14 Responses to “Jewell charged with DUI”

1. posted by Oregon Hill » City Councilperson Marty Jewell Arrested For DUI - Richmond, Virginia at October 24, 2009 12:53 pm [#]:
   

   [...] coverage of the story here and here. Posted by Scott at 12:53PM under RVANews-politics, crime, [...]

2. posted by Scott Burger at October 24, 2009 3:32 pm [#]:
   

   It’s long past time for Marty to resign…

   http://www.oregonhill.net/2009/09/01/councilperson-marty-jewells-nephew-held-in-vuu-shootings/

   http://www.oregonhill.net/2008/07/19/rezoning-meetinggreen-drinks-at-built-gallery/

   http://www.oregonhill.net/2008/06/25/re-zoning-and-the-disappointing-marty-jewell/

3. posted by paul_h at October 24, 2009 9:22 pm [#]:
   

   I’ve never been a Marty Jewell fan, but most of your objections to him seem to be political. These are not reasons to resign. They are reasons to run against him.

   I’m sorry to see him go down in flames this way. His nephew’s problems are not his responsibility. A DUI may be a political kiss of death, but he doesn’t face the ballot box for 3 years.

4. posted by Scott Burger at October 25, 2009 8:46 am [#]:
   

   There’s a pattern here. Unfortunately, its not the first time I have heard about drinking problems. Maybe his wayward nephew is not directly his responsibility, but he is family.

   He is not doing an adequate job representing his constituents. He seems more interested in taking donations from developers than acting on the interests of 5th District citizens. (Echo Harbour sucks!)

   The fact that he does not face a ballot box fro three years is a problem, which is why I am calling for resignation now, for his sake and the citizens’.

5. posted by todd woodson at October 25, 2009 8:22 pm [#]:
   

   let’s all take a deep breath here. marty jewell is innocent till proven guilty or confessing his guilt, the same as someone we may respect or like personally.
   marty is incompetent at being a council person as scott suggests, at least regarding the best interests of oregon hill.

6. posted by paul_h at October 25, 2009 8:57 pm [#]:
   

   Wasn’t he unopposed in the last election?

7. posted by todd woodson at October 25, 2009 10:55 pm [#]:
   

   no- unfortunately two candidates split the opposition vote.

8. posted by Ben at October 29, 2009 12:19 am [#]:
   

   Let’s be honest. If I recall correctly, if you added the votes of the next two or three candidates they would not have equaled Marty’s total. On a number of issues, Mr. Jewell has gone against the wishes of his constituents in Woodland Heights. I hope the best for his family and him personally, but professionally as a city council member his record is not distinguished.

9. posted by todd woodson at October 31, 2009 2:00 am [#]:
   

   according to vpap.org, Marty won in 2008 with 49.1%. Brandon had 30.8% and Shewmake 19.6%. The combined total would be Marty 49.1% and 50.4% (Brandon/Shewmake combined). Simply heartbreaking…

10. posted by PDM at October 31, 2009 11:58 am [#]:
    

    It’s highly doubtful that Shewmake’s voters would have gone with Brandon, as they view him as another version of Jewell.

    The fact is that the portion of the 5th located south of the James has not had adequate representation since the 80′s, when the district acquired it’s current configuration.

    The irony is that Chuck Richardson did a better job than any of his successors…

11. posted by todd woodson at October 31, 2009 5:43 pm [#]:
    

    pdm- we’ll have to agree to disagree on your first point. why would anyone reelect someone that had ignored their needs?

12. posted by PDM at November 1, 2009 10:39 am [#]:
    

    Interesting take on the situation.

    Shewmake voters chose the best candidate: they likely wouldn’t have voted for Jewell had she not run.

    Why would they elect someone else who ignores their needs?

13. posted by Scott Burger at November 1, 2009 1:12 pm [#]:
    

    I think this where the river divide really hits the 5th District- Shewmake voters on the south side thought they had the best candidate, while Brandon voters on the north side thought they had the best candidate.

    Right now though, that’s not the issue, and we can argue about who would have or who will represent the best later. The issue is that we still have Jewell in office- which is a problem since he clearly is ignoring citizens’ needs and become a real embarrassment to the District. Which is why I have called for his resignation.

    Will other neighborhood leaders please join me?

    I will also note that from larger view, there are forces outside of the Fifth District that want Jewell to stay in office for his likely vote in favor of Echo Harbour. I would like to bring your attention to this conversation:

    http://chpn.net/news/2009/10/30/jones-endorses-newbille_10131/

    Now Echo Harbour is a proposal outside of the 5th District, but I believe it is a bellweather for future attempts at improper development on the riverfront, including parts of the 5th District.

    I urge everyone to keep this in mind as I once again call for Jewell’s resignation.

14. posted by Sundagger at November 1, 2009 4:15 pm [#]:
    

    The fifth was created as a majority minmority district. The Voting Rights Act required it; compact and contiuious was a secondary copnmsideration. I think if you look at the last two elections, the divide is not the river, it is race. Predominanatly white precincts did not support Marty, predominantly African American did, and that’s all it takes. Marty actually ran behind the district demographics. I will be interesting to see the makeup of the district after redistricting in 2011. Forest Hill becomes part of the Fourth? District lines drop farther south and parts of Manchester and Blackwell join the Fifth?

Leave a Comment