Recently, the Wells Fargo Bank on the Downtown Mall removed a “no loitering” sign following an inquiry from C-VILLE Weekly. Technically, though the sign was aimed at ensuring customers’ safety, the bank cannot legally enforce it: it is not illegal to loiter unless the person loitering is doing so for an illegal purpose. Local businesses and even the City of Charlottesville itself have had a complicated relationship with public spaces. Last February, a federal judge struck down a 2010 ordinance that banned panhandling within 50 feet of the 2nd and 4th Street intersections of the Mall. These tensions speak to the design of the Downtown Mall — and how that design fails to adequately provide public spaces.
In its current layout, the Downtown Mall — which is undeniably the social hub of Charlottesville, though University students may not always frequent it — is not particularly open. It has no public seating areas, and while there are parks nearby, they are not visible or marked from the Mall itself. While Wells Fargo probably didn’t cause undue harm by posting a “no loitering” sign, the fact that people loiter is a reflection of the consumer nature of the Mall. Yes, it is a pedestrian walkway — but the social activity in which one can partake is exclusively through monetary transactions, such as eating at restaurants or attending concerts.
To be fair, Charlottesville has public spaces (including our very own University), and residents who loiter or panhandle on the Mall have had their rights to do so upheld. But as the Downtown Mall serves as the central downtown or pedestrian area for Charlottesville residents, its design could and should be vastly improved. Incorporating public seating areas alongside the myriad restaurants may alleviate the need for loitering — and therefore whatever tensions may exist between businesses and those who are making use of the pedestrian walkway. Charlottesville is fortunate to have a thriving downtown area, but there is always room for improvement.
Read More
LETTER: The Jefferson Council understates faculty criticism of the presidential search
By Jeri Seidman | 16 hours agoThat is factually inaccurate. In fact, faculty did protest.
EDITORIAL: Federal overreach is destabilizing Virginia’s leading legal bodies
By Editorial Board | 18 hours agoLosing the U.S. Attorneys for Virginia in such rapid succession destabilizes consistency in our legal prosecutors for leading legal cases, creating gaps in the knowledge and management of daily operations.
JEFFERSON COUNCIL: The hypocritical politicization of U.Va.’s presidential search
By Jefferson Council | October 12, 2025The current presidential search committee includes 28 members — Board members, students, administrators, alumni and faculty — with at least as many faculty as the previous two. Given its composition, concerns about representation are unfounded.
