Is Danny Avula the Right Mayor for Richmond? Part II

 Is Danny Avula Listening to Richmond?

Code Refresh and the Richmond Coliseum raise the same fundamental question: Can public input actually change City Hall's direction?

Mayor Danny Avula says Richmond's Code Refresh process has been an exercise in listening.

That's his assessment.

Richmonders can judge the record for themselves.

Because the real test of listening isn't how many meetings City Hall holds, how many surveys it collects or how many times officials use the word engagement.

The test is whether public concern can actually change the decision, the timetable or the direction.

Code Refresh is putting that question squarely in front of Richmond.

So is the Richmond Coliseum.

Code Refresh Is Bigger Than a Zoning Amendment

Richmond isn't tweaking a few zoning regulations.

Code Refresh is the city's first comprehensive zoning rewrite since 1976. It involves developing new zoning categories and ultimately applying them across Richmond. The city argues the rewrite could expand housing opportunities, encourage walkability and help address affordability.

Those are serious objectives.

And precisely because the stakes are so high, Richmond should get this right.

This is a generational decision.

So why should speed be treated as success?

Avula Says City Hall Has Listened

There is evidence supporting Avula's argument.

His administration has held extensive public engagement, and the proposal has changed. Draft Three backed away from some controversial elements of earlier versions, including the broader duplex proposal.

Avula has described those revisions as evidence of “listening well.”

That matters.

But it doesn't end the conversation.

Because there's a difference between:

“We heard you and changed our proposal.”

and:

“We heard you and are willing to reconsider our timetable or direction.”

That's where Code Refresh becomes a test of Avula's leadership style.

Why October 13?

Draft Three wasn't released until August.

Yet Avula is pushing the process toward adoption this fall, with October 13 being discussed as a target adoption date.

Why?

If Richmond needs another three months to examine the proposal, what exactly is lost?

What about six months?

Richmond won't stop growing. 

Its housing challenges won't disappear, but neither will they magically be solved October 14.

Meanwhile, some residents and neighborhood organizations continue raising concerns, and petition efforts have sought greater public influence.

Petitions don't prove Code Refresh is wrong.

They prove the disagreement is real.

And when citizens move beyond comments at public meetings and begin organizing petitions, City Hall should at least consider whether the issue isn't simply communication.

Maybe some residents understand the proposal perfectly well.

Maybe they disagree.

Listening Sometimes Means Slowing Down

This is where Avula risks appearing tone deaf to residents asking City Hall to slow the process.

That doesn't mean he hasn't listened at all. 

The record shows extensive engagement and changes to the proposal.

But public engagement can't simply mean:

We'll listen until it's time to proceed.

Sometimes listening means changing a provision.

Sometimes it means changing the timetable.

Sometimes it means taking another look at the entire approach.

Speed isn't competence.

If Code Refresh is strong policy, additional scrutiny shouldn't threaten it.

October 13 is a date.

It isn't a reason.

Then Look at the Coliseum

The same question about listening appears in an entirely different City Hall debate.

The Richmond Coliseum has been closed since 2019. 

Avula didn't close it, and the current administration didn't create the years of uncertainty surrounding the property.

But his administration is now moving toward demolition.

That makes the decision his administration's responsibility too.

The issue isn't whether everyone agrees the Coliseum should be saved.

They don't.

The issue is whether Richmond has adequately tested the alternatives before making an irreversible decision.

Where was the standalone competitive RFP for the Coliseum?

Where was the open invitation to arena operators, developers, entertainment companies and private investors to tell Richmond whether renovation, adaptive reuse or private redevelopment could work?

Maybe nobody would submit a financially credible proposal.

Fine.

Then prove it.

Issue the RFP.

Test the market.

Put the responses in front of the public.

Then make the decision.

Demolition Is Different

This distinction matters.

Code Refresh can be amended.

A development agreement can be renegotiated.

Plans can be revised.

A demolished Coliseum cannot be reconsidered.

That's why the standard for public scrutiny should be higher, not lower.

The Commonwealth has provided $15 million specifically to support demolition, and Avula's administration has been working toward taking the building down.

But having money available for demolition doesn't answer the underlying policy question:

Is demolition the best use of the asset?

And it certainly doesn't establish that the private market has no interest in another use.

Only testing that market can begin answering that question.

Where Was the Public Decision?

The Coliseum also raises an uncomfortable public-engagement question.

Richmonders never participated in a citywide public process specifically asking whether the Coliseum should be closed.

They haven't been presented with the results of a standalone Coliseum RFP comparing demolition against renovation, reuse or private investment because no such standalone competitive process has been conducted.

Yet the city is moving toward the most irreversible option.

That doesn't prove demolition is wrong.

It means Richmond deserves to see the case for demolition tested against alternatives before the wrecking equipment arrives.

If public engagement matters for determining what can be built throughout Richmond under Code Refresh, shouldn't it also matter before Richmond destroys a major public asset?

Two Issues. The Same Question.

Code Refresh and the Coliseum are very different policy questions.

One concerns Richmond's future zoning.

The other concerns the future of a downtown public asset.

But they expose the same tension.

With Code Refresh, some residents are saying:

Slow down.

With the Coliseum, some residents are saying:

Before you tear it down, prove there isn't another option.

Neither demand requires City Hall to agree.

That's important.

Listening doesn't mean citizens automatically get their way.

It means their concerns have a genuine opportunity to affect what happens next.

Public Engagement or Public Acceptance?

City Hall can hold meetings.

It can publish presentations.

It can collect thousands of comments.

It can create websites, FAQs and interactive maps.

All of that has value.

But none of it answers the most important question:

Does public input actually have power?

Can it change a proposal?

Can it change a timetable?

Can it trigger additional analysis?

Can it produce an RFP?

Can it cause City Hall to reconsider an assumption?

And, if the evidence warrants it, can it change the final decision?

Those questions mark the difference between public engagement and simply seeking public acceptance.

Listening Means Being Willing to Change Course

Avula believes Code Refresh is important to Richmond's future. He has every right to make that case.

His administration may also ultimately conclude that demolishing the Coliseum is Richmond's best option.

But neither conclusion should be protected from additional scrutiny.

October 13 isn't more important than getting Code Refresh right.

And a demolition timetable isn't more important than determining whether the Coliseum has another economically viable future.

Test the zoning proposal.

Listen to the neighborhoods.

Test the Coliseum market.

Show Richmond the results.

Then decide.

Part I asked:

Is Danny Avula the right mayor for Richmond?

Part II asks something more specific:

Is Danny Avula really listening to Richmond, or is City Hall listening only until it's time to move forward?

Sometimes citizens aren't confused.

Sometimes they simply disagree.

And sometimes the most meaningful evidence that government is listening isn't another public meeting.

It's what government is willing to change after the meeting is over.

Brian K. Telfair
Publisher & Editor | The Richmond Chronicle

Independent commentary and investigative analysis on Richmond government, public spending, economic development, and the decisions shaping the city’s future.

The Richmond Chronicle
Asking the questions City Hall would rather not answer.