Tag Archives: BoS

District 4 is Now the Jennie Dean District

Posted on by |
March 24, 2011
Dear friends,
 
I am pleased to tell you that District 4 is now the Jennie Dean District.   The vote by the Board of Supervisors stimulated much discussion; but in the end, the supervisors decided to go along by a wide margin.  As a result, probably for the first time in the history of Virginia, and certainly in Loudoun, a district has been named after an African-American!   Loudoun leads the way, again! 
 
Just returned from the victory party.  It feels great being part of creating something not only all African-Americans can be proud of, but also all Virginians.  But the real praise rests with the Baptist Prosperity Church, its Pastor and the children and mothers who came tonight, one of whom was the oldest living descendant of Jennie Dean, a woman in her nineties who felt it important to lobby for an historical vote.  They set up their own rally, created home-made signs, sent emails, and called around the county and the region to build support.  They were the true victors, making this a grass-roots effort, and that’s the way it should have been.  I have no idea of what party any of them are and never asked.  This was about the people, about doing the right thing, not about party.
 
To get to this point of course required a lot of preparation by a lot of people, as well as discussions with the Library of Virginia in Richmond, the Virginia Historical Society, and the Black History Committee at the Balch Library, all coordinated and led by the members and friends of the Prosperity Baptist Church, especially Reverand Lawson, and true progressives around the county and region.  Kelly Burk of  Leesburg led off this evening on a very positive tone with a discussion of the historical facts and significance related to the vote.  One of the things I am particularly proud of was how bi-partisan the effort was.  In my case, I contacted all of the Supervisors, including Republicans and Independents.  Though the financial well-being of the church was a campaign project (which did very well), I worked as a private citizen, not as a candidate, to advance the name change for District 4.  Of course, anything a candidate does is considered “political” by someone, so it was also wonderful to hear Sally Kurtz in a loud, strong voice of reason, with beauty, intelligence and passion, remind all who might doubt, that this effort by so many people was the best kind of politics, something to be proud of.   She also rightly reminded us that it was the kind of politics one runs to, not from.  Only someone very shallow of character could think otherwise.  Jim Burton, Andrea McGimsey and Kelly Burk were also brilliant in their support.  Even Eugene Delgaudio rose to provide a wonderful, warm tribute.  
 
Success was indeed bi-partisan and in the best tradition of what politics is supposed to be about —  helping people and doing the right thing.   That’s our Loudoun, our Virginia, and now our Jennie Dean District, and this was a very important moment in my life, for sure.
 
Have a great evening.  
 
Larry Roeder

Sour Grapes?

Posted on by |

The redistricting process has been a contentious mess, I will grant anyone that. I don’t think there was anyone in the county who was 100% satisfied (or would have been satisfied) by any of the plans. I was ambivalent – I saw positives and negatives in both “Miller 5” and “HOA 4”. My only hope was to see the Lansdowne on the Potomac community united into one district. In the long run, though, it didn’t matter to me which plan passed; I would have been able to live with either. But apparently not Supervisor Lori Waters.

I just received Supervisor Waters’ March 2011 newsletter in my e-mail inbox, and was a little taken aback by what I read. Instead of the usual district newsletter, where she touts board items she championed, notifies us of board actions that affect the district, and gives us tidbits of other district-related news, Supervisor Waters took it upon herself to inject politics and editorial comment into this issue.

I voted against this plan as it was gerrymandering to favor certain incumbents and candidates and even claimed as “our plan” by the Loudoun County Democrat Committee (sic). Unfortunately, these district lines will remain in place for 10 years, and this process ended with candidates trumping communities.

I took a cursory glance at newsletters released by some of the other Supervisors (at least those that were posted on the Loudoun County website), and saw none of them playing politics with their newsletters (I can only assume that the Sterling District Supervisor does this, given his track record).

Supervisor Waters, I’m sorry you didn’t get your way. We both had the same goal, to unite Lansdowne, and I was just as turned off by the political machinations last week as anyone. I understand your frustrations. But an innocuous district newsletter is no place for playing political games.  Just tell us the news, free from spin and opinion, and leave the politics out of it.

This is why we should all work hard to elect Valdis Ronis as the next Supervisor from Broad Run (or whatever the district will be called). He’s above playing politics – he’s fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and environmentally responsible. And he will provide a sense of leadership of which this board will be in dire need.

They’ve Earned A Raise

Posted on by |

Leesburg Today reports that the County budget includes a 3% raise for County employees. “For now,” as they put it.

By taking no action to change the proposed FY12 budget, the Board of Supervisors last night left the proposed the cost of living and salary increases in place–but it is not clear whether every employee will see the full 3 percent increase in their pay checks. Some supervisors want to examine a graduated scale of increase based on an employee’s salary.

“I would argue that someone making $100,000 does not need as much of a raise as someone making money on the lower end of the scale,” Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) said.

While supervisors were told salary increases could be based on employee classifications, the board decided to hold off on that discussion until after supervisors decided school system funding. – Leesburg Today

I would like to be counted among those who believe that County staff have earned their first cost of living adjustment in three years. In this, I fully agree with Supervisor Burton, who said, “Health care contributions have gone up. VRS costs went up. They’ve been doing an outstanding job as an overall staff with diminishing, diminishing rewards. And the cost of living is becoming quite a problem.”

Sometimes, when the subject of cost of living adjustments for public employees comes up, there are people who oppose them. The argument seems to be, “if I’m not getting a raise, they shouldn’t get a raise.” That argument is uncharitable on its face, but it begs the question: Why aren’t people in the private sector getting raises?
Continue reading →

Redistricting Approved

Posted on by |

I just heard from my Supervisor, Kelly Burk, that the Board of Supervisors has approved a Redistricting plan for the County that includes most of Leesburg in one District. It was essentially the Miller 5 plan. Supervisors Burton (Blue Ridge), Kurtz (Catoctin), Burk (Leesburg), McGimsey (Potomac), and Buckley (Sugarland Run) were the majority that passed the plan.

Here is the Miller 5 plan they were starting from. Note this is not the plan that was passed, as edits to it were made during the process today. Once we have an accurate map (see the Leesburg Today article for details on that), we’ll make it available.

Photobucket

[Update] Chairman Scott York has shared his version of the plan that was passed. Here it is:
Photobucket
Leesburg Today has the story.

The adopted plan, which will be mapped later this week and may require additional changes to make each district comply with population thresholds, includes five suburban districts in eastern Loudoun and two hybrid districts that include rural areas in western and northern Loudoun as well as subdivisions in central Loudoun. The Leesburg District is expanded, but some town residents will be in the expanded Catoctin District that surrounds the town.
…
Among the changes made to the published Miller 5 plan was to move the area north of Hamilton into the Catoctin District; move Hillsboro into the Blue Ridge District; and move the Oak Grove area from the Sterling District to a Sterling/Ashburn District. –Leesburg Today

Well done

Posted on by |

I am taking a page from Supervisor Miller’s blog, and finding something nice to say about Mr. Delgaudio: He is good at what he does, which is orchestrating political stunts and getting people to act contrary to their own interests.

Published in the Blue Ridge Leader on March 10, 2011.

Dear Editor,

Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio and the so-called Loudoun “Environmental” Council really turned out the troops on March 1. Let’s see who they were, and what they have in common:

Residents of Raspberry Falls were there. Their homes were built over porous limestone, and their wells are contaminated. Their signs read “Halt building permits until we have a water solution.” Mr. Delgaudio aggressively opposed the limestone overlay district that would have prevented this catastrophic development over limestone.
Continue reading →

Splitting Leesburg Defined

Posted on by |

Over on Without Supervision, Supervisor Stevens Miller’s blog, there has been great discussion of the various plans, requirements and interests behind the Redistricting issue currently before the Board of Supervisors. One of the flashpoints that has come up is the issue of “Splitting Leesburg.” In many of these discussions, parties are talking past each other because there is confusion over what it means to split Leesburg. For example:

I heard repeatedly yesterday at the hearing that Leesburg shouldn’t be split and frankly it was driving my crazy–Leesburg is ALREADY split into two districts. –Matt L.

Matt is correct, as currently configured there are residents of the Town who do not vote in the Leesburg Magisterial (Supervisor) District, but rather vote in Catoctin. This is an artifact of the lines drawn in the year 2000 that were not able to account for later growth and annexation, which changed the Town’s borders without a concurrent change in the Supervisor District. Continue reading →

“Be the Difference!”

Posted on by |

Found in my inbox this morning:

A politics fairy left a flyer under our pillow last night. No way to tell if it’s authentic, but it purports to be the remarks of this person:

Of this organization:

Who may or may not be this person:

Of this organization:

A group whose commitment to Loudoun County goes back all of eight months, according to the State Corporation Commission:

(Bets now being taken on how long they exist after November.)

The flyer says her remarks at a meeting on February 4, 2011, included these immortal words:

Action Teams of incorrigible virtues? Wonder if their team-mates will look like this:

Hard to see it, but the sign on this incorrigible Republican virtue says, “I am a corrupt politician,” and was worn in a display of (what the flyer calls) “fact-based discourse” opposing the passage of a clean-water ordinance for Loudoun County that marched through the board of supervisors’ meeting room in the middle of Tuesday’s business session.

Nothing informs a fact-based discourse like a pig-suit, eh?

The flyer closes with a few words of an unknown philosopher:

And this call to join their army:

A little “difference” from this crowd would be a welcome thing. They can start with some of their own advice and admit to some obvious facts. Here’s a start, with grammar to match their standards:

But that would be taking an easy shot, and after all the material they’ve supplied already, let’s not be hogs…

The Number Of Supervisors

Posted on by |

Leesburg Today is reporting that the change in the population count for Loudoun County has thrown the debate about Magisterial (Supervisor) Redistricting into flux.

With Loudoun’s population set at 312,311, an increase of 84.1 percent of its population in the 2000 Census, the county has a population 22,036 higher than anticipated, which changes the sizes and potential boundaries for all eight districts and leaves supervisors with a lot more work to do.

When county staff members were anticipating a population slightly more than 290,000, each election district had a population threshold of just over 36,000. With the actual population topping 312,000, target population for new election districts has increased to 39,039, with wiggle room of plus or minus 5 percent of that number permitted.

The largest discrepancy between staff estimates and the actual population came, as might be expected, in the fast growing Dulles District. Estimated at 71,192, the actual population of the county’s highest growing area is 81,409. On the flip side, the Blue Ridge District’s actual population is 228 people less than the staff estimate. – Leesburg Today

An excellent, and extended, debate over Redistricting has been going on at Supervisor Miller’s blog, Without Supervision. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of potential District lines and census blocks, head over there and join the discussion.

I want to take a moment, however, to address a proposal which had previously been discarded, but is now perhaps back on the table thanks to the population results: Reducing the number of Supervisors.

It was Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) who tossed the biggest wrench into the conversation of redistricting Monday, however. Noting that four of the nine supervisors had announced they would not seek reelection to the board and the board’s interest in keeping “communities of interest” together, Burton asked supervisors to reconsider the number of districts. When the board first began considering the redistricting process supervisors rejected the idea of either reducing or increasing the number of election districts from eight and one at-large seat for the chairman.

“I propose we look seriously at establishing six districts instead of eight. That would put each district at about 52,000. That would create one western district west of Rt. 15. Leesburg would have to extend outside of the town significantly. And it would leave four districts for central and eastern Loudoun,” he said. “It would make it easier to keep communities of interest together. The problems we have agreeing on boundaries and that four [supervisors] who are not coming back, I think that opens up the discussion.” – Leesburg Today

Reducing the number of Supervisors is a terrible idea. Follow below the fold for four reasons why. Continue reading →

Leesburg Today: “Work v. Rhetoric”

Posted on by |

Leesburg Today had a little-noted, but spot-on editorial in last week’s edition. It’s worth quoting in its entirety.

Work v. Rhetoric

The wringing of hands over the Board of Supervisors’ efforts to set the upper limit on County Administrator Tim Hemstreet’s advertised real estate tax rate provides an early illustration of the pitfalls inherent in the formulation of an election-year budget. The advertised tax rate has no impact on the final budget outcome. Supervisors can, in fact, adopt a higher rate; state law requires only that it be re-advertised. The only thing that can make a difference is a collection of five votes. Those truly interested in cutting taxes would be better served by investing time in the research and coalition building needed to win those five votes. In November the candidates should be judged by their ability to get things done, not by the number of speeches they make condemning the actions of those who do that work. – Leesburg Today

Agreed.

(Though it is worth noting that the Board of Supervisors can also enact a lower rate than the $1.33 advertised, and without re-advertising rates. Go read Supervisor Miller’s excellent tax rate  explanation to learn more.)

For three years, our Democrats on the Board of Supervisors have dedicated themselves do doing that work. We have managed growth, built schools, finished roads, planned our energy future, and kept the County’s budget balanced and our credit rating high through it all.

Something to keep in mind this year.

I hate to say I told you so, but…

Posted on by |

Back in August, those who wanted to see holiday displays continue on the grounds of the Leesburg courthouse were vocal champions of the First Amendment.  The grounds should be open to everyone, they said, and they were delighted to have the ACLU on their side. Here are some typical comments on the Loudoun Times-Mirror site at the time, in response to those who argued that all displays should be prohibited:

“Public property should actually be FOR the public, and allowing public use by all is not “establishing” any one of them. Everyone should have equal access, in my opinion.”

“Let everyone have an equal chance to display.”

“If we are to protect individual freedom, we must protect the ability of all to express their opinions, whether we personally agree or not. Allowing freedom isn’t abridging it, and a free for all is just that:  free.”

“Tolerance means to respect (and ALLOW) others their differences.  Their difference doesn’t harm you by existing, even if you disagree with it.”

“I think it would be nice if displays could continue, and include not only serious representations of beliefs involving faith and/or no faith, and yes that would mean we’d have to welcome the onanism of the attention seekers too.”

“The American Civil Liberties Union, AG Ken Cucinnelli, Barbara Munsey, many others, including myself all say the same thing: no harm in allowing all points of view.”

That last comment is from TMitOH, by the way – the individual who rounded up all the angry speakers by leading them to believe that the board was poised to ban the baby Jesus, or send them to prison for wearing Christmas sweaters, or some such thing.

We were additionally told that raising concerns about vandalism and escalating animus due to the perceived offensiveness of this or that display was fearmongering about a “non-existent” security issue, that once the equal access policy was implemented the agitation would “run its course” and settle down, and that democracy is messy and can make people uncomfortable (with this I agree).

Well, it’s not August anymore, and the equal-access-for-all crowd has morphed back into the special rights crowd. The fun started when the ten lawn spaces were assigned to the applicants exactly as advertised; on a first-come, first-served basis. Complaints ensued. The nativity scene should automatically get the favored corner spot no matter who applied first, argued the complainants, because of “tradition.” Well, equal access law doesn’t grant super-special privileges to any faith tradition on that basis, and neither does our policy, so the answer to that was “no.” The policy adopted by the board is exactly what was praised by the ACLU and embraced by the pro-display, pro-freedom of expression public.

Judging from the comments on the current LTM article, the policy they were so in favor of then is now completely unacceptable. The problem now is that other points of view are “defacing” what they feel is their exclusive Christmas display privilege. Pointing out that there is no such special privilege gets one called “pig” and “freak.”

This is what I told the board in early September:

“Back in 2008, there was a holiday display and invocation that included the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith traditions. Some people did make valid arguments that it shouldn’t be at the courthouse, and I respect that. Maybe a different public site would address those concerns – I can’t speak for others.  But in spite of that I think, rather than making people angry, it brought them together. I wish it could have continued in that direction. And that was the first and last time that happened.

Now what we have is anger and division. I’m not saying that most of the people upset about this are trying to divide us; I don’t think that’s true. But the loudest voices, and the voices getting the most attention, are the militant ones – and no matter what you decide, the people who are angry now are still going to be angry, either because there are no displays, or because they don’t like the other displays.“

Look, I’m not particularly clairvoyant, nor do I possess any other special powers. You could see this coming ten miles away.  It’s not very jolly, is it? Nor very Christian. I’m not sure she’s explained this fully, but could it be that the person who created the “Letter from Jesus” display – she used to be a Christian, and now identifies herself as an atheist – left the faith because of behavior like this? Who could blame her?

The text of “Letter from Jesus” is in the comments over there. It’s worth a read.

And please, don’t forget to check out Loudoun’s Alternative Gift Fair. Happy Holidays – all of them – to all.