THEY’RE AT IT AGAIN! Having failed to stop Stafford County from endorsing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Affordable Housing Taskforce (AHTF) to continue regional discussions on workforce housing and applying as a region for HUD Neighborhood Stabilization funds (See http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2008/11/dogma-or-pragmatism.html) Board Chairman George Schwartz and Supervisor Bob Woodson decided it was time for Stafford County to discuss withdrawing from the George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC).
The AHTF made up of representatives from housing non-profits such as the Central Virginia Housing Coalition, Habitat for Humanity; and the real estate, banking, and development communities was established by the GWRC (Stafford included) to come up with recommendations to address workforce housing which has been identified as a serious need in the region.
Unfortunately for the cause of regionalism, and in this case workforce housing, Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson view the GWRC as part of an insidious right-wing Republican conspiracy. No matter the issue or the outcome it must be stopped if any Republicans are involved. This comes as a bit of a suprise to my colleagues on the GWRC who would take some offense at being refered to as a Republican.
At a time when localities are being expected to take on more responsibility with less money working together regionally should be actively perused. Instead, Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson continue to judge an issue by the party affiliation of those involved. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also had an issue with regionalism because it begins with an “R.”
I thought we were entering a new era of change. Where we are all going to work together for the common good. If so, can someone drop Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson an e-mail remiding them.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Parties Before All Else?
Since my election to City Council I have had the privilege to work with elected officials from other localities in this region. While not always in agreement we have strived to build regional consensus on issues. Over the past three years we have rebuilt our Regional Planning District-- The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC), and our transportation planning board —Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), to where we are in a position to start looking at regional solutions.
While we are all aware of our respective political affiliations we have not judged our colleagues’ contributions based on those affiliations. Until now, those contributions have been judged solely on their merits. Recently an incident occurred which would indicate that some of my colleagues’ wish to change the regional dynamic to one that places party loyalty before finding consensus.
There is no question that the current political climate in Stafford County is highly charged and, for the most party, divided along party lines. It would also be understandable that it would spill over into regional organizations as was recently the case regarding appointments to the Rappahannock Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) that approves and oversees U.S. Small Business Administration 504 Loans.
As president of the REDCO Board I had recommended that two current members from Stafford County be reappointed to the REDCO Board as they we both involved in hiring the new executive director and have been actively involved in discussions regarding plans to reorganize the corporation. The GWRC Board, which appoints the membership on REDCO, approved the reappointments over the opposition of Supervisor Bob Woodson who is one of Stafford’s representatives of the GWRC Board.
As a result of this action, Stafford Board Chairman George Schwartz requested a meeting which was attended by GWRC Executive Director Bob Wilson along with the newly elected REDCO President, the new REDCO Executive Director and legal counsel. Supervisor Woodson also attended the meeting. Mr. Wilson came to the meeting prepared to explain how member of the REDCO Board were chosen and also to take the opportunity to introduce the new president and executive director of the organization. Below is the account of the meeting presented to the REDCO Board by Mr. Wilson:
The meeting was requested by George Schwartz via Wendy Mallow of the County Administrator ’s office. It was held at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26th in the Administrator’s office.
In addition to me, also in attendance were Supervisor Bob Woodson; CAO Anthony Romanello; REDCO President Pete Humes; REDCO Executive Director Catherine McDermott; and REDCO Counsel Blanton Massey.
Here are my general observations of both George and Bob:
SCHWARTZ:
· Walked into the meeting late and didn’t bother to shake hands with the invitees.
· Immediately upon initiating the discussion, his tone and demeanor were angry and highly confrontational.
· Started off by expressing his general disdain for GWRC, FAMPO, REDCO and regionalism.
· Although not in so many words, he said that GWRC and FAMPO were essentially useless.
· Said GWRC, FAMPO and REDCO are “highly political” organizations.
· Alluded to pulling Stafford out of GWRC/FAMPO.
· Less than five minutes into the discussion he became blatantly partisan, demanding of his invitees to know why “those Republicans” (Steve Apicella and Don Newlin) were still on REDCO.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella and Newlin.
· Ranted about “the same people” serving on boards and authorities.
· Said if GWRC/FAMPO were any good at all, we would have fixed the Falmouth intersection by now.
· After Blanton stated that he had received an opinion from the Commonwealth’s FOI coordinator that REDCO was not subject to FOI despite REDCO’s affiliation with GWRC (which is subject to FOIA), George felt the need to blurt out that he had “a problem” with FOIA.
WOODSON:
· Said that “you (not sure whether he meant GWRC or REDCO) took away the right of the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to REDCO.” When I responded that the BOS never had that right in the first place, he blurted out “Bull!”, essentially calling me a liar.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella.
· At the conclusion of the meeting, when I sought to end it on a high note by reassuring he and George that REDCO deliberations were purely financial in nature – dealing with things like credit worthiness, business plans, etc. – Bob said “Well, someone’s probably getting something under the table.” That is an exact quote.
My own conduct during the meeting was driven by that of George. I came into that meeting prepared and expecting to have a direct but gentlemanly discussion of the process for appointing members to REDCO. When it became apparent from George’s tone and comments that that was no longer possible, and that he was attempting to browbeat my colleagues and me, I responded accordingly. I then directly and very forcefully refuted any of his assertions with which I disagreed, and I refused to let him disparage the Commission, FAMPO or REDCO without refutation. However, with possibly one exception, I was duly respectful. The exception may have been when – after George shared that he had yet another problem, this time with FOIA – I sarcastically said “Shocking.” He clearly did not appreciate that.
Needless to say no one expected this type of a reception. To accuse officials without cause of lying and taking kickbacks is offensive, as was the lack of civility shown. At the center of these comments and actions was the view that party membership should be the determining factor as to whether an individual was fit to serve. And because the GWRC Board approved the appointment of two individuals who were deemed unfit due to their political affiliation, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Woodson deemed regionalism itself suspect. Is this the type or regional dialogue we can expect in the future?
Politics will always play a role in any discussions between elected officials. Our respective political philosophies will always have a bearing on how we view an issue. But up to this time we have not determined the validity of an argument based on political affiliation. We have not utilized a political litmus test to determine who is fit to serve nor do we use our discussions to embarrass or intimidate the, “political opposition.”
The issues faced by this region are complex and arriving at solutions will require balancing the varied needs and views represented in our region. It will require reasoned debate and compromise. The task is daunting enough. To judge the validity of a person’s position solely on their political affiliation is not only counter-productive but will ensure that our efforts will result in failure.
While we are all aware of our respective political affiliations we have not judged our colleagues’ contributions based on those affiliations. Until now, those contributions have been judged solely on their merits. Recently an incident occurred which would indicate that some of my colleagues’ wish to change the regional dynamic to one that places party loyalty before finding consensus.
There is no question that the current political climate in Stafford County is highly charged and, for the most party, divided along party lines. It would also be understandable that it would spill over into regional organizations as was recently the case regarding appointments to the Rappahannock Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) that approves and oversees U.S. Small Business Administration 504 Loans.
As president of the REDCO Board I had recommended that two current members from Stafford County be reappointed to the REDCO Board as they we both involved in hiring the new executive director and have been actively involved in discussions regarding plans to reorganize the corporation. The GWRC Board, which appoints the membership on REDCO, approved the reappointments over the opposition of Supervisor Bob Woodson who is one of Stafford’s representatives of the GWRC Board.
As a result of this action, Stafford Board Chairman George Schwartz requested a meeting which was attended by GWRC Executive Director Bob Wilson along with the newly elected REDCO President, the new REDCO Executive Director and legal counsel. Supervisor Woodson also attended the meeting. Mr. Wilson came to the meeting prepared to explain how member of the REDCO Board were chosen and also to take the opportunity to introduce the new president and executive director of the organization. Below is the account of the meeting presented to the REDCO Board by Mr. Wilson:
The meeting was requested by George Schwartz via Wendy Mallow of the County Administrator ’s office. It was held at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26th in the Administrator’s office.
In addition to me, also in attendance were Supervisor Bob Woodson; CAO Anthony Romanello; REDCO President Pete Humes; REDCO Executive Director Catherine McDermott; and REDCO Counsel Blanton Massey.
Here are my general observations of both George and Bob:
SCHWARTZ:
· Walked into the meeting late and didn’t bother to shake hands with the invitees.
· Immediately upon initiating the discussion, his tone and demeanor were angry and highly confrontational.
· Started off by expressing his general disdain for GWRC, FAMPO, REDCO and regionalism.
· Although not in so many words, he said that GWRC and FAMPO were essentially useless.
· Said GWRC, FAMPO and REDCO are “highly political” organizations.
· Alluded to pulling Stafford out of GWRC/FAMPO.
· Less than five minutes into the discussion he became blatantly partisan, demanding of his invitees to know why “those Republicans” (Steve Apicella and Don Newlin) were still on REDCO.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella and Newlin.
· Ranted about “the same people” serving on boards and authorities.
· Said if GWRC/FAMPO were any good at all, we would have fixed the Falmouth intersection by now.
· After Blanton stated that he had received an opinion from the Commonwealth’s FOI coordinator that REDCO was not subject to FOI despite REDCO’s affiliation with GWRC (which is subject to FOIA), George felt the need to blurt out that he had “a problem” with FOIA.
WOODSON:
· Said that “you (not sure whether he meant GWRC or REDCO) took away the right of the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to REDCO.” When I responded that the BOS never had that right in the first place, he blurted out “Bull!”, essentially calling me a liar.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella.
· At the conclusion of the meeting, when I sought to end it on a high note by reassuring he and George that REDCO deliberations were purely financial in nature – dealing with things like credit worthiness, business plans, etc. – Bob said “Well, someone’s probably getting something under the table.” That is an exact quote.
My own conduct during the meeting was driven by that of George. I came into that meeting prepared and expecting to have a direct but gentlemanly discussion of the process for appointing members to REDCO. When it became apparent from George’s tone and comments that that was no longer possible, and that he was attempting to browbeat my colleagues and me, I responded accordingly. I then directly and very forcefully refuted any of his assertions with which I disagreed, and I refused to let him disparage the Commission, FAMPO or REDCO without refutation. However, with possibly one exception, I was duly respectful. The exception may have been when – after George shared that he had yet another problem, this time with FOIA – I sarcastically said “Shocking.” He clearly did not appreciate that.
Needless to say no one expected this type of a reception. To accuse officials without cause of lying and taking kickbacks is offensive, as was the lack of civility shown. At the center of these comments and actions was the view that party membership should be the determining factor as to whether an individual was fit to serve. And because the GWRC Board approved the appointment of two individuals who were deemed unfit due to their political affiliation, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Woodson deemed regionalism itself suspect. Is this the type or regional dialogue we can expect in the future?
Politics will always play a role in any discussions between elected officials. Our respective political philosophies will always have a bearing on how we view an issue. But up to this time we have not determined the validity of an argument based on political affiliation. We have not utilized a political litmus test to determine who is fit to serve nor do we use our discussions to embarrass or intimidate the, “political opposition.”
The issues faced by this region are complex and arriving at solutions will require balancing the varied needs and views represented in our region. It will require reasoned debate and compromise. The task is daunting enough. To judge the validity of a person’s position solely on their political affiliation is not only counter-productive but will ensure that our efforts will result in failure.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Let's Talk Taxes
While at the polls on Election Day it was pointed out to me that I had given up my Republican credentials because I was supporting the two, “tax and spend liberal” candidates for the At-Large seats on City Council. It was the “tax and spend” comment, to which I have also been associated, that I would like to comment on.
I’ve never felt comfortable with the current party mantra of, “No New Taxes.” It’s a negative statement that provides no vision/direction or solutions to the problems we face. On the other hand I remembers the days (and some will say they are still here) when the only solution to a problem was to throw more tax dollars at it—with little result.
There are those who point to the fact that we have the lowest tax rate among cities in Virginia, and in the region, as justification for increasing taxes. This approach does not take into consideration that there are those in our community, regardless of the current tax rate, where any increase becomes a burden. It also does not recognize that the reasons for taxation are limited. Any consideration of raising taxes should be based on meeting needs, return on investment, and/or for stated goals that have community support.
I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not how much we are taxed but rather on what tax dollars are spent on and outcomes. People expect a certain level of service and understand the cost associated with them. And if the proper use of tax dollars result in positive outcomes that expenditure could translate not only in a better quality of life but could also result in increased revenues thereby reducing the need to raise taxes.
At the local level all taxes dollars collected go back into the community through services—water/sewer, trash pick-up, etc.; and infrastructure—schools, police stations, etc. These expenditures are focused on three core areas of service, public safety, public works and education. While we could discuss how dollars are spend in these areas no one would dispute that these are where our tax dollars should go.
During the last years budget discussions in the City I received more calls on the decision to stop providing trash bags than I did on the tax rate. I also received calls asking me not to raise taxes but to fully fund groups like the Regional Library. Here is where we must deal with the issue of needs vs. wants.
We must define needs and wants. We must make sure we first provide tax dollars for needed core services. Only then, and only with community support, do we consider the funding of wants. Last year there were many community organizations that provided programs and services but one had to question whether it was the role of government or the community itself to support them.
An example of investing tax dollars on outcomes can be found in how we deal with our transportation problems. Richmond seems ready to give local government more control in planning for our future transportation needs. This effort will require additional funding that will probably, at least in part, need to be raised locally.
If local governments are freed to plan and implement local road and other transportation related projects based on a set of outcomes such as congestion mitigation and reduced road trips, we not only improve our quality of life but also decreases the cost to business making them more profitable, and attracting compatible new business to the area thereby taking some of the tax burden off residents.
In the face of uncertain revenues, increased costs, reductions in state and federal funding and more unfunded mandates taking the position of “No New Taxes” flies in the face of reality. To be able to continue to provide a quality of life residents expect, and to take advantage of opportunities to invest in improvements that will in time take some of the tax burden off our residents, we must have all options on the table. Its not only about taxes its about priorities and outcomes.
P.S. --In response to Larry Gross' post regarding a breakdown of local spending I would refer readers to http://tinyurl.com/2mdtmn then click on City & County Spending and you can get this information. Thanks to Larry for providing this site on a previous post on my other site Question Everything.
I’ve never felt comfortable with the current party mantra of, “No New Taxes.” It’s a negative statement that provides no vision/direction or solutions to the problems we face. On the other hand I remembers the days (and some will say they are still here) when the only solution to a problem was to throw more tax dollars at it—with little result.
There are those who point to the fact that we have the lowest tax rate among cities in Virginia, and in the region, as justification for increasing taxes. This approach does not take into consideration that there are those in our community, regardless of the current tax rate, where any increase becomes a burden. It also does not recognize that the reasons for taxation are limited. Any consideration of raising taxes should be based on meeting needs, return on investment, and/or for stated goals that have community support.
I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not how much we are taxed but rather on what tax dollars are spent on and outcomes. People expect a certain level of service and understand the cost associated with them. And if the proper use of tax dollars result in positive outcomes that expenditure could translate not only in a better quality of life but could also result in increased revenues thereby reducing the need to raise taxes.
At the local level all taxes dollars collected go back into the community through services—water/sewer, trash pick-up, etc.; and infrastructure—schools, police stations, etc. These expenditures are focused on three core areas of service, public safety, public works and education. While we could discuss how dollars are spend in these areas no one would dispute that these are where our tax dollars should go.
During the last years budget discussions in the City I received more calls on the decision to stop providing trash bags than I did on the tax rate. I also received calls asking me not to raise taxes but to fully fund groups like the Regional Library. Here is where we must deal with the issue of needs vs. wants.
We must define needs and wants. We must make sure we first provide tax dollars for needed core services. Only then, and only with community support, do we consider the funding of wants. Last year there were many community organizations that provided programs and services but one had to question whether it was the role of government or the community itself to support them.
An example of investing tax dollars on outcomes can be found in how we deal with our transportation problems. Richmond seems ready to give local government more control in planning for our future transportation needs. This effort will require additional funding that will probably, at least in part, need to be raised locally.
If local governments are freed to plan and implement local road and other transportation related projects based on a set of outcomes such as congestion mitigation and reduced road trips, we not only improve our quality of life but also decreases the cost to business making them more profitable, and attracting compatible new business to the area thereby taking some of the tax burden off residents.
In the face of uncertain revenues, increased costs, reductions in state and federal funding and more unfunded mandates taking the position of “No New Taxes” flies in the face of reality. To be able to continue to provide a quality of life residents expect, and to take advantage of opportunities to invest in improvements that will in time take some of the tax burden off our residents, we must have all options on the table. Its not only about taxes its about priorities and outcomes.
P.S. --In response to Larry Gross' post regarding a breakdown of local spending I would refer readers to http://tinyurl.com/2mdtmn then click on City & County Spending and you can get this information. Thanks to Larry for providing this site on a previous post on my other site Question Everything.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
ROUND II
IT’S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD……Needless to say I am quite content with the outcome of this election. Mayor Tomzak ended up with 64% of the vote and won in all four wards. I do have to say that the early posting implying that because my newborn niece, who obviously supported Mrs. Girvan, didn’t vote we should not read too much in the Mayor’s victory, is a bit of a stretch.
While the Mayor’s victory is impressive and signals that the majority of the community supports the direction of the current Council I do believe, through their own fault, that the views of a large group of residents were not truly represented in this election.
There are those who truly have concerns about preservation, the use of incentives, taxes, and the perceived degradation of the unique character of the city. Yet instead of putting forward a candidate(s) that shared their concerns they supported a candidate(s) that were prepared to tell them what they wanted to hear up until the day after the election—and a lot of them knew it.
Speaking for myself I am prepared to keep the debate going on these issues, and where possible, address them. For those who feel that Fredericksburg “lost” as a result of this election you have only yourselves to blame.
While the Mayor’s victory is impressive and signals that the majority of the community supports the direction of the current Council I do believe, through their own fault, that the views of a large group of residents were not truly represented in this election.
There are those who truly have concerns about preservation, the use of incentives, taxes, and the perceived degradation of the unique character of the city. Yet instead of putting forward a candidate(s) that shared their concerns they supported a candidate(s) that were prepared to tell them what they wanted to hear up until the day after the election—and a lot of them knew it.
Speaking for myself I am prepared to keep the debate going on these issues, and where possible, address them. For those who feel that Fredericksburg “lost” as a result of this election you have only yourselves to blame.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Just A Remider--It Takes a Team Effort
Much has been claimed over the past few months regarding credit for bringing the Cal Ripken project to Fredericksburg. Below is the first article to appear in the Free Lance Star that provided the details on how Fredericksburg was chosen.
Ripken Pitches City Ball
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/112006/11302006/240465
"Ripken Jr.'s sights were turned on Fredericksburg after last spring's College World Series in Omaha, Neb. Omaha native and investing legend Warren Buffett, an avid baseball fan, knew Ripken Jr. was in town for the games, and invited him to dinner.
As they dined, the pair talked about the Ripken foundation's work with young people, and Ripken returned to Baltimore asking his staff how his organization could partner with the Buffett family on a youth-serving venture.
Ripken's publicist happened to know the sister of Fredericksburg attorney Charles Payne, who does pro-bono work for Doris Buffett, a local philanthropist who is Warren Buffett's sister.
Payne said Ripken's publicist called him one day and asked if he'd be interested in helping to set up a partnership between Fredericksburg and the Ripken foundation.
"I said, 'Are you kidding?'" Payne said yesterday. "This is a great gift, I think, having these guys here."
This is how the Ripken Foundation came to Fredericksburg. Not to detract from anyone’s participation in this effort but they are just one of many people who has brought this project forward—city staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the City School Board, other members of the Council (excluding yours truly) and community volunteers.
No individual can take credit for moving a project like this forward. It will take the effort of many individuals and organizations, and a willingness to work together, to make this project a success. Building team spirit, focusing on the goal, and recognizing the efforts of others is also important. Fighting for credit and photo ops will doom this project to failure.
Ripken Pitches City Ball
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/112006/11302006/240465
"Ripken Jr.'s sights were turned on Fredericksburg after last spring's College World Series in Omaha, Neb. Omaha native and investing legend Warren Buffett, an avid baseball fan, knew Ripken Jr. was in town for the games, and invited him to dinner.
As they dined, the pair talked about the Ripken foundation's work with young people, and Ripken returned to Baltimore asking his staff how his organization could partner with the Buffett family on a youth-serving venture.
Ripken's publicist happened to know the sister of Fredericksburg attorney Charles Payne, who does pro-bono work for Doris Buffett, a local philanthropist who is Warren Buffett's sister.
Payne said Ripken's publicist called him one day and asked if he'd be interested in helping to set up a partnership between Fredericksburg and the Ripken foundation.
"I said, 'Are you kidding?'" Payne said yesterday. "This is a great gift, I think, having these guys here."
This is how the Ripken Foundation came to Fredericksburg. Not to detract from anyone’s participation in this effort but they are just one of many people who has brought this project forward—city staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the City School Board, other members of the Council (excluding yours truly) and community volunteers.
No individual can take credit for moving a project like this forward. It will take the effort of many individuals and organizations, and a willingness to work together, to make this project a success. Building team spirit, focusing on the goal, and recognizing the efforts of others is also important. Fighting for credit and photo ops will doom this project to failure.
Friday, May 2, 2008
UNBELIEVABLE!
On April 25th the Free Lance Star, in a story entitled-- Checking the Facts
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04252008/374410 laid out the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s position on Auto Chalk. Mrs. Girvan’s response—post that same inaccurate information on her web site-- Autochalk aka "Robocop" - It's about Spending Priorities
http://www.girvanformayor.com/robocopstats.htm
In addition to the multiple inaccuracies pointed out in the FLS story Mrs. Girvan goes on to ADD a few more. “This system penalizes tourists & visitors - the very customers we're trying to encourage to visit downtown.” Mrs. Girvan KNOWS, and residents should know, that first time offenders, usually tourists, ARE NOT GIVEN A TICKET. They receive a warning letter along with information pointing out where parking is located downtown.
As for revenue, even with first time tickets being waived, it has increased since Auto Chalk went into operation. In a presentation before the College Heights Civic Association LAST NIGHT, Chief Nye reported that revenues to date for tickets are UP $20,000.00 over last year!
On her website Mrs. Girvan implies that the system has been ineffective because most of the tickets issued are hand written. The reason for this has also been explained on more than one occasion to Mrs. Girvan—because it takes less time to cover downtown, parking enforcement officers have more time to check for violations around the train station and the University.
I would invite readers to read the Free Lance Star story linked above for more of the details regarding the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s statements on Auto Chalk.
Mrs. Girvan KNEW that she was putting out inaccurate information. Even after the story appeared in the Free Lance Star she continues to put out inaccurate information. What does this say about her credibility?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04252008/374410 laid out the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s position on Auto Chalk. Mrs. Girvan’s response—post that same inaccurate information on her web site-- Autochalk aka "Robocop" - It's about Spending Priorities
http://www.girvanformayor.com/robocopstats.htm
In addition to the multiple inaccuracies pointed out in the FLS story Mrs. Girvan goes on to ADD a few more. “This system penalizes tourists & visitors - the very customers we're trying to encourage to visit downtown.” Mrs. Girvan KNOWS, and residents should know, that first time offenders, usually tourists, ARE NOT GIVEN A TICKET. They receive a warning letter along with information pointing out where parking is located downtown.
As for revenue, even with first time tickets being waived, it has increased since Auto Chalk went into operation. In a presentation before the College Heights Civic Association LAST NIGHT, Chief Nye reported that revenues to date for tickets are UP $20,000.00 over last year!
On her website Mrs. Girvan implies that the system has been ineffective because most of the tickets issued are hand written. The reason for this has also been explained on more than one occasion to Mrs. Girvan—because it takes less time to cover downtown, parking enforcement officers have more time to check for violations around the train station and the University.
I would invite readers to read the Free Lance Star story linked above for more of the details regarding the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s statements on Auto Chalk.
Mrs. Girvan KNEW that she was putting out inaccurate information. Even after the story appeared in the Free Lance Star she continues to put out inaccurate information. What does this say about her credibility?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Mrs. Girvan-- A Preservationist???????
Today, former Mayor Beck endorsed Mrs. Girvan because, in his words, Mayor Tomzak has an, “obvious disdain for those to whom history is important.” He points to the recent demolition of building and comment’s made by the Mayor about preservationists such as they want to, “preserved (the City) in amber,” and they are, “very affluent people who would like to freeze the city in time.” Mr. Beck, by implication, is putting forth the argument that Mrs. Girvan is stronger on preservation issues. What is perplexing to me is that he knows that this is not true.
Two years ago in an OpEd Mr. Beck stated:
“One worries that had Ms. Girvan held sway in the 1890s, the Mary Washington House would have been shipped off to the Chicago World's Fair. The offered $5,000 was certainly more than its appraisal would have been.”
It’s Time for our City to Approve the Easement
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02232006/169640/index_html?page=1
Let’s ponder at what Fredericksburg would have looked like if Mrs. Girvan had held sway between 2004 and 2008—
--The parking deck would be one story higher and instead of a brick and block, award winning architecturally compatible structure, it would have been made of pre-cast panels.
Two years ago in an OpEd Mr. Beck stated:
“One worries that had Ms. Girvan held sway in the 1890s, the Mary Washington House would have been shipped off to the Chicago World's Fair. The offered $5,000 was certainly more than its appraisal would have been.”
It’s Time for our City to Approve the Easement
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02232006/169640/index_html?page=1
Let’s ponder at what Fredericksburg would have looked like if Mrs. Girvan had held sway between 2004 and 2008—
--The parking deck would be one story higher and instead of a brick and block, award winning architecturally compatible structure, it would have been made of pre-cast panels.
--There would be a cookie cutter Marriott hotel on Sofia Street.
--The buildings that have come down would still have come down. It should be noted that one of the owners of these buildings made a $200.00 donation to Mrs. Girvan’s campaign. The builder of the new office building on Wolfe Street is a supporter.
--The Demolition Ordinance would not have been rewritten. Mrs. Girvan opposed the concept that if it was economically viable to restore the building, regardless of the owner’s economic position, that was a basis of denial for a demolition permit.
--The ARB review process would not have been tightened because Mrs. Girvan felt the recommendations were too restrictive and would discourage downtown development.
--We would not be looking at expanding standing in the Historic District because Mrs. Girvan applauded the courts decision to deny standing to Historic District residents.
--We would not be looking at trying to end McMasions being built in the City because Mrs. Girvan questions the amount of extra work developers will be required to do to meet the conditions of the new ordinances. I would recommend a check of the ownership of some of the properties Girvan signs are in.
The concern Mr. Beck articulated two years ago is just as relevant today when it comes to Mrs. Girvan preservation record.
While I would agree that Mayor Tomzak has not been an ardent supporter of preservation he does recognize its importance. He supported the smaller parking deck and the need for the downtown hotel to be compatible with its surroundings. He endorsed the changes made to the ARB process (except for standing), and the Demolition Ordinance. He is now also ready to consider the expansion of standing in the Historic District. Mayor Tomzak has made some unfortunate comments over his tenure but his actions shows he sees the importance of preservation. While you may question the level of his preservation credentials they are much higher than those held by Mrs. Girvan.
I do take exception to the inclusion of the Frederick Street property in Mr. Beck’s list of demolished or endangered properties. He is well aware of the efforts the city have, and are, making to preserve that property. An effort that shows that the City has, and will continue to take steps, to protect the historic character of Fredericksburg. Currently we are working on a citywide preservation plan, which I hope will be in place within the next year.
Mr. Beck has issues with the direction of the City Council, which we have, and hopefully will continue, to discuss. I understand and respect his positions though I do not agree that they meet the future needs of Fredericksburg. What I cannot understand is why he would support a candidate that he knows does not believe as he does on most issues facing the city. For him to imply that her election would benefit preservation in the City is incomprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
