New GI Bill and Jim Webb

The new GI Bill legislation (S.22)proposed by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has met its first hurdle in the House of Represenatives (HR5740)this week by passing 256-166 with the support of 32 Republicans in that body endorsing the legislation.

Some 159 House Republicans determined not to support the legislation in its present form. Many seek to add some refinement to the current legislation.

It seems, however, that the air of politics seems to have no shame in Washington as Democrats and Republicans fight for ground before the upcoming General Election. There is another bill also being carried around Washington concerning military veterans since 9/11 that has the support of the likes of John McCain, Lindsay Graham and the White House that has been trying to make it onto the floor of Senate. Of course, Democrats in the Senate will have none of that. They seek to bring Sen. Webb's (S.22) proposed legislation before the Senate and get his bill passed no doubt in time before the General Election. Now that a version in the House has passed it appears as though the Democrats will get that wish and potentially succeed in its political coup of the issue.

Why now? Why all of a sudden? Have Democrats and Republicans experienced a "light-bulb" moment that requires that right now this matter be addressed? If that light has gone off it is very interesting timing indeed. Very few in the Senate and House for that matter seemed to very concerned about the welfare of our military serviceman while in Iraq during the last three years as both Democrats and Republicans fought over the legitimacy of the Iraq and the War on Terror. Whether it be re-authorization bills or armour for our vehicles, politicians could not seem to get over that any kind of funding for the war or those fighting it was an "endorsement" of the Bush policy on the War. The result was complete gridlock. In the end, the Democrats simply wanted out of Iraq though they have failed since 2006 "change" election to accomplish that task.

Now, in May of a Presidential season we have a bill that is a complete attempt by both sides to erase the last three years of partisan positioning on the War and pass a piece of legislation to benefit those that have served our great country since 9/11. These folks deserve such benefits as proposed by both bills currently being proposed.

Before I go any further, let me first point out that I believe Sen. Webb to be a very honorable, principled and dedicated servant of the people and supported him in 2006 and continue to support him now.

I only make this point because we live in a time where if you should disagree with a policy or piece of legislation of a particular side you come under attack on all sides as being somehow "hatemonger, unpatriotic, racist" and on and on. Its shameful actually. The dialogue has been reduced or marginalized to such an extent and great divide is being perpetuated upon all of America.

That said I cannot help but feel and see the "politics" behind this issue. The Democrats by all counts seem to have the Republicans on all cards except one this Presidential season and that one represents the stranglehold Republicans have always had on Foriegn Policy, Military, and International matters. This GI Bill legislation while with many merits also serves as a vehicle for Democrats to cut into or erase some of the gains that Republicans have been making in this arena over the last twenty years or so. Some say its last card in the deck for Republicans and since the Democrats are facing an experienced American hero in John McCain a measure was required to offset some of that disparity.

Who better to bring this bill before the Senate and America than Sen. Jim Webb. Though is it is apparent that those endorsing McCain's bill sought out to reach a compromise bill, the Democrats seem hard pressed to get Webb's bill before the entire Congress while at the same time killing any hope for the competing bill to be heard. Of course there will be denies of any wrong-doing here by those on the left, but regardless of the merits of the S.22 it is certainly happening under the radar.

The bill attempts to address what has long been a perceived Democrat weakness in terms of support for our military. Much of this has to do with the reduction of our military to very low levels by President Clinton in the 1990's. Before any hard charging liberals attack me for this statement, they should know the facts before raging any "talking point" accusations against this blogger given those of us who actually were in uniform in the mid-90's and experienced this firsthand know the ramification of a misguided policy. Serviceman were virtually shown the door and presented with their GI benefit papers and informed that it was strictly a manner of "downsizing". History has proven this was a mistake.

So flash now to 2008, as the Democrats vow to make inroads into Republican strengths by introducing what they feel is a bill the likes of FDR New Deal for the military. Knowing what I know and having experienced these benefits and how they are administered I can tell you that though this bill has its merits it falls short of being anything like the "new deal".

Why? One area is it fails to address real transferability of benefits. What does this mean? It means that if you are a career enlisted and you manage to retire from the military at the age of say 50 why would you want or need the college tuition benefit offered in the GI Bill? Fact is you would not. But what you would like to be able to do is transfer that benefit to your children when they enter college. Why is this so hard for Webb and other Democrats to understand? If a serviceman were to serve 12 years or more under the competing legislation in the Senate, the tuition benefit would be 100% transferable to a spouse or child. 50% benefits can be tranfered for serving less time in the military. If you plan on making the military a career, which I though we wanted to have happen for a stable military with low turnover exactly what is the tuition benefit seek to accomplish when a serviceman will not be attending an In-State public university while on duty. One point here. The Armed Forces already has programs for military to take college courses while in the military to further their careers.

So it seesmto me this bill is designed to not only reward for loyal service but also encourage lower retention if you restrict the servive members benefits to just him/herself and not the family and it would require him to leave the military. If you are inlcined to believe that this GI benefit would not "encourage" people to leave the military I can only assume you have never served nor ever had a child enlist.

One of the biggest pitches given a new recruit is the college benefit after serving your enlistment. It is a a huge peice of the recuiters arsenal.

Now none of this critcism is to say that military servicemen and families should not get a GI Bill. I think all Americans believe we should be taking care of our veterans via both educational and medical benefits--I do not think there is any agruement on this point. But I think the manner in which we provide the benefits is critical to not only our future military but also the future of the families who have served our nation. Transferability of beenfits is a must in my book if you want members of the military, especially enlisted to serve for more than just four or six years.

And remember there is a quasi-class issue in the military. Officers and enlisted do not exactly have the same benefit opportunities. An officer leaving the military most likely already has a degree from a four year university so do we simply write of that service in terms of benefit. Why cannot that officer have the ability to transfer the benefit he/she has rightfully earned to a spouse or child?

Webb's bill and the Democrats have either no answer for that or have know whay of being able to pay for that. That brings me to the language of the bill and its intent. Given the pretense above, is it the intent of the Democrats not to have to pay these educational benefits to officers and their families because somehow they may either not deserve them or becuase of the economic or socail station not require them? I understand that the enlisted may have a greater need upon leaving the military, but what of the thousands of Warrant Officers or Master Sgts that have served in the military for fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years? Should not the children of these folks be benefited by their father/mothers service if they should chose not to use the benefits themselves. If something were happen to these military servicemen would not the government pay life insurance benefits to the families? So why not the GI benefits?

Sen. Webb has been quoted as saying that "transferability" is an "unproven concept" and yet it seems to me that he and his platform for family and the tenents of his new book would seem to endorse such a measure. Webb, however, is the perfect front man for this Democrat proposed legislation this election season. His service to our nation is unquestionable and it cannot be lost that he to is a Vietnam veteran like John McCain.

I would think and hope that these two men could meet and work out a compromise bill that would truly meet the needs of all military families, those staying in and those leaving the military, but also because both of these men have to be able to see the very irony that it is two Vietnam Vets who are in a position to make the best changes possible for the future of our military. These men were not honored in this manner to the extent that WWII veterans were and they should be able to work out a compromise bill that would address all the concerns that they realize are truly relavent and not simply a half-measure pushed through Congress for political expediency in an Election year.

If only after three years of service we are wlling to provide full scholarship to any public university and provide a housing stipend as well, should we not also reward and honor those that opt to remain in our military and honor the committment of the families that support those individuals.

Mr. Webb it is not fully but it is also about retention. The rhetoric in Washington this week reminds me of 1993 as measures were implemented and mandated to reduce our military. What better way to accomplish that task then reward people who leave greater than those who would stay. We have experienced this before and at a time when Democrats continue to tell our nation that we cannot sustain such world deployments and our military ranks cannot match the committments around the world we seek to yet again offer a means by which to further reduce the ranks.

To be sure, our military should and needs to be honored and rewarded with a New GI Bill. The problem is that S.22 is not enough and while some Democrats may see it as a "New Deal" policy I believe while good intentioned it is a half-measure meant to meet a politicial end and not a truly a better benefit proposal for veterans.

Bears in Chesterfield?

Call me crazy but I know a bear when I see one---I think. Driving westbound out Rt 711 (Robious Road) right at the Chesterfield and Powhatan County lines I first noticed in the early morning hours this morning in the little drizzle of rain about four or five dear darting across Rt. 77 about forty or so yards ahead of me moving from the river side of the road across Rt. 711 and into the woods.

What I did not expect to see about thirty seconds later was a bear roaming the field on the same side where the deers had crossed the road. If you have ever traveled Rt.711 you know there is virtually no place to pull over as the road rides up right along fence lines and treelines but it was a sight. The Bear could not have been more than a few years old and was mostly likely in search of food but have never seen any this far east.

I wish i had my digital camera along this morning as I headed out west and knew that the picture phone would not make the distance the bear was. My only guess is the bear was heading to the creek area that the bridge right at Winterfield covers Rt.711. The remarkable thing is now there are homes at Founder Bridge and below the County line all along Rt. 711 that five years ago probably were not there.

Bears in Chesterfield.

My global warming friends will certainly say as they always do that this just proves the impacts of global climate change. Afterall, its not such a leap from polar bears and the ice cap to brown/black bears in Chesterfield (snark).

New Rants and Raves

We have added some new Rants and Raves for some sites that we enjoy and have removed some that have are no longer rollin on the blogroll these days.

We are adding:

Scott Nolan's blog http://www.blog.scottnolan.org/
Richmond Democrat: http://www.richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/

Republican Caucas: http://www.vagopcaucus.blogspot.com/

another two non-political that are great:

http://www.allthingsrichmond.blogspot.com/
http://www.susangreenbaum.com/

If anyone has a blog or a site they feel we and our bloggers would enjoy please post it in the comment section.

Real Estate Numbers Beginning to Tell the Story

While the citizens of Chesterfield County await the outcomes of such proposals as Roseland and a modified Upper Swift Creek Plan that will come before the Board (again as it would have it) in the coming months some First Quarter real estate data has been released by George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis that is very interesting.

Residential Sales in the four Metro Richmond localities-Hanover, Henrico, the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County are down some 33% versus the first three months of 2007 and pending closings are down 25%. Chesterfield experienced 1,847 residential sales and pending closings in this period while Henrico experienced 1,624.

While Henrico County may have experienced a few less sales it is important to note that its average closing price was 7,000 higher than that of Chesterfield County. Henrico's sales were off 33% from a year earlier.

While we speak to the future in terms of many of these large zoning proposals before the Board in the coming months, one must be reminded about the excess in real estate inventories that already exists in the County. Another factor is the increasing number of foreclosures hitting the Courthouse steps this Spring as compared to last year.

There was a recent piece in the RTD that spoke to the learning curve that is being experienced by the newly elected Supervisors on the Board and these numbers cannot be good news as it appears as though these First Quarter's economic numbers and indicators may not be the best way to start off 2008. Admittedly, these numbers are not a true reflection of the current Board as much as they are a forecast of what may be on the horizon.

Lets hope that these members are brushing up on Econ 101.

Community Meeting (Midlo District)

There will be a Community Meeting on Monday May 19th regarding the 2008 General Assembly Session Briefing at the Winfree Memorial Baptist Church located at 13617 Midlothian Tnpk inthe Midlothian District of Chesterfield County.

Midlothian Supervisor Dan Gecker (I)
State Senator John Watkins (R) *as listed on Chesterfield County Government website will provide constituents with a briefing on the General Assembly 2008 Session.

7PM is the Start.

Roseland Case Deferred 90 days

While many of us have kept an eye on the Roseland zoning plans and case over the course of the last year, the developers finally had the opportunity to come before the Board of Supervisors and bring their case for zoning before the County.

The Planning Commission in my view failed to sieze the opportunity of deferring the zoning case which would have prevented or at least extended the time frame before the case would reach the Board and provided for more discussion/communication with residents along the Woolridge Road area. Do not get me wrong, I believe that the developers in this case have extended their hands to local communities over the course of the last year but there still remain some issues that should be addressed by both the developers and the residents together. The Planning Commission failed to provide more time for this to occur and the case was sent to the Board.

After roughly twenty speakers, mostly in favor of deferment of the case, addressed the Board of Supervisors and in the end Ms. Durfee, (I) Supervisor Matoaca District spoke at length regarding the case and hit on quite a few points, including the communication with residents, as well as some of the more smart growth centric issues in the case. She proposed that the Board defer the case for ninety days for continued review and the motion passed the Board with one exception, Mrs. Jaeckle, (R) Supervisor Bermuda District. Jaeckle voiced her feeling that the parties would be able to work issues out over a thirty day period and if needed could seek further deferment if required but that to give a ninety day deferment would result in the review taking the entire period of time which could result in some of the business interests with regard to economic development (code for signed leasing agreements/intents) to be forgone by the business community due the the length of time this project is taking to get zoning approval.

The most striking point is most County residents probably where unaware that this case involves both the Midlothian and Matoaca Districts. Durfee took the lead in addressing much of the issue at hand, but Daniel Gecker, (I) Supervisor Midlothian, had very little to input regarding the case other than he would support Ms. Durfee's wishes for seeking the ninety day deferment. Gecker has been involved in this case since its inception as the former Planning Commissioner for the Midlothian District when this development was first proposed. In fact, Mr. Gecker has been involved with most of the major new growth projects being built out in Chesterfield, including Crossland's Cloverleaf project, Watkins Centre, Magnolia Green and much of the commercial zonings like the Shops at Stonehenge along the Route 60 corridor. His few words were striking given the fact that the impacts on the Village of Midlothian with regard to the Roseland project could be substantial and virtually be a catalyst for the area to lose its charm and historical village plan.

I have said this quite a few times and it cannot go without saying that the integrity of the five or so Chesterfield Villages will be tested in the coming years with regard to zoning cases. If one want to see the future for Chester one only has to look to Midlothian and the major factor protecting Bon Air is the City and the lack of land available around it and no one should forget that with the enormous amount of growth coming to the Ft. Lee area in the next ten plus years that Ettrick could also see such measures taken to support the areas growth.

In the end, while happy with the reasoning behind the deferment I have to admit that I still remain very concerned with the wake that the case will leave behind upon approval. I think the project on its merits should ultimately gain full approval and the Sowers folks have done a tremendous job at bringing a very modern development before the Board but my concern has always been what the true impacts will be on the greater community at large. These issues in terms of a zoning case or planning by the developers are honestly not really the developers issues as much as they are our leadership on the Board. We are trusting that upon build out of this development that our Board will plan for such impacts that may result from such a large scale project. These impacts will certainly be on our schools, whose budget was just reduced some six million dollars and our roads which our Board as little to offer up in terms of relief.

Even if we see a build out in three phases over fifteen years, we are still talking about adding 5K new homes (which amounts to ten thousand new cars) every five years and though the schools are included in the case for elementary I wonder for example what answer the Board has for say pre-schools and daycare centers which virtually throughout the Midlothian District all have waiting lists even today before the build outs of Roseland and the countless other projects. I realize the politicians will say its the private sectors responsibility to look to service those needs in the coming years, but I just cannot help but see there being a shrinking piece of undeveloped pie being seen in the greater Midlothian community which could result in pushing many services upon that of the Clover Hill and Matoaca Districts along RT 360 which is already overburdened with poor commercial zonings and of course excessive traffic counts year over year.

So while a realist and know that this Board will pass the Roseland development, I think the greater question will be if they are able to secure their political futures should they fail to midigate alot of the impacts on services, including the issue of the Upper Swift Creek Plan and our water quality in Swift Creek that could be threatened with continued development throughout Midlothian and Matoaca. I keep a picture of Lake Chesdin from just last year that demonstrates just what can happen to our water levels during a dryer year and though we may be experiencing some great rains so far this year, we cannot forget about what can happen when low rainfall occurs or we experience something even worse than 2007.

The folks at GBS Holding which will oversee the Roseland development feel the project will reduce the collective dependency on the automobile once the it is fully phased and even has the potential of adding a light rail down the road. The County Planning Department estimates that the project will bring about 77K additional car trips per day on County serviced roadways, which may certainly have been a concern of Wayne Bass, Planning Commissioner for Matoaca, who sought additional time for review of the project but could not get any support on the Planning Commission for a deferment.

"I know I am fighting a stacked deck up here"- Wayne Bass, Planning Commission

"This is well planned and smartly developed"- R.J. Gulley, Chairman Planning Commission

Yeah, Mr. Bass I think you were right. The deck may very well have been stacked, but because the 1500 acre project is mostly in your district you would have thought that you would have gotten the support of the remianing Commissioners for a deferment.

"It takes time to analyze this large a development for Chesterfield County to determine if its appropriate"- M. Durfee, Supervisor Matoaca District

"We think Roseland is a poster child for responsible growth"- Casey Sowers, GBS Holdings
"We are satisfied that the case meets and exceeds all reasonable standards"- Casey Sowers, GBS Holdings

"Sprawl is about the misuse of resources" Dave Anderson, Developer Engineer, GBS Holdings

Chesterfield Reduces Property Tax Rate by 2 cents

Today the entire Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County voted in favor of a property tax rate reduction of 2 cents to 95 cents. This marks the second consecutive rate reduction approved by the County, however this time around it appear to be a walk in the park compared to last years heated debate over the reduction.

What has changed? Everything apparently to the current Board, which evidently thought it more prudent to keep campaign promises on this issue than to actually look at the economic ramifications of such measures with regard to the health of the County budget moving forward. It is apparent these these Supervisors have managed to miss to constant barage of negative economic data coming out recently and while announcing some new business development news fail to have any answers for such conditions in the economy that caused say the Hon Company which operated in the Bermuda District for many years to close up shop taking roughly one thousand jobs with it out of Chesterfield. There seems to be a quasi-state of denial concerning some of the real hard economic indicators on the horizon.

The Board seems content with the knowledge that Chesterfield is still a place where developers wish to bring to market new home and commercial construction and seem to feel that they can raise the level of which those markets particpate in revenue generation which has roughly been around twenty percent in recent years. But at what price is the level of servcies going to pay by reducing the rate yet again, especially since many Virginia localities are raising these rates to offset infrastructures needs.

Does this Board really think that Chesterfield will get a good share of State funding? The power is shifting even more to Northern Virginia in the General Assembly and while Chesterfield is one of the fastest growing areas in the Commonwealth, its needs will surely not be as high on the list as say NVA or Hampton Roads/VA Beach.

Chesterfield needs to begin the process of looking after itself. Yes that will certainly be painful, but Henrico County has managed to get by without State funding for roads. Why can't Chesterfield do the same? Reducing the rate is an easy political move, yet many of us put this Board in place to kake the hard choices and not the easy ones. Every issue raised last year as to why the rate should not be reduced is even clearer in todays economic conditions.

The fact is it was not the rate per say people took issue with but the level of increased assessments. The assessments which increased some 16% last year and now 11% this year have been the overriding factor bringing about the issue regarding tax rates. It was never the rate so much as the assessments were raised so to were the amounts residents tax bills became. While it may be politically expedient to lower rates now, it begs the question just what the County has in store for us come 2009 with regard to tax assessments? What if the housing crisis really gets worse and home sales and values continue the declines we have witnessed beginning late last year? If homes lose twenty percent of value when compared to 2007 assessments what will be the impact or fallout if residents find the value of the homes declining in the marketplace but he assessments rising in 2009. What is the likelihood of such scenario? Hard to tell but no one really knows how deep this housing crisis will go and whether the bottom will hit in 2008 or later.

Personally I am pieved at this move. I did not support the reduction last year because I wanted to rate to remain the same but if they felt a reduction was possible they should have taken that reduction rate and set that percentage aside for roads and only for roads. It now so happens we have lost some nine cents in revenue now that could have been marked for roads if you take into account the previous reduction.

Who will be impacted most? Schools of course. The mismanaged growth or as the blog Bacons Rebellion says "dysfunctional" growth has brought us such impacts as overcrowding in our schools and now it is apparent that these reductions will effect the School Board as well. I feel that we may see a battle in the coming years, not unlike the City of Richmond between their School Board and Mayor Wilder, should this Board of Supervisors not begin to engage and work with our School Board more openly. Its is striking to me as some of these Supervisors act as if the situation with our schools and overcrowding is somehow a new phenomenom when I actually had classes some thirty years ago at Robious Middle School in trailers out back. It begs the question just how long some of these folks have been residents of Chesterfield if they cannot grasp the reality that many of us not only were educated here in Chesterfield but are now raising our children here----for now.

I wonder just how all the new residential developments before this Board will impact property values in the older areas as well going forward if the available home inventory rises as a direct result of the number of new homes constructed in the market. This Board has not yet been inclined to put forth a solution for sprawl or a revitilization plan for many areas of the County that have been impacted by the western migration of residents along Rt 60 and 360 other than the Cloverleaf Mall project. In case they missed it, our Villages, are quickly being challenged on all sides with increased developmental pressure which will result in them losing the Village charm altogether.

Regardless of the level of assessments and the underlying revenue generation that results from the rate in 2008, the Board continues to miss the opportunity of pulling the County up ahead of the curve and make some significant moves that would benefit the entire County for years to come.