Chapter Two: Expanding the Idea of "Richmond"

The RFC focus began to shift in the mid 1950s, from the city of Richmond proper to include the metropolitan area. While continuing its broad agenda of pursuing effective government, the RFC began to interpret many of the issues in the framework of a need for regional cooperation. When Henrico and Chesterfield Counties won immunity from Richmond's further annexation efforts, it became clear that the city's future lay in cooperation within the region. The RFC's task became one of educating the inhabitants of the region to that imperative: the health of the city of Richmond and the health of the region were one. This is not to say that the RFC ignored its traditional concerns for good government; it meant that henceforth these issues, whenever possible, would be examined from a regional perspective. Despite being somewhat bloodied in the losing effort to bring about a merger between the City and Henrico County, the Club continued to call for regional cooperation. By the late 1980s it seemed to have no other agenda.

In the mid 1950s the Club appeared to have competing and opposed objectives--municipal vs. metropolitan concerns. In 1954 the incoming president, Guy Mattox, suggested that the Club should "discover and investigate the City's ten biggest municipal problems."

Yet the January, 1955 report of the Metropolitan Committee called for the Club to embrace the region as the proper focus of its energies.

...the time is right to create an active agency to coordinate the inter-weaving activities of our metropolitan areas. We agreed to investigate Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights Cities; and Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover Counties [and]...found:
that there is a general desire to solve mutual problems together. This is a far cry from the near past when each political sub-division guarded its so-called sovereignty within its Chinese walls... Considering the desire of cooperation by the people living in the region, the non- coordinated individual efforts in the regional problems, and the existence of considerable professional work on hand, seem to bear out our observation that the time is perfect to launch a metropolitan planning agency...
[We] recommend that the First Club endorse in principle the creation of a metropolitan planning agency to study, solve and coordinate and be responsible for the execution of physical facilities and other administrative functions which effect [sic] the total metropolitan area, and that this agency should be established by the political sub-divisions comprising the metropolitan region and that these political sub-divisions should appropriate sufficient funds so that the metropolitan planning agency can employ the proper staffs to execute its work....further recommend that the First Club should create a committee to study and recommend how within existing laws of the community, such metropolitan areas could be established...

The report from the Citizens Service Committee (1957) instead called for a return to the municipal focus:

For some time now, there has been a feeling among the Club membership that since its successful effort to change the form of the City government, ...that in general the Club has lacked a definite program for studies and recommendations for improvement in the conduct of local affairs. We recommend:

that for the present, national and state considerations be postponed and our attentions be concentrated on our own community, the City of Richmond
that a few (services) be selected and each treated in turn, one or two each year, to a full scale examination with report and recommendations
that each administration appoint a new committee or committees to carry out its year's work on the objectives
that a complete reference file be set up and kept to record ground covered and recommendations made

In the following year the Bulletin noted that the city had hired Public Administration Service of Chicago to study metropolitan issues and the need for metropolitan planning, its recommendations to be presented in January, 1959. In August, 1959 the Club issued its "Report on Government for the Richmond Metropolitan Area." Two years later the Club established the Greater Richmond Metropolitan Committee.

By 1959 the Club also had turned its attention to the vexing question of a merger between the City and Henrico County. Demonstrating his characteristic vigor and leadership, Richmond First Club president Bob Buford led the fight. In 1959 the Club completed a study on metropolitan area problems. The report, "Government for the Richmond Metropolitan Area," concluded that merger between the City and Henrico County offered the best solution. Having determined the desirability of the merger, the Club set out to arrange it.

A letter writing campaign initiated the effort; the Board encouraged members of the Club to write to their representatives in the State legislature. The letter dated February 23, 1960 from Ben Johns, President of the Club, to Edward M. Hudgins is typical. "...On behalf of the Richmond-First Club, I heartily solicit your consideration of any proposed legislation which will encourage a merger of these two community areas. If the Richmond-First Club can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to call us."

The Club also opened up communication with its counterpart in Henrico County. Thomas F. Mains, Public Relations Director for the Henrico First Council, wrote to Hugh Rudd to ask for a meeting between the two groups to discuss the "subject of annexation or merger." Following the meeting between the two Boards, Buford wrote to Thomas F. Mains.

The First Club is gratified to learn that your group has reached somewhat the same conclusion as our study committee [favors] concerning the possibility of a merger...[We] suggest meeting for the purpose of considering future studies or possible joint action in this area...We have created a Speakers Bureau and made known to interested citizens groups the availability of speakers qualified to discuss the problems of merger. We also have a special sub- committee which is working to develop suggestions for consideration for the recently appointed negotiators concerning the principal problems of tax equalization and fair representation. I am sure that this sub-committee would be quite interested in working with a corresponding group appointed from your membership.

In August, 1960 Buford sent to Horace Edwards (City Manager) six copies of the Club's report "Government for the Richmond Metropolitan Area."

I hope that you and your negotiating committee will feel free to call upon Eugene Sydnor's committee [the Merger Action Committee] or the First Club as a whole if we can be of assistance. Our organization is enthusiastic in its support of the general idea of consolidation of the City and Henrico County under a single government, and our members are anxious to assist in the promotion of that idea.

A copy of the Club's report concerning the problem of taxation in the event of a merger between the City and Henrico followed in January, 1961.

Discussions continued with the Henrico First Council and in January, 1961, Buford wrote to Mains suggesting that each group appoint a three member planning committee "to consider ways and means for promoting what I believe both our groups have agreed is a desirable objective- the voluntary merger of the City of Richmond and Henrico County into a single political subdivision." In February, 1961 the Board met to discuss the merger. Buford proposed "to broaden activity and interest in merger by use of a citizen committee of business leaders to spearhead a grass roots campaign for merger." The Board strongly endorsed the plan and called for its immediate implementation. The Club sounded out other organizations about joining forces. In mid-March Buford sent a letter to Dabney T. Waring, Jr. of the Kiwanis Club of West End Richmond thanking members for their support for "the organization of a politically nonpartisan committee which will seek to encourage public acceptancy of the principle of merger."

With all bases covered, the Club moved to take a leadership position in the annexation battle. On March 29, 1961 Buford sent a letter to the Greater Richmond Metropolitan Committee.

In August, 1959, the RFC completed a comprehensive study of the problems of the expanding metropolitan area centered at Richmond and concluded that a voluntary merger of the city and Henrico Co. was desirable. Other civic groups and many individuals have also approved in principle the merger of these political subdivisions...
With the advantages of consolidation so plain, it may safely be assumed that the negotiators will recommend some form of merger...Such a recommendation will create an immediate need for action-action designed to stimulate full and frank discussion of metropolitan problems and of merger as a means for solving many of these problems...Experience in other communities has shown that only citizens groups can provide this sort of action.
These considerations led the First Club, in February, to call for the organization of a citizens committee which could coordinate the activities of civic organizations dealing with this question and provide leadership needed to promote public understanding and approval of consolidation.
The response to this call has been gratifying. Each of you has agreed to serve on such a committee and to lend your support to the principle of merger... At this meeting the group will undertake to define the functions of the citizens committee and provide for its permanent organization.

Ultimately, fierce opposition in the eastern parts of Henrico County defeated the merger movement. Commenting upon the merger effort from the perspective of thirty years later, Buford said that he had helped bring Jim Wheat, negotiating for Richmond, and Earl Dunn, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Henrico County, together for a private meeting to work out their differences. In the vote to approve the merger, the City approved it, as did the Tuckahoe district in the western part of Henrico County. But overwhelming defeat in the east sank the merger proposal. Buford attributed Varina's tradition of rugged individualism and suspicion of the Main Street power structure as primary factors. He had gone to Highland Springs High School to speak for the merger in a debate with "old Johnny Boatwright, a real firebrand." He commented that "I was lucky to get out of there alive. They did not want to hear anything I had to say..."

With the defeat of the merger behind it, the Club moved ahead on its effort to encourage cooperation between the jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. If nothing else, the struggle to bring unity had demonstrated the depth of animosity between the city and the counties. Once again the Club had a challenge worthy of its history. An amendment to the Constitution in 1965 signaled the Club's intentions. Where once the Club aimed "to stimulate interest in the affairs of the government of the City of Richmond," henceforth it would focus its efforts on "Richmond and the inter-governmental affairs of the Richmond metropolitan area." The amendment also called for the Club to present its position on civic issues. The masthead on the Bulletin reflected the change as well, substituting for "municipal government" the "study and improvement of metropolitan area government." From 1965 to the present, despite some ventures down other avenues, the Club has worked steadily to bring about metropolitan and regional cooperation.

A sampling of the various committee recommendations and resolutions from 1965-91 indicates the Club's preoccupation with regional issues and the need for cooperation:

1965-established a study committee on Regional Planning and Cooperation.
1966-developed report on metropolitan government
1967-report of committee on regional cooperation
1968-Metropolitan Police Cooperation Report
1969-whereas supporting formatio of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
1970-call for reviving the Regional Planning and Cooperation Committee
1973-first of series of metropolitan cooperation studies completed
1976-Cisne report to Board notes need for a Civic Center, lack of a central coordinated industrial development effort in the Metropolitan area, lack of coordinated transportation system for area, need for inter-governmental cooperation in water and sewer development, lack of coordinated tourism program
1978-suggest James River Committee for regional development
1978-call for a Metropolitan Planning Committee
1981-call for studies on a variety of metropolitan area problems: economic development initiatives, environmental, transportation, parks and recreation, library, police and fire.
1985-James River Roundtable for various metropolitan-wide interests
1986-Land Use Planning Study Committee; Regional Planning District Study Committee, Report on Government Structures in the Richmond Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Cooperation Report, Report on Metropolitan Richmond's James River Corridor
1987-88 issues include: land use; housing, economic development; government services; RRPDC; city county relationship; education; mayor's office; racism; regional transportation; downtown housing; need for cooperation on waste disposal
1991-Vision Committee to describe a metropolitan future

It is generally agreed that the metropolitan focus sharpened under the presidency of Jerry McCarthy (1981-82) and with few exceptions the theme of regional cooperation still dominates Club agendas. Also with few exceptions, the push for regional cooperation has yielded few concrete results as the Club seeks to navigate between Richmond's rocks and the counties' shoals in the effort to overcome parochial jealousies and suspicions. Because the Club has generally opted for study over action, it has been able to endure these repeated frustrations with considerable equanimity, preserving its position as the honest broker.

By 1978 the Club had determined that the single most important issue on its agenda was that of regional cooperation and development. In short order the Club amended the by-laws to give it a more active responsibility in achieving the desired degree of cooperation. Where once the Club officially restricted its activities to presenting its views, a new mission statement read, "to advocate the position of the Club on civic issues and to encourage cooperation among the political jurisdictions of the Richmond metropolitan area."

As the Club's concern for metropolitan cooperation grew, it also debated changing its name to reflect a new orientation. In February 1974, Stuart White wrote Jim Doherty that he supported changing the name to Richmond Area First Club. He said that the change was long overdue as both the Chamber of Commerce and Retail Merchants Association already had adopted new names to reflect the broader orientation. White thought that a different name for the Club might help to improve relations with Henrico and Chesterfield counties. In 1978 President Jim Edge noted that the name Richmond-First was a statement of purpose to put the locality's interest ahead of partisan or political considerations. He suggested that the Club call itself the Metropolitan Civic Club, "a name more representative of our metropolitan purpose, one that will point us toward a new era of intergovernmental cooperation..." The debate led one member wryly to suggest that a name change be considered but once every ten years.

The most recent manifestation of commitment to regional identity appeared in 1993 when the Club changed its logo. After sponsoring a design contest for students from VCU's School of the Arts, the Club selected a logo more in tune with its metropolitan focus. It abandoned the image of Richmond's old city hall for a more sweeping concept that features the James River, the major waterway shared by jurisdictions in the Richmond metro area.