Laurels for the Haven
-
Photographed March 30 at 4:36pm.hawes spencer
The Board of Architectural Review will decide at its next meeting, Tuesday, April 17, whether a new hedge of laurel at the Haven, the downtown day shelter, can remain.
(An early online version of this sentence misidentified the type of laurel. A sharp-eyed reader indicates that these are Otto Luyken laurels.)
Read more on: The Haven day shelter
20 comments
A good, drought-tolerent shrub.
Why would this even be an issue for review. What's the problem ?
That is not Mountain Laurel.
Hawes:
The plants you show are "Otto Luyken" laurels (Prunus laurocerasus) -- a variety of English laurel -- not mountain laurels (Kalmia latifolia).Mountain laurels could never survive such a situation.
Thanks, Antoinette!--hawes
Shrubbery should be reviewed, in my opinion, just the same as wall textures, colors, and proportions of any elements.
Ant., they might be Pr. Lauro. Otto L., but there's no way to know. Most nurseries and garden centers, especially Meadows Farms-types, sell their Cherry Laurels as Otto L's, knowing that they are not. Often sold with complimentary root weevils and bagworm.
It's possible, I suppose, that the plants in the picture are Prunus laurus Schipkaensis -- a sort of cherry laurel that most people (both pros and amateurs) seem to shorten to "Skip laurels" these days. But I don't think so because those have lighter green leaves and a more vertical habit than Otto Luykens. And neither remotely resembles Kalmia latifolia, the native mountain laurel.
As for vendors selling and "installing" (a more appropriate word than planting when you watch it done) inferior and/or compromised (infested, infected, root-bound, ad inf.) plants, entirely too many do that. But that problem can be avoided if buyers just look as closely at the plants as they do at the prices.
So the architectual review board will decide whether the shrubs are in tune with Mr Jeffersons vision of what a homeless shelter would have looked like in 1800?
I guess they are bored with Trader Joes and want to harrass non profits now.
how about fixing the BELMONT BRIDGE?
This will be a welcome addition to downtown, hopefully these shrubs will grow quickly in an effort to spare me the view of Charlottesville's elite which congregate in that area.
Your poor eyes.
This is quite comical. The ARB is spending time dealing with shrubs outside the 21st Century's version of an asylum, a city councilor is spending time dealing with historical statues, and the mayor was spending time courting bums in Lee Park all last fall. In the meantime, the city manager cries poor mouth, people are leaving the city to move to the county, and an increasing drug problem pervades our town.
This is classic liberalism for all to see...it has predictable outcomes:
1. Taxpaying, productive citizens move out to be around other taxpaying, productive citizens.
2. The cost of babysitting nonproductive citizens begins to empty city coffers.
3. Councilors attempt other tax schemes.
4. They do not work, so businesses start getting hit with higher taxes.
5. More productive entities move out.
6. More shortfalls...and more crafty tax schemes: more meal taxes, etc. Libs still don't get it: for discretionary products, when you increase prices (i.e., taxes), demand falls. You do not get the revenue increase.
7. City goes bankrupt: crime increases, unemployment spikes, etc.
Philly, Detroit, DC, St. Louis...the grand Johnsonian experiment is a 50 year failure. Can't wait to see that new complex completed at 29 and Hydraulic (on the county side!).
R.I.P.: Dick Dilworth
"Libs still don't get it: for discretionary products, when you increase prices (i.e., taxes), demand falls. You do not get the revenue increase."
I don't think you get. By this logic, all businesses should charge $0 for their products, in order to maximize demand. If they were to charge anything higher than nothing, the demand would certainly fall and "you do not get the revenue increase."
However, the fact that most businesses charge for their products tells me that they are willing to see a drop in demand in order to capture some of the benefits of providing the service. That way, they get to stay in business.
That (New Reality) is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.
All brought to you by your friendly neighborhood politicians. I've always wondered how many politicians have off shore bank accounts?
One more time, Ant., these shrubs MIGHT BE P. laurocerasus Schipkaensis, but there's no way anyone, not the world's Prunus authority or even me, could possibly identify the variety of these cherry laurels from that photo,...or any photo of this specimen.
And for the rest of you clowns, I expect you have nice gardens of Nandina and "Southern" magnolia surrounding your red clay brick homes.
Are the kind folks over at the ARB paid for wasting time and tax dollars? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a good long time.
"So the architectual review board will decide whether the shrubs are in tune with Mr Jeffersons vision of what a homeless shelter would have looked like in 1800?"
Go Bill! Ain't it the truth?
New Reality...what? A business does not want to maximize demand, they want to maximize profit. It does me know good if 1,000 people come into my store for 1 cent ice cream cones if it costs me 5 cents per cone, right?
While one might not consider the "products" (services) provided by the city as discretionary, the outflux of people who can afford to move out of cities doing so suggests that there is some elasticity in price. The city raises the cost of these things, people leave, demand falls. Then the only consumers left are those for whom these services are not discretionary; i.e., those loads sitting outside Le Haven. Now, where do we get the money for them?
R.I.P.: LBJ
@ Liberalace...LOVE that logic! Sweet!
Glad, liberalace, that you understand the need for a business to make a profit. That's a start, and we can work on government from there. It's really very similar.
You say "the city raises the cost of these things, people leave, demand falls." Well sure, just like when I raise the cost of my ice cream. But the city also needs to generate enough revenue to cover the costs of its services, so they want to set the tax rate such that the marginal utility of an increase would not be outweighed by any loss in tax base. In other words, there's a sweet spot.
It's simply not true that any increase in tax will result in a loss of revenue. No credible economist would suggest this, just like no businessperson would say that any increase in the price of my ice cream will reduce my profit margin. It's a silly thing to say.