I woke this morning knowing of course that today marked another anniversary of the attack of 9/11 and felt even more compelled to hug my children a little harder on the way out to school this morning. There was an extra sense of hieghtened awareness more so this morning in large part to some of the expose being done entitled "The Perfect Day" being aired this week by Glenn Beck concerning the potential targeting of our school systems which are relatively unsecure nationwide. After receiving countless email from other parents about the broadcast I was amazed at the lack of information being assimilated at the local level regarding security precautions given the fact most of us just sent our children back to school last week. I do not usually subscribe to the shock guys out there but I felt the need to at least hear out the potential situation concerning our schools and what the experts recommended the average Joe to be on the lookout for. Frightening to say the least.
It was disheartening however to open the newspaper this morning here in Richmond. I felt ashamed that on the anniversary of such an event that has shaped our nations lives the top line atop the Richmond Times-Dispatch reads "I scream at celebrities" with a pic of who else but Paris Hilton and the so-called "controversy" over the Confederate Flag fight the lead in story on the front page followed by the Petreus testimony. On this day , we find the RTD taking a more "political" posture if anyhting else though in fairness they certainly had to cover the Petreus testimony but use of a linking piece for the remembrance of the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks with Hurricane Katrina, Va tech Shooting, and the Tsunami in a piece entitled "No clear way to remember 9/11" may certainly be in light of the other occurances of death and trajedy I suppose but I believe sorely misplaced. This is exactly but one example of how displaced and dysfunctional we have become in terms of recognizing the importance of such an event and its impact on our country and this rather limited and narrow focus of 9/11 itself minimizes the threats we face going forward together as a nation. After six years RTD seems to embrace or reflect the willingness to place 9/11 in the pages of the somber history book instead of using it as an opportunity to reinvigirate the will of our community or in fact inform it.
How is Richmond different since 9/11? What is our emergency response capability? The RTD pays no attention to the Pentagon or those lost souls in PA. Today is a day that should be APOLITICAL. It is a day where we should be embracing the commonality of our community and our nation and not a day where we should on the front page rehash the Confederate flag within the chambers of the Capital downtown or through politics upon the remembrance of our fallen brotheren.
The question is not how far we have come but rather how much we have forgotten. The RTD questions "whether we are becoming numb" to all the horrors when in fact is is the telling of the story from a politcial perspective concerning everything these days that has the community numb. The Unity following 9/11 has been lost in large part because of the will of the people to be divided in the face of messages like the front page of the RTD sends this morning. On a day of remembrance it is unimporatnt to be reminded of the sacrifice of those lost, or celebrate the achievments of Tuesdays Children, those of whom lost parents on 9/11. Where are their stories? Where is the picture of Amercia today? Could it be that that picture is still out of focus? Maybe that picture is exactly the challenge we face together as a nation in the face of trajedy how do we become whole when so many among us are driving a wedge right through the very soul of our nation. The RTD is quick to right about "commemeration" not "celebration" for the 150th Civil War anniversary (a soley political underscore I might add) and yet forgets about the sanctity of "remembrance" in the context of 9/11.
We were unified once in this endeavor following the loss of thousands of innocent lives. May we not have to withstand another trajedy the likes of 9/11 again for us to re-focus that picture of America and come together once again, I pray.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Independents Well To Do
Local canvassing and get the vote outs are showing that there is certainly a growing number of voters from the two major parties that moving in the direction of supporting Independent candidates in the elections for the 69th House of Delegate seat where Katherine Waddell (I) is the incumbant as well as threeof the five districts of Chesterfield County with seats up for the Board of Supervisors.
Surprisingly the Midlothian District which went Republican with the election of Don Sowder in the special election in 2006 is seeing a potentail shift to (I) candidate Dan Gecker (current Planning Commissioner from Midlothian) who lost last Fall to Sowder while running as a Democrat for the seat. Support for Gecker is growing in the Bon Air area through juristictions of Crestwood, Bon Air up into the Greenfield area along Robious Road. Supporters have been out knocking on doors and speaking with residents about three major concerns:
1. Growth Planning and Transportation
2. School construction and Class sizes
3. Illegal Immigration Impacts
Overwhelmingly by the way residents are opposed it seems to another bond referendum to pay for the growth projects going forward in this district. There are scheduled debates/forums right around the corner coming in October for most of the district contests in Chesterfield.
Independents have work to be done in Mataoca where there are both a Democrat and Republican candidate seeking the seat of Supervisor and Bermuda right now appears to be a dead heat based on feedback from residents. That one is going to be very interesting to watch.
Throughout the 69th touching parts of Chesterfield Katherine Waddell appears in good position to face off Republican manoli Loupassi , former City of Richmond Councilman. An election office for Waddell is up and running on Midolthian Tnpk across from the Koger Center and next to Wawa.
Surprisingly the Midlothian District which went Republican with the election of Don Sowder in the special election in 2006 is seeing a potentail shift to (I) candidate Dan Gecker (current Planning Commissioner from Midlothian) who lost last Fall to Sowder while running as a Democrat for the seat. Support for Gecker is growing in the Bon Air area through juristictions of Crestwood, Bon Air up into the Greenfield area along Robious Road. Supporters have been out knocking on doors and speaking with residents about three major concerns:
1. Growth Planning and Transportation
2. School construction and Class sizes
3. Illegal Immigration Impacts
Overwhelmingly by the way residents are opposed it seems to another bond referendum to pay for the growth projects going forward in this district. There are scheduled debates/forums right around the corner coming in October for most of the district contests in Chesterfield.
Independents have work to be done in Mataoca where there are both a Democrat and Republican candidate seeking the seat of Supervisor and Bermuda right now appears to be a dead heat based on feedback from residents. That one is going to be very interesting to watch.
Throughout the 69th touching parts of Chesterfield Katherine Waddell appears in good position to face off Republican manoli Loupassi , former City of Richmond Councilman. An election office for Waddell is up and running on Midolthian Tnpk across from the Koger Center and next to Wawa.
llegal Immigration and the Hypocrites
The debate has continued regarding"illegal" immigrants in large part throughout the summer and now going into the Fall. It is largely due to the impass on any political progress by the National Democrats with regard to the Iraq issue as well as the State Republicans with regard to solving the transportation abuser fee promise.
The issue will certainly play a larger part in the election of 2008 than in statewide elections but officials are using the rather negligent Congress as an excuse for attempting to solve the issue of illegal aliens at the State level. And as they should.
Much of the heat State Republicans are taking is by way of progressive and liberal blogs piggybacking the transportation dilemma and focusing much of their scopes on folks like David Albo of the 42d House district (Fairfax) and to a lessor extent Jay O'Brien 39th Sen district both of course Republicans in Northern Virginia.
Albo was the first official to propose legislation that would prevent illegal aliens from the ability to secure Virginia driving permits as well as sponsoring bills that would prevent illegals from securing benefits from state and local taxes. O'Brien, an Irish-Amercian has supported such measures in the Senate as well and has been quoted as saying:
"the time has come for Virginia to stand up to criminal illegal aliens and protect families...and stop rewarding illegals the benefit of in-state tuition for higher education" (deemed as hate mongering??)
O'Brien has been a big proponent of propping up Virginia law enforcemnt agencies and the ability for those to turn over illegals to the Department of Homeland Security in SB 1045. O'Brien represents some 30 localties in Fairfax and 9 in Prince William County where the issue of illegals is red hot. O'Brien is supported by many Virginia associations including the Virginia Farm Bureau, Association of Realtors, State Police, Va Medical Society, Va Society of Certified Public Accountants, Va Independent Insurance Agents and Independent Auto Dealers.
And yet the progressive blogs are somehow enraged at what they call the hypocricy of State Republicans largely because of the fact Republicans, and they are not alone on this score, have secured large contributions from employers such as Smithfield that have less than clean records with regard to employing illegal workers.
In effect this is where the debate is moving, the so-called hypocricy and not focused at the very issue at hand and that is the illegal alien issue itself.
It seems Progressives would largely like to make or keep illegal immigration a Federal issue and yet we see time after time where members of the Federal Government attempt to pass the responsibilities of dealing with illegals off to the States. The following measures in the very least provide instruction for the States under the Federalist system:
Immigrant Childrens Health Improvement Act :
addreses XIX XXI of the Social Security Act to provide States with option to cover certain immigrants under medicaid and childrens health insurance programs
DREAM Act: co sponsored by Hillary Clinton in fact to address the Illegal Immigrant Reform Act to allow for States to review and determine State residency requirements for higher education with regard to immigrants
Also here the DREAM Act says "the US should protect its borders and enforce its immigration laws. The consequences of illegal entry should be deportation"
So if this debate is being shaped by "hypocricy" why is it we are not talking about the fact that liberals are attacking Republicans calling them proponents of hate and linking them to KKK circulations in PWC for simply emphatically calling for what the DREAM ACT seeks in SB 1545.
The hypocricy might just be that Clinton, Schumer, Spector, and Mikulski all NOW very critical of how Republicans are shaping the arguement against illegal immigration in Congress are all co-sponsors of legislation that states that "the consequences of illegal entry should be deportation."
This blitz to judge Republicans and yet not acknowledge the language that very Democratic leadership have drafted in the past is worrisome at the very least. It very well may represent a shift solely based on political posturing and not the solving of the issue before our country.
The above mentioned Democrats in the Senate also sponsored along with (R) John McCain and Sam Brownback the Agricultureal Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act sponsored by none other than SD (R) Larry Craig....yes that Larry Craig whom all of these folk have distanced themselves from in the last two weeks. The irony. This measure seeks to address the H-2A worker program and in particular Section 218. Then there is also the Access to English/Employment Acquisition Act that further places it upon the States to determine programs for bilingual education for immigrants.
So we have the Congress placing in large part much of the issues around immigration and its impacts upon the States and yet we are surprised when there is a call for accountability in the area of determining just who is eligible for all these programs. Is it immigrants of any status or is it the "legal" or "documented" aliens? If it is left to the State to make the distinction, so be it.
If a State is to use tax payer , public revenues, should they not perform due diligence to insure that state revenues go for the purposes of funding individuals who are indeed of legal status and residents of the Commonwealth? Should that not be the requirement? Is it not logical then for us to demand that illegals not be granted in-state tuiton? Is that not what SB 1545 from Congress is saying?
And it seems to me many of the more liberal folk tend to forget or never read "Hope and History" by Bill Clinton where on page 133-34 he states that :
" we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.Immigrants who enter our country legally and begin the process of attaining citizenship today are little different from the striven who were our ancestors..we must not tolerate illegal immigration...since 1993 we have removed 30 thousand illegal workers from jobs across the country"
Again we have reference not only in legislation but also in the works of Bill Clinton making the case against "illegal" immigration and yet it is the Republicans portrayed as hate mongers going after immigrants in an effort to identify those that are illegal and have them uniformly turned over to ICE for hearings and deportation...ie following the intent and protocal of the law.
It seesm to me that :
Addressing illegal aliens and eligibility of driving on Virginia roadways
Addressing illegal aliens in terms of securing in state tuiton rates for Virginia Universities
Addressing illegal aliens from securing State/Local tax benefits
Addressing the requirement for providing proof of citizenship ( if we would require it to leave the country why do we not have the same expectation of people already in the country )
It gets us off to a good start since the Federal Government is leaving it to the states under the basis of the Federal System and its own own hypocricy on the very issue itself. Let the debate begin.
Let see who carrys the water forward.
"
The issue will certainly play a larger part in the election of 2008 than in statewide elections but officials are using the rather negligent Congress as an excuse for attempting to solve the issue of illegal aliens at the State level. And as they should.
Much of the heat State Republicans are taking is by way of progressive and liberal blogs piggybacking the transportation dilemma and focusing much of their scopes on folks like David Albo of the 42d House district (Fairfax) and to a lessor extent Jay O'Brien 39th Sen district both of course Republicans in Northern Virginia.
Albo was the first official to propose legislation that would prevent illegal aliens from the ability to secure Virginia driving permits as well as sponsoring bills that would prevent illegals from securing benefits from state and local taxes. O'Brien, an Irish-Amercian has supported such measures in the Senate as well and has been quoted as saying:
"the time has come for Virginia to stand up to criminal illegal aliens and protect families...and stop rewarding illegals the benefit of in-state tuition for higher education" (deemed as hate mongering??)
O'Brien has been a big proponent of propping up Virginia law enforcemnt agencies and the ability for those to turn over illegals to the Department of Homeland Security in SB 1045. O'Brien represents some 30 localties in Fairfax and 9 in Prince William County where the issue of illegals is red hot. O'Brien is supported by many Virginia associations including the Virginia Farm Bureau, Association of Realtors, State Police, Va Medical Society, Va Society of Certified Public Accountants, Va Independent Insurance Agents and Independent Auto Dealers.
And yet the progressive blogs are somehow enraged at what they call the hypocricy of State Republicans largely because of the fact Republicans, and they are not alone on this score, have secured large contributions from employers such as Smithfield that have less than clean records with regard to employing illegal workers.
In effect this is where the debate is moving, the so-called hypocricy and not focused at the very issue at hand and that is the illegal alien issue itself.
It seems Progressives would largely like to make or keep illegal immigration a Federal issue and yet we see time after time where members of the Federal Government attempt to pass the responsibilities of dealing with illegals off to the States. The following measures in the very least provide instruction for the States under the Federalist system:
Immigrant Childrens Health Improvement Act :
addreses XIX XXI of the Social Security Act to provide States with option to cover certain immigrants under medicaid and childrens health insurance programs
DREAM Act: co sponsored by Hillary Clinton in fact to address the Illegal Immigrant Reform Act to allow for States to review and determine State residency requirements for higher education with regard to immigrants
Also here the DREAM Act says "the US should protect its borders and enforce its immigration laws. The consequences of illegal entry should be deportation"
So if this debate is being shaped by "hypocricy" why is it we are not talking about the fact that liberals are attacking Republicans calling them proponents of hate and linking them to KKK circulations in PWC for simply emphatically calling for what the DREAM ACT seeks in SB 1545.
The hypocricy might just be that Clinton, Schumer, Spector, and Mikulski all NOW very critical of how Republicans are shaping the arguement against illegal immigration in Congress are all co-sponsors of legislation that states that "the consequences of illegal entry should be deportation."
This blitz to judge Republicans and yet not acknowledge the language that very Democratic leadership have drafted in the past is worrisome at the very least. It very well may represent a shift solely based on political posturing and not the solving of the issue before our country.
The above mentioned Democrats in the Senate also sponsored along with (R) John McCain and Sam Brownback the Agricultureal Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act sponsored by none other than SD (R) Larry Craig....yes that Larry Craig whom all of these folk have distanced themselves from in the last two weeks. The irony. This measure seeks to address the H-2A worker program and in particular Section 218. Then there is also the Access to English/Employment Acquisition Act that further places it upon the States to determine programs for bilingual education for immigrants.
So we have the Congress placing in large part much of the issues around immigration and its impacts upon the States and yet we are surprised when there is a call for accountability in the area of determining just who is eligible for all these programs. Is it immigrants of any status or is it the "legal" or "documented" aliens? If it is left to the State to make the distinction, so be it.
If a State is to use tax payer , public revenues, should they not perform due diligence to insure that state revenues go for the purposes of funding individuals who are indeed of legal status and residents of the Commonwealth? Should that not be the requirement? Is it not logical then for us to demand that illegals not be granted in-state tuiton? Is that not what SB 1545 from Congress is saying?
And it seems to me many of the more liberal folk tend to forget or never read "Hope and History" by Bill Clinton where on page 133-34 he states that :
" we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.Immigrants who enter our country legally and begin the process of attaining citizenship today are little different from the striven who were our ancestors..we must not tolerate illegal immigration...since 1993 we have removed 30 thousand illegal workers from jobs across the country"
Again we have reference not only in legislation but also in the works of Bill Clinton making the case against "illegal" immigration and yet it is the Republicans portrayed as hate mongers going after immigrants in an effort to identify those that are illegal and have them uniformly turned over to ICE for hearings and deportation...ie following the intent and protocal of the law.
It seesm to me that :
Addressing illegal aliens and eligibility of driving on Virginia roadways
Addressing illegal aliens in terms of securing in state tuiton rates for Virginia Universities
Addressing illegal aliens from securing State/Local tax benefits
Addressing the requirement for providing proof of citizenship ( if we would require it to leave the country why do we not have the same expectation of people already in the country )
It gets us off to a good start since the Federal Government is leaving it to the states under the basis of the Federal System and its own own hypocricy on the very issue itself. Let the debate begin.
Let see who carrys the water forward.
"
Breaking News from Richmond: Willey back in the news after break-in of home
Out of Richmond, Va today, the home of Katheryn Willey the former accuser of Bill Clinton some ten years ago , house was broken into in suburban Richmond in an apparent attempt so alleged by Willey to secure notes or sources for her upcoming new book characterizing the Clinton Years and her experience in the Oval Office with Bill Clinton as well as facts concerning Hillary Clinton. More to follow as this breaks into the main media I am sure. It seems the break in in Willey's opinion may be politically motivated but it is still to early in the investigation for anyone to comment. More to follow.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Chesterfield BOS Strikes Again
It amazes me sometimes how the current Board just keeps moving along in total disregard to the community concensus. We are to believe that our local government knows best in these matters, however what we have is a governing body at odds with its own appointed Planning Commission and the result is complete arrogance.
In an effort to hold back the tide of raising taxes on either citizens or business, one of which is inevitable in the next five years if the County is to be able to offer even the average rate of services throughout the county, the Board continues to approve both new zonings and rezonings applying its pro-growth oriented governance even though we are seeing housing starts slow and homes sales slow down which may result in the largest inventory in the last ten years.
So why the dash to approve these new developments? Elections?
Could it be that the overall sentiment as of late is one of change thus this Fall may represent the first true "change election" Chesterfield has witnessed in quite some time. The Republicans have held a majority throughout this latest economic uptrend and bull market for residential and commercial developers throughout the country. It begs the question as to whether these developers are pushing these developments to either get them done before the election or to lock in requirements and proffers (or in some cases lack there of) now in hopes of developing the areas slowly during the downtrend of the housing markets and then bring them faster along when the market turns around. Either way it does not seem to be in the best interests of the County.
The latest is a "modification" to the Watkins Centre commercial/residential development along the Route 60 corridor at Route 288. I recall a town hall meeting where both Supervisor Don Sowder (R) and State Senator John Watkins (R) addressed the needs for this center and the benefits for the County to have such a "gateway" development. Less than two months after groundbreaking ceremony, the master plan has been changed by the Board.
Evidently, the current BOS did not feel the need to readdress changes with the public nor hold another town hall meeting before review the proposals by Rebkee Partners. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Kelly Miller was quoted as saying that the measure was "departing from the original zoning". Was it not the original zoning that the community was briefed on at the town hall meeting?
The area in question was orignally zoned industrial. However, the BOS unanimously approved the change to allow retail to be developed on the sites 16 acres adjacent to Midolthian Turnpike. Rebkee will now have these 16 acres in addition to its original 35 acres of approved retail/offcie space at the area designated as Shoppes at Westchester.
No one spoke in opposition, largely due to the fact that people have expressed that they were uninformed of any potential changes to the original plan. The Board Strikes Again.
Its time we in the community Strike Back. Please see the post concerning the debates and town hall meetings scheduled in the coming months for the candidates for the Board to meet with citizens.
The Board can quickly get measures like this past and yet is stalled with solving the Upper Swift Creek Plan, has little plans to solve excessive use of school trailers, is approving developments without formally addressing roads and infrastructure other than to say that the developments are providing land set aside for schools, seeks to implement line item oversight of the school board budget and continues to stay behind the curve of health and saftey protocals regarding food safety certification requirements for business providing food to the public.
I am not sure which amazes me more; that the Board continues to act in this manner or that our community continues to allow them to.
In an effort to hold back the tide of raising taxes on either citizens or business, one of which is inevitable in the next five years if the County is to be able to offer even the average rate of services throughout the county, the Board continues to approve both new zonings and rezonings applying its pro-growth oriented governance even though we are seeing housing starts slow and homes sales slow down which may result in the largest inventory in the last ten years.
So why the dash to approve these new developments? Elections?
Could it be that the overall sentiment as of late is one of change thus this Fall may represent the first true "change election" Chesterfield has witnessed in quite some time. The Republicans have held a majority throughout this latest economic uptrend and bull market for residential and commercial developers throughout the country. It begs the question as to whether these developers are pushing these developments to either get them done before the election or to lock in requirements and proffers (or in some cases lack there of) now in hopes of developing the areas slowly during the downtrend of the housing markets and then bring them faster along when the market turns around. Either way it does not seem to be in the best interests of the County.
The latest is a "modification" to the Watkins Centre commercial/residential development along the Route 60 corridor at Route 288. I recall a town hall meeting where both Supervisor Don Sowder (R) and State Senator John Watkins (R) addressed the needs for this center and the benefits for the County to have such a "gateway" development. Less than two months after groundbreaking ceremony, the master plan has been changed by the Board.
Evidently, the current BOS did not feel the need to readdress changes with the public nor hold another town hall meeting before review the proposals by Rebkee Partners. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Kelly Miller was quoted as saying that the measure was "departing from the original zoning". Was it not the original zoning that the community was briefed on at the town hall meeting?
The area in question was orignally zoned industrial. However, the BOS unanimously approved the change to allow retail to be developed on the sites 16 acres adjacent to Midolthian Turnpike. Rebkee will now have these 16 acres in addition to its original 35 acres of approved retail/offcie space at the area designated as Shoppes at Westchester.
No one spoke in opposition, largely due to the fact that people have expressed that they were uninformed of any potential changes to the original plan. The Board Strikes Again.
Its time we in the community Strike Back. Please see the post concerning the debates and town hall meetings scheduled in the coming months for the candidates for the Board to meet with citizens.
The Board can quickly get measures like this past and yet is stalled with solving the Upper Swift Creek Plan, has little plans to solve excessive use of school trailers, is approving developments without formally addressing roads and infrastructure other than to say that the developments are providing land set aside for schools, seeks to implement line item oversight of the school board budget and continues to stay behind the curve of health and saftey protocals regarding food safety certification requirements for business providing food to the public.
I am not sure which amazes me more; that the Board continues to act in this manner or that our community continues to allow them to.
"Concert for Virginia Tech"
With a fairly large contingent of Virginia Tech alumnus within the Chesterfield community it is my hope that the "Concert for Virginia Tech" scheduled for Sept. 6 at Lane Stadium will be embraced and supported by all of us.
There has been some criticism of the concert, in large part from representatives of the families who lost loved ones back in April, claiming that Virginia Tech is somehow exploiting the trajedy.
Vincent Bove, representing families, had the audacity to claim that Virginia Tech is turning this into a "vaudeville show". I could not disagree more. The University was approached by Dave Mathews Band attempting to organize a free concert in support of the survivors of the trajedy as well as to honor those that were lost. To portray the University has having alterior motives in an attempt to "gain publicity".
I think the trajedy itself elevated Virginia Tech's visibility to such enormous proportions that the University does not need to have a free concert for the betterment of itself. The concert is for the student body and is scheduled in a timely manner at the beginning of the school year as a means of attempting to move past and begin a new for the upcoming school year.
While I would have liked to have seen more diligence in terms of the performers (ie Nas and questionable lyrics) I am a firm believer that there is indeed a time for everything under God.
There is a time to mourn, but certainly there is also a time to sing and dance and four months after the trajedy maybe the University has a right to celebrate and embrace the lives of those who have survived as much as we should mourn the ones we lost.
There has been some criticism of the concert, in large part from representatives of the families who lost loved ones back in April, claiming that Virginia Tech is somehow exploiting the trajedy.
Vincent Bove, representing families, had the audacity to claim that Virginia Tech is turning this into a "vaudeville show". I could not disagree more. The University was approached by Dave Mathews Band attempting to organize a free concert in support of the survivors of the trajedy as well as to honor those that were lost. To portray the University has having alterior motives in an attempt to "gain publicity".
I think the trajedy itself elevated Virginia Tech's visibility to such enormous proportions that the University does not need to have a free concert for the betterment of itself. The concert is for the student body and is scheduled in a timely manner at the beginning of the school year as a means of attempting to move past and begin a new for the upcoming school year.
While I would have liked to have seen more diligence in terms of the performers (ie Nas and questionable lyrics) I am a firm believer that there is indeed a time for everything under God.
There is a time to mourn, but certainly there is also a time to sing and dance and four months after the trajedy maybe the University has a right to celebrate and embrace the lives of those who have survived as much as we should mourn the ones we lost.
Katherine Waddell Ahead of the Curve
Huguenot Bridge Replacement Project:
While we all continue to atch the fallout from the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities and pray for the families and the city of Minneapolis, I think it is important to sit back and reflect on those in our own community we trust with our safety and that of our children.
While our local government is presently "challenged" in solving our road crisis in Chesterfield, I want to point out that the Independent Delegate Katherine Waddell representing the 68th District in the House of Delegates has been fighting to upgrade our infrastructure since her election in 2005. It was her determination that secured the neccessary resources to replace Huguenot Bridge by 2011.
Waddell campaigned on reforming and a rebuilding of infrastructure initiative that included rebuilding the Huguenot Bridge. She fought to get funding in the VDOT Improvement Plan for replacing the 58 year old bridge and secured it this Spring. The Richmond District will receive 248 million in the VDOT Plan and some of this will go to the Huguenot Replacement Project.
We have to be reminded that alot of measures need visonaries. Up until the last few days I am sure many of Waddells political opponents felt the bridge a minor issue within the Transportation Plan before the General Assembly. Waddell, however, knew better.
Leadership is about being out in front. Its not about chasing policy or polls. I think we all can agree that on this issue Katherine Waddell has gotten it right and continues to represent the district with the baggage of the parties.
30,000 cross the Huguenot Bridge each an every day and though thats not nearly as many as the bridge in Minneapolis I am fairly confident that the residents their now wish someone had pressed State Government harder to get the bridges updated.
Waddell remains ahead of the curve in the General Assembly.
While we all continue to atch the fallout from the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities and pray for the families and the city of Minneapolis, I think it is important to sit back and reflect on those in our own community we trust with our safety and that of our children.
While our local government is presently "challenged" in solving our road crisis in Chesterfield, I want to point out that the Independent Delegate Katherine Waddell representing the 68th District in the House of Delegates has been fighting to upgrade our infrastructure since her election in 2005. It was her determination that secured the neccessary resources to replace Huguenot Bridge by 2011.
Waddell campaigned on reforming and a rebuilding of infrastructure initiative that included rebuilding the Huguenot Bridge. She fought to get funding in the VDOT Improvement Plan for replacing the 58 year old bridge and secured it this Spring. The Richmond District will receive 248 million in the VDOT Plan and some of this will go to the Huguenot Replacement Project.
We have to be reminded that alot of measures need visonaries. Up until the last few days I am sure many of Waddells political opponents felt the bridge a minor issue within the Transportation Plan before the General Assembly. Waddell, however, knew better.
Leadership is about being out in front. Its not about chasing policy or polls. I think we all can agree that on this issue Katherine Waddell has gotten it right and continues to represent the district with the baggage of the parties.
30,000 cross the Huguenot Bridge each an every day and though thats not nearly as many as the bridge in Minneapolis I am fairly confident that the residents their now wish someone had pressed State Government harder to get the bridges updated.
Waddell remains ahead of the curve in the General Assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
