The I Love CVille Show With Jerry Miller! - Jerry Cox, Managing Director, Forerunner Foundation; Judge Asks For New Info From CVille On Zoning

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

The I Love CVille Show headlines: Jerry Cox, Managing Director, Forerunner Foundation Judge Worrell Asks For New Info From CVille On Zoning In Layman’s Terms, What New Info Does Judge Want? Did CVille Sufficiently Coordinate Planning With VDOT? What Is Plaintiff’s Argument? What Is City’s Argument? Are Virginia Dems Going To Clean UVA BOV House? 4K Biz Licences In City, 11K Biz Licenses In AlbCo Exec Offices For Rent ($350 – $2000), Contact Jerry Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air Jerry Cox, Managing Director of The Forerunner Foundation, joined me live on The I Love CVille Show! The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible, Rumble and iLoveCVille.com.

Welcome to the I Love Seville Show. My name is Jerry Miller. Thank you kindly for joining us on a Thursday afternoon in downtown Charlottesville. We're live in our studio, in our building, the Macklead Building, where we host content that is local to Charlottesville, Almore County, and Central Virginia. We try to relay what we think is important in this community to you, the viewer and listener, and the most approachable way. possible. And in 25, 2025, that approachability is through the screens that are in your hands all the time. We put the content on every social media platform possible, every podcasting platform possible. We try to do it in layman's perspective, and then we encourage you,

the viewer and listener, to ask questions and to help figure things out with us in real time. Today's program is going to be a perfect example of that. We'll welcome Jerry Cox to the program. You will see him in about two minutes. This gentleman has been following a lawsuit that has been front and center in the headlines for an extended period of time here in central Virginia. And we have more developments with the new zoning ordinance yesterday with a judge who is requesting more information. That story in a matter of moments for you on the I Love Seville show. We will also talk on the show. Cree Deeds is on the record quotes to the daily progress in today's news.

outlet. Today's newspaper. Earlier this week, we highlighted a source of the show that was as close to the BOV as possible, basically breaking down what Cree Deeds was doing in regards to Jim Ryan's resignation. I had his approval to read verbatim the text message he sent me, which was about three paragraphs of analysis, on the condition that I did not utilize his name. The three paragraphs I read earlier this week on the I Love Seville show analyzed what Creed's was doing with his investigation with the Board of Visitors and their role with Jim Ryan's resignation. 46 questions Creeze asked of the rector and vice rector with an August 15th deadline,

which is tomorrow. After the show earlier this week, Cree Deeds decided before his August 15th deadline to talk to the newspaper and he offered commentary. that was almost verbatim what we talked about earlier in the week with the I Love Sevo Show Insider. Judah Wickhauer, I want to give some love

to Charlottesville Sanitary Supply. Fantastic partner of the show on East High Street online at Charlesful Sanitary Supply.com. The Vermilions are the owners of Charlestful Sanitary Supply, five generations in Almaro County and three generations of business owners

at Charlottesfell Sanitary Supply, locally owned and operated. Ladies and gentlemen, support the businesses that make the community a better place. I think, Judah Wickhauer, we are ready to welcome Jerry Cox to the show. I will start with first the introduction. Jerry, if you could, first, thank you for joining us.

Absolutely. Introduce yourself, again, for the few that don't know you, because I think you're becoming a household name. You're a reference point for Hall Spencer and the Daily Progress. Multiple rodeos here on the I Love Seville show. Introduce yourself to the viewers and listeners, please. Okay. Thank you again for having me back.

I'll start with the same disclaimer, and that is, I am not a counsel to any of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit we're going to be talking about or any other lawsuit that's going on here in town. I'm just a commentator like you, and I'm studying this stuff from the perspective of a lawyer, but I think there are things that you don't have to be a lawyer to understand, and that is this whole YIMB movement with all the insanely radical zoning ordinances is a nationwide thing. I mean, it started in Arlington. It's now in Charlottesville, but everybody in Virginia is going to be facing this, as well as other parts of the country, so they'd better be ready for it. And Charlottesville's in the eye of the storm. It is in the eye of the storm, but there are two really basic facts about what's happened in Virginia so far. Fact number one is that the Arlington zoning ordinance, the new zoning ordinance,

that had all these radical changes in it that tried to get rid of single-family zoning and so forth, as it sits right now. It is void. And in Charlottesville, exactly the same story. The ordinance is void, even though it may be the 22nd of August before we have a final order. The judge mentioned yesterday that he has that, and he wondered aloud why it took so long for him to get it. I can explain that because I know what the reason was for that. But the only reason that those ordinances are void is because brave citizens, you know, residents of those two locations.

had the courage to stand up and sue and manage to get enough people concerned about it to raise the money to pay attorneys to fight it. I mean, attorneys generally don't do things for their health. I'm doing this not so much for my health, but just out of my conscience. But it costs money to do that. And so they've shown a great deal of courage. So the city council, and one of the reasons I think they're going to need the courage going forward, is the attitude that the city council has expressed. to their own citizens through their own, through their lawyers,

both the outside counsel, Gentry Locke, and through the city's lawyers. And the first bad attitude is the attitude that Gentrylock and the city took, which is, well, just because they filed a complaint, we don't need to file an answer, do we? Well, you know, you've got a law school up the road here, and you're going to have first-year students are going to know the answer to that question here in about two weeks. You know, it's like the first thing in civil procedure,

and so that shouldn't be a shock to the city's lawyers. as I said, whether they're in-house or whether they're outside. You do have to file a timely answer. And as I said on the show last time, if you don't do that, the judge has discretion to enter a default judgment and you lose. And in this case, the city lost and the plaintiffs won. And that's why the ordinance is void. So let me jump in here. So the city has been without stable counsel in place.

It's been a turnstile with the city attorney. As a result, they outsourced the responsibilities to a third-party law firm. gentry lock is not cheap they are a specialist in this zoning world they missed a filing deadline they came a hat in hand on bended knee maya culpa basically begging the judge for forgiveness the judge this happened what yesterday yes the judge yesterday uh heard the ask for i'm sorry from gentry lock in the city and now we have some new developments and maybe movement on a calendar that I hope Gentry Locke has. In fact, we may have a calendar on set here or not.

Gentry Lock, if you're watching this program, you need to get an iPhone and put it in your calendar with a reminder 24 hours in advance, get a print calendar with a Sharpie all around the date, Gentry Lock, because your first mistake was about as amateur hours you could possibly find. Well, and the argument in court yesterday, as part of that on the knees there,

and by the way, they had probably the three most expensive partners in the firm at the council table. How much are we talking in an hour, ballpark? I think that one of them bills at 720, I think, is her 7-20-750, somewhere in there. So that's a lot of money. I presume the city is paying them. Again, I don't think they wouldn't expect them to do this for their health either, especially when their reputation is on the line, but to have three partners there

opposite, the one, I'm not sure if she's a junior partner, an associate on behalf of the plaintiffs, was something that struck me. Part of their argument, though, which is a new twist, is they argue that the judge would be too harsh for the judge to find them in default and award judgment to the plaintiffs because they, the defendants, they the city, say, we will win on the merits. And the judge said, well, you know, the only thing that I've left in the case to go to trial is the question of your preparation of a traffic study that you submitted to VDOT. and so they would have some idea what all this density is going to do to highways around the state. And he didn't come out and say it, but I think it's pretty clear that that's one of the counts that the plaintiffs have relied on very heavily because there are no weasel words with that. Either you did a traffic study or you didn't.

And the judge said to them, all right, convince me that you have any prayer of winning on that and I'll think about it. That's the only thing that's hanging up the final result of this. But I guarantee if there were a traffic study, I'd have it here in my hand. You know, we would know it. And they didn't do that, and they're not going to win on that. And that sure as heck isn't a reason not, a reason to excuse them for missing the filing deadline. So we know that there was no traffic study done. Then why was any kind of perceived grace offered by the judge?

Any kind of extended deadline offered by the judge to find whatever this traffic study is or is not? I don't know. I mean, he'd have to explain that. All I know is that he cited a case that neither side mentioned in their pleadings, because then I read them both or in their oral argument yesterday. So the judge kind of has his own agenda going there. And I guess he just wants to satisfy himself that he's not squelching a valid defense. And, you know, but that's really mixing up the merits and the procedural aspects of the motion. So I don't know how that's going to. change anything. I think the bottom line is that by the 22nd, there will be a default judgment entered, and that will be it. And the city can go forward with their threat to just re-adopt the ordinance. So I expect that's how, if I had to make a prediction, that's what's going to happen. Okay. A follow-up question, and I'm, you know, trying to reiterate this. From your standpoint, did the city sufficiently coordinate

planning with VDOT? From your standpoint, yes or no and why? No. Because no study. They didn't do one. There we go. And again, that's where we're at now. That's the decision here. I think so. I think that's where it's going to come out. But you know, you have things like other counts relied on things like

the city should give reasonable consideration to things. You know, when you have a weasel word like that that you're dealing with and it had a lot of room, you know, for a judge who wants it to come out one way or the to say, well, you know, reasonable is as reasonable does. But this provision in the state statute is really explicit. And like I said, either I got it here in my hand or I don't.

So I don't know how the city is going to claim in the next few days that they had this study at the time the city council adopted the ordinance. I mean, we're talking close to two years ago when that happened. So I don't know what that's about, but I don't think it's going to make any difference. it certainly shouldn't make any difference. The problem is that the city attorney thinks that the council is not limited by state statutes. You know, and I've been a Virginia attorney for 46 years. He's been a Virginia attorney for 46 days.

And because of that, when the plaintiff, and this explains why the judge didn't have in hand a final order, a proposed order, is because the plaintiffs offered a fig leaf to the city. They offered a compromise to them and said, okay, we'll agree to a really heavy-duty, higher-density zoning code. Just not this, not what you've passed here, because this is radical, it's just so far out there, we're not going to agree to that, and we will keep the lawsuit going. We will go ahead and ask the judge to enter the default judgment, and if you will agree to scale it back, then we will not ask them to enter the final order. and the response that John Maddox wrote back to them from the city if you don't mind, I don't want to be reading stuff

to your audience, but I think his words and a letter that he sent to the plaintiff's lawyer on July 22nd tell you everything you need to know about the attitude that the city is taking with respect to this litigation. He wrote your clients simply disagree with the city council and the voters who elected them about what type of zoning

the city should have. These aren't not legal disputes, their political grievances, and the proper venue for addressing them is not in the courtroom, but in the ballot box. Well, I'm sorry, but if there is an issue about compliance with a state statute, that belongs in the courtroom. That is not something that you're going to be able to deal with or get a fair hearing on as an opponent of this, but he says, well, not to worry, because we will afford your clients, the plaintiffs in this case, the opportunity to pursue their preferred zoning changes through the public process with a fair hearing before the Planning Commission and counsel and a full and fair

opportunity to make their case in the proper form. Minor detail, the same day, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a decision that said all the provisions that say you get a public hearing in cases like this are nothing but a check-the-box exercise. You have no right to be heard. You don't have any right to be listened to. basically all you have a right to is to go and check the box. And so that's a completely empty promise.

And I can't believe that, you know, there's a city attorney who could honestly say that to these plaintiffs. You have two Elmore County supervisors watching the program, two city councilors watching the program, a commonwealth attorney watching the program, a couple of Virginia delegates watching the program, and a boatload of realtors and developers watching the program. I know why the realtors and developers are watching the program, because this directly is impacting their business. And if the city had accepted the compromise, their shovels would be in the ground right now. I mean, they're not just messing with these plaintiffs and the homeowners. They're messing with the developers.

They're messing with the economy. They are. They're messing with the economy. One of the plaintiffs. Over in ideology. Yeah, right. Exactly. Over perceived weakness, over perception.

Roy Van Dorn, one of the plaintiffs, emailed me within the last, actually it was, within the last, 25 hours. And we'll get Roy Van Dord on the program, one of the plaintiffs. And he and his email said that the plaintiffs are still feeling the pain from the back of their hand of the city. And he's talking about the fact that the city is not negotiating in good faith with the plaintiffs who are literally trying to offer an olive. The plaintiffs have the edge here. The plaintiffs have the negotiating leverage. The plaintiffs, if you looked at how everything was playing out right now, are heading to Winter Circle, but they were willing to work with the city

and kind of meet in the middle. And what you're saying, what the plaintiffs are saying, what we're hearing, is the city wants nothing to do with that. This situation is not of the plaintiff's making. I mean, they stood up and said, City Council, guess what,

contrary to the legal advice you seem to be getting now, yeah, state statutes apply to you too. You're not above the law when it comes to that, and you do have to comply with it. and we're going to make you comply with it unless we can work something out. But the advice I have, because you may remember when I was here last time,

I love the props. I brought this for the new city attorney. And because this is a Gregorian calendar, as I mentioned before, one of my favorite things, you know, since I was a child, I've always paid a lot of attention to the calendar. A good way to keep track as you get old. But in any case, I even serve, the scheduled trial date of 22 June of 2026 and now you know if I'm right about the result we're going to get on the on the 22nd of August you know I'm scratching this out there's not going to be any trial in June of 2026 there's not going to be a trial there might be a trial in June of 2027 you know but it might be a trial in June of 2027 you know but it might

be 2028, and even if it is, by the time the appeals are over with, you're going to be 2029, probably. And that is absolutely no way to run a railroad. That's no way to run a city, but it is not the plaintiff's fault. It is entirely because of the

recalcitrance on the part of the city, and because they are so ideologically committed to this. And to the extent that talk about toxicity, and if that all the back and forth seem toxic, the recent development is that, a New York Times columnist who claims to be very tight with members of the city council.

Jamel Bowie, we talked about that last week. Jamel Bowie posted, when he was asked, he had posted that one of the plaintiff's houses should be torn down for having the temerity to sue the city over this. Tear his house down, he proposed. He's got nearly 700,000 followers on the Blue Sky app. Yeah, and one of them asked him, you're not really serious, are you? And he said, this is totally a serious suggestion. I have even talked to my friends on city council about it because it is absolutely, definitely serious.

I mean, it's just crazy. Well, it's reprehensible, but it's also a violation of law. And that's the other thing, if you'll let me, I'm going to read something that the city attorney should be thinking about a lot. I certainly, if I were in his shoes, I'd be thinking about this and trying to protect my council members because there's something in federal statute. We're not talking about Judge Worrell. We're talking about the Western District of Virginia, there's something in federal statute at 42 United States Code Section 1983. It comes up in the press a lot because there's a lot of litigation over it. I've personally never done any litigation in this area, but there are plenty of people, including a lot of young plaintiff's lawyers who will work on a contingent fee basis who would read this out loud.

And I think the city attorney should be reading this out loud to the city counselors, because here's what it says. It's under the caption, Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. Every person who, under color of ordinance, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen to the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law for redress. That is to say, if any city counselor so much as told Bowie that, yeah, that's a good idea, we should be working on that. they have violated this provision and they are civilly liable and probably making the city civilly liable as well

and I hope that the city attorney has verified that there's no, that was not true that didn't happen that Jamal Bowie is lying when he says he's been talking to city counselors about this. Even if he is lying, there's another problem

and it's one for him more than it is for the city council members because section 1985 in that same title in the code and I know we're getting down on the weeds here. No, no, please do. Yeah, but this is something that everybody should know about, and that is in 1985 there's a provision against obstructing justice, intimidating a party, a witness, or a juror. In this situation, and I'm not going to repeat his name, but the person whose house supposedly should be torn down is a plaintiff. He's a party in this litigation, and he is also a witness.

So one should take into account the provisions in that code section. It says, if two or more persons conspire to deter by force intimidation or threat any party or witness in any court from attending such court or from testifying to any matter pending therein, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, the due course of justice with intent to deny any citizen the equal protection of the laws or to injure him or his property for attempting to enforce the right of any person to the equal protection of the laws. So that's one that Jamel may have violated right there as long as there was somebody else that he was tangoing with. So there's any truth at all into what he posted to his 600,800,000.

Nearly 700,000 followers on Bluestone. guy. Yeah, well, he's telling them one thing, and if it's true, he's just indicted himself in doing that. And if it's not true, he's completely called into question his journalistic integrity, a man who makes his living with his words. He's either on the side of breaking the law or on the side of having no journalistic integrity. Well, this is the New York Times. It is the New York Times. I mean, I'm shocking that the New York Times even allows this kind of behavior. I mean, frankly speaking, he's threatening someone in a lawsuit. While living in the city, an activist who's a New York Times columnist is threatening a plaintiff in a lawsuit.

It's just crazy behavior right here that I do not understand. I'm very curious if we're going to have a response from Charlottesville City Council or Sam Sanders on this. We have Lonnie Murray watching the program and comments are coming in. He says this, Lonnie Murray, have long wondered if city council represented precincts instead of being all at large if this kind of situation would be less likely, Would counselors be more accountable to their precincts and less likely to make decisions that neighborhoods and their precincts object to? As a county resident, I don't have a stake either way, but from the outside, it seems like it would be a helpful change. I've heard the precincts argument in the past. Deep throat, he says this.

My guess is the Gentry Locke law firm will argue this fine point about state-controlled roads. Seville's roads are not state-controlled, and the statute talks about the impact on state-controlled roads. But of course, we have tons of state-controlled roads in close proximity. He says he agrees with Jerry Cox that it is really weird for the judge now to want to see arguments on those merits. And what the plaintiffs offered was that RB and RC should be reduced to what RA is. That's it. How could the city possibly reject what the plaintiffs are arguing? Makes absolutely no sense what the city is doing right here.

But, hey, it's the city of Charlottesville. I'll throw this to you. I got a question asked of me while playing sports a couple weeks ago by a heavy hitter. And he said, goodness gracious, what zoning code are we under now? And if my clients who are trying to bring multifamily on the southeast side of the city to market now, what am I supposed to tell them? Do you want to touch that at all? Only to the extent that I just don't buy the idea.

I think it's a red herring to say that voiding the new zoning ordinance does away with the pre-existing ordinance. That really is a red herring. It goes back to a lot of stuff in trusts and estates law where the question comes up if somebody signs a will and it revokes the will that they had prior to that, have they, by revoking the second one, also revoke the first one? If it says at the beginning of the second one, I revoke all prior wills, and you revoke the, The second one, the law generally has said, well, that's not really what you can think that the testator expected, that you don't want people to die in testate. And so they have interpreted that to mean that, no, it did not kill the previous will.

And again, that's totally outside of my experience, and I'd have to admit that this pretty much is too. All I can say is that if I were a developer, I would feel pretty comfortable. I would certainly get advice from somebody who really is an expert in this, but I'd feel pretty comfortable going ahead with the project. Certainly, putting a single-family home on a single-family lot should be just a complete no-brainer. You don't need a zoning code necessarily to do that. The city would have to have some standards by which to decide what to approve.

What does this do to all the properties that were marketed and branded with zoning upside? tied to the new zoning ordinance. How much does that diminish the value? A follow-up question to that. This is what it does. It pushes all those questions off way far into the future. So all the people, all the buyers, the speculators, that purchased property in the city under this new zoning ordinance

with the upside of opportunity are now potentially quicksand for years of what they could do with the project and or have overpaid for those deals? That's possible, but we won't know until at least 2028, I think. Unbelievable. Unless the city could possibly get reasonable. But again, you've got a bunch of ideologues

who are just determined they're going to do what Portlandia is telling them and not what the voters and the developers here in Charlottesville are telling them. And again, it's a national situation, and there's still a fight going on in Arlington and will be for at least a couple more years. There are fights going on

in a whole bunch of different jurisdictions, and this is just going to be another one that's tied up. As you say, Quicksand is a good analogy. We appreciate this. Thank you for the 30 minutes here. Any items that our viewers and listeners should know, you have radio, television and print watching you here, and viewers and listeners and our folks that are working for the media,

I would encourage you to reach out, especially media, to Jerry Cox for your news cycles. Anything else that the viewers and listeners should know? I would just plead with the city to not go this toxic route and personally attack the plaintiffs. That is the refuge at hominem attacks and threats are the refuge of people who do not have reason and the law on their side. And I hope that people, even people who would are determined that there is going to be a more liberal, if you want to call it that zoning code, I would say to them, in order to get what you want, tell these guys, stop with the threats, stop with the false promises, stop with the misunderstandings of what a state statute does,

and get real, get serious, and get this resolved. Thank you, Jerry. I'm grateful, grateful for your time. Absolutely, pleasure to do it. Thank you very much. Jerry Cox, guys, managing director of the Forerunner Foundation. J-dubs, if you can offer some instruction here, put me on a one-shot. and then I have some other topics I want to get to.

I will, again, I received an email from Roy Van Dorn. I will reach out to Roy, one of the plaintiffs, and see if we can get him on the show next week. And ladies and gentlemen, we'll continue the coverage of this. I'm very curious to see if Charlottesville City Council has, and check your Facebook messenger there. If you have, if City Council has any comment on the Jamel Bowie, blue sky posts

because Jamel Bowie is straight up saying on social media in front of nearly 700,000 people that he's working in cahoots with city council to have the house bulldozed of one of the nine plaintiffs that are suing the city. That is beyond concerning. Beyond concerning. We need some kind of closure from local government

on that topic. And that closure is a press release or some kind of official statement from either the city manager or city council. And if it's from city council, it would be the mayor, Juan Diego Wade. And some kind of FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request should be done with all communications and correspondence with city council and Jamel Bowie. Because you can't say in front of 700,000 people, when you're platformed because of your job, the New York Times, that someone's house should be bulldozed because one of those 700,000 roughly people that follow you may act on it.

And then the city's really got a mess on its hands. All right, a lot I want to talk about on the show for the realtors and the bankers and the developers and the attorneys watching the program, this show will be archived anywhere you get your social media or podcasting platform. Jerry Cox has been all over this from day one. Judah Wickhauer, I want to give some props to Sir Speedy of Central Virginia.

Conan Owen is the owner of Sir Speedy of Central Virginia, the CEO, locally owned and operated Sir Speedy of Central Virginia. If you have a logo and you need awareness from a print standpoint, a signage standpoint, a direct mail standpoint, from a pamphlet or trifold standpoint, the banner directly behind me is Sir Speedy of Central Virginia, window decals, stickers, you name it. Sir Speedy of Central Virginia has you absolutely covered. And Conan Owen joined us on the show earlier in the week and started a discussion.

This was two days ago about licensed businesses in Charlottesville City. We found out from Conan that there's roughly 4,000 licensed businesses in the city. I asked the question yesterday, how many are in Al Morrow County, and Conan Owen got us that answer. there are just under, you can put that lower third on screen, just under 11,000 licensed businesses in Almaro County. Just under 11,000 licensed businesses in Almaro County, ladies and gentlemen. 4,000 in the city, just under 11,000 in Almaro County. So, you know, the city ain't doing so bad from the licensed business standpoint.

If you think about it from a population standpoint. So we asked that question, and we got the answer from Conan yesterday after hours. A couple of other items that I want to highlight, and if you have any response and reaction or any commentary that you want to offer, in fact, let's weave you in on a two-shot when that is ready. And if you keep me out of one until that's ready, that's fine. I know you're moving some cameras. I appreciate you doing that. I also want to talk on today's show.

The text message I read in the beginning of the week, it was on Monday about Creed Deeds' mission or motive with the investigation of the UVA Board of Visitors' Rector and Vice Rector. He's got a deadline of tomorrow and 46 questions that he is demanding being answered. He's demanding answers of 46 questions, and the 46 questions are directed specifically to the Rector. and vice rector of the BOV. I read verbatim a text message and I promise the individual that sent me this text

message that I would not utilize his name. He's extremely connected. And after reading verbatim his text message on the show on Monday, Creedeeds chose yesterday to speak with the daily progress, almost

verbatim what we said was happening on Monday. So we're going to talk about each of those on the program today. Judah Wickhauer, two shot it. I appreciate you behind the scenes of what you're doing. I sincerely mean that. What do you make of Jerry Cox? What do you make of the judge?

What do you make of this mess? Make sure that's on? Fantastic. We're an absolute quick sand here. And as we discussed, what's completely, where we're at right now, is the judge asking, did the city sufficiently coordinate planning with V-DOT? And Jerry Cox says this is a slam duck, no, because there is no traffic stunning. Yeah.

And I think while the, while if the trial goes on and the judge lets the defendants bring in anything they want, the trial could go on for years and years, it sounds to me. me like he's not putting up with a lot of, let's say, guff from the city's attorneys. It appears like he's saying that there is one piece of information that I need. Was there a traffic study? Yeah. Was there sufficient coordination with VDOT? And we have a slam dunk answer from someone who's practiced law in the Commonwealth for 46 years. There's absolutely not sufficient information. Yeah. Yeah. He says if the city, this is, This is Judge Worrell.

If the city failed to follow the letter of the law, then the city cannot be successful in this lawsuit. If they didn't comply with the statute, the city loses. And he goes on to, and this is not in his exact words, but he's invited them to submit arguments in writing about the transportation issue. And he says that that will give the plaintiff's attorneys until Wednesday, and Worrell will issue a written ruling on August 22nd. So I think most of us hope that this is not going to drag on for one, two, three years. Absolute train wreck. An absolute train wreck.

A train wreck that was conducted by Stephen Johnson and Matthew Gilliken of Livable Seaville. a train wreck that had city councillors over the last handful of years riding in first class of the train, a train wreck that was misguided by a revolving turnstile of city attorneys, a lack of presence and institutional memory and consistency with the city attorney's office, and a train wreck that has left Charlottesville, and an economic supply chain of developers, realtors, bankers, engineers, underwriters, architects, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians,

floor guys, siding guys, landscaping guys, you name it. Absolutely quicksand and even worse, lacking confidence and basic functionality of Charlottesville, Virginia. That's where we stand right now. You have an entire economic supply chain that is completely lacking confidence in Charlottesville government because a train wreck led by Matthew Gilligan and Stephen Johnson of Livable Seaville with city councilors over the last five years sitting in first class of that train has led us down a track to this point that is disastrous.

And the judge, to his credit, because we gave him a lot of heat on this program for conflict of interest. And the conflict of interest with the judge, his wife is an activist of this zoning code, and he has a home that he owns in the city, which would certainly have escalated in value had he approved the zoning code. Okay? The judge, to his credit, seems to have handled this the right way. Yeah. Maybe we can make the argument he should have recused himself from the beginning. we could also make the argument that he shouldn't be giving the city a second chance for a you know for

but that second chance is it really a second chance right it's more like look you screwed up here yeah and we know you screwed up if anything it makes them look like even more buffoons it really makes them look like buffoons because they wouldn't take a deal with the plaintiffs who were not asking for too much said look we'll drop this lawsuit we'll move forward but all we want is this and the city said no. I would like to see that reported on because I don't know if that does make them. I mean, it would

make them look like buffoons if anyone knew about it, but besides Jerry Cox coming on, you know, being willing to come on our show and explain some of the stuff, who else knows that? Who else knows that the,

this guy, Jamel Bowie, people in you know, People like Gilligan, do they know that the plaintiffs have an ask, and the city is saying, eh, go away? Great question. I would love to see somebody reporting on that part of this fiasco.

Hall Spencer, that could be right up your alley right there. All right. I want to put the lower third of the UVA BOV on screen and let us know when that BOV lower third is on screen. On Monday show, I read this text message from a viewer and listener that routinely watches the program. And this viewer and listener that routinely watches the program he's extremely connected locally.

And I'll leave it at that. He sends me this information with the understanding that I will never, ever, ever, ever utilize his name. This is not deep throat who I'm quoting. On Monday, I read this text message. The Creedeed's letter is all about malfeasance. Rachel Sheridan is the hatchet woman sent by Governor Glenn Yonkin

to clean house at the University of Virginia. She is now the target of Virginia Democrats. In short, Rachel Sheridan, the rector, is required by law to respond to Cree Deeds' letter and his 46 questions. If she does not, Governor Abigail Spamberger, when she wins the race, will declare that Rachel Sheridan committed malfeasance by not responding and will remove her. If she responds Rachel Sheridan and reveals that any or all of Cree Deeds' allegations of her, coordination with the Department of Justice or Donald Trump, she will also face malfecent's charges. I believe Rachel Sheridan is the one behind the removal of Dr. Craig Kent, and you can expect litigation from Dr. Craig Kent in his camp. I understand Rachel Sheridan is the one that

the Department of Justice lawyer work with to remove Jim Ryan. Reading Creed's letter, there is someone with someone with deep knowledge talking to him. How else would he know all these dates? I read that on Monday show at 12.30 p.m. Between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m. Yesterday, Creedeeds chose to speak with the Daily Progress. And I'll read some of the quotes that he gave yesterday to the Daily Progress. Are you ready for this? This is exactly what you were talking about. This is literally almost verbatim what we talked about on Monday. And then Creed Deeds chooses to speak with the Daily Progress yesterday after the show. He says, quote, it looks

like, it looks to me like they are guilty of malfeasance and not fecese and that they didn't protect the university, they didn't protect the president from outside interference. The Board of Visitors has the ability to hire or fire a president, and if they did that, I would not have anything to say, but that's not what happened here. Creedeeds also says, I've talked to, quote, verbatim, I've talked to a number of members of the Board of Visitors, Alumni Associations, people that have served on the Board of Visitors and the information that informed those questions came from those members. So if the information I have is wrong, tell me it's wrong, prove me it's wrong.

I don't think it is, however. Creedeeds literally yesterday speaks to the newspaper after Monday, we quote or cite a source that is as close to the situation as possible on what's going on. You may have, ladies and gentlemen, a completely nuclear, bombed board of visitors come Abigail Spanberger winning this governor's race and I'll say it again

it would not surprise me it will not surprise me when Abigail Spanberger nuclear bombs this board that Jim Ryan is reappointed to president of the University of Virginia the odds of that happening I think are greater now

because our source who routinely watches the show said this is what's happening we relayed his commentary on Monday less than 48 hours later after we talked about what was hoping it happening the people, the person that we're talking about decides to speak with the newspaper when otherwise he doesn't speak to the newspaper

and says verbatim what we said was happening. Do you see that? Yeah. Do the Board of Visitors get paid I do not believe they do. I'm kind of curious why. You would take this job? Yeah.

I mean, you know, it was, it was at one time perceived as one of the most prestigious board positions in the Commonwealth. I can understand that, but. Not anymore. But in the last, yeah, in the last few months, I mean, it seems like more trouble than it's worth. It's like the same evolution of elected positions. Like city council, why would you do that job for like $16,000 or $18,000 or $20,000? Right? Right.

You have a New York Times columnist in front of 700,000 people that have linked you to a cahoots terrible outcome that you're planning to destroy or bulldoze somebody's house because they're suing you. Why would you take that job? It's a wild time to be in content creation in Charlottesville City, ladies and gentlemen. A wild time. I'll reach out to Roy Van Dorn to see if he'll join us on the show. I would imagine he's going to wait until after next week's deadline before coming on the program. He did reach out to us and thank us for having his back against Chamele Bowie. Nice.

I appreciate Jerry Cox for joining us on the show. No doubt. I asked the question yesterday, how many licensed businesses were in Al Morrow County? We got that answer from Conan Owen. That number, Judah Wickhauer, was 11,000 licensed businesses in Almore County with 4,000 in Charlottesville City. I remind the viewers and listeners that we have next week on the 19,000. of August, Lettie Klotz, the UVA professor on the program, to talk about his book Subtract and how this 40-hour work week is evolving into what I call now a 60-hour workweek standard.

That'll be the topic next week on the show. This is the water cooler of conversation, ladies and gentlemen, it's the I Love Seville Show. And I'll close with this, viewers and listeners, if in any capacity you need commercial office space, me, email me, call me. We have an abundance. We can connect you with offices from $3.50 a month, north of $2,000 a month, utilities included, some with furniture included, secure, private, commercial space if you need it, you know how to reach me. No one has more of it. Hit me up. Judah Wickhauer, Jerry Miller, the I Love Seville Show on a Thursday afternoon. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.