This is coming to pass in Richmond. We have already had two citizen elected mayors from the ranks of the boule, the buses have been changed to suit the planners and not the citizens, the planners are changing certain people from one place to the other and black people are always discriminated against. This is institutional racism at its very worse. These people sit down with our elected officials and planners and set black communities up to fail and then rob us of our real estate properties. That is not gentrification. That is a planned felony.
From: L. Shirley Harvey
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 12:17 AM
To: L. Shirley Harvey
Is the year 2020 PLAN just a scenario or a diabolical and cleverly disguised intentional way to Control and remove black people from certain areas?
Richmond First Club's (now Venture Richmond) Vision for Richmond, VA
From November 2002 Edition of THE RICHMOND RADIANT LIGHT NEWSPAPER
In the early 1990's the Richmond First Club put for their idea of what Richmond would be like by the year 2020. It is rather odd that the people who participated in the exercise in thought did not include the people who would be most affected (the Negroes). Some of those involved were Constance Chamberlain, Barbara Fuhrmann, Margot Garcia, Thomas Jacobson and others who were also helped by the Richmond Times Dispatch which will often look the other way when truth is required. This group is composed of prominent blacks and well-to-do whites who always have their suggestions heard and often implemented. In essence, it is the rich white people and the Boule. Most black people still to this day have no idea that plans have been made against them. The Vision 2020 Task Force was made up of Mary Tyler Freeman Cheek of the Times Dispatch, Honorary Chairman, Daniel Arkin. Chairman, Anna Lou Aaroe, Co chairman, Barbara Fuhrmann, Scenarios Chairman.Richard T. Grainger, Rayfor I. Harris, Sr., John G. Lewis, Jr., H. Jack Parry, and Melody Stone.
The first question is "why these people thought it necessary to decide and share their opinions of Richmond. What were they really trying to do? These are people who decide how things will be done in Richmond. Is this happening in other cities just because they have the money and power.
One particular scenario was quite disturbing. It was so for the most part because someone had these kinds of thoughts in their heads. The scenario is entitled The Triumph of Self-Interest: A Divided Society". Now why would they call this vision a triumph and why would there be such notables as part of the discussion? The scenarios have been embraced and documented by the records of the Virginia Assembly. This is folliwing is the verbiage used for the scenario with added comments of my own.
It began with fences, enclosed communities and bumper stickers extolling the virtues enclosed communities and bumper stickers extolling the virtues of one area over another. Economic conditions deteriorated and disparities grew. The fences became walls. Gradually (sneakily)
areas of economic blight (Richmond Master Plan decided by the Richmond Renaissance). By the year 2000, Richmond was in terminal decline. The tax base had been shrinking as residents and business development moved to the counties. Unemployment, drug use, crack babies and unwed mothers taxed available resources. The problems of the underclass were mammoth.
The surrounding counties, faced with problems of their own, were unwilling to assist the city. Residents rejected the idea that the problems of
society were a shared responsibility (Virginia won't let Richmond annex or pay Richmond for not doing it.) As government costs a
taxpayer revolt was building. A conservative block of citizens from across central Virginia rallied strong support for a new government based on the "desires of the voters" or the Richmond First Club. Voters were defined in Jeffersonian terms, educated landowners who required a citizenship test. In 2003, the Federation of Central was established, subsuming all previous governmental functions in Richmond, Henrico, portions of Hanover, Goochland, Powhatan, Charles City (where Wilder lives), and New Kent. The New Federation operated by referendum (Mayor elected at large) with voters participating in this process through telecommunications. Public services were privatized with a subsistence level provided. Additional education, health care, etc. would be purchased by those who could afford them. Voters refused to fund many functions and programs to assist those of low income and they were dismantled.
Residents are divided into two separate societies. The dominant community consists of educated landowning voters and their families who live in the suburbs. The underclass lives in the aging urban core encircled by walls and other barriers and in similar pockets of poverty scattered throughout the region. The districts in which non-voting residents live in are called "holes."
In response to the voters' desire to contain the movements of hole people, travel restrictions have been introduced. Citizens of the region are required to carry universal identity cards with medical, financial, and security information. Sensors have been added to the cards so they can be automatically checked and tracked. (Did they finally enlarge the bus system for this purpose). While the region in its entirety may appear to prosper, the Federation of Central Virginia has successfully completed the division of society into the "haves" and "have nots."
This scenario is unconscionable and proves that there are many in and around the Richmond area who hate black people including other black people. As long as hate abounds and is readily accepted, discrimination will continue just because it can.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
JOHN MARSHALL COURTS BUILDING
CITY OF RICHMOND.
V: Case No: CL20- 1628-7
SERVE: 1805 Stegge Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23224
(City of Richmond)
GLORIA P. ARRINGTON
SERVE: Address Uknown
Any heirs, devisees or successors
In title, collectively made Respondents
COMES NOW, Shirley Harvey, Respondent, who states
1. Respondent, Shirley Harvey, is sole owner of property at 314 Preston Street, Richmond, Virginia which is situated between 312 Preston Street and 316 Preston Street and abuts Preston Street on front side through to abut Bates Street on the back side.
2. Respondent is well acquainted with the administrative process which should be followed regarding receipt of payments. Respondent is an accountant who worked for IBM relating to expenses, costing parts and products, reconciling bank accounts, costing and keeping track of assets and determining errors in receipts and disbursements. Respondent also worked as an investigator for the Virginia Department of Consumer Affairs to assure that our Virginia citizens were not cheated or scammed by unscrupulous persons and organizations. As an accountant for the State of Virginia, Respondent devised and implemented the cost accounting system for Correction Enterprises. Respondent was also a member of Richmond Virginia’s City Council who is aware of unscrupulous activity in Richmond city government where taxpayer funds have been misused.
3. Respondent does not owe the balance of $10,668.72 and states that a credit balance should be noted on her behalf. When Respondent has previously requested an accounting statement from collectors and Plaintiff for the last eight years concerning 314 Preston Street, the request is ignored. The accounting statement should show the debits (taxes, interest and rate plus penalty and rate creating the liability to the taxpayer) and credits (payments by owner and any corrections entered by the Plaintiff). Posting a figure with no explanation of the entries is not accountable to the process. The Plaintiff nor the collectors (Michael Ballato and/or Chambliss and Harrell) will provide this information. Therefore, the amount that is stated as owed cannot be verified. In order that a debt can be established, a proper statement must be presented. Respondent has found that payments made were not credited to her account; thereby lessening the amount of funds for use by the City of Richmond as well. Respondent relates the probability that many Richmonders have been robbed of their payments and many may have lost their properties as a result. Over the past few years Richmond’s financial security seems to be less than required. An investigation by the Department of Justice in Washington, DC is greatly warranted and those in charge should be held responsible for their lack of accountability and care with city funds.
4. Initially, the City Fire Department declared the building unsafe due to the fire next door at 316 Preston. It is possible that this fire was started by city employees. Only light smoke was coming into the kitchen area of 314 Preston Street without any flames. When Respondent checked the building while the fire department was there on that night of the fire, no inside damage was found. The Richmond City Fire Department informed the Respondent that the house had to be torn down in two days and all debris removed. If not, the City of Richmond would tear it down. The house was torn down two days later by Pryor Salvage from a fund already established for set aside payments. One day later the owner of the house that burned and caused damage to Respondent’s property called Respondent and asked to buy her property. There are other points not stated here that should be reviewed for investigation.
5. Plaintiff and collectors for the Plaintiff have repeatedly been asked for an accurate accounting statement for more than a period of eight years. The requests are ignored.
6. Respondent has brought these errors made by the collectors and the Plaintiff to the attention of many government agencies in order that the records be corrected and the citizens be treated fairly. Many Negroes have found themselves in situations where due to less than thriving economies and/or age, they find it difficult to pay the tax and much less the penalties and interest. However, the City of Richmond sends accounts to the collector immediately after due date has passed without an attempt to collect by the City’s Finance Department where there are many employees. Without the authority of the city, the collector can then do whatever is desired with funds that are collected including making no payments to the city of Richmond on behalf of the taxpayer.
7. The properties on Preston Street were/are very valuable and historic for Richmond due to this area being the real Jackson Ward where Bogangles and prominent Negroes lived. What is known now as Jackson Ward is really Clay Ward. Many of these properties in this one block have been torn down because of the lack of care and lack of preservation programs and funds provided for this area by the City. The zoning is changing so that apartment buildings can be included. However, most Negroes have lost their properties and will not share in the prosperity that will come to this neighborhood. The City has been derelict in its duty to assure care for the rights of all its citizens. This is a type of hate crime.
8. Respondent has notified many governmental agencies and personnel for help in this matter in because many of Richmond’s Negro citizens have had their properties willfully taken over by the City to help greedy investors buy at a lower price, to cheat the taxpayer for funds they have paid to reduce their tax liability and to help the investors with no tax payments for ten years. The Respondent is requesting the Richmond Circuit Court to request that William Barr of the Justice Department to investigate this matter as well as make President Trump aware of it. This is happening to many black families where many call it gentrification when robbery is the proper name for what is happening.
9. During the whole period of time since someone else caused the Respondent’s property to be damaged the Respondent has notified the mayors and other leaders of the city but without response. They are
a. Byron Marshall, former CAO who soon after resigned, was provided $400,000 severance pay b. Sharon Judkins, resigned soon after Respondent’s concerns were voiced. Ms. Judkins was given $400,000 for severance pay
c. Umesh Dalal, Auditor, was fired by Richmond City Council after informing me that he believedthere was in fact, a problem with not only the Respondent’s account and others. He was paid $400,000 for severance pay and is now an auditor in Texas.
d. Michael Irvins, finance manager, who within a year or so of Respondent’s complaints resigned his position.
e. Allen Jackson, City Attorney, resigned soon after Respondent wrote to him concerning this matter.
f. Michael Herring, elected Commonwealth Attorney, resigned with two years left as commonwealth attorney soon after Respondent wrote to him concerning this matter.
g. All members of Richmond City Council to include Stephanie Lynch, Michael Jones, Andreas Addison, Kimberly Gray, Cynthia Newbill, Ellen Robertson, Chris Hilbert, Kristen Larson, Reva Trammell, Dwight Jones, Charles Samuel, Katherine Graziano, Jonathan Baliles, Parker Agelasto, and Michelle Mosby have not responded to my letters or even discuss this matter. Members of Council have authority to conduct an investigation.
h. The Respondent has sent letters of concern with explanation to the Treasurer of Richmond, the Governor, the Attorney General, State Delegates and Senators and months ago to Chief Judge Joi Jeter Taylor of the Circuit Court of Richmond, Virginia without response. The whole matter needs to be investigated for the safety of the citizens of Richmond and other localities. This cannot be an isolated incident. If a citizen is not well versed in administrative processed, he/she could be easily cheated.
i. In addition, Respondent has also sent letters to the Richmond and Washington FBI’s (who could be investigating) and legislators as well as the ACLJ, other investigative organizations and the President.
j. Theft of citizen/government funds by some criminals in and working with city government is a crime that should be exposed to the public and properly stated as a criminal offense (robbery. The Richmond City Attorney’s Office may well be involved in these thefts and should not be handling these cases. Since there is a great possibility that many are involved in these crimes and a conspiracy is the only way that this opportunity for criminals can thrive, the Justice Department, Washington, DC, is the only agency that should investigate this matter. Therefore, Respondent is requesting Chief Judge to report these crimes to the Justice Department and ask for investigative and prosecutorial help.
From: Dalal, Umesh V. - Auditor
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:49 PM
To: L. Shirley Harvey
Subsequent to complaints from you and other citizens, we had launched an audit of assessment and collection of several types of taxes. However, although the law provides a mechanism to conduct audit, the Finance Department has resisted the audit.
Wed 10/17/2012 8:08 PM
Kalafatis, Christopher P. - Audit Christopher.Kalafatis@richmondgov.com
to me, lshirleyharvey, Umesh
Tracy indicated you requested a written response about what you discussed on the phone with Umesh. This email serves as that written response. The City Attorney’s Office has determined that we do not have jurisdiction to investigate your complaint.
Chris Kalafatis, CPA, CFE
City of Richmond Auditor's Office