Good morning, RVA! It's 35 °F, and I swear to you there is snow on the ground as I type this sentence. Yesterday, it was unseasonably warm with temperatures in the mid 60s; this morning, a winter wonderland; and this afternoon somewhere in between with sunshine and highs near 50 °F. I know my whole bit is “ahhh climate change!”, but the weather over the last 24 hours has me really confused!
Water cooler
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the companies brought in by cities and counties to run gun buyback programs often do not destroy the firearms but instead sell them for parts so folks can make more guns. This is grim: “Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required...” I really, really want to know more about the ultimate fate of the guns turned over as part of Richmond’s own gun buyback program. The intent was to have “artists melt the firearms down to create a sculpture for the city,” but, after reading this NYT piece, I wonder if that’s actually happening. Unfortunately, it’s not always clear, even to organizations partnering in the buyback: “The Rev. Chris Yaw, whose Episcopal church outside Detroit has sponsored buybacks with local officials, said in an interview that he was ‘aghast and appalled’ when told by a reporter how the process works. ‘It tells me that our society is set up really well for buying and selling guns,’ he said, ‘but it’s not set up very well for disposing of them.’”
Related, David Ress at the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on House Bill 12, submitted by Almost-A-Delegate Mike Jones, that would “make it a misdemeanor, subject to up to 12 months in jail, for any firearm dealer, manufacturer or importer to sell or transfer a handgun to individuals without also providing a locking device.” First, I still appreciate these tiny, micro steps forward on gun safety legislation—we should try to pass whatever’s possible until our current gun-worshiping Supreme Court says otherwise. Second, I have no idea what this coming General Assembly session will look like as Democrats control both houses but still need the Governor to sign off on everything. Third, it’s interesting to see what priorities Councilmember-For-At-Least-A-Little-While-Longer Jones will bring with him to the General Assembly. And remember: Don’t get too attached to these early, showy bills—reams of legislation die quick and quiet deaths every day in the GA.
Late last week, Style Weekly—once indie alternative mag, then part of a random corporate conglomerate’s portfolio, now owned by VPM—launched a new, good-looking website and some plans for fresh content. Style’s Brent Baldwin has a letter to readers explaining the changes and what folks can expect moving forward, and, if you’d like a 3rd-party take, you can read this coverage of Style’s launch party by Richmond BizSense’s Jonathan Spiers.
Today, full City Council meets for the last time in 2023, and you can see their full agenda here. As you might expect, and as you might see in your own worklife, Council has pushed a bunch of stuff to next year because the remaining part of December is basically fake anyway. They will, however, consider ORD. 2023-331 (tweaking the Urban Forestry Commission), ORD. 2023-332 (giving the City a bit more time to submit their budget), and RES. 2023-R057 (the mostly administrative changes to the City’s Charter). That last one sits on the Regular Agenda, so expect at least a little bit of discussion. Theoretically, Council’s committees have regularly scheduled meetings over the next couple of weeks, but we’ll see. The Public Safety and Education and Human Services committees have both already thrown in the towel, and I expect others to follow suit!
Thanks to Axios Richmond’s Ned Oliver for pointing me towards this charming interview in Richmond Magazine with Joe’s Inn’s kitchen manager (by Eileen Mellon).
This morning's longread
Her Online Sex Life Was Exposed. She Lost Her Election. Now She’s Speaking Out.
Politico sat down with Susanna Gibson and talks about her election and how our internet privacy laws lack the sophistication needed to adequately protect people. I needed to be reminded that, yes, while “a Republican operative” shopped around a sexually explicit video of Gibson (without her consent), it was the Washington Post who agreed to run with the story (again, without her consent). This was a good interview, and am glad she agreed to do it.
I want everyone to stop for a second and take a step back from this particular story and take more of a long-lens view of what actually happened in the way this Post article was written. A political operative found sexually explicit videos of a young woman running for office that she never knew existed — and we made that pretty clear in our statement — and shopped them around to various news outlets, trying to get them published to humiliate, intimidate, coerce, harass this woman, and with the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election that very well could have been the majority maker or breaker for the House. There are legal experts who argue that this is a violation of federal and state laws: possession of illegal pornography, dissemination of illegal pornography across state lines, violating revenge porn laws. But the way our nation more ultimately interprets that and reads that story, it’s the young woman that’s nationally blamed, shamed, harassed, bullied, threatened, all of the above
If you’d like to suggest a longread to show up here, go chip in a couple bucks on the ol’ Patreon.
Picture of the Day
I candied oranges for the first time and the results were amazing! They tasted like...candy?? Who knew!
