20 Questions for Deputy City Attorney Adam Melita

A member of CANT recently had a very enlightening conversation with an individual who possesses first-hand knowledge of the highly controversial issues between the shut-down establishments at Waterside, BAR Norfolk and Have a Nice Day Café, and Waterside Associates/Bar Task Force/City of Norfolk.

As it turns out, the owners of BAR Norfolk and Have a Nice Day Café are currently involved in litigation with Waterside Associates and the city of Norfolk, and they have a court date set for next week.

The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, brought up more very serious questions as it relates to the Task Force and the way the city of Norfolk operates.

The following questions arose during our conversation and I would be most interested to see if either Deputy City Attorney Adam Melita or City Attorney Bernard Pishko would actually answer them in a public forum.

- Is it true that Deputy Attorney Melita told Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk through communications with their counsel that Norfolk City Council was approving their liquor license renewal 72 hours before the council decided to rescind the licenses, when Melita knew that bars’ attorney was leaving for vacation and would not be available to be present at the city council meeting?

- Is it true that when contacted for a resolution to the Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk cases, Mr. Melita contacted Waterside Associates to be present at an informal meeting with himself, City Attorney Bernard Pishko, Wayne Ringer and representatives for Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk?

Mr. Melita allegedly told representatives from both Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk that if they city was found to have done something wrong in the closing of the two establishments, which several members of City Council already think, then City Council could vote to retroactively “fix the wrongs” and that would be the only remedy required of the city.

- If so, why would the City Council be able to do this and why would it be the only remedy required of the city?

- Would they not owe the businesses, who lost millions of dollars by their closings, something else?

- What would “fixing the wrongs” prove?

- Why does the city not care about the 120 employees that they essentially made unemployed by shutting down Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk?

- Why do Mr. Melita and the city believe that they can just close a business down for over two years, retroactively enact a new law and think that the establishments that were shut down are not owed anything else?

- Have a Nice Day Café had a lease with Waterside through 2014, with an option for five additional years, and BAR Norfolk had a lease through 2013. What about the lost revenue to these businesses for closing them down?

- Does Mr. Melita believe that the city is immune to federal law requiring due process?

- Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk were not given due process. Is the city above the law?

- What about the tax dollars lost by shutting down two very popular nightspots? Why do the law makers not care what their constituencies’ wants or needs?

- Why did the timing of all of the bar task force enforcement levied against Have a Nice Day Café coincide with Have a Nice Day Café becoming predominantly an African American crowd and after a shooting occurred in the parking garage at Waterside? (A pivotal moment came this summer after a bar booked an act associated with violence after a man was killed near Waterside. "That’s when I knew then we had to do something," Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot)

- Is it true that there is no connection between anyone at Have a Nice Day Café or BAR Norfolk and the shooting that occurred in the parking garage?

Mr. Melita also allegedly said that he doesn’t care about any negative press the city may receive because it would be in and out of the media within three days.

- Why does he have such a flippant attitude?

- Does Mr. Melita feel that he and the city are so untouchable that they aren’t affected by any negative press?

Some other interesting facts that came to light in these conversations include the fact that Circuit Judge Norman A. Thomas who City Council asked to shut down both BAR Norfolk and Have a Nice Day Café, worked in the City Attorney’s office from roughly 1982-1991 and most likely wrote the 1983 ordinance that the Bar Task Force used to shut these establishments down. Mr. Thomas also worked closely with Cynthia Hall, who heads the Bar Task Force.

Judge Thomas also allegedly has very close ties to City Attorney Bernard Pishko, as the two and their spouses frequently socialize together, a relationship that dates back to William & Mary.

- Does this relationship not affect Judge Thomas’ decisions on cases under his jurisdiction?

- How about the fact that the majority of the active judges for the city of Norfolk are graduates of the College of William & Mary?

- Judges Karen J Burrell, John R Doyle, Junius P Fulton III, Charloes E Poston and Norman A Thomas all attended William & Mary, along with Bernard Pishko. Even though William & Mary is a fantastic school and it is right up the road, this seems like an inordinate number of graduates of the same school all working together, does it not?

- Five judges in Norfolk Circuit Court went to the same school. Doesn’t that seem like a very high percentage?

Do a quick scan of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Richmond etc. and you won’t find that high of a percentage from the same school on their Circuit Court.

- Is it even possible for Have a Nice Day Café and BAR Norfolk, or anyone else in the city for that matter, to get a fair trial with all of these relationships and connections along with a judge clearly siding with the city?

After all, we already know that Pishko will and others in Norfolk aren’t above questionable acts, such as when Pishko represented Vice Mayor Burfoot in a non-city related matter last year.

Again, if these instances of fishy business by the city of Norfolk were singular events, we could let them slide. But where there’s some, there’s fire and the city of Norfolk is smoldering these days. 

Is anyone in the media willing to sit down with Mr. Melita and have him answer these questions on the record? 

Questions abound about the Bar Task Force and beyond

One of the more controversial arms of Norfolk government has been the Bar Task Force, which has been involved in the high profile closings of numerous restaurants and nightclubs in recent years. We often hear a lot about the Task Force in the news, yet real information about the Gestapo-like group is hard to come by.

Take a gander at Norfolk.gov. Do a search for “Bar Task Force” and you will come back with one result under the Fire Marshall’s Office page mentioning that they are a part of the Task Force and that the Task Force “conducts unannounced sweeps of local bars and clubs to insure that they are not overcrowded, and to enforce ABC violation, as well as gross fire code violations.  This has been a very effective measure in ensuring the safety of our citizens and visitors while they are enjoying our City.”

Moreover, simply Google “Bar Task Force” Norfolk and you’ll find nothing but newspaper stories and television reports about the Task Force conducting sweeps and shutting establishments down. We know that Deputy City Attorney Cynthia Hall runs the Task Force and they conduct these sweeps, essentially putting the facilities they sweep out of business, but that’s really where the information ends.

In the case of two bars at the much maligned Waterside, Mayor Fraim said violations at the two shut-down establishments “were simply too frequent.” That explanation would sit fine with us if there were public records indicating that their frequency at Waterside was, in fact, greater than other facilities. Also, how many sweeps were done at bars that were shut down versus other bars? If certain bars had more sweeps, why? If the Bar Task Force is run, even if in part, by taxpayer dollars, shouldn’t records of all their raids be public information. Has any member of the media taken the time to examine all the sweeps done by the Task Force to see if everyone is operating on a level playing field?

Both the aforementioned Waterside establishments and Posh Dolce on Granby Street were scrutinized heavily because of shootings that happened outside their establishments. In the case of Posh Dolce, the shooting actually occurred at a parking garage several blocks away.  However, a shooting happened INSIDE the Granby Theater in March of 2007 and they're still in business today. Yes, the establishment faced punishment, but it was allowed to reopen FOUR MONTHS LATER. Does this have anything to do with the fact that the Granby is owned by Barry Wright, who’s Wright Company is a prominent real estate developer in the city?

Why are some bars shut down during a sweep or not granted special exemptions to serve alcohol, but others are, even when the bar’s owner publicly decries the Bar Task Force, as Tommy Arney did last year regarding his new venture, Bootleggers. Arney, who has had other run-ins with the city of Norfolk, not only had his special exemption approved, but earlier last year when he installed a sign illegally at Bootleggers it was glossed over by the city. Now, we don’t know Mr. Arney, and he’s probably a great guy, this isn’t meant to ridicule him or his businesses and we applaud him for standing up to the city, but Bootleggers is in the same space that once occupied Posh Dolce, which at least as of 2008 was also owned or managed by Mr. Wright. We don’t know for certain if the building is still owned by Wright (city records indicate it is owned by Two Fifty-Five Granby, LLC; The Granby Theater is listed as being owned by Four Twenty-One Granby, LLC, for the record), but if so, did that have a factor in Council’s decision?

Then there is also the fact that Arney’s attorney is Peter Decker III. Yes, Decker is a very prominent attorney in Norfolk, and his father is somewhat of a legend around these parts, but isn’t it somewhat odd that Decker goes out of his way to praise Task Force commander Cynthia Hall ("She's one of the most hard working, ethical public servants the city has.")? Not to mention the fact that he is also a heavy contributor to Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot according to VPAP ($3,000 in 2010 and that’s just from Decker personally, his law firm Decker Cardon Thomas Weintraub Coureas & Huff contributed $5,000 to Burfoot as well.

Sound familiar?

Then there is the fact that Burfoot and Mayor Fraim frequent d’egg Diner (Exhibit A and Exhibit B), which makes a fine breakfast, but it is also owned by Decker’s brother, Phillip. Maybe it’s all coincidence though, right?

Burfoot has long been the most vocal council member for increased oversight of downtown restaurants and clubs and he is a big advocate of the Bar Task Force. Let’s not forget that Mr. Burfoot’s own camp has a somewhat shady connection to nightclubs in Norfolk as Curtis Anderson, who was a paid coordinator for Mr. Burfoot’s campaign for re-election. Mr. Anderson is also part owner of The Palace on Plume. I wonder, has the Palace on Plume ever been searched by the Task Force?

In addition to owning The Place on Plume, Mr. Anderson was appointed to the board of the flat broke Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority in 2009 at the suggestion of Mr. Burfoot. Anderson was later removed from that position after he was arrested for failing to appear before a Virginia Beach judge in a tax case, of which he was later convicted. Last year Mr. Burfoot declined to comment on the situation involving Mr. Anderson. Our question is, shouldn’t Mr. Burfoot, or any member of council involved in a similar situation, feel he owes an explanation to his constituents? This whole situation is fishier than Burfoot double-dipping as assistant city treasurer.

There may not be an exact fire you can point to declaring that there is something fishy going on, but there sure is a whole lot of smoke.

The NRHA's Numerous Shortfalls

Did you see the news last week that the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) is facing a $4.7 million budget shortfall? $4.7 Million. 

I understand that a good percentage of the NRHA’s budget comes from federal funds, however the NRHA are clearly worse at managing their budget than they are at managing properties. City Council appoints the NRHA board, so why aren’t they holding them responsible for this shortfall? Why can’t we open up the books of the NRHA and see what caused this shortfall?

Maybe the reason the NRHA is currently in this quagmire is they can’t do simple math. Another recent story suggests the agency wants to sell its current downtown office space, which was recently appraised at $6 million. They then want to build a new facility off Ballentine Boulevard. The cost of this sparkling new facility? A cool $12 million.

I’m no math major, but something doesn’t add up.

Instead of spending another $12 million they don't have, maybe the NRHA can just find a building they like and procure it citing eminent domain. What if the building is still occupied by its owners, you ask? Well, it hasn’t stopped the NRHA before.

Who took the money, who took the money away? 

Waterside Woes

On any given visit to downtown Norfolk, you can’t help but notice the albatross that is Waterside Festival Marketplace.

When Waterside Festival opened in 1983 was a symbol of Norfolk’s downtown revitalization. Now, almost 30 years have passed and Waterside is slowly becoming a symbol for the dysfunction at Norfolk City Hall.

The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority took over Waterside from a private developer in 1998. Three years later, with the addition of several new restaurants, bars and nightclubs, the city touted the fact that Waterside was profitable for the first time in a decade. That was 10 years ago and much has changed since then.

The city ran off tenants (it is currently less-than half full), Waterside began losing money again and latest estimates are that the city spends around $1 million annually to subsidize the property. Ideas have been touted for the space, including a casino, movie theater, market and bowling alley. Will any of them seriously be pursued though?

Could there be ulterior motives at work at Waterside as well? In May of 2008 Council members Barclay Winn and Anthony Burfoot are on record as saying they felt Waterside should be torn down. Burfoot even said that Waterside should be closed by 2010. Within a year of saying Waterside should be torn down, several Waterside venues were shut down and a year later Jillian’s left due to, in part, indecision by the city. And as we talked about yesterday, it certainly isn’t beyond members of City Council.

Even now, after the city spent nearly $30,000 on outside consultants to provide ideas for Waterside – they unanimously said don’t tear it down, by the way – the city said recently it wants more time to decide Waterside’s fate. How much longer is this going to go on and at what cost to the taxpayers?

The city likes to talk about what a priority Waterside is, but isn’t it peculiar that if you go to the Waterside website, there is absolutely no information about leasing space there. ANY other facility like Waterside Festival – especially one in dire need of tenants – has that information readily available on its website. Why doesn’t the city have it up on the Waterside site? If they don’t want to deal with managing the property why won’t they just sell it to a private developer and let them handle it?

When will someone from City Hall step up and give real answers to these questions that relate to their motives and actions?

Mysterious Motives, Unanswered Questions and the Might of Money

By now, most Norfolk citizens know the story of the extremely controversial Midtown Office Tower that has been making headlines the past few months. The tower, and the questions surrounding it, became a microcosm of everything that’s wrong at Norfolk City Hall. If you haven’t heard the stories, then you’ve probably been living under a rock. Come to think of it, that’s actually where members of Norfolk City Council would likely prefer their constituents stay. But I digress.

For those who need catching up, here is a brief synopsis:

Tivest Development & Construction proposed building a six-story, $32.7 million office building at the corner of Tidewater Drive and Virginia Beach Boulevard. The tower was to contain, among other things, the offices of the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project (STOP), which would occupy 65,000 of the 165,000-square-foot office tower. Controversy arose when Tivest approached the city in December, asking them to guarantee 65% of the rent payments for STOP’s office space, should STOP default on its rent payments.

This is likely because STOP President and CEO Regina Lawrence told Tivest President Dwight Etheridge that she had concerns about STOP’s ability to pay the increased rent in the Midtown Office Tower. Currently, STOP pays about $324,000 annually in rent. In the Midtown Office Tower, their rent would increase to $2.1 million annually.

Of course, Mayor Fraim was on board with Tivest’s requests, saying the risk would be “minimal” and that he would urge city council to approve the stipulation.

"The STOP organization has been around 46 years, and they have an excellent record of paying their bills,” said Mayor Fraim. As we blogged about earlier, apparently STOP has had MASSIVE financial problems over the years and is nearly broke. Glad to see you did your homework, Mayor.

Moreover, City Council members Angelia Williams, Tommy Smigiel and Andy Protogyrou, who voted against the project, said no one from City Hall bothered to speak with STOP officials about their interest in the project, or their concerns over their ability to pay the increased rent.

While debating the value of the Midtown Office Tower, Norfolk City Council held closed door sessions, which were later determined to be illegal.

After much public outcry, including the aforementioned three members of city council breaking away from the others to hold on open forum, the city abandoned the much-maligned office tower.

Thankfully the office tower project is no more, but there are many issues / questions came to light in recent months that need explaining. Namely, why were city leaders such Mayor Fraim and Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot so adamant about pushing this tower through? Could it be because Tivest President Dwight Etheridge has been a financial supporter of both Fraim and Burfoot? For the record, Etheridge has also supported Councilmen Winn and Riddick financially as well. They were all outspoken in their support the office tower. Coincidence?

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, Etheridge and his companies (Tivest and Genesis Staffing) have contributed over $15,000 to select Norfolk politicians and their campaigns between 2007 and 2010, notably Mayor Fraim ($5,000), Vice Mayor Burfoot ($5,000) and councilmen Riddick ($2,000) and Winn ($1,000).

The Etheridge / Tivest / Genesis Norfolk Donations Scorecard 
06/07/2007 - Genesis Staffing contributed $1,250 to Anthony Burfoot for Norfolk City Council
06/07/2007 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $1,250 to Anthony Burfoot for Norfolk City Council
04/18/2008 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $1,000 to Daun Hester for Norfolk City Council
05/05/2008 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $1,000 to Barclay Winn for Noroflk City Council
09/09/2009 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $1,000 to the Hester/McDonald Golf Classic
09/11/2009 - Dwight Etheridge made a $1,000 personal contribution to Paul Riddick for Norfolk City Council
03/08/2010 - Genesis Staffing contributed $1,000 to Paul Riddick for Norfolk City Council
03/12/2010 - Genesis Staffing contributed $2,500 to Paul Fraim for Norfolk City Mayor
03/12/2010 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $2,500 to Fraim for Mayor
03/23/2010 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $2,500 to Anthony Burfoot for Noroflk City Council
05/03/2010 - Tivest Development & Construction contributed $500 to Andy Protogyrou for Norfolk City Council

Meanwhile, Etheridge and his companies and contributed a grand total of $250 to Chesapeake politicians (where Tivest is based) and a big fat $0 to Virginia Beach politicians (where Genesis and based and Etheridge calls home).

Also keep in mind that NFL Hall of Famer (and Norfolk native) Bruce Smith proposed a similar idea to build an office building for city employees on the same site years earlier. Smith was rejected by the city.
Did the fact that Smith did not grease their pockets factor in their decision to reject his proposal?

Has anyone in the Norfolk media sat down with Mayor Fraim, Vice Mayor Burfoot or Council members Winn and Riddick to ask about their support for the office tower, despite not seeking input from STOP? Has anyone directly asked them if the financial contributions from Tivest and Genesis Staffing affected their decision? Do we need to dig deeper into other financial contributions made to their campaigns over the years to see if they’ve affected other important city decisions?

What about Mr. Etheridge? Has anyone asked him why he has made substantial contributions to Norfolk politicians, but little-to-none to Chesapeake and Virginia Beach politicians, where he actually lives and works?

If not, why? When is someone going to hold these people responsible for their actions or at the very least find out the motives behind what, at least on the surface, appears to be questionable behavior?

Take a look at where your tax dollars go

Several troubling examples of poor management by groups who rely, at least in part, on tax dollars from Norfolk  have come to light recently.

One very high profile case was an employee who working for the Norfolk Community Services Board (CSB), who received approximately $320,000 in pay and benefits over 12 years WITHOUT WORKING A DAY. CSB is an independent agency created by the state and funded with state and federal tax dollars.

The employee was suspended from work in 1998 and the agency continued to pay her despite the fact that she never returned to work.


Of course, Norfolk city officials say that have little jurisdiction over the CSB, despite the fact that Norfolk City Council appoints the CSB's governing board AND the city handles the CSB payroll. Oh, and the city attorney's office provides the CSB with legal counsel as well.

Prior to that, the city began investigating the director of the Norfolk Interagency Consortium for running up more than $10,000 in charges on a city credit card that she could not document.

Then there's the case of the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project (STOP), which is nearly broke and is being investigated by the Commonwealth of Virginia for numerous infractions, including allegations that it did not accurately deduct payroll taxes. Plus, some employees earned bonus in excess of $100,000! STOP is a "non-profit" with an annual operating budget of $20 million, comprised of private donations as well as federal, state and local funds.

At least one member of City Council feels like these groups need to be help accountable and wants to bring them under the control of city government. For example, Community Services Boards in Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach are part of the city governments.Although, that begs the question if city government can appropriately oversee these agencies, when they themselves have exhibited questionable behavior on more than one occasion through the years?

As a

It all starts at the top

Leaders of groups, businesses and organizations are critical parts of those entities. The leaders set the tone for how business is done and what procedures to follow. Unfortunately the leadership at Norfolk City Hall is constantly mired in quagmires and questionable acts.

As Archie Whitehill so eloquently put it in an opinion piece on hamptonroads.com, one of Mayor Paul Fraim and his network's more recent head-scratchers comes to us from the Ocean View community where several restaurant owners were lobbying to stay open until 1 a.m.

Since the early 1990s, new restaurants in Ocean View, Bayview and along East Little Creek Road have been forced to end alcohol sales at midnight. In most other areas, restaurants can serve alcohol until 2 a.m.

Even in Ocean View, restaurants such as Greenies, Thirsty Camel and Ocean View Fishing Pier are allowed to serve late into the evening.

On the surface, the reasoning looks legit. These establishments were "grandfathered" due to the fact they opened prior to 1992, when the law went into place.

However, as Mr. Whitehill points out, the owners of Greenies, Thirst Camel and Fishing Pier are long-time supporters of Fraim and his right-hand man, Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot.

If this were an isolated incident, no one would think twice.

Sadly, in Norfolk, this type of decision from leaders is commonplace.

And it all starts at the top.

Read more about the Ocean View restaurants here and here.