I wasn't at the first of the five District meetings, held in Shenandoah, but preliminary reports say . . . all is well. What I heard briefly late last night was that Goal 3, Objective 2, line C has been removed and replaced with a substitute language that is . . . just fine.
This would be tremendous news, and frankly it would speak very well of all the Supervisors. It would make peace return to the Valley. When I hear more, I'll post it.
If you were there, or you heard from someone who was there . . . tell us more.
Push the Comments button and Blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Attendance at the District meeting Monday, July 9 at Shenandoah School were:
Tommy LaFrance, Carol Lee-Strickler, Mark Belton, Kevin Henry, Jamie Turner, Mike and Jean Trader, Donna Eames, and 5 other people.
The people who signed up to speak were Natalie Zuckerman, Mike Trader and Donna Eames.
Mike Trader was second to speak and was very good, I might add. He mentioned that it would be nice if the Board could do some advertising in order to get the word out about these meetings which were scheduled last week for every night (Mon.- Fri.) of this week. Maybe extend the meetings out two or three weeks in order to give people notice and time to attend. He suggested putting it in the Page Courier newspaper.
Mike Trader also brought up the line item in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 3 C on page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan "Developing ordinances that REGULATE buildings and businesses in the 100 year flood plain".
He requested this line item to be removed and he stated to the Board if they agree to removing it by shaking his hand, we can all smile and go home. Carol Lee-Stickler and Tommy LaFrance shook his hand. So there are 2 votes towards taking out this particular line item.
Also at a previous meeting Gerald Cubbage suggested removing it as well, which is a total of 3 Board members in favor of removing same and is also a majority vote within the board.
Mr. LaFrance did say that it has to be taken to vote with the board present to make it official.
This line item should be put to vote and put to rest at the Board's Public Hearing next week and officially taken out of the Comprehensive Plan.
Be there.
Donna Eames
I TO AM PLEASED TO HEAR THIS NEWS , AND I WILL BE GOING TO DISTRICT 3 MTG WEDNESDAY NIGHT TO VOICE MY CONCERNS AND TO LISTEN. BUT I URGE EVERYONE NOT TO VIEW THIS AS ANYMORE THAN A BATTLE VICTORY AT BEST, I CAN ASSURE YOU THE WAR WILL RAGE ON, AND I BELIEVE RECENT HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US THIS , NEXT TIME MAYBE NOT THE FLOOD PLAIN BUT MAYBE SOMETHING JUST AS IMPORTANT, STAY INVOLVED , KEEP WATCHING
Jim, I'm glad you are going on Wednesday. I heard that Charles Newton and Alyce Getz (?) (not sure if that's the right name) came with Natalie on Tuesday night and spoke about the Environment and Global Warming and the Karst topography again.
Some day when we're all rich we'll jump on those jets and race over to the Global Warming conference and get this all settled. Until then, my attitude is: Keep your "religion" off my property rights. When an ACTUAL problem occurs, I'm willing to deal with it. But don't be projecting your Faith on my house and my bank account. Use your own house and bank account if you believe there's a problem to be solved.
Alice
Attendance at the District meeting Tuesday, July 10 at the Page County High School were:
Tommy LaFrance, Gerald Cubbage, Carol Lee-Strickler, Mark Belton, Kevin Henry, another person running the slide show, Mike and Jean Trader, Donna Eames, Natalie Zuckerman, Charles Newton, Lucia King and a couple other people.
The citizens who made public comments were: Mike Trader, Donna Eames, Natalie Zuckerman, Charles Newton and Lucia King.
Mike Trader proposed the question to Gerald Cubbage asking him if he stands by his previous suggestion of removing line item 3 c on page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to "developing flood ordinances". Gerald Cubbage said yes, he stands by that statement and does not believe in taking people's property rights. He would like that line item removed. He's a good guy.
(So, Monday night meeting, Carol Lee-Strickler and Mr. LaFrance agreeing to the same thing means there are now 3 Board members in favor of removing line item 3 C page 16 of the Comprehenive Plan).
Charles Newton's comments were all about the flood plain, pushing as many restrictions as possible.
Donna Eames spoke after him responding to his comments by saying:
We already have a perfectly fine flood plain ordinance. We don't need a new one. The ordinance we have in place does everything a flood plain ordinance is suppose to do. There's no reason to "DEVELOP" more ordinances in the flood plain.
Also Donna Eames (myself) mentioned going on three separate tubbing river trips within the last 3 weeks which were approximately 3 - 5 hours long each time. My point was to mention how many cows there were out in the middle of the river, it was incredible. Please don't misunderstand this statement because I am pro-farmers and pro-cows (in fact the calves are so cute and we love the farmers), but when you think about it, which is better for the environment, 1. a house on the river with a septic, or
2. Cows all over the river.
Which leads me to my point, we can always find an argement if we are looking for one. However, I think the board has enough on their plate to deal with. The Board doesn't need these environmental activist making up all these crazy accusations, radiculous restrictions and trying to push their selfish views on everyone. This is totally a waste of the Board's time and our tax dollars.
Some of us have decided we are not taking it anymore and we are making a difference. We are not going to let environmental activist or anyone else take our property rights. The only way you can stop them is to be involved. We will continue to be involved with what's going on in our county. EVERYONE needs to do the same. If you are not involved, then you can't complain when you loose your property rights, etc.
Maybe the board should shift their focus and start looking at people who own alot of land which has been subdivided into separate building lots but are paying minimal taxes and treating their property as if it were a true farm, when in fact, it's not a farm at all. Obviously Page County needs the money, so go after the people who are sliding under the radar with their taxes.
(It is my understanding that a native local attorney with many many years of experience together with Mr. Alshire, who worked in Page County Zoning for 30 years and just recently retired wrote the flood plain ordinance which we have in place now. They certainly had Page County's best interest in mind.
Therefore, the Environmental Activist/Imports of 20 years ago, trying to do rewrites of the flood plain ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan is obviously a bad choice for editing. All they care about are the trees, the spotted ..., karst topography, etc. and they want to take people's property rights in the flood plain and everywhere else in Page County, including the farmers.
Also these are the people writting letters to the editors labeling the property owners in the flood plain as Activist.
When, in fact, it just the opposite. These people who are trying to push their will and interest on others without any consideration of property rights are the ACTIVISTS.
Lucia King harped on the environment, global warming and the flood plain. My response to that is, "if pigs had wings they could fly". Global warming and the Shenandoah River just don't mesh. The river at the present time is excruciatingly below the norm. In fact, it's my understanding that the Shenandoah River is approximately 36 inches lower on a yearly basis than it was in the 1930-1960s, so go figure. If it's doing anything, it's getting lower, not higher.
When Natalie Zuckerman spoke last night, it appeared that she was back paddling in that she had written substantial restrictions for the farmers in the Comprehensive Plan, ie. light, noise and some other restriction. At the end she requested to leave those restrictions in and exclude the farmers, knowing that Gerald Cubbage is a farmer and this was his District.
Lastly, Mr. LaFrance spoke at the end of the meeting and agreed with Gerald Cubbage. It appeared to me that he's about fed up with these environmental activist trying to create all these restrictions and problems for everyone everywhere, not just in the flood plain but for the farmers and others.
These Environmental Activist have met their match trying to run Page County and stepping on everyone's toes.
I personally think the Board of Supervisors have alot to contend with and can certainly do without these environmental activist constantly trying to create problems everywhere at anyone's expense. I am a total nature lover but my property rights come first.
That's my view of the meeting last night.
Donna Eames
Speaking of people who take their land out of the tax base . . . did you see the Page News article on conservation easements today? Paul Otto is Chairman of the subcommittee on the Comprehensive Plan, and he is speaking in the article about easements. Natalie also has done these easements. They are fine and good for people with a lot of land, and if you don't need money, it's a great thing. I really applaud the tax code of Virginia that allows people to have a tax incentive so that they may be able to avoid selling their land --- if and only if they do not need the money.
But as a poor County, we have to remember that this also means people who do not need the money, do not pay their share of the property tax that runs the county.
I don't begrudge them that. But I also don't want to see them turn around and attempt to bully and take away land and homes from people who are not so lucky as to have the luxury of having land they don't need to live on.
Paul Otto needs to understand that his position on the Planning Commission is a public trust, not a personal platform to impose his views on those who can't afford it.
Alice
Have you ever heard of Land Use taxation? most ag. and forreted land in the County is in this, and therefore pay a reduced real estate tax, and this is a good and neccessary thing for many reason (as long as people are really using their land for ag. and forrestal purposes)
Please forgive me, but are you suggesting that if someone puts an easement on their land they will not have to pay local real esate taxes? or just pay a reduced amount? is this correct (not sure)? AFterall, if a land owner is willing to put their land in an easement, aren't they already likely to be taking advantage of reduced real estate taxes via the land use program?? Would placing an easement on the land really change anything tax base wise from the County's perspective. (To my knowledge - unless a local incentive exists for easements - tax advantages for an easement reduces one's federal or state tax liability only)
Remember, the ultimate goal of such programs (land use, even easements) is to preserve agricultural lands, and offer folks incentives not to develop their properties (even by-right), which in turn also saves the County money on the need for increased services.
I'm having a difficult time following your logic, that is all...please advise.
Fu Man, chances are my logic isn't straight on this, which is probably what is making it hard to follow. I am all for anyone taking advantage of any tax incentive offered. As it was explained in the Page News, it looked like the easement reduced the assessed value of the land, which would automatically decrease the local taxes, too. But that doesn't mean I read it correctly as described. It would be great if somebody reading this would either look up how it works, or if they already know, explain it more clearly here. I can post the explanation on the main website, too, if somebody will describe it in detail.
My point was not to begrudge people their ability to take advantage of this program. It was to tell those same people to keep their views off other people's bank accounts, and not assume that everyone can afford to pass up the opportunity to sell their land.
It would be just great if all land owners in the county said," gee, I don't mind. Let's keep the county agricultural. I won't sell. " Maybe we would all like that. But we can't impose our desires on those property owners who DO want to sell.
Alice
I found this very pertinent letter in the Richmond times several months ago. It is written by a Mr. Mike Walton of Richmond
"County Growth Issues Bring Out Selfish Side"
All this hullabaloo about the growth issues in Hanover and elsewhere just shows what people are really thinking
People say they want to maintain the rural nature of the county, when in reality, they just want to enjoy the view of someone elses property without sacrificing anything. They wish to tell someone what he cannot do with his property because the view is more important. Mind you, they never buy that man's land to preserve it, nor do they seem to give him a tremendous tax break to keep the land natural.
The real items of scorn are their own kids. Son to dad: Dad I can't wait to live and work near here. Daughter to mother: Mom won't it be great when I get married and have kids and then I can live near you?
To which the parents reply, "Sorry, we are a no-growth people. As for your jobs and living nearby, nope not in our backyard. Your living out here would just spoil the view and clog the roads."
What a bunch of self-centered and spoiled brats.
Mike Walton
I found this to be an excellent letter. Certainly we want to preserve our rural character, but there are many regular working folks who could easily be pushed out and left behind if some of these "preservation" techniques are not used carefully. Can the government condemn or overrule a conservation easement? Could a group or individual purchase a parcel of property and donate an easement in order to prevent a road or other useful development? I think most folks would use this responsibly but this could be a very powerful weapon as well. Who are we as individuals in a very small period in history to cast our wants upon future generations? Many see this as forward thinking but I see this as somewhat nearsighted. None of us can see the future. What may have seemed like a pastoral piece of countryside at one point in history may end up being a wasted space in what may be the perfect spot for economic development 100 years from now.
THIS IS VERY TRUE, THAT IS WHY WE MUST CONTINUE TO STAY INVOLVED IN COUNTY GOVERMENT AND INSURE WE ARE NOT PROGRESSING OUR SELVES RIGHT OUT OF OUR FUTURE, OR OUR CHILDREN'S.,I THINK WE NEED TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT OVER REACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATS FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS THINGS REALLY HAVN'T CHANGED A WHOLE LOT, I DON'T THINK THE INFLUX IS COMING AS HARD AND AS FAST AS SOME WOULD HAVE US BELIVE.A.K.A. N. Z. AND COMPANY.
Jim and Darrell, that's what I was thinking. The point of a Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be the Land Use Map. We don't even have a Land Use Map in ours. When you write one, you look at the whole county, and you specifically identify areas. You say, "here is where the kids growing up here can have half acre lots for their new houses" and you say, "here is where we can put the industrial parks" and "here is where we want to require 10 and 15 acre lots for the rich people" Like Middleburg, Virginia, where they won't allow even a 3 acre lot to exist.
But our Comprehensive Plan was changed this go-round, in its tone and flavor. The changes were subtle, but they were like that "however" word. The plan, as written by Natalie, was changed FROM "the scenic beauty of our county also attracts tourist cabins and vacation homes" TO "the scenic beauty of our county, HOWEVER, also attracts tourist cabins and vacation homes." That one change summed up the way the Comprehensive Plan was changed in this "update".
Many other changes, very small just like that, changed the plans tone.
Believe me, if developers wanted to build in this county, they would be the ones showing up at these meetings, fighting the extremists, instead of regular homeowners having to defend themselves.
I think we all want to "preserve the rural nature" but before any actions are taken in that area the question has to be asked "at what price and who is paying it"
Alice
Attendance at the District meeting Wednesday, July 12 were Tommy LaFrance, Carol Lee-Strickler, John Rust, Mark Belton, Kevin Henry, Mike and Jean Trader, Donna Eames, and approximately 7-8 other people.
Mike Trader, one of the citizens, posed the question to John Rust "where do you stand on taking out line item 3 C page 16 in the Comprehensive Plan"? John Rust said he's fine with taking that line item out.
To date there are four votes from the Board of Supervisors in favor of taking out line item 3 C page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan which is a majority vote.
Donna Eames
Post a Comment