March Madness Picks

Yes, it is March Madness time again. Encouraged by success in picking winners last year, I have put together my 2012 NCAA Men's Basketball Championship bracket. Only time will tell if my picks this year are any good. But, with the First Four games starting on Tuesday I am posting my picks today (Sunday). I have ten upsets in round 2; four upsets in round three [including (1) Michigan State losing in round three]; five upsets in the Regional Semifinals; and the final four as Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse and Michigan. My final has Kentucky defeating Michigan.

Here is my complete bracket - prepared on March 11, 2012

First Four Results:

   (16) Mississippi Valley def. (16) Western Kentucky
   (14) Iona def. (14) BYU
   (16) Vermont def. (16) Lamar
   (12) California def. (12) South Florida

   Second Round Results:

   South:
     (1) Kentucky def. (16) Mississippi Valley
     (9) Connecticut def. (8) Iowa St.
     (12) VCU def. (5) Wichita St.
     (4) Indiana def. (13) New Mexico State
     (6) UNLV def. (11) Colorado
     (3) Baylor def. (14) South Dakota State
     (10) Xavier def. (7) Notre Dame
     (2) Duke def. (15) Lehigh

   West:
     (1) Michigan State def. (16) LIU Brooklyn
     (8) Memphis def. (9) Saint Louis
     (12) Long Beach State def. (5) New Mexico
     (4) Louisville def. (13) Davidson
     (6) Murray State def. (11) Colorado State
     (3) Marquette def. (14) Iona
     (10) Virginia def.  (7) Florida
     (2) Missouri def. (15) Norfolk State

   East:
     (1) Syracuse def. (16) UNC Asheville
     (9) Southern Mississippi def. (8) Kansas State
     (12) Harvard def. (5) Vanderbilt
     (4) Wisconsin def. (13) Montana
     (6) Cincinnati def. (11) Texas
     (3) Florida State def. (14) St. Bonaventure
     (7) Gonzaga def. (10) West Virginia
     (2) Ohio State def. (15) Loyola Maryland

   Midwest:
     (1) North Carolina def. (16) Vermont
     (8) Creighton def. (9) Alabama
     (5) Temple def. (12) California
     (4) Michigan def. (13) Ohio
     (11) North Carolina State def. (6) San Diego State
     (14) Belmont def. (3) Georgetown
     (10) Purdue def. (7) St. Mary's (CA)
     (2) Kansas def. (15) Detroit

      Third Round Results:
      South:
        (1) Kentucky def. (9) Connecticut
        (4) Indiana def. (12) VCU
        (6) UNLV def. (3) Baylor 
        (2) Duke def. (10) Xavier

      West:
        (8) Memphis def. (1) Michigan State
        (4) Louisville def. (12) Long Beach State
        (3) Marquette def. (6) Murray State
        (2) Missouri def. (10) Virginia

       East:
        (1) Syracuse def. (9) Southern Mississippi
        (4) Wisconsin def. (12) Harvard
        (3) Florida State def. (6) Cincinnati
        (7) Gonzaga def. (2) Ohio State

       Midwest:
        (1) North Carolina def. (8) Creighton
        (4) Michigan def. (5) Temple
        (11) North Carolina State def. (14) Belmont
        (2) Kansas def. (10) Purdue

         Regional Semifinals Results:

          South:
           (1) Kentucky def.  (4) Indiana
           (6) UNLV def. (2) Duke

          West:
           (4) Louisville def. (8) Memphis
           (3) Marquette def. (2) Missouri

          East:
           (1) Syracuse def. (4) Wisconsin
           (7) Gonzaga def. (3) Florida State

          Midwest:
           (4) Michigan def. (1) North Carolina
           (11) North Carolina State def. (2) Kansas

            Regional Finals Results:

             South:
              (1) Kentucky def.  (6) UNLV

             West:
              (4) Louisville def. (3) Marquette

             East:
              (1) Syracuse def. (7) Gonzaga

             Midwest:
              (4) Michigan def. (11) North Carolina State

               National Semifinals Results:

                 (1) Kentucky def. (4) Louisville 
                 (4) Michigan def. (1) Syracuse

                  National Championship Results:

                    (1) Kentucky def. (4) Michigan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would a smaller McIntire Golf Course be like?

The ongoing discussion of what will become of the eastern portion of McIntire Park (assuming the controversial McIntire Road Extended obliterates several holes of the existing nationally registered historic course suggests maintaining a smaller golf course. Perhaps golf having 18 holes as a standard round was selected to allow various sized courses. McIntire Course is nine holes so one would do the circuit twice to play 18 holes. I suppose Charlottesville Parks and Recreation could promote a six-hole golf course where one would do three rounds to play 18 holes. Apparently there are precedents for having six hole courses. Google "six hole golf course" and you will finds some interesting golf history and even arguments for having six hole courses.   I personally would like to  see the historic course be preserved and the McIntire Road Extended project cancelled.  Why destroy a valuable cultural and historic resource when the proposed road will likely cause more traffic problems than it is supposed to solve.

But, why stop at six? Perhaps planners could opt to put in even a smaller number of holes and allow the park to house a proposed botanical garden, parking, you name it. My vote it to simply leave the park as it is and provide some time-sharing of that facility for kite days, picnic days, and other community access days. Building a road through a historic park was a bad idea when suggested over 50 years ago, and is a bad idea today.    

The Huguely verdict might come at any time now.

After two weeks of passing by the Charlottesville Circuit Court on my walk to downtown Charlottesville, it is clear that the media are set to broadcast whatever the jury's decision is to the world. I counted seventeen satellite truck and encountered more cameras than I could count on both sides of East High Street in the environs of the courthouse. It is a springlike day today and I am sure the media folks are thrilled that there is no freezing rain - no cold wind - and no sign of  weather typical of it being Feb. 22 in central Virginia.

My major 'take-away' from following this trial is that the Charlottesville Police Department is truly a professional police department. All of the police and detectives involved in the case exhibited truly professional behavior. I have passed my compliments on to my friends in the police department and look forward to sharing this with Chief Tim Longo in person the first chance I get.

 

I have been following the Huguely murder trial in the Daily Progress, on Charlottesville Right Now (with Coy Barefoot) on WINA radio 1070, and in both the Hook and C-Ville Weekly. Based on what I have read and seen on both our TV stations - WCAV and WVIR, I am predicting that the jury will find Huguely guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter and suggest a sentence somewhere in the vicinity of five years (the maximum would be ten years).

The photos in this posting were shot by me at the Circuit Court today (Feb. 22, 2012) about 1:00 p.m.

Council Decision on Belmont Bridge related grant a disappointment

I was amazed at the reluctance of three members of council to work with the Univ. of Virginia School of Architecture to submit a grant request to explore opportunities for enhanced artistic and cultural connectivity in design of the replacement Belmont Bridge. The grant could possibly provide up to $150,000 to increase the connectedness of Belmont neighborhood with Charlottesville's downtown mall area.

Check out the design concept for a replacement bridgeshown above and published at the Charlottesville Tomorrow blog - http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2012/01/project-gaitway.html - to see how badly attention to artistic and cultural elements are needed in this project. And this project is often referred to as a gateway to downtown Charlottesville.

Did Occupy Charlottesville Protesters actually Trespass in Lee Park

I attended the trial of seventeen Occupy Charlottesville members for trespassing in Lee Park immediately after the city terminated the permit granted to Occupy Charlottesville movement to use the park. I believe the city would have done a great community service to have dropped the charges against the occupiers. The city was being pressured to end the occupation by local residents who were concerned about local issues while the occupiers were addressing national and global issues. The city of Charlottesville clearly made permit decisions in a highly politicized environment. By dropping all charges, the city would have achieved their goal of returning the park to normal use, while recognizing that the city is not opposed to use of public spaces in peaceful protest of national and global issues. Council recently made its own statement opposing involvement by the United States in possible war with Iran. 

Both Maurice Jones, Charlottesville City Manager, and Brian Daly, Director of Parks and Recreation were called as witnesses in the case regarding the issuing of permits for the occupation. Their testimony illustrated how much politics - rather than established policy - influenced the issuing of a series of permits for use of Lee Park. Although I am not an expert on case law relating to free speech issues, it appeared to me that actions by the city may have not been in keeping with the protections of free speech relevant to this trespassing case. I applaud the occupiers for their civil disobedience and willingness to stipulate that they in fact trespassed in Lee Park to raise the issue of their right to protest peacefully in the park and that the city's action to arrest and remove the occupiers may have not have been within established free speech guidelines.

Perhaps the trade-off between having Jones' and Daly's testimony in court showing that the city was not clearly prepared to handle this free speech issue in a well established manner in return for achieving conviction of the 17 occupiers for trespassing (a warning to future protesters, perhaps) was in the City's interest, but I believe the city didn't look good at the end of the trial. I was surprised that the occupiers were fined given the testimony. 

The defense attorney stipulated that all seventeen occupiers were in the park after the curfew and after termination of the permit. Thus the prosecution did not have to establish that trespassing actually occurred and the case was decided for all 17 defendants in about two hours from beginning to end. I believe that the city's action were not clearly appropriate within the free speech guidelines presented by the defense attorney and actually expected that the judge would find the defendants guilty of trespass, but not fine them (other than court costs). I suppose part of civil disobedience is to violate a law and accept the punishment, but I don't believe that the city's actions clearly showed that the permits were properly issued and withdrawn and in my mind it was not clear if in fact the defendants were trespassing. Perhaps the judge having already fined one other defendant $100 who plead guilty in a prior action resulted in the same fine being imposed - to have a consistent penalty. Without the prior case decision (where actions by the City were not considered due to the guilty plea) a lower or zero dollar fine might have well have been appropriate. The inconsistent and politically influenced actions by city officials presented by the defense was a bit embarrassing to the city administrtion. I do hope the city learns from this experience. This trial was a good learning opportunity for the city and the public in some of the finer points of free speech guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Dropping all charges might well have been an action the city could have taken that would have achieved their goal of returning the park to normal use with significantly less cost and embarrassment to the city.

Will Charlottesville City Council act - or not act - to prematurely open Meadow Creek Parkway

Charlottesville City Council is poised to drop a legal condition relating to the controversial Meadowcreek Parkway. In June 2008, the City Council approved permanent and temporary easements for VDOT to build a portion of the Parkway across City-owned property near Melbourne Road in the County. One of the five conditions (by ordinance) "That no part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project (i.e., the Albemarle County Meadow Creek Parkway section, the City McIntire Road Extended section, or the Interchange/Intersection project at the 250 Bypass and McIntire) will be open for public use until the entire project is complete and ready for opening." Given that McIntire Road Extended and the Interchange/Intersection project at the 250 Bypass and McIntire are years away from completion (if they are ever completed) council would have to amend (replace) this ordinance to eliminate this condition to allow the Meadow Creek Parkway to open.

Councilor Szakos may be the swing vote on deciding whether or not to drop this condition. Councilors Brown and Huja have consistently voted to move the parkway forward while councilor Edwards and Mayor Norris have consistently voted not to move the parkway forward. Interestingly, councilor Szakos has stated her opposition to the parkway, but also that she would not vote to overturn decisions on the parkway of previous councils. These nuanced positions were a key part of Szakos' campaign when she was elected to council in 2009. Now, if councilor votes to remove the condition she appears to be flopping on both of these positions. She will both be voting for the parkway (at least part of it) to open AND to overturn the decision of the 2008 easement decision by council prior to her election!

Of further interest, I am unaware of the Albemarle Board of Supervisors formally requesting city council to amend this ordinance. Council appears to be acting in advance of any such request.

Councilor Szakos may be spending significant political capital if she in fact votes to allow premature opening of Meadow Creek Parkway. I believe council in 2008 acted wisely in not allowing any portion of the parkway project between Route 250 Bypass and Rio Road to open and only open the road when completed. I believe the current council should honor that wise decision. VDOT constructed the portion of the parkway north of Melbourne Road fully aware that the other sections would require many additional months or years of planning, design, environmental approval and construction.

It appears to me that VDOT chose to construct early to get a favorable bid price in a 'down' construction period and now may be realizing that early construction to reduce construction cost may entail extended maintenance costs making their decision not an economic one. I suppose both VDOT and Albemarle County want to cover that questionable decision by premature opening of the road and spending even more money to mitigate safety concerns for the opening of one part of the road.

Is Charlottesville City Council race about party, issues, or what the council voting majority will be?

The Charlottesville City Council race has taken on a new dimension with independent candidate Bob Fenwick publicly endorsing Dede Smith, one of the Democratic Party candidates in the race.

Both Fenwick and Smith are both active members of the Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan that promotes dredging of the Rivanna Reservior and opposes the construction of the proposed earthen dam at Ragged Mountain. The water plan issue is one of the several controversial issues before city council.

Bob Fenwick's endorsement of Dede Smith is an effort to get a majority of council that will ensure that the water plan is developed on the basis of basic planning information that is now available, but not included in development of the currently proposed plan. He is asking voters to vote for both Dede Smith and himself so that a majority of councilors will have a similar commitment to considering all relevant data in this and other controversial infrastructure decisions.

On the current council, Kristin Szakos, Satyendra Huja and David Brown all support the current proposal to build an earthen dam at Ragged Mountain and also support moving forward with the equally controversial VDOT plans for the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. Majority support for these projects will likely continue if Democratic Party candidates Huja and Kathy Galvin are elected to join Szakos on council.

Some local news stories state that Bob Fenwick is endorsing an opponent in the council race, but coalitions are not uncommon in this race where three candidates will be successful. Fenwick is aware that one candidate needs to be part of a majority to be successful in getting action on council and he clearly does not consider Dede Smith to be an opponent - but rather the candidate he would best be able to work with on council among the other candidates.

If the campaign is presented as an opportunity to select a voting majority on council on these very expensive and controversial projects, voters have on November 8 the opportunity to form a Szakos-Huja-Galvin majority or a Norris-Smith-Fenwick majority. I expect that the decisions council will make regarding all of the infrastructure decisions before council will clearly reflect which voting majority is on council.

I encourage Charlottesville voters to consider not only the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate, but which three candidates they believe will best work with two incumbent councilors not up for re-election this year.