Perhaps you’ve noticed the neighborhood looked a little different this week. Was it tough to put your finger on what had changed? Totally get it. After considerable shoe-leather reporting and editorial analysis, The Lookout is able to exclusively share the cause of this subtle shift in Church Hill’s appearance: it fucking snowed! A lot!

A shocking revelation, I know. But it’s true. Your humble Lookout editor was on the road last week, and made it back into Richmond from points north just as flakes were starting to accumulate on the road this past Saturday evening. Ultimately, the city got less snow than the worst forecasts predicted: the metro area saw 3-5” of accumulation, per The Richmonder, a far cry less than the foot or so that earlier forecasts had warned could be on the way.

Between that stroke of meteorological luck, and the fact that City Hall put out a social-media video featuring key department heads cheerily promising they were prepared for the precipitation, you might have hoped that Richmond would be back to business (and school, transit, etc.) quickly following the storm. But alas. As I write this Friday afternoon, a full five days following the conclusion of Sunday’s snowfall, the East End is still a damn mess. Sidewalks are inaccessible behind frozen berms of half-plowed snow. Entire intersections are covered in hard-pack snow and boilerplate ice.

As it often does, the Department of Public Works (DPW) preemptively closed North 25th Street south of East Broad Street before the weather hit. But just Thursday—around 96 hours post-storm, mind you—the city issued a press release announcing that it was also closing the 2900 block of E. Franklin St. “Due to snowstorm related conditions, this closure is necessary to ensure public safety,” the release read. Not to put too fine a point on it here, but the typical progression of events after a snowstorm is that more roads get opened, not closed.

Slip-sliding through the neighborhood throughout this week, I found myself speaking with one neighbor after another who were as frustrated with scofflaws’ spotty shoveling as they were with the city’s sluggish, inconsistent, and somehow still-incomplete street clearance. On the former: I’m on the record arguing that even though sidewalks are residents’ responsibility by city ordinance, they are public infrastructure and should be managed as such. This isn’t an excuse for you not to shovel in the here and now, by the way. (Your elderly and less-mobile neighbors depend on you.) It’s a pitch for how to fix a system that’s clearly not working for the future, and I stand by it!

E. Broad and N. 29th Sts. on Tuesday. | Dave Infante

The eastbound crossing of N. 32nd on E. Broad St. | Dave Infante.

I’ll have some additional reporting on this next week. But goddamn! The dismal job DPW has done to clear our roads over the course of the past week sure makes that future seem far out of reach, huh? The department’s director, Bobby Vincent, told The Richmonder that the ongoing mess is owing to the fact that “plows are not effective with the ice, but the plows are effective with the slush.” It’s true that the snow turned to freezing rain on Sunday evening and complicated a standard clearance effort. It’s also true that it’s been too cold for salt to make much of a dent in the curbside skating rinks out there. But how many DPW trucks did you see plowing the snow while it was snowing, reader? On the east-west artery of E. Broad St., I saw zero.1 I should know: I was out there shoveling throughout the day to prevent accumulation. I’m no hero, just a guy who read a weather report and figured if I didn’t clear my sidewalk before it froze, it’d be a lot harder to remove the resulting ice. Imagine that.

This is annoying, but there are also real costs here. Businesses couldn’t open. People with older or less weather-ready cars struggle to get around, as did pedestrians. Hopefully nobody broke a wrist or sprained an ankle. Trying to ride a bike on these roads? Good luck. How have you been holding up in the storm and its aftermath? Let us know in the comments, or reach out directly if you’ve got a tip about the city’s snow-removal effort thus far.

But about that silver lining I promised in the subject line. During last year’s snow storms,2 I wrote about sneckdowns. Remember this? Quick refresher:

❝

Sneckdown (n.; ˈsnek-dau̇n): Sections of a roadway, usually at intersections and along curbs, where snow has accumulated without cars packing it down. Portmanteau of “snowy” and “neckdown.”

This week, with so much snow still on the streets, sneckdowns formed all over the neighborhood, showing us where we might place pocket parks or traffic-calming hardscapes while still allowing cars to pass. Did you see any? Two in particular jumped out to me:

A triangle of snow at E. Marshall & N. 3st Sts. just begging to become a permanent planted median. | Dave Infante

Lots of asphalt under this snow at E. Broad & N. 32nd Sts. that could be converted to a pocket park. | Dave Infante.

I’m sure there were more, but these were the ones I managed to snap. The irony isn’t lost on me that we’d need DPW to complete these imagined improvements to our streets, when it was DPW’s protracted snow-removal process that revealed them in the first place. But maybe sometimes that’s just what it takes to see the neighborhood a little differently.

🤝 Help fund The Lookout!

Your subscription defrays the cost of original journalism about our neighborhood. Support independent local media by becoming a paid subscriber today:

The Lookout’s regular coverage will always be free to read for all, because that’s how a neighborhood newsletter should be. But if you’re able to afford it, I hope you’ll consider contributing to its operating budget by upgrading today. If you’re owner/wealthy individual looking to make larger contribution, please get in touch at [email protected].—Dave.

📜 Possum Poetry

Spotted on N. 25th St. near Jefferson Ave. | Penelope Poubelle

❝

Mine may not be to wonder why,

But what gives, littering this old Jai Alai?

Possum Poetry is original verse written exclusively for The Lookout by Penelope Poubelle, the Lookout’s litter critter-at-large. If you spot roadside trash you’d like her to immortalize in doggerel, email a photo to [email protected]. All submissions anonymous!

☕️ Riverbend turns pro-ICE smear into cold hard cash for legal aid

A flyer touting the latest addition to Riverbend’s menu. | Dave Infante

Earlier this month, Riverbend Roastery received a one-star review from some guy who was red-assed about the flyers the cafe had posted in its windows warning customers about federal immigration agents spotted in the community and asserting its rights as a private business. As The Lookout reported, owner Alexa Schuett and her staff had some real fun mocking Google user Rob Ramsey sandbagging them on the platform in retaliation for—in his words, and odd title casing—not showing proper “respect” to “our Law Enforcement.” Shortly after I filed that column, Riverbend added a brand-new item to its menu in, uh, “homage” to the dingus that dinged their score. “Inspired by our [one-]star review,” wrote the E. Broad St. shop on a poster and corresponding Instagram post, Rob’s Churro Latte includes:

  • Espresso

  • Brown sugar

  • Vanilla

  • Condensed milk

  • Cinnamon

  • Choice of milk

“Because no human is illegal,” the promo reads. Presumably, the beverage’s namesake will not be returning to partake, but you can—and when you do, Riverbend will donate the proceeds to the Richmond Community Legal Fund. In a text to The Lookout earlier this week, Schuett said sales of Rob’s Churro Latte have already generated ~$800 for the local legal nonprofit.

📊 Following up on City Hall’s 2025 salaries

Earlier this month—which, by the way, can you believe it’s still fucking January?—I highlighted the annual salaries of City Council President and longtime 7th District representative Cynthia Newbille ($45,000) and her staff liaison, Sam Patterson ($102,440.52.) That item was based on diligent public-records reportage by The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Samuel B. Parker, who put together a whole database showcasing the compensation of every City Hall employee last year.

Anyway, Lookout Vee Wright hit the comments section to ask what percentage of Richmond's annual budget goes towards payroll. A good question! I did some quick back of the back-of-the-napkin math on this:

❝

If the city’s 2025 payroll was $332 million (as reported by the RTD), and its overall 2025 budget was $2.9 billion (as detailed in that year’s adopted fiscal plan), staff salaries would work out to be around 11% of the city’s overall financial outlay.

I think that’s right? But by all means, check my math. While we’re on the subject, and apropos of today’s lede, Parker’s spreadsheet had DPW’s head honcho Bobby Vincent pulling down $258,125 last year.

📢 Happenings on The Hill

  • Arooooo [sorrowful]: Sadly, HoundTown has canceled its planned meet-up for tomorrow due to the forecast. Scope the schedule for the rest of the spring.

  • Goods for good: Kindhearted Goods is donating 10% of sales this weekend to RCLF “[i]n solidarity with Minneapolis, the nationwide strike, & people in need in our community.” More info here.

  • Drop those donations: Spotty Dog, Dear Neighbor, Cobra Burger, and Kindhearted Goods are all serving as drop-off points for a donation drive for families affected by ICE this weekend. Here’s what they need.

Happenings on The Hill is a digital bulletin board for events, causes, and other items of interest to East Enders that don’t necessarily merit full editorial treatment. Got something for a future edition? Email the relevant details, links, etc. to [email protected] for consideration!

📸 A Very CHill Photo

On a limb. | Windsor Bisbee, iPhone 16 Pro

Want to share your Very CHill Photo from the neighborhood? Email it to [email protected] with your name as you’d like it to appear for publication, and the camera you shot it on.

1  Saw a few private vehicles with plows running what appeared to be a fairly random selection of north-south side streets in Church Hill North on Sunday night, though. Maybe contractors? Hmm.

2  When we were all less worried about what DPW was up to than what DPU (the Department of Public Utilities) was. Man, that sucked, huh? Imagine just like… not having to worry about catastrophic failures of the city’s infrastructure. Sounds really nice

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Thomas King9 months ago

Love the poem Dave. Legitimately a jump scare for me as a grad of Tampa's University of South Florida

Avatar

Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago

Ybor City called it wants its tall boy back smh

Avatar

Kathy G9 months ago

If I'm understanding the timeline right, the city only closed the 2900 block of E. Franklin St after NBC12 On Your Side featured the street and its residents on the news. The story focused on how neighbors rallied together to try and clear the road themselves, and they made their own sign warning people not to drive on it. I'm proud of Church Hill for banding together and protecting one another, but I'm so disappointed in the city for not taking action until after the news feature.

Avatar

Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago

Ooh, great point. That... would track, I think. The date on this segment's article stub on WWBT's website is 1/28/26, and the date on the city's press release about it is 1/29/26:

https://www.12onyourside.com/2026/01/28/east-franklin-street-becomes-graveyard-cars-after-icy-conditions/ https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Street-Closure---2900-East-Franklin-Street.html?soid=1141729857239&aid=dzyn4FB1w7c

Which: lolololol

Avatar

Kathy G9 months ago

Lol is right! I’m glad to see in your follow up piece that it’s now reopened. Now I’m waiting for the stretch E Marshall St along Jefferson Park to be passable…

Avatar

Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago

Yeah the sidewalks adjacent to city property are categorically uncleared in the East End, from what I've observed. Hopefully the warm weather forecasted for later this week will finally do what DPW/DPR did not. What a joke!

Avatar

Vee Wright9 months ago

Dave, I appreciate your following up on my question about what percentage of Richmond's budget goes toward salaries.

You wrote that it's around 11%. ($332M), according to the local newspaper. I suspect that percentage is low in the extreme and wonder about the source of the number.

I did a rough count of the numbers in the piechart, which came to approximately $1B. That seems a more likely number for salaries, representing about 36%. Throw in benefits and that percentage might rise to beyond 40%.

This is the norm for a municipal budget.

That written, I'm a writer rather than a mathematician or accountant. I am also looking at only one set of numbers and it is not clear precisely what these numbers represent..

Still, my gut and long-ago days of a reporter covering city government are telling me that the math ain't mathing.

If salaries are an anemic 11% of Richmond’s annual budget, city workers are woefully underpaid.

I'd be interested to know whether any numbers are missing.

Avatar

Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago

Relevant passage from the RTD report here:

"The payroll records, obtained through a public records request, show the city’s personnel totals have shrunk slightly, decreasing from 4,279 workers in 2024 to 3,978 this year. Despite that, total employee wages increased from $307 million to $332 million."

https://richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/article_02eb00e0-7286-489a-bbc3-a7d179dcfa00.html

Note that the pie chart above is not official salaries, it's proposed expenditures broken out by spending category. I just included it as a point of semi-related interest. Sorry if that was confusing!

Avatar

Vee Wright9 months ago

Hello, Dave:

I appreciate the clarification on those pie chart numbers. To be sure, municipal budgets are layered.

The pie chart numbers (approximately $1B) represent the operating budget (general fund). The $332M salary figure is included in the general fund. Both are included in the full $2.9B all-funds number.

However, for figuring the salary-to-budget ratio, the $1B number (around 36%) is used instead of the $2.9B number (yielding a misleading 11%). Add benefits and you're north of 40%.

That is how municipal budgeting works. This is also worth verifying for future reference.

I urge you and The Lookout readers to use the operating budget as the denominator.

Now, if salaries actually are 11%, that suggests Richmond should significantly increase its workforce.

Importantly, for anyone who believes that the city delivers poor services, an understaffed workforce would largely explain why.

Avatar

Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago

Your original question, left on this edition https://www.chlookout.com/p/show-us-your-pet-show-us-your-pet read as follows (my emphasis added in bolding):

"I'd be interested to know what percentage of Richmond's multi-billion budget is dedicated to salaries. Anybody have any intel?"

You're now describing a different calculation: [total compensation] / [RVA general fund]. That number may also be illuminating! But it's not what I have, it's not what you have, and it's not what you originally asked for.

Avatar

Vee Wright9 months ago

Dave, thanks for circling back.

My original question was sincere and guileless. I wanted to know the salary-to-budget ratio using the correct budget figure. This is the one that municipal finance people actually use when making that calculation.

When you shared the 11% number (salaries / $2.9B all-funds), I recognized it as irregular, which I noted. That's why I asked for clarification.

A quick primer: In city budgeting, the operating budget (approx. $1B general fund) is the standard for this kind of ratio. Using the all-funds number artificially deflates the percentage.

I started my career as a reporter (Dallas Times Herald) covering city government. I know that these numbers matter. Importantly, I am convinced that readers deserve to understand them clearly.

I appreciate the engagement and your tireless work.

Avatar

Vee Wright9 months ago

Hello, Dave:

I appreciate the clarification on those pie chart numbers. To be sure, municipal budgets are layered.

The pie chart numbers (approximately $1B) represent the operating budget (general fund). The $332M salary figure is included in the general fund. Both are included in the full $2.9B all-funds number.

However, for figuring the salary-to-budget ratio, the $1B number (around 36%) is used instead of the $2.9B number (yielding a misleading 11%). Add benefits and you're north of 40%.

That is how municipal budgeting works. This is also worth verifying for future reference.

I urge you and The Lookout readers to use the operating budget as the denominator.

Now, if salaries actually are 11%, that suggests Richmond should significantly increase its workforce.

Importantly, for anyone who believes that the city delivers poor services, an understaffed workforce would largely explain why.