harm.

Restorative justice is a term that has appeared more often in Richmond, but is a relatively unknown practice within the criminal justice system. Since its creation in the 1970’s, the field has been an alternative approach to the court system, but has only recently been pushed into the widespread narrative of criminal reform. VCRJ has worked to provide this alternative approach for juveniles, especially.

Judy Clarke, founder and immediate past executive director of the Virginia Center for Restorative Justice, said the center focuses on training volunteers to become restorative justice facilitators. The volunteers work to receive statewide security clearance through the Virginia Department of Corrections and Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice.

The center also organizes ‘circle processes’ and restorative justice conferences. The ‘circles’ and conferences are where the major rehabilitation happens–they are conversations between offenders, victims and their communities about the impact the offender’s crime had on all parties involved.

Foxvog said there are two key principles to understanding the most effective form of restorative justice: addressing harm and the need and obligations following that harm. Foxvog said that crime, and other types of violence, creates harm that victims and offenders should be discussing to address the harm’s impact.

“When someone is burglarized or hurt there are needs that result in that, needs of the victim, the direct victim, the person who has lost property or suffered physical damage,” Foxvog said. “There’s also the needs for the community, for safety, for well-being, for trust, for being able to have senses of wholeness.”

The offender has needs as well, Foxvog said, that could have contributed to the crime committed. Restorative justice works with each party to reconcile conflict and built a new sense of healing, trust, and penitence. The ideal outcome of restorative justice is that the offender never commits crime again.

Clarke said the center is in four Virginia State Prisons: three female adult prisons and one male prison. The center also has a diversion program for juvenile offenders, which helps juvenile offenders create solutions for their actions rather than go to jail by offering counseling resources.

VCRJ connects with cases on a referral basis. Referrals usually come from an intake or probation officer, either before or after a decision has been made in court. The center first sends a letter to the victim and the offender, then meets with victims who respond to the letter and listen to their needs and priorities. Next, they meet with the offender to gather their version of events, what led them to commit the crime, and the impact the crime had on them. Oftentimes, the offender has already admitted guilt. One of the last steps is to join both parties.

While the center has been recognized in juvenile courts, they are not recognized in civil or district courts, meaning alternatives to jail provided for juveniles through the center are not currently available to adults. Clarke has requested that Foxvog, who became executive director on July 1, pursue getting recognized in those courts with Mike Herring, Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney. They hope that in future, methods like restorative justice can be used to remedy some of the pain and confusion both for offenders and victims, like those in the Marcus-David Peters case.

“I would also say that for police departments and law enforcement agencies being able to have a relationship of trust with the communities is very critical,” Foxvog said. “It’s critical for them to be able to function and it’s critical for the communities themselves to be able to trust the police departments, and officers, and for everyone to be able to be treated with respect.”

Foxvog and Clarke rely on volunteers to make the center work. The center offers training and opportunities for volunteers to participate in conferences and jail programs in individual areas.

So Long, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States

John Donegan | July 2, 2018

Topics: black lives matter, Confederate monuments, Jefferson Davis, Mayor Levar Stoney, Monument Avenue, richmond, Richmond monuments

After a long, heated debate, change became the chosen path for Richmond today. According to the Monument Avenue Commission, Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney officially recommended the removal of the Jefferson Davis Monument today from Monument Avenue.

“Of all the statues, this one is most unabashedly Lost Cause [sic] in its design and sentiment,” the commissioners wrote in the report.

The board includes Christy Coleman, CEO of the American Civil War Museum, and Sarah Driggs, author of “Richmond’s Monument Avenue,” among others who look to direct the River City away from the ‘lost cause’ narrative many of these monuments represent. And with these monuments having origins in the Confederate ‘lost cause’ mythology and Unite The Right 2.0 coming up in August, the commission came as a much needed response for these controversial monuments.

After nearly one year of intensive study by the ten person commission, the group produced a 117 page report considering the future of Richmond’s Confederate statues, opening the floor to options including removal or relocation of the Confederate statues into a museum, or somewhere with proper context.

“In addition to taking on the responsibility of explaining the monuments that currently exist, I have also asked the commission to look into and solicit public opinion on changing the face of Monument Avenue by adding new monuments that would reflect a broader, more inclusive story of our city,” said Stoney in a statement one year ago. “That is our goal.”

The yearlong review examining the statues originally created to “determine how best to reconcile a particular landscape viewed as both sacred and profane,” is now figuring that for many of the statues, removal is the best option. Riding off the recent change to the Barack Obama Elementary school last month, this is the first of many necessary reforms to a city that has never truly healed.

The report also addresses the monuments of Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Stonewall Jackson, President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and Confederate commander Matthew Fontaine Maury with short term changes that will add context to the statues, such as proper signage. They will also consider the opening or expansion into a museum exhibit, where the monuments may be put into proper context that reflects the newly inclusive historical significance the city wants to promote.

The commission’s site currently offers an open forum for public discussion, but is also developing a mobile app and new film and video that looks to rewire the proper narrative about Monument Avenue that is “consistent and historically accurate.”

Former School Board Member Calls for Boycott of Restaurants Fighting Proposed Meals Tax Hike

RVA Staff | February 1, 2018

Topics: Mayor Levar Stoney, meals tax, Richmond city council, richmond public schools, Richmond Restaurant Alliance, Richmond School Board, rva restaurants

*This story has been updated to note that Menz-Erb has withdrawn her candidacy for the Education Compact Team this afternoon.

Former 3rd District School Board member and Education Compact team-nominee, Cindy Menz-Erb has launched an email campaign asking people to avoid restaurants who don’t support Mayor Stoney’s proposal to raise the meals tax. In an email that was forwarded to RVA Mag, Menz-Erb, encouraged people to, “Only patronize restaurants who support the meals tax. There will be signs for restaurants to display soon but in the meantime, just ask if they support it.”

The Mayor has proposed increasing the city’s meals tax to 7.5 percent to help rehabilitate and renovate Richmond Public Schools, which would produce approximately $9.1 million a year and allow the city to borrow $150 million in new capital funding over the next five years. However, the issue has been contentious for the Richmond restaurant community, who were subject to a previous tax increase in 2003. If passed, the total tax would increase to 12.8 percent, which has led local restaurateurs and restaurant groups to form a new lobby group called the Richmond Restaurant Alliance, in partnership with the Virginia Restaurant, Travel and Lodging Association.

Menz-Erb, originally from New York, was an interim School Board member in 2017 before losing the seat in the open election to Kenya Gibson last November. Since then, she has been nominated to serve on the Education Compact Team pending a confirmation vote by City Council. The council is a volunteer board made up of members of City Council and the school board along with citizens nominated by the mayor, all tasked to help Richmond Public Schools reach “achievement to levels matching or exceeding statewide benchmarks,” and “implementing a concerted strategy to reduce child poverty by 50 percent by 2030 while mitigating the impact of poverty on learning.”

The email, which was circulated at 3 pm Wednesday, has led to a significant outcry among the restaurant community and other City Council members. In a post to Facebook, 5th District City Councilman, Parker Camp Agelasto said he emailed Stoney the following: “Cindy Menz-Erb has significantly misstepped in sending this email,” he said in the post. “This is not becoming for someone that you have nominated for the Education Compact Team.” He concluded with the following, “I particularly find her suggestion that supporters of the meals tax only patron those restaurants in support shows bad judgment. Too bad. I hope you will take proactive steps in fixing this problem as this email is out publically and there are many angry people…this is an issue.”

In response to the controversy surrounding this email, Stoney released a statement via Facebook at 9 am that said, “I do NOT support penalizing anyone, or any business, for their beliefs. In fact – I feel the exact opposite.” The statement goes on to say that he believes there is the opportunity to support the restaurant community and public schools at the same time and that public debate is healthy. ‘As this debate moves forward, I plan to visit restaurants on all sides of this issue, to thank them for what they do for our city, and to learn how, I, as Mayor, can do more to help them grow and thrive in Richmond. I hope everyone who sees this will do the same. ”

Menz-Erb withdrew her candidacy this afternoon. She apologized for her words and said she didn’t intend to promote a boycott.

“That was not my intent, and I apologize for the wording of my statement. We want all of our restaurants to be successful for the benefit of our schools,” she said in a statement she sent to the Times-Dispatch.

The issue surrounding the meals tax will likely remain contentious with proponents and opponents on both sides making their voice heard. Speaking to RVA Mag about the issue of public officials making statements such as this, Agelasto said, “Before yesterday, I [was positive on her appointment], she was an enthusiastic volunteer and school board member, but after what she did yesterday, that’s not the approach I want on a board that’s supposed to be collaborative.” He added that the city needs people to eat at local restaurants to support the meals tax that is already in place, “I’m against any boycott at all.”

RVA Mag reached out to Menz-Erb for comment, but she has yet to respond.

Photo by Stop the RVA Meal Tax

Heated Over Proposed Meal Tax Hike, Restaurateurs Form Lobbying Group

Amy David | January 25, 2018

Topics: & Travel Association, Capital Ale House, City Council, F.W. Sullivan's, HofGarden, Jake Crocker, Lady N'awlins, Lodging, Matt Simmons, Mayor Levar Stoney, meals tax, meals tax hike, National Restaurant Assocation, Repeal the Meals tax, richmond public schools, Richmond Restaurant Alliance, richmond taxes, the Hof, Uptown Market & Deli, Virginia Restaurant

Richmond restaurateurs are heated once again, as the city has served up a proposal for yet another hike to meal taxes. And this time, restaurant owners have united to form a lobbyist group to fight back.

In his State of the City speech this week, Mayor Levar Stoney proposed raising Richmond’s meal tax to 7.5 percent to help renovate and repair Richmond City Public Schools, which would produce approximately $9.1 million a year and allow the city to borrow $150 million in new capital funding over the next five years.

Image may contain: 16 people, people smiling, people sitting — Mayor Stoney with students at Chimborazo Elementary School

“I do not relish the idea of imposing a higher tax on any of our residents or even our visitors. And I respect the concerns of our restaurateurs who are responsible for so much of the positive trends we’ve seen in our city,” Stoney said in his address. “I promise to be a committed champion for their success, and pledge that we will work with you to make it easier for you to grow and expand.”

But that burn of a meals tax increase is an all too familiar feeling for local restaurant owners. In 2003, the city tacked on an extra 1 percent, raising the meals tax from 5 to 6 percent to help pay for the construction of Centerstage. Once the performing arts center was built, the tax was supposed to be tossed, but it remained on after a 2006 City Council vote to be poured into Richmond’s general fund for “operational costs”.

Now, the new proposed 1.5 percent increase may not seem like much, but combined with the 5.3 percent state tax, the total tax would increase to 12.8 percent. To compare, Henrico collects a 4 percent tax, but surrounding counties, like Chesterfield, and Hanover, do not have a meals tax.

Restaurant owners, fed up with forking over hefty payments and shifting the costs to customers and in turn, hearing complaints, losing money, and some even losing business to the surrounding counties, are fighting back with a newly formed group, the Richmond Restaurant Alliance.

Jake Crocker, owner of F.W. Sullivan’s, Lady N’awlins, and Uptown Market & Deli rallied more than 30 people in the restaurant community this week to form the organization and talk about next steps to take on the proposed heighten tax.

“Every few years they target one specific industry, our politicians make promises to reduce the tax, and now they’ve reversed it,” Crocker said. “The current mayor has publicly and privately made those promises to a number of the restaurant owners, so we’re very disappointed that this was the ultimate solution.”

Owners from Richmond Restaurant Group, to Rueger Restaurant Group to Johnny Giavos, were in attendance, with the group representing over 100 restaurants in the area combined according to Crocker. Since the meeting, the newly-formed RRA organization has partnered with the Virginia Restaurant, Travel and Lodging Association (VRTLA), who will help push efforts forward.

“They’re committed, and they have fought this successfully in other localities including Fairfax County, so they’re going to be working with us,” he said. “They have expertise in the area from other initiatives in other parts of the states so we’re excited.”

Matt Simmons, owner of Capital Ae House and secretary of VRTLA, said his restaurant has been a member of the association for years and like most in the community, wants the schools to be improved, but doesn’t agree with the way the city is suggesting to get the money for the much-needed repairs.

“No one is arguing that our schools need to be fixed, but it’s absurd to target one industry to solve this or any issue,” he said. “Richmond has a vibrant restaurant scene and this would throw cold water on the good things that are now happening. We are meeting to discuss this issue and get the word out to city council members that taking the easy way out could hurt an industry that helps Richmond shine.”

The VRTLA, a political action committee for the aforementioned industries, organized a grassroots campaign in 2016 with the National Restaurant Association to help successfully defeat a proposed 4 percent meals tax increase in Fairfax County.

Crocker, who threw his political hat in the ring this year as a Libertarian candidate for the 69^th District, headed up a “Repeal the Meal Tax” campaign back in 2011 to urge the city to get rid of the Centerstage tax hike that was intended to be temporary.

And up until a few days ago, he, like many restaurant owners, was under the impression there was going to be a reduction in the taxes.

“The fact that all the restaurants are mobilizing to prevent an increase is unfathomable,” he said. “No one even had a taste of this. A few of the restaurant owners did meet with the mayor and expressed their concerns, and he still went ahead with it anyway. It’s frustrating because I’m a supporter…but a lot of the restaurant folks who rallied behind him are feeling hurt…it’s our livelihoods.”

Patrons are the ones that bear the brunt of the taxes getting collected, which Crocker said is an issue that regularly comes up at his Fan restaurants.

“Everyday you have a customer who points at that tax and confronts the server about it and demands to see a server or manager,” he said. “They think we’re gouging them and I’m like, ‘look I’m on your side, I don’t want to charge this tax.’ Especially at Lady N’awlins, I get a lot of people from around the region and the counties and they’re like, ‘what is this?’”

Often the customers that complain, then, in turn, take their frustration with the taxes out on the restaurants, which was one of the many common themes brought up at the RRA meeting according to Crocker.

“Many times, they will tip extremely low, or, this is the fun one, they’ll write ‘taxes’ on the tip line so they stiff the server,” he said. “Everybody (restaurant owners) had the same story.”

Simmons has Capital Ale House locations both inside the city, as well as Midlothian and Innsbrook, and he said customers from the counties are also steamed when they see those added taxes to their bill.

“Right now my customers pay 6 percent more for everything in Richmond than they do at our Midlothian location,” Simmons said. “When quoting prices for banquets and other events, people are shocked to find out taxes are 11.3 percent currently and will be even more shocked if that increases to 12.8 percent.”

Jimi Foster, Manager of The Daily Kitchen & Bar, part of the Richmond Restaurant Group which own several spots in town, said he’s constantly explaining the extra costs to out-of-towners and is not happy about the proposed tax hike.

“During the busy season, I have to explain the taxes to tourists multiple times a week. Think about that, I’m running a restaurant and hours of my life are spent explaining tax code to people from New York, that’s insane,” Foster said. “People that travel into the city from any other state are appalled at the tax rate. Last year, our restaurant alone paid well over a million in taxes, in addition to supporting local causes like the Feedmore food bank and Real Local RVA. What do we get in return? Bike races that hurt our business’ by almost 50 percent and a training camp filled with national restaurant chains. Now the city that has spent years mismanaging funds is asking restaurants and working-class Americans to pay 12 cents out of every dollar claiming that it’s for schools.”

Image may contain: people sitting, table and indoor — The Daily Kitchen & Bar

But, despite customers protesting the taxes, Crocker did address the heightened taxes on a meal will be a huge burden on low-income families and single parents working multiple jobs that need to eat out while they’re on the go with their children.

“There are families I heard from in the previous campaign, both working two jobs, single mom or dad, they’re shuffling between different shifts and they’ve got kids,” he said. “These lower-income families don’t have a stay at home member of the family and the kids have to eat and they’re often grabbing food on the fly, some are mom and pop owners themselves. Eating out is a necessity when you’re working two jobs and raising kids so it affects them.”

Foster chimed in on this as well, agreeing that it’s going to hurt the mom and pop restaurants and working-class residents of Richmond.

“The mayor is claiming that it’s ‘just a couple pennies’, but my two cents is that this will hurt him in the next election. The margin he won by is less than the profit margin of most restaurants,” he said. “I’m also almost always in support of taxing the wealthy to support our society, but this is a tax this will hit the working class consumer the hardest and restaurateurs that struggle with 15 percent profit margins so they can keep the doors open to employee thousands of people second.”

But it’s not just restaurant patrons that are left with a stomach ache when the bill arrives, Richmond restaurant owners are having to pay extra fees, and some have to hire employees to keep track of the taxes collected.

Crocker sends between $10,000 to $15,000 a month to the city for the meals tax, and beyond that, Richmond restaurants combined are paying about $25 million a year to the city for the meals tax alone.

“Everybody says it’s just a pass through, but you find me a restaurant that’s not struggling to keep up with it, and you’d be hard-pressed to find one that isn’t.”

Carter Snipes, who runs The Hofheimer Building and The HofGarden, is fairly new to the issue, but that’s been his biggest gripe.

“We’ve got to have separate bank accounts, we get charged fees on all those dollars coming in, we’re paying $1,000 a month to collect the city’s taxes, and we have to hire a bookkeeper and not only does it cost us money from the credit card processing to collect the money for the city, we also have to then, pay someone from our company to administer that whole process, and a lot of these restaurant owners are small business owners, they don’t have a bookkeeper. And that’s a huge deal, that’s a huge burden on these operators.”

And Foster said between all the Richmond Restaurant Group’s restaurants combined, the group is paying hundreds of thousands each month to the city for meals taxes, which has forced the group to make sacrifices at their establishments.

Image may contain: food — Pearl Raw Bar, part of Richmond Restaurant Group

“In order to deal with the increase in taxes, restaurants have to either raise prices or cut labor. So for a lot of places, in order to keep the lights on and still be competitive in the market you have to cut peoples hours back,” he said. “That means that people then have less disposable income to put back into the local economy, so less people go out to restaurants, so you cut back on labor even more, then quality goes down and business’ close. I’m just not sure what this city and state seem to have against local business’ and why they always seem to push and promote outside business over the welfare of its residents and voters.”

Snipes brought up the referendum on the ballot this past November, which stated that the mayor had to come up with a plan within six months of the election to repair and fund the schools without tax increases, and 85 percent of voters approved it.

“In my opinion, they haven’t done the first step, which is to offer the plan or say it can’t be done, and they came out with this tax increase,” Snipes said. “But the referendum specifically said a plan without tax increases.”

A recent Richmond Times-Dispatch article broke down some of the city’s spending courtesy of reports from Virginia’s Auditor of Public Accounts. According to those reports, Richmond is spending more per capita on administrative costs ($381.80), public safety ($822) and health ($823) than the state averages for each. However, when it came to education, the city spends $1,511 per capita, which is less than the state average.

But Snipes, who has two children in grade school, along with Crocker, and the majority of the restaurant community stressed that they are in favor of supporting and rehabilitating the schools, but that the city needs to come up with a better way to reduce expenses and overhead.

“I’m fully 100 percent in support of the schools, but I think this particular proposal is not the best or most efficient proposal to solve the problem,” Snipes said. “I think most people would be fine with tax increases if the city showed some goodwill and find some savings in the budget.”

He suggested breaking up taxes to a few industries equally across the board.

“There a should be a quarter percent tax on real estate, a quarter percent tax on meals, a quarter percent tax on hotels, and everyone shares that burden because it’s something we need to do for the community at large. It’s totally unfair to single out this one industry that has nothing to do with schools.”

Crocker had a similar suggestion for the city to implement retail taxes to help spread out some of the burdens.

“You put a 1 percent tax across the city on retail, grocery stores, bookstores, shoe stores, and restaurants, you’re going to get a hell of a lot more money than just restaurants,” he said.

The money that was given to Stone Brewing ($31 million) and the construction of the Redskins Training Center ($10 million) were also factors that Crocker pointed to as money that could have been diverted to the schools.

Simmons, on the other hand, said taxing an untapped resource like local vacation and apartment rentals would be a good source to generate revenue.

“The city is not taking advantage of new legislation that allows them to collect taxes on the many Airbnb properties in the city,” he said. “That’s a start that would bring in funds and level the playing field with the area hotels who do collect and pay taxes. An across the board sales tax increase on every purchase in the city would be much fairer than targeting restaurants.”

Richmond Restaurant Alliance will hold their next meeting on Tuesday, and no matter where you land on the issue, Crocker said the restaurant owners are going to take action very soon.

“We’ve got some initiatives in the works, we’re going to be heard and it’s not just going to be Jake Crocker speaking up, its everybody,” he said. “We will not be cannon fodder for the ambitions of politicians, we’re not going to be put on the frontlines, so they can achieve their goal.”