While many of the people I admire here in the area for their advocacy of local issues here in Chesterfield have been oout of town at CPAC, this certainly has been a jam packed week following the Reagan Dinner held in Richmond.
Our School Board has determined that a proposed budget increase of 6 million over last year is warranted for consideration to include a 2% "salary enhancement" for employees of CCPS. This fall just months after the Board of Supervisors bonus consideration of all government employees (non-school) whom have been in service at least one full year.Am I missing something? Have we really seen any real signs (of significance) of a recovery? I mean we are still facing a huge housing crisis here in Chesterfield with rising defaults and foreclosures whihc will result in less revenue generation by the County via "paid" property taxes. Has our "government class" simply endeavored to operate outside the bubble of the real mainstream families here in the County? Do they really feel as though they are an "entitled class" even in the midst of under funded pensions and things like the VRS.
How can our government continue to operate as though they live in a box?I speak with business owners all the time who would love to provide their employees with higher wages, a bonus, or better benefits, but in the end all of their efforts are tied to income generated by operations. These are still very tense times for our local business owners and job creators and while they buckle down and make hard choices to stay in business, our government remains defiant at making any hard choices with regard to its own budgets. Both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board jave failed equally in delivering fiscally responsible budgets to meet these times.
Only in Chesterfield have we come to expect (and accept) to have a government who can rationalize proposing a budget greater than the preceeding year and then forecast a potential 20 million shortfall for 2013. If you ask those business leaders what would be their reaction to such news regarding their industry or business, what do you think the reaction would be? Well, it would be to cut spending in those areas in which they could that would not hamper business integrity. Our government however, sees things quite differently. Because government is "service" driven they use this as cover for attempting to increase budgets in order as leaders say to provide the services that citizens desire. Really?
It is not those services per say that is the question, but rather the excessive expense generated by the government in order to deliver said service when compared to other areas of the country. Why has our County seen so fit to create budgets that far outpace both population growth and inflation? How is it that a budget a mere 5-6 years ago was almost 40% less than it is today. How can people like Daniel Gecker and Marlene Durfee stand up at District Meetings with the Renaissance Group consultant tell us that by passing Comprehensive Planning we will see LESS population (they say 100K less) in the next 30 years if the Plan is adopted but then keep endorsing larger and larger budgets and Capital Improvement Plans. How?
The fact remains our County spending is out of control and these leaders lack the political will to be honest not only with citizens but apparently themselves. A 523.8 million School Budget when compared to other localities with more students/schools appears wildly optimistic or should I say dangerously opportunistic when they have admitted that the budget will surely face shortfall in the next year. Both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors must be held to task for providing in this current economic environment bonus payments to employees that outpace inflation with the average raises pegged just below 2% while inflation has been 1.2% and yet we have an admission that productivity has not been enhanced.
Our schools face very hard descisions to be sure. There is no question we must see to it that we are compensating our teachers effectively and retaining our quality teachers through performance based measures that unfortunately politically driven entities will not accept. If we endeavored to cut in those non-essential areas, we could certainly have come up with a better, focused plan to raise the teacher funding, but simply providing across the Board "salary enhancements" does nothing to increase performance.The class size and overcapacity as been exasperated by an over zealous Board of Supervisors with regard to planning by not effectively managing the impacts that such zonings would have on our schools and communities. In part, the animosity between the two Boards expressed in 2010 was not productive either. Not having engagement by the School System in zoning/planning has/is a recipe for disaster and we see it in the form of Cosby, Watkins, and Robious Middle along with others concerning capacity. Most classes are over the 25:1, 27:1, 26:1 targets (elem, middle, high) of student /teacher ratios though they manipulate classes like physical education to skew the numbers. By this I mean, it is not uncommon for an academic class to have 33-35 students, but sense there can be multiple gym class with 42-45 the numbers as a ratio on average get played with through the system. The ones that suffer from such convenient tinkering are our children!
So where are our Schools and likely of Board of Supervisors looking to explain such unwarranted budget proposals; while the State and the Federal Government of course. The Schools will receive Federal stimulus monies from two fronts; the stimulus and a Federal Jobs Bili which are to be "one-time" infusions and given whats happening in Washington these days it may just be one-time, eventhough I have been told "we always get money from the State and the Feds so not to worry". The County appears to always use the "matching" approach with regard to funds from outside sources by using the same amount of local funds for a desired purpose (thus increasing the budget) instead of just using the outside source funds for purposes of the budget.
Well, in fact we should all be worried. A County unable to operate at sustained levels regarding budgets and railing from shortfall to surplus and back to shortfall spells disaster for County stability and ulitmately will contribute to Chesterfield to be a declining locality and not a thriving one.
Those families living here in Chesterfield deserve better. Much better.
J.Scott
Midlothian,Va
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
UDA's: Urban Development Areas; the Backstory
So what is it exactly that is giving cover the local officials in Chesterfield County regarding this new Comprehensive Plan?
Urban Development Areas. Daniel Nairn gives us a (glowing) look into their creation and evolution: (taken FromonHigh blog)
"Over the last couple of years the state government of Virginia has been rolling out a land use planning category for localities known as Urban Development Areas (UDAs), where higher density development can be concentrated. The concept started off slowly in 2007 with HB 3202 as an advisory element to be placed in the Comprehensive Plans of "high growth" localities, but UDAs have gradually been weaved into everything from stormwater regulations to street design requirements over the last year.The Development and Land Use Tools Subcommittee, known as the Athey-Vogel group, last week released a proposal for stronger UDAs and a loan fund to sweeten the pot. Considering the media has pretty much ignored this process (I can't find any story, actually), it seems like a worthwhile endeavor to pay attention to where this initiative may be going.The purpose of UDAs is not only to allow the concentration of growth in certain areas (thus relieving the pressure on others) but also to guide the design of such areas to ensure they are livable and attractive environments. The legislation explicitly calls for "new urbanism and traditional-neighborhood design," and the essential criteria are spelled out clearly: pedestrian-friendly road design, interconnection of streets, preservation of natural areas, mixed-use neighborhoods, reduction of front and side setbacks, among other things. Minimum densities are set by floor-to-area ratio for commercial and dwelling-units-per-acre for residential development.Last week's proposed changes double the density requirements for all localities"
HB 1721(Virginia General Assembly)
The following is information that Donna Holt of Campaign for Liberty provided about HB1721.
BACKGROUNDThe General Assembly convened on January 12th and we are following many pieces of legislation. HB 1721 is one that has dire consequences for us. Currently, 67 localities in Virginia are mandated to build Urban Development Areas.HB1721, introduced by Delegate Bob Marshall, would make Urban Development Areas optional rather than mandatory.The bill was recommended to report (passed by a majority of yea votes) by the House Counties, Cities and Towns Sub-committee #2 by a vote of 7-4 on January 20th, but was stalled on January 21st by the full committee at the request of Speaker Howell. It must pass this full committee and then go to the House Floor for a full vote. If it passes there, it then goes to the Senate on February 8th, Cross-Over Day, to begin the process there. This is going to be a long battle.
WHAT WE’RE UP AGAINST This bill is being attacked by heavyweights like the Home Builders Association, Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters.Members of the Home Builders Association stand to gain a great benefit from the construction of UDAs. Not only can they build up to twelve homes on a single acre of land that they can purchase very inexpensively, but they get tax breaks for the new urbanism, green building, and green energy efficiency practices used in the construction of these high-density communities.Organizations like the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Sierra Club are heavily funded by other international organizations like ICLEI and benefit greatly by defeating the bill.The reality, folks, is if we don’t get this bill passed, 67 local governments in Virginia will have no choice but to approve the comprehensive plans in EVERY locality in Virginia because UDAs are MANDATED.WHAT YOU CAN DO:WE NEED ALL HANDS ON DECK NOW if we are to be successful! We must show them who the real heavy weights are.We strongly urge you to:* Contact every member of the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee to urge them to vote in support of the bill.
* Contact Speaker Bill Howell (R) Phone: (804) 698-1028 Email: delwhowell@house.virginia.gov and ask him to support this bill.* Contact YOUR representatives to let them know you support this bill.* We urge citizens from EVERY locality of the Commonwealth to be representatives of their community at the next committee meeting on HB1721. We are in the fight of our lives to defend private property rights. It is up to each and every one of us to do all we can to get HB1721 passed out of this committee and on to the floor for a vote.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Observations on Chesterfield Comprehensive Plan: A Concerned Citizen
Today, Donna Holt from Midlothian, Virginia and from the Campaign for Liberty posted this on Facebook:
Observations:
1. The language in the plan is very vague and subject to the interpretation of the reader.
2. The plan turns the entire county into a planned community with governing boards to establish the rules with no oversight much like “Home Owners Associations” do in planned communities.
3. The plans state there are lifestyle choices but is not specific about what the choices are and implies a vast amount of restrictions we will be forced to live by.
4. The plan restricts the majority of future growth to within the new urban boundaries.
5. The plan puts a lot of emphasis on aesthetics and implies that some properties that do not conform with the “aesthetics” of the community may be required to reconstruct the front of buildings to fit in with the design plan for the community as determined by unidentified decision makers.
6. The plans are designed to lower density further in the less populated areas while increasing the density in more populated areas which seems to have the goal of population control.
7. The plan calls for very expensive revitalization and development that is unaffordable in this economic downturn.
8. The Comprehensive Plan Reference Handbook with supplemental material is said not to be adopted but does not state the significance of the material to the plan. It implies that it is to be used as the handbook for implementing the goals set forth in the plan with no further action by the BOS.
9. The plan calls for public/private partnerships to redistribute the wealth as seen in socialist societies for economic development and affordable housing.
10. The plan includes strategies, plans, policies, and processes to control every aspect of life.
Concerns:
1. Proponents of "sustainable development" like the Renaissance Planning Group are taking advantage of the UDA mandate to facilitate the implementation of very strict land use regulations to achieve a political agenda that goes far beyond what the legislature intended.
2. In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President's Council for Sustainable Development. Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in the 1992 United Nations' Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. Among the objectives of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) were:
To implement new policies for America as described in "Sustainable America -A New Consensus".
To use land use planning to control populations.
To establish "sustainable communities", also called smart growth, calling for high-density mixed use feudalistic transit villages to handle future growth in localities across the nation.
To forever preserve rural areas and establish "wildlands" for more than 50% of the nations landscape with roadless areas that would be off limits to humans.
To create buffer zones for another 35% or more of the land between areas of high density and the wildlands.
To establish government funding to seek and acquire private land. They have stated in their documents that public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform.
To use incentives and disincentives to achieve the goals as set forth in Agenda 21. It was determined by members of the council that 67% of the recommendations could be implemented administratively using rule making authority at the local level.
3. The process used to develop the plans to meet the UDA mandate is of great concern. The decisions for the community were made by unelected facilitators of the "steering committee". The Renaissance Planning Group was paid nearly $900,000 for the visioning and planning project at taxpayer expense. The plans they present are merely a template for social engineering that is presented as the goal just as it is done in every locality across the Commonwealth, the nation, and around the world.
The Renaissance Planning Group, the facilitators of the "steering committee", in fact, did the steering. The plans are never voted on by the members resulting in an outcome that was obviously pre-determined. Though their meetings were open to the public, they were void of any public input thus the questions and concerns of the true stakeholders in the community were never even heard during the planning process. Any questions or expressed concerns by other members of the committee
were marginalized and left unanswered.
The end result was the "vision" for the community in a "new comprehensive plan" that was presented to the county BOS as the "consensus of the community".
4. Low-income areas are targeted for the establishment of the UDAs. High density development increases housing costs, thus taxes, which will displace many of the elderly and low-income families. Though subsidies are offered for low income housing in the UDAs, the cost to make homes more affordable for some are transferred to the cost of homes for others.
5. All the funding, subsidies, and tax incentives for the implementation of the plans adds to the national debt at the expense of taxpayers.
6. There is a correlation between restrictive land use regulations and foreclosure rates. According to the leading housing data firm, Realty Trac, Virginia ranked 16th worst among all states in terms of its foreclosure rate in 2009.
Ronald Utt, Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation, recently did a study of foreclosure patterns and concluded that "the state's foreclosure problems stem from the state's exceptionally high home prices in comparison to the incomes of its residents, and these high home prices are due to land shortages caused by abusive zoning. "Housing is considered "affordable" if median home prices in an
area are no more than three times the median household income in that area. This ratio is called the "median multiple"." What is considered affordable is a median multiple of 3.
California was one of the first states to adopt "sustainable community" polices more than two decades ago, commonly referred to as smart growth, imposing strict land use regulations to discourage building and growth. As a consequence, in 2006 and 2007, the median multiple in California soared to more than 10.
Such regulations spread rapidly to many other states and communities during the 1990s and 2000s. Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond warmly embraced them with similar consequences. In Northern Virginia the median multiple hit 5.6, Hampton Roads went to 4.7, and Richmond hit 4.1. As we
continue to implement "smart growth" policies, this number is expected to rise.
7. Many high density urban development areas already established across the state have been empty for a year or more.
8. Land use decisions should be largely driven by a free market. If UDAs have to be mandated, one can only conclude that:
There is no market for UDAs.
The community doesn't want it and doesn't feel it's appropriate for their locality.
9. In 2009, Realty Trac reported there were 16,687 homes in foreclosure in Virginia. In 2010, 1 in every 948 homes received a foreclosure filing with a sharp increase in December of 2010 when every 1 in 501 homes received foreclosure filing. At this rate of foreclosure and with so many homes already on the market, mandating UDAs will only add to the inventory of unoccupied homes at a great risk to the economy. While it may be putting builders to work, we must also consider the burden to the taxpayer for the money that is funding this development through grants, subsidies, and tax incentives. Then there's the loans to finance construction to build more homes that there is no market for. Who will pay the construction loans if the homes don't sell and what will that mean to the economy in the long
run?
10.The plan fits perfectly with the goals in the biodiversity plan called for in the United Nations plan, Agenda 21, called for in the Biodiversity Treaty that was rejected by the Senate in 1994. The plan calls for strategies, policies, and processes to control every aspect of life. The developers of the UN plan stated:
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice..."
11.The new comprehensive plan provides for the type of social engineering that is the perfect definition of a soviet.
12.Most would agree that we need to be good stewards of the environment and most people are. Sensible planning is generally accepted by the community but the abusive land use planning in the new comprehensive plans determines every aspect of how and where we live and is seen to be a violation of private property rights.
***************************************************************************
The official District meetings concluded last night at Cosby High School. The debate however is far from over and there will be many opportunities for the public to come together in local town halls that will be organized in the coming weeks, not by politicians or the County but by CITIZENS. Its time we heard the other side of the story. In order to form a better judgement on the direction of the County those that oppose both this Plan and "Sustainable" Communities must be able to be heard.
Citizens must be informed as to both the pros and cons of embarking on such a massive undertaking. As of yet, the County has not be able to provide citizens with an adequate cost/benefit analysis except to say the Plan has the "potential" to save the County millions.
The meaning of "potential" is politico-speak for we haven't really a clue but we hope it will!
if you would like to be informed of upcoming gatherings in the community regarding these matters please feel free to provide your email address or join the Alter of Freedom Group page on Facebook the next time you are own that site.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sen. Steve Martin(R-Chesterfield): Challenges of Social Media
The following is passage is taken from State Senator Steve Martin's (R-Chesterfield) Facebook page where he was recently engaged in debate with fellow Virginians over the potential former Senator and Governor George Allen's nomination to represent the GOP in a bid to unseat Senator James Webb:
Robert and Amy; "For some reason you believe that you have a right to control my evening and the focus of it. You are fully aware that this is my wall and not your own, yet you keep posting things here for me to respond to. I have worked very long days including weekends for several weeks and I am very tired. Today I had hoped to rest but found it necessary to travel out of state for an aunt's funeral. I left very early this morning and got home a few hours ago, and have found it necessary to respond to you two ever since. Apparently, you will only be happy if I stop responding to any and everything you say.Yes; please move along. This is not your wall for you to post whatever you choose. That is what your wall is for. Hijacking of someone's space and time is never welcomed, by anyone.I appreciate both of you, but this is not your wall for your unchallenged use. Do you mind if I take a break from your onslaught" (Steve Martin)
This was but one of the comments posted by Mr. Martin on his page as he responded to individuals who have challenged his apparent endorsement of George Allen in the GOP Primary. It has really been interesting to watch and read these things because apparently Mr. Martin has had a great deal of trouble grasping the Social Media medium when compared to other elected officials. Mr. Martin constantly complains about people "hijacking" his page whereas we rarely (if ever) see other leaders resort to such petty quibbles. Mr. Martin would later post on his page about being compelled to delete and remove comments from those that have differing points of view on the issues than himself. Mr. Martin would later post:
"Some believe a store owner's removal of an unwanted bulletin from his front window is censorship. No. That is controlling your storefront ... your wall. The same is true on FB. Censorship would be deleting someone else's desired messages from their own wall. Deleting unwanted posts from your own wall is called, "taking responsibility." Too bad, so much of it was reguired this evening" (Steve Martin)
It has become clear in the last year, as we have posted about this before regarding Mr. Martin, that he has a tendency to feel very insecure about his Facebook Page. In fact, when he states "unwanted posts" its as if he is implying that they are unsolicited when in fact through Facebook when you accept to be friends with an individual let alone a constituent you are inviting posts upon your wall.
By accepting a Friend Request we basically provide that person with access to our wall and in doing so provide them with license to post whatever they would like. After all, these people are our friends right? Mr. Martin has every right to delete and take control of his wall of course, but is it really professional to whine about having to engage and respond to constituents whom may have a different perspective, especially when you post a virtual endorsement for another political figure. It appears as though by posting such an endorsement, Mr. Martin was inviting constituent response from those whom are his Friends on Facebook, otherwise why even put it out there and through a press release.
What has to be the most humorous response regarding Mr. Martins plea for sympathy came when on of his commenter's stated in reference to how Mr. Martin should look at this issue came when Mr. Martin stated that the wall on Facebook was property in the same manner in which a renter has rights over property that may be owned by someone else and no one has the right to enter said property or post on the wall or trespass. The comment directed at Mr. Martin was:
"The difference Sen. Martin is that by accepting Friendship with someone to use your renters analogy you have basically given them the keys to enter your property"
Obviously, embarrassed Mr. Martin quickly removed the above comment as well as those that were in agreement most likely because it basically undermined the stated position of Mr. Martin. In fact, the Senator even removed his own comment regarding the "renter" analogy. The thread now reads as an uneven, hard to follow thread where none of responses seem to flow as you read them.
Once again, Mr. Martin has proven his inability to understand Social Media at its basic core but after the last year or so are any of us really surprised?
Interesting point as well is Martin's endorsement of George Allen in the statewide race, but Mr. Martin still has failed to endorse Mr. Robinson;the only Republican candidate that has announced a candidacy for Supervisor from the Matoaca District in Chesterfield, which is smack in the middle of Martin's own District. Apparently, Mr. Martin is sticking by incumbent Marlene Durfee -Independent, much to the dismay of conservative voters in Chesterfield.
Robert and Amy; "For some reason you believe that you have a right to control my evening and the focus of it. You are fully aware that this is my wall and not your own, yet you keep posting things here for me to respond to. I have worked very long days including weekends for several weeks and I am very tired. Today I had hoped to rest but found it necessary to travel out of state for an aunt's funeral. I left very early this morning and got home a few hours ago, and have found it necessary to respond to you two ever since. Apparently, you will only be happy if I stop responding to any and everything you say.Yes; please move along. This is not your wall for you to post whatever you choose. That is what your wall is for. Hijacking of someone's space and time is never welcomed, by anyone.I appreciate both of you, but this is not your wall for your unchallenged use. Do you mind if I take a break from your onslaught" (Steve Martin)
This was but one of the comments posted by Mr. Martin on his page as he responded to individuals who have challenged his apparent endorsement of George Allen in the GOP Primary. It has really been interesting to watch and read these things because apparently Mr. Martin has had a great deal of trouble grasping the Social Media medium when compared to other elected officials. Mr. Martin constantly complains about people "hijacking" his page whereas we rarely (if ever) see other leaders resort to such petty quibbles. Mr. Martin would later post on his page about being compelled to delete and remove comments from those that have differing points of view on the issues than himself. Mr. Martin would later post:
"Some believe a store owner's removal of an unwanted bulletin from his front window is censorship. No. That is controlling your storefront ... your wall. The same is true on FB. Censorship would be deleting someone else's desired messages from their own wall. Deleting unwanted posts from your own wall is called, "taking responsibility." Too bad, so much of it was reguired this evening" (Steve Martin)
It has become clear in the last year, as we have posted about this before regarding Mr. Martin, that he has a tendency to feel very insecure about his Facebook Page. In fact, when he states "unwanted posts" its as if he is implying that they are unsolicited when in fact through Facebook when you accept to be friends with an individual let alone a constituent you are inviting posts upon your wall.
By accepting a Friend Request we basically provide that person with access to our wall and in doing so provide them with license to post whatever they would like. After all, these people are our friends right? Mr. Martin has every right to delete and take control of his wall of course, but is it really professional to whine about having to engage and respond to constituents whom may have a different perspective, especially when you post a virtual endorsement for another political figure. It appears as though by posting such an endorsement, Mr. Martin was inviting constituent response from those whom are his Friends on Facebook, otherwise why even put it out there and through a press release.
What has to be the most humorous response regarding Mr. Martins plea for sympathy came when on of his commenter's stated in reference to how Mr. Martin should look at this issue came when Mr. Martin stated that the wall on Facebook was property in the same manner in which a renter has rights over property that may be owned by someone else and no one has the right to enter said property or post on the wall or trespass. The comment directed at Mr. Martin was:
"The difference Sen. Martin is that by accepting Friendship with someone to use your renters analogy you have basically given them the keys to enter your property"
Obviously, embarrassed Mr. Martin quickly removed the above comment as well as those that were in agreement most likely because it basically undermined the stated position of Mr. Martin. In fact, the Senator even removed his own comment regarding the "renter" analogy. The thread now reads as an uneven, hard to follow thread where none of responses seem to flow as you read them.
Once again, Mr. Martin has proven his inability to understand Social Media at its basic core but after the last year or so are any of us really surprised?
Interesting point as well is Martin's endorsement of George Allen in the statewide race, but Mr. Martin still has failed to endorse Mr. Robinson;the only Republican candidate that has announced a candidacy for Supervisor from the Matoaca District in Chesterfield, which is smack in the middle of Martin's own District. Apparently, Mr. Martin is sticking by incumbent Marlene Durfee -Independent, much to the dismay of conservative voters in Chesterfield.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Chesterfield: Politics as Usual
I want to take this opportunity to express how so very disappointed I am in the current Board of Supervisors. This Board, not unlike the Congress in 2007, was ushered in by those in the media as bringing a new day, tone and transparency to the process. As a nation we had had seven years of leadership under George Bush and voters turned over Congress to the Democrats and here in Chesterfield, an historically conservative County turned the Board of Supervisors over to Independents(Democrats) after decades of Republican control.
I am hear to tell you that the result of such action has been as negative here in Chesterfield as it has nationally in terms of the last Congress. We all know what happened in November. Voters rejected the path in which both Congress and Obama were taking the nation down and now here in Chesterfield I can tell you that citizens are rejecting not only the policies of this Board but in fact are questioning its motives.
Yesterday, there was a meeting regarding the new Comprehensive Plan in Midlothian. (More on that meeting later for its deserving of its own post). In attendance were the usual suspects; Supervisor Gecker(Midlothian), Supervisor Durfee(Matoaca), Patty Carpenter(School Board-Midlothian) and many Planning officials but also there sitting respectfully in the back of the meeting room was Supervisor Jim Holland(Dale) who just a day earlier had been the victim (yes victim) and some of the political engineering as so often has expressed itself in Chesterfield County. So much for a new day and tone!
Or should I say so much for "Planning not Politics" as Supervisor Gecker's campaign slogan suggested . Oh folks, "Politics" is alive and well in Chesterfield and in part due to people like Mr. Gecker.
Instead, what the County gets is once again the status quo of leadership. If the County voted out the Republicans and they currently remain somewhat in the minority given the current political make-up; 1 democrat, 2 Independents, and 2 Republicans. Remember, there were 5 seated Republicans going into the last election. Why on earth than would the Board continue to shift backward to Supervisor Art Warren you ask? Simple. Politics.
Warren has held the Chairmanship of the Board a few times in his 20 years as a Supervisor, but there is more to it than that. The County is at a crossroads with regard to its future. It appears as though the powers that be wanted the power of the Chair in the hands of a friend, given Mr. Holland was just recently elected and has been a bit of a wild card on the Board. Truth be told, I have the greatest amount of respect for Holland who appears to vote his conscience and appears not to persuaded by the powers. Holland, however was betrayed on those closest to him and those people he has worked beside these last few years.
I have no doubt the disappointment felt by Mr. Holland and frankly the surprise that such a back room deal orchestrated by his fellow Supervisors would be sprung on him at the very meeting there was to be a vote. Everyone assumed Mr. Holland would take over as Chair and then at the last moment the plan unraveled and Warren was secured the Chair by a vote of 3-2.
Supervisor Jaeckle's(Bermuda) position in the matter was known. After all, she is a Republican and has voted alongside Warren for the last few years, but what was quite surprising was the switch made by Supervisor Gecker(Midlothian) who had supported Holland until the vote when he joined Jaeckle in supporting Warren. Gecker has had the current Chair this past year.
Supporters of gecker at the Planning meeting voiced that his actions demonstrated his "independent" nature, however those of us who have observed Gecker these last nine years know he is a pure politician. It is my opinion that Gecker made a politically calculated move because he knows the Midlothian District is in large part a Conservative area. Gecker made a calculated move in 2006 to run as an "Independent" after losing to Donald Sowder-R in the Special Election running as a Democrat. In 2006, Gecker challenged Sowder again and defeated him this time running as an "Independent". It was a calculated move based on politics and Gecker understands he will not be able to yield the same kind of sentiment for "change" like he did in the historic 2006 election and will need many Republicans to support his re-election bid.
Again, Mr. Gecker has demonstrated his desire to engage in the worst kind of politics. The politics of selfishness. Gecker had an opportunity to bring about an historic vote in Chesterfield which would have seen the first minority Chairman in County history. Instead, Gecker hands over the reigns to Warren for the third time in four years.
Now that's "change" you can believe in!
I am hear to tell you that the result of such action has been as negative here in Chesterfield as it has nationally in terms of the last Congress. We all know what happened in November. Voters rejected the path in which both Congress and Obama were taking the nation down and now here in Chesterfield I can tell you that citizens are rejecting not only the policies of this Board but in fact are questioning its motives.
Yesterday, there was a meeting regarding the new Comprehensive Plan in Midlothian. (More on that meeting later for its deserving of its own post). In attendance were the usual suspects; Supervisor Gecker(Midlothian), Supervisor Durfee(Matoaca), Patty Carpenter(School Board-Midlothian) and many Planning officials but also there sitting respectfully in the back of the meeting room was Supervisor Jim Holland(Dale) who just a day earlier had been the victim (yes victim) and some of the political engineering as so often has expressed itself in Chesterfield County. So much for a new day and tone!
Or should I say so much for "Planning not Politics" as Supervisor Gecker's campaign slogan suggested . Oh folks, "Politics" is alive and well in Chesterfield and in part due to people like Mr. Gecker.
Instead, what the County gets is once again the status quo of leadership. If the County voted out the Republicans and they currently remain somewhat in the minority given the current political make-up; 1 democrat, 2 Independents, and 2 Republicans. Remember, there were 5 seated Republicans going into the last election. Why on earth than would the Board continue to shift backward to Supervisor Art Warren you ask? Simple. Politics.
Warren has held the Chairmanship of the Board a few times in his 20 years as a Supervisor, but there is more to it than that. The County is at a crossroads with regard to its future. It appears as though the powers that be wanted the power of the Chair in the hands of a friend, given Mr. Holland was just recently elected and has been a bit of a wild card on the Board. Truth be told, I have the greatest amount of respect for Holland who appears to vote his conscience and appears not to persuaded by the powers. Holland, however was betrayed on those closest to him and those people he has worked beside these last few years.
I have no doubt the disappointment felt by Mr. Holland and frankly the surprise that such a back room deal orchestrated by his fellow Supervisors would be sprung on him at the very meeting there was to be a vote. Everyone assumed Mr. Holland would take over as Chair and then at the last moment the plan unraveled and Warren was secured the Chair by a vote of 3-2.
Supervisor Jaeckle's(Bermuda) position in the matter was known. After all, she is a Republican and has voted alongside Warren for the last few years, but what was quite surprising was the switch made by Supervisor Gecker(Midlothian) who had supported Holland until the vote when he joined Jaeckle in supporting Warren. Gecker has had the current Chair this past year.
Supporters of gecker at the Planning meeting voiced that his actions demonstrated his "independent" nature, however those of us who have observed Gecker these last nine years know he is a pure politician. It is my opinion that Gecker made a politically calculated move because he knows the Midlothian District is in large part a Conservative area. Gecker made a calculated move in 2006 to run as an "Independent" after losing to Donald Sowder-R in the Special Election running as a Democrat. In 2006, Gecker challenged Sowder again and defeated him this time running as an "Independent". It was a calculated move based on politics and Gecker understands he will not be able to yield the same kind of sentiment for "change" like he did in the historic 2006 election and will need many Republicans to support his re-election bid.
Again, Mr. Gecker has demonstrated his desire to engage in the worst kind of politics. The politics of selfishness. Gecker had an opportunity to bring about an historic vote in Chesterfield which would have seen the first minority Chairman in County history. Instead, Gecker hands over the reigns to Warren for the third time in four years.
Now that's "change" you can believe in!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Turning the Page: Chesterfield 2011
In the last few years, citizens of Chesterfield County have faced the sad fact that local government is broken. It does not take a financial expert to know that the messages such as "shortfall" on the one hand and then a few months later "surplus" confuse and baffle citizens, but in reality what it does is create a complete lack of confidence in local government itself.
This year has illustrated the great divide in priorities between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. Many people would argue that these two bodies have completely different agendas, but frankly that is the very attitude the creates the divisiveness we have experienced throughout this year. The visions and goals of both these bodies have a very common thread that binds them and it is NOT money; its our future.
We have a Board of Supervisors that is more concerned with short-term political gains and scoring political points by undermining the Chesterfield County School Board than they are at setting a course centered in common interest toward solutions that will benefit the entire County heading into the future.
Fortunately, one of the greatest things about democracy is every four years we as citizens have the opportunity to determine whether the compass of our local Board is heading in the right direction or whether we need to chart a new path by turning the page.
It is fairly early as far as local politics goes to learn about those citizens willing and determined to run for office. In 2011, all five of the Board of Supervisors seats will be up for re-election. The current Board was thrust into office in the change election dramatics of 2006. It was this election that not only placed the United States Congress into the hands of the Democrats in Washington, but also on the local level represented a sweeping change in the make-up of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors.
Looking to 2011, I had an opportunity to sit down and speak with one of the citizens that has declared himself as a candidate for Supervisor from the Matoaca District, T.C. Robinson. Mr. Robinson seeks to win the Republican nomination and challenge (I) Supervisor Marlene Durfee in November, 2011.
The following is a summation of my conversation with the candidate:
*********************************************************************************
What would you see as the most important issues facing the County today in general?
Putting Children First, Fiscal Responsibility, and Economic Development (Robinson)
Lets go through those three if we can okay?
Putting Children First?
For too long, there has been a high level of anxiety in our school system causing a loss of focus on our most important asset - our students. Now is the time to come together to regain our focus on our children and our future.(Robinson)
How would you describe the current relationship between the BOS and School Board ?
Fractured. (Robinson)
How can we get beyond this condition?
Well, I will encourage unity and open, productive communication among all members of the community – students, teachers, administration, the School Board and concerned citizens.
Education should be something we all rally around and we have great resources at our disposal.
Class sizes have a direct impact on the level of education our students receive. (Robinson)
That said, what is your position on trailers scattered throughout the County?
Simply put, class sizes must be kept manageable so that teachers have the opportunity to work with each child. Teacher frustrations over not being able to give their best every single student often results in departures from CCPS or even from the profession. Teachers are not particularly fond of teaching in trailers nor are students with being educated in them. Look outside this morning and look at all this snow. Do you think it is fair to have those students venturing out into the cold to sit in trailers? All of us are guilty for it because we have allowed the Boards in the past to create ill-conceived planning thus adding students to our class rolls with virtually no consultation with the School Board and creating over capacity. How can sit back and say its okay we have schools 10-20% over intended capacity when they were constructed?
All of us have a stake in the health of our education system. Local governments, the business community, and non-profit organizations can all work together with our school districts to support stronger, safer schools that give all our kids a chance to succeed.
Together, we can make our County a true partner in our children’s future. (Robinson)
What is your take on Fiscal matters?
Fiscal Accountability is crucial. The current Board spent much of the Spring casting blame on the Schools for its budget. Supervisors Durfee and Gecker both made statements that created mistrust between the bodies by implying that the Schools were not being forthright regarding financial matters when in fact in accordance with State law the School Board had supplied all the requirements. Regardless, Chesterfield will soon be the third largest locality in the State, behind only Prince William and Fairfax. Population growth usually means bigger budgets. It also means an increased opportunity for the mismanagement of revenues. As our budget grew nearly 40% between FY2005 and FY2010, the chances that money would be misspent grew exponentially. I would move to create a more powerful Citizen’s Budget Audit Committee, so that we can make sure that every dollar is spent wisely.
I also believe we need serious reform in the way our property tax rate is advertised and eventually assessed. We cannot simply keep lowering the rate for the sake of saying we lowered it. I would favor an amendment to the county code that prevents the Board of Supervisors from setting the property tax rate at more than 3 cents below or above the rate deemed revenue neutral. Along with that I would propose that the Board of Supervisors be required to move 10% of any future revenue surplus into our Rainy Day Fund, with the goal of seeing the fund reach $100 million by 2020.
I would also submit that this Board has not lived up to the expectations of citizens to address County roadways and infrastructure. We cannot simply just keep blaming the State and our local Assembly leaders. This Board demonstrates very little accountability. They had an opportunity to create set-asides to address this issue and have failed to act.(Robinson)
You spoke of economic development?
Yes. Economic Development is vital to our future but it must be a shared responsibility with the fiscal responsibility we were just speaking to. In these times of economic adversity when people are losing their jobs and homes, the government should work to help the private sector generate new jobs in Chesterfield and help our existing local businesses succeed.
While most new jobs should and must be created in the private sector, the government can play an important role in establishing a favorable climate for job creation. It is essential that Chesterfield County be a place which appeals to hardworking, imaginative and inventive workers. That said, it also important that we adjust the mix regarding our revenue generation. Currently, we see about 80% of the revenues on the back of our citizens and only 20% on the business community. Many have questioned why it appears as though Henrico as done a better job addressing these balances. A recent 2008 Business Survey in Chesterfield demonstrates the willingness of business to work in a manner that is cooperative and appropriate to grow our economy. In fact, Supervisor Durfee and Gecker pledged to reduce said burden on citizens and shift more towards business while candidates, but once seated have done nothing to address this disparity. In fact, it appears as though they have gone the other direction. (Robinson)
What would you say to those that favor commercial buildout along the 360 West corridor?
It is imperative that we work to attract more office and retail development, which will bring jobs but we cannot simply just rely on the retail model. These are not the high paying jobs that will ignite our economy. They may be suitable for financial purposes but looking out twenty years does it really do any good to bring them and then continue to zone additional lots that create commercial sprawl. (Robinson)
Can you elaborate a bit on that?
Certainly. Look at Midlothian Tnpk east of Chesterfield Town Center toward Cloverleaf and the City. If you drive through Mr. Gecker's District you will see literally dozens of For Lease signs and vacant retail units all along Rt. 60. What have we done to address this? Have the Business Zones worked to address this? We have to ask ourselves how we can attract business investment along with County invetment to revitalize these areas and not simply just keep building further west in Matoaca. (Robinson)
Would this benefit from a revenue perspective?
Certainly. Not only would it mean more higher paying jobs for Chesterfield residents, it would mean more revenue for the county as a whole as those types of developments cost less to provide services for than say those projects like Roseland cost to build out. In fact, look at what happened in Magnolia Green. Many citizens are unaware of the Lower Magnolia Green Commercial Development Authority tax lien on residents in that area that are in addition to the typical property taxes that they pay which will last for up to 30 years. I have been told that these taxes are roughly about $500 a year for every household but am not sure what the commercial rate will be because of the issues that Magnolia has faced with its developers and the fact that there has been little action on the 200 acres of commercial property along Hull Street. Currently, the residents are stuck with more of the burden as the 3,550 homes are built out until the economic recovery permits the commercial elements to catch up. This pattern seems to have repeated itself throughout the last twenty years in Chesterfield. (Robinson)
*********************************************************************************
More background information on T.C. Robinson can be found at www.tc4matoaca.com for those that wish to seek out further information. Citizens can also find him involved with the CCRC in Chesterfield.
I fully intend to reach out to the other candidates throughout 2011 that seek either the Board of Supervisors or the School Board. 2011 is shaping up to be a very interesting year for Chesterfield concerning path the County will take in the coming years.
This year has illustrated the great divide in priorities between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. Many people would argue that these two bodies have completely different agendas, but frankly that is the very attitude the creates the divisiveness we have experienced throughout this year. The visions and goals of both these bodies have a very common thread that binds them and it is NOT money; its our future.
We have a Board of Supervisors that is more concerned with short-term political gains and scoring political points by undermining the Chesterfield County School Board than they are at setting a course centered in common interest toward solutions that will benefit the entire County heading into the future.
Fortunately, one of the greatest things about democracy is every four years we as citizens have the opportunity to determine whether the compass of our local Board is heading in the right direction or whether we need to chart a new path by turning the page.
It is fairly early as far as local politics goes to learn about those citizens willing and determined to run for office. In 2011, all five of the Board of Supervisors seats will be up for re-election. The current Board was thrust into office in the change election dramatics of 2006. It was this election that not only placed the United States Congress into the hands of the Democrats in Washington, but also on the local level represented a sweeping change in the make-up of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors.
Looking to 2011, I had an opportunity to sit down and speak with one of the citizens that has declared himself as a candidate for Supervisor from the Matoaca District, T.C. Robinson. Mr. Robinson seeks to win the Republican nomination and challenge (I) Supervisor Marlene Durfee in November, 2011.
The following is a summation of my conversation with the candidate:
*********************************************************************************
What would you see as the most important issues facing the County today in general?
Putting Children First, Fiscal Responsibility, and Economic Development (Robinson)
Lets go through those three if we can okay?
Putting Children First?
For too long, there has been a high level of anxiety in our school system causing a loss of focus on our most important asset - our students. Now is the time to come together to regain our focus on our children and our future.(Robinson)
How would you describe the current relationship between the BOS and School Board ?
Fractured. (Robinson)
How can we get beyond this condition?
Well, I will encourage unity and open, productive communication among all members of the community – students, teachers, administration, the School Board and concerned citizens.
Education should be something we all rally around and we have great resources at our disposal.
Class sizes have a direct impact on the level of education our students receive. (Robinson)
That said, what is your position on trailers scattered throughout the County?
Simply put, class sizes must be kept manageable so that teachers have the opportunity to work with each child. Teacher frustrations over not being able to give their best every single student often results in departures from CCPS or even from the profession. Teachers are not particularly fond of teaching in trailers nor are students with being educated in them. Look outside this morning and look at all this snow. Do you think it is fair to have those students venturing out into the cold to sit in trailers? All of us are guilty for it because we have allowed the Boards in the past to create ill-conceived planning thus adding students to our class rolls with virtually no consultation with the School Board and creating over capacity. How can sit back and say its okay we have schools 10-20% over intended capacity when they were constructed?
All of us have a stake in the health of our education system. Local governments, the business community, and non-profit organizations can all work together with our school districts to support stronger, safer schools that give all our kids a chance to succeed.
Together, we can make our County a true partner in our children’s future. (Robinson)
What is your take on Fiscal matters?
Fiscal Accountability is crucial. The current Board spent much of the Spring casting blame on the Schools for its budget. Supervisors Durfee and Gecker both made statements that created mistrust between the bodies by implying that the Schools were not being forthright regarding financial matters when in fact in accordance with State law the School Board had supplied all the requirements. Regardless, Chesterfield will soon be the third largest locality in the State, behind only Prince William and Fairfax. Population growth usually means bigger budgets. It also means an increased opportunity for the mismanagement of revenues. As our budget grew nearly 40% between FY2005 and FY2010, the chances that money would be misspent grew exponentially. I would move to create a more powerful Citizen’s Budget Audit Committee, so that we can make sure that every dollar is spent wisely.
I also believe we need serious reform in the way our property tax rate is advertised and eventually assessed. We cannot simply keep lowering the rate for the sake of saying we lowered it. I would favor an amendment to the county code that prevents the Board of Supervisors from setting the property tax rate at more than 3 cents below or above the rate deemed revenue neutral. Along with that I would propose that the Board of Supervisors be required to move 10% of any future revenue surplus into our Rainy Day Fund, with the goal of seeing the fund reach $100 million by 2020.
I would also submit that this Board has not lived up to the expectations of citizens to address County roadways and infrastructure. We cannot simply just keep blaming the State and our local Assembly leaders. This Board demonstrates very little accountability. They had an opportunity to create set-asides to address this issue and have failed to act.(Robinson)
You spoke of economic development?
Yes. Economic Development is vital to our future but it must be a shared responsibility with the fiscal responsibility we were just speaking to. In these times of economic adversity when people are losing their jobs and homes, the government should work to help the private sector generate new jobs in Chesterfield and help our existing local businesses succeed.
While most new jobs should and must be created in the private sector, the government can play an important role in establishing a favorable climate for job creation. It is essential that Chesterfield County be a place which appeals to hardworking, imaginative and inventive workers. That said, it also important that we adjust the mix regarding our revenue generation. Currently, we see about 80% of the revenues on the back of our citizens and only 20% on the business community. Many have questioned why it appears as though Henrico as done a better job addressing these balances. A recent 2008 Business Survey in Chesterfield demonstrates the willingness of business to work in a manner that is cooperative and appropriate to grow our economy. In fact, Supervisor Durfee and Gecker pledged to reduce said burden on citizens and shift more towards business while candidates, but once seated have done nothing to address this disparity. In fact, it appears as though they have gone the other direction. (Robinson)
What would you say to those that favor commercial buildout along the 360 West corridor?
It is imperative that we work to attract more office and retail development, which will bring jobs but we cannot simply just rely on the retail model. These are not the high paying jobs that will ignite our economy. They may be suitable for financial purposes but looking out twenty years does it really do any good to bring them and then continue to zone additional lots that create commercial sprawl. (Robinson)
Can you elaborate a bit on that?
Certainly. Look at Midlothian Tnpk east of Chesterfield Town Center toward Cloverleaf and the City. If you drive through Mr. Gecker's District you will see literally dozens of For Lease signs and vacant retail units all along Rt. 60. What have we done to address this? Have the Business Zones worked to address this? We have to ask ourselves how we can attract business investment along with County invetment to revitalize these areas and not simply just keep building further west in Matoaca. (Robinson)
Would this benefit from a revenue perspective?
Certainly. Not only would it mean more higher paying jobs for Chesterfield residents, it would mean more revenue for the county as a whole as those types of developments cost less to provide services for than say those projects like Roseland cost to build out. In fact, look at what happened in Magnolia Green. Many citizens are unaware of the Lower Magnolia Green Commercial Development Authority tax lien on residents in that area that are in addition to the typical property taxes that they pay which will last for up to 30 years. I have been told that these taxes are roughly about $500 a year for every household but am not sure what the commercial rate will be because of the issues that Magnolia has faced with its developers and the fact that there has been little action on the 200 acres of commercial property along Hull Street. Currently, the residents are stuck with more of the burden as the 3,550 homes are built out until the economic recovery permits the commercial elements to catch up. This pattern seems to have repeated itself throughout the last twenty years in Chesterfield. (Robinson)
*********************************************************************************
More background information on T.C. Robinson can be found at www.tc4matoaca.com for those that wish to seek out further information. Citizens can also find him involved with the CCRC in Chesterfield.
I fully intend to reach out to the other candidates throughout 2011 that seek either the Board of Supervisors or the School Board. 2011 is shaping up to be a very interesting year for Chesterfield concerning path the County will take in the coming years.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Campaign 2011:And so it begins
Has the 2011 Campaign begun already?
We have not even reached the Nov. 2 elections yet but it appears that local officials here in Chesterfield County have already begun there campaigns for their re-election cycle by once again playing politics with citizens tax dollars.
I have to admit it was pretty unbelievable given these economic times and the tone right now of the electorate in general that our local government is considering a 3% bonus to be paid to certain government employees. I mean wasn't it about eight months ago we were talking budget deficits for schools and facing a reduced State-funding component? How can the local government feel confident that we are not going to face even tougher times ahead?
Isn't the County collecting less revenue than the last few years? I understand that the County has lowered its overall budget by 34 million or 4% for this coming year, but at a time when the times are forcing our government to make due with less I question whether it is constructive at this juncture to use the surplus in the form of a bonus plan.
The bonus was one of the potential uses of the surplus the County experienced at the close of the fiscal year in June. Allan M. Carmody, Director of Budget and Management for the County listed the 3% bonus as one of the options that the 28.5 million dollar surplus could be used for. The 3% bonus would cost the County 4.75 million of the total surplus.
The 3% bonus is basically a 3% of current salary for those employed by the County for at least one full year. One full year? Comments from local officials do not see to illustrate the one full year component given the fact that Supervisor Daniel Gecker from Midlothian stated that the bonus should be paid to employees given it was there work that provided the surplus.
The notion of returning such surplus to taxpayers or not spending it at all appears void of Mr. Gecker's political DNA. It appears as though some local officials like Mr. Gecker feel compelled to spend the surplus no matter what. Mr. Carmody referred to the 3% bonus plan as "performance recognition".
Performance recognition? Given the fact that the County has failed to accurately budget in the past, how confident are they that they will get all the State resources that they think are coming. Chances are they will, but isn't the role of government to budget and spend based on what they know and not what they hope. At this point, officials have to know that the collection of revenues will be less than years past and thus far the 4% or so cuts that have already been made are commendable but do those cuts warrant a "performance recognition".
As it stands today, two officials in Supervisor Gecker and Holland have endorsed the 3 % bonus plan recommended by Mr. Carmody.
Mr. Gecker went own to express that "we cut hopefully as much as we have to cut" referring apparently to the 4% reduction in spending, but it begs the question why would not our leaders seek to continually cut out the waste and bloat in the County budget. Why must the cuts stop now merely because the budget office anticipates a surplus?
The Board of Supervisors at large however have agreed to defer the matter until its Nov. 17th meeting.
We have not even reached the Nov. 2 elections yet but it appears that local officials here in Chesterfield County have already begun there campaigns for their re-election cycle by once again playing politics with citizens tax dollars.
I have to admit it was pretty unbelievable given these economic times and the tone right now of the electorate in general that our local government is considering a 3% bonus to be paid to certain government employees. I mean wasn't it about eight months ago we were talking budget deficits for schools and facing a reduced State-funding component? How can the local government feel confident that we are not going to face even tougher times ahead?
Isn't the County collecting less revenue than the last few years? I understand that the County has lowered its overall budget by 34 million or 4% for this coming year, but at a time when the times are forcing our government to make due with less I question whether it is constructive at this juncture to use the surplus in the form of a bonus plan.
The bonus was one of the potential uses of the surplus the County experienced at the close of the fiscal year in June. Allan M. Carmody, Director of Budget and Management for the County listed the 3% bonus as one of the options that the 28.5 million dollar surplus could be used for. The 3% bonus would cost the County 4.75 million of the total surplus.
The 3% bonus is basically a 3% of current salary for those employed by the County for at least one full year. One full year? Comments from local officials do not see to illustrate the one full year component given the fact that Supervisor Daniel Gecker from Midlothian stated that the bonus should be paid to employees given it was there work that provided the surplus.
The notion of returning such surplus to taxpayers or not spending it at all appears void of Mr. Gecker's political DNA. It appears as though some local officials like Mr. Gecker feel compelled to spend the surplus no matter what. Mr. Carmody referred to the 3% bonus plan as "performance recognition".
Performance recognition? Given the fact that the County has failed to accurately budget in the past, how confident are they that they will get all the State resources that they think are coming. Chances are they will, but isn't the role of government to budget and spend based on what they know and not what they hope. At this point, officials have to know that the collection of revenues will be less than years past and thus far the 4% or so cuts that have already been made are commendable but do those cuts warrant a "performance recognition".
As it stands today, two officials in Supervisor Gecker and Holland have endorsed the 3 % bonus plan recommended by Mr. Carmody.
Mr. Gecker went own to express that "we cut hopefully as much as we have to cut" referring apparently to the 4% reduction in spending, but it begs the question why would not our leaders seek to continually cut out the waste and bloat in the County budget. Why must the cuts stop now merely because the budget office anticipates a surplus?
The Board of Supervisors at large however have agreed to defer the matter until its Nov. 17th meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
