At What Price – Part 1 of a Series
Now that the Comprehensive Plan will be adopted on Tuesday, July 17, the next move will be to write new zoning ordinances. This series of Blogs will cover the development of zoning ordinances, their trials and tribulations, and the end result. We begin with a brief history, for those who are joining us late:
History:
• In December, 2006, the Board of Supervisors was set to pass a new flood plain ordinance. It was about to happen. In the nick of time, Jim Turner wrote a Letter to the Editor in Page News describing it. Donna Eames saw the letter, and called everybody in the phone book to get them to come to the Board meeting. As a result of the citizen objection, the Board returned the flood plain ordinance to the planning commission for review. (In their defense, Board members say they were never going to pass it as it was, that they had amendments which would have fixed its problems. However, the amendments don’t seem to have survived the process, and “the public” hasn’t seen any amendments that would have done that)
• From January through April, the Planning Commission received a stack of letters and analysis from the public 8 inches high, screaming in pain over what was written in that ordinance. What was wrong with it? Its objective was to clear the flood plain of all structures, over time. It told existing homeowners they could never repair their houses, no matter what went wrong, flood, fire, lightning, or things that go bump in the night. If their houses were damaged, they would just have to move out and abandon them. Its goal was to turn the flood plain into an extension of the national park, without paying for the land.
• In April, the Planning Commission voted to end debate on the proposed flood plain ordinance and revert to the existing, perfectly fine flood plain ordinance, which meets all state and federal requirements and allows us to have national flood insurance. At the same time, the Planning Commission approved an update of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Comprehensive Plan and this recommendation to drop the proposed flood plain ordinance went before the Board on May 15, 2007. It occurred to the citizens who live on the flood plain that, given what was written in the flood plain ordinance, we better check the “updates” to the Comprehensive Plan.
• Sure enough, the “updated” Comprehensive Plan had a little more than a set of new population figures in it. Its goals were changed. Subtly. With small word changes. One example: the old plan said, “the scenic beauty of the county also attracts tourist cabins and vacation homes”. The new plan said, “the scenic beauty of the county, HOWEVER, also attracts tourist cabins and vacation homes.” Is that a small change? Unimportant? Minor? In the first case, it’s a descriptive statement. In the second, it’s a moral judgement of the roaches who have invaded our beautiful county with their smelly tourist cabins and vacation homes. Words count. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS do permanent damage. The attitude of the persons writing the plan come through in the words. Just like this Blog. When you read this, you can see my Attitude. Same thing in the Comprehensive Plan. The Update had an Attitude.
• More than 70 citizens showed up at the Board meeting on May 15 to object to the proposed flood plain ordinance and the Attitude in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board felt unable to answer on the spot. They decided to go on a Retreat to consider what to do. Chairman LaFrance said, “This Board is up to the task” of fixing the problem in the Plan.
• It really P.O’ed the flood plain people, that the Supervisors couldn’t see their way to just vote that ordinance down and get that Attitude out of the Comprehensive Plan, so we followed them to their Retreat, and we took videocameras. By this time, most of the citizens who had been active in January through April, believed they had made their point to the Supervisors, and attendance fell off at the meetings. Most citizens believed the Supervisors had heard them and would do something to fix the problem. After all, the Supervisors said they would fix it, so why wouldn’t everyone just believe them? When the citizens took the Supervisors at their word, and stopped attending the meetings in full force, that’s when the Page newspaper started referring to the citizens who lived in the flood plain as “a small group of activists”.
• At the Retreat, the Supervisors spent only ONE HOUR discussing the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. They decided to change the word “prohibit” to “regulate”. While this was a positive move, it still left the words “Develop ordinances that REGULATE buildings and businesses in the 100-year flood plain” implying that it was specific direction to start all over again with a rewrite of the flood plain ordinance.
• In the ensuing month, Supervisors refined and rewrote enough of the words in the plan so that it no longer gives specificity to attacking the citizens who live on the flood plain. By the time of its adoption, the Comprehensive Plan was no longer directly attacking a group of existing citizens. Peace returned to the Valley.
It took from December 2006 to August 2007 to calm down this issue. Soap opera stuff happened that I can’t even write HERE because it would embarrass and humiliate people who really don’t deserve to be embarrassed. There was a time period when the people under attack (ie the residents of the flood plain) were convinced there had to be a payoff and corruption involved, because the behavior was so irrational, it couldn’t be motivated by anything LEGAL.
I personally FOIA’ed (Freedom of Information Act) everything I could think of, and reviewed the financial disclosures and the campaign financing reports of every Supervisor. And you know what? I couldn’t actually find anything wrong. I turned over every rock. If there was corruption in the County, it was too well hidden for me to find. It confounded me. If this wasn’t corruption, and yet it was so bewilderingly irrational, what was it? WHY would these seemingly sincere public servants, working for essentially FREE, choose to take an action that would harm existing residents of the county, and would not produce the positive benefits it was touted to provide?
In the end, if July of 2007 is the end, the final approved Comprehensive Plan will have the most harmful language removed, as far as residents of the flood plain are concerned. This is a great relief. However (note what an important word “however” is), it was an enormous diversion of time and energy by a large number of people, including the Supervisors and the Planning Commission. This time and energy could have been better used creating a Land Use Map, which is what is supposed to go in a Comprehensive Plan in the first place.
NEXT INSTALLMENT: Why did this happen?
This is the Blogger's version of the History of the Flood Plain issue so far. If you have more to add, or you disagree, or you just want to vent, push the Comments button and Blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
PCW,
You forgot the part about how the floodplain ordinance change would also require anyone who has a nonconforming home in a floodplain (including those of feeder floodways such as the Hawksbill) would be required to reapply for occupancy permits or else be fined, sent to jail and have their homes declared nuisances. I suspect that even after all the publicity there are still a lot of people who are not aware that they were in jeopardy.
Chris . . . I think I blocked that out of my mind completely, in an attempt to keep myself from going POSTAL over this whole thing.
Since ALL houses and buildings in the entire flood plain were non-conforming, by definition, that would have included a third of Main Street, Lancaster Enterprises, Brown's Restaurant, Brookside Restaurant,and hundreds of people's homes.
On top of that . . . there are no specific maps that identify the flood plain and who lives in it (NO, the FEMA maps DO NOT DO THAT). So in order to find out if you actually had to get this new permit, you would have to hire a special hydro-something engineer to delineate your property and determine whether you were technically in or out!
It was just plain NUTS!
That's what made so many of us incredulous that our Board of Supervisors couldn't just put a stop to it right from the beginning instead of dragging it out for 8 months.
But, it's over now, and if we can get some real participation on these committees in the future, maybe we can prevent another disaster like this when the zoning is done.
If people don't show up, we might find out the new zoning chases all the people out of the county in favor of saving the woodpeckers.
I attended the Friday the 13th meeting, with the intent to express my interpretation of this whole fiasco of the "flood plain ordinance" re-write. As I listened to the other citizens protest the inclusion of the 3C statement in the Comprehensive Plan, page 16, it dawned on me that nobody has yet addressed the under-lying disease that is causing so much consternation; therefore I chose not to present my comments at that time.
Everybody is complaining about the outrages proposed modifications to the Flood Plain Ordinance, but nobody is willing to protest with considered indignation, the fact that the Board of Supervisors are acting un-ethically and in violation of accepted Conflict of Interest Codes for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Conflict of Interest
I researched the Virginia County Code of Ethics. As it turns out, Page County is one of the few state counties with NO published Code of Ethics! I randomly picked 3 other county’s published Code of Ethics; Spotsylvania, Fauquier and James City County, to get a feel for what others intend. To make this brief, I'll quote a statement I observed;
"Avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. A member should RECLUSE himself or herself from participating in deliberations or voting on issues which might be interpreted as questionable or borderline conflicts of interest, and which might be perceived as rendering direct personal gain for himself or herself or for family members. If a Board member desires to vote on a questionable issue, he/she should seek the opinion of the County Attorney and MAKE THE OPINION PUBLIC before the vote in question."
I would like to specifically point out that one of the most vociferous proponents of implementing a moratorium on any construction or repairs to existing structures in the flood plain is John Rust, who operates Yogi Bear's Jelleystone Park, with 52 rental cabins for which he needs to gain occupancy. If he were to participate in deliberations and voting on new ordinances that crippled and/or eliminated his competition of cabin rentals in the flood plain, then he would most likely gain revenues from the tourist traffic that had to find alternative lodging, after the flood plain cabin owners were diminished or shut down. His participation in this issue, is clearly a conflict of interest
Mark Bolton and Charlie Hoke, apparently, also want to destroy the flood plain property owners businesses, but I haven't figured out their motives to do so, not yet anyway. However, what is quite conspicuous is the fact that former supervisor Natalie Zuckerman penned the additional statement to alter the Comprehensive Plan changes, 3C, page 16. My understanding that she too has purportedly, purchased property, outside of the flood plain, for the purpose of building vacation rental lodging facilities, irrespective of the land she also owns in the flood plain, and vows not to develop.
Appropriator, I agree that the motives of the characters involved have been extraordinarily suspect. The behavior has been irrational to the point of being Suspect, and that Suspect Behavior has included the County Attorney. For a very long time, we were convinced there was a corruption motive here. Certainly, it seems odd that Mark Belton inserts himself passionately when it appears that the flood plain ordinance is being defeated. Absolutely, it seemed disgraceful that John Rust did not recuse himself from the beginning. In fact, John Rust was quoted at that December meeting in the Board minutes as saying, "I am 100% FOR the flood plain ordinance". He only began moderating that view when it became clear it would be an election issue.
And Charlie Hoke's disregard and disrespect for the citizens of his own district, who are the primary targets of this attack, is deeply disturbing to the point of wanting to look up the rules for impeaching a Supervisor.
As far as Natalie Zuckerman goes, she did indeed add that sentence to the plan, on her home computer. The fact that she was given the opportunity to do that, when she has not been either elected or appointed to anything, goes to the root of the problem. I'm fairly certain she's got a key to the Board of Supervisors room at the Courthouse, too, since she has an "environmental working group" that meets in their space once a month.
On Thursday night, with John Rust, Carol Lee, and Tommy LaFrance all there, the citizens were told that sentence absolutely would be removed, and that the flood plain ordinance was dead. As long as that happens, I'm willing to let this be a documented piece of Page County History, and move on to working toward changing the culture and structures that ever allowed it to come to life in the first place.
At this moment in time (Saturday, July 14), I believe that line will be removed from the plan and acceptable language will be inserted, and I believe the cultural behaviors of the county government will be changed in the future, because of the influx and insertion of the citizens who have been participating in Page County Watch. I believe people will use the information posted here to get themselves involved, and that involvement in itself will keep this type of behavior from continuing.
If I'm wrong about what will happen on Tuesday, July 17 . . . then I'll go back to my original belief that it was corruption in government, and start looking to state government and attorneys to get involved. But if all is well at the end of that Tuesday night meeting, I'm ready to move on to the next phase, which is to get as many of the broadest possible, most diverse citizens of this county to come out to these subcommittee meetings and keep the Avid True Believers from being the only available workforce when it's time to get something done.
I guess we'll find out on Tuesday night, July 17.
OH, and BY THE WAY . . . a few weeks ago, in response to more of the hideous Soap Opera nature of what was going on here, I asked the Supervisor of my own District, Charlie Hoke, to look into, bring up, and PROPOSE a Code of Ethics for the county government. At the time, he was telling me it was impossible --- according to the County Attorney --- for a Supervisor to remove a Planning Commissioner FOR ANY REASON and that there was no county code of ethical behavior to point to, in order to do that.
I asked him to propose that a Code of Ethics be developed then.
Let's just say he hasn't gotten back to me on that.
But now that you bring it up, Appropriator, there's no reason that we as citizens can't introduce it and make sure that any Refusal to Proceed on it becomes a matter of public record, particularly if we do it during the Election Campaign process, so we can get all the candidates running to speak out about it, too.
I'd appreciate it if you would email me your research at Research@PageCountyWatch.org
This would be a great idea at this time.
Alice
I am really surprised that the county doesn't have a code of ethics that has been adopted by the county, I wouldn't see why anyone would object, I would certainly support it, but taking in consideration there is certainly a implied code of ethics that as adults we should all be held to a certain standard, I think it all goes back to just how people are not valued by some county officials. Let this election be the year of the people.
Just to re-emphasize the direction I'm going with this for those of you who missed it, the following is an extract from my published letter to the editor back in April;
"1) Do any of the board members or their relatives own any vacation rental property in Page County outside of the flood plain? 2) If the current number of vacation rental properties (in the flood plain) were to diminish, would not those supervisors gain financially? 3) If that gain was accomplished via manipulating the legislative process, would that not be abuse of power and conflict of interest? 4) If all the supervisors were aware of this conflict of interest, would this not be considered complicity in a conspiracy to defraud the people of Page County? 5) If the aforementioned rings true, should not those guilty parties resign, be prosecuted and replaced? I have more questions, but these should do for now."
For those of you who read, your required (make that mandatory) reading for the near term, for those of you who haven’t already, are 2 short paperback books by a brilliantly thorough local author, Edward A. Kieloch. It won’t take you very long to appreciate the incredible depth of research this individual went through to accumulate his facts. His books “The Corrupt County” (Corruption’s crooked trail through the Shenandoah Valley) and “A Year Later” (Sequel to “The Corrupt County”), reveal very specifically the horror of the Page County Board of Supervisor’s corruption! The books can be purchased at the pawn shop at the corner of Main St. and 340. These books were published by Page County Citizens For Better Government, 491 Pass Run Drive, Luray, Virginia 22835, in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Hi!
I have been following the flood plane issue in the blog and in the paper. Your last blog entry poses the question, why the supervisors had made seemingly poor decisions about the flood plane, and I would like to expand that idea. Why has a board, of well meaning individuals, made poor decisions in the past as well as now. I am striving to learn the dynamics of its operation and I would like to know the mechanism of what influences their thinking. I have owned land in Page for over 20 years and I am now having my retirement home built there. It seems that it is necessary to look out for individual interests when it comes to what the local government can do for or to you. Do you have an answer to the question, Why? If so, I would love to hear it.
Rick
To answer anonymous; pure greed. Without a formal Code of Ethics in place putting through legislation for personal gain or otherwise behaving unethically is very bad. With a formal Code of Ethics implemented, the supervisors behavior becomes ILLEGAL and allows for prosecution, fines and jail time.
I'm not sure it's that simple. I don't think any of the Supervisors think of themselves as doing anything dishonest or unsavory. They don't see themselves as behaving in any unethical way. But the standard practice in the county over the years has been for the citizens to select people who live in the community, who are known to be stalwart, upstanding members of the Rotary Club, and then stand back, turn away, and trust that they will do "the right thing". Having become used to being the governing body of the county, they got themselves into a mindset that what the Rotary Club wants, must be "good for the County". Never mind that the majority of citizens don't want it or think like that. After all, the majority of citizens here are your standard WalMart shopper, and . . . what do they know about what's good for them? So the attitude evolved into one of elitism, i e "we know what's best for you" a form of paternalism, as if they know better. This, when reflected in zoning ordinance implementation, could be a very bad thing.
For example . . . we know what's best for you, let's make sure the land next to Yogi Bear park is never turned into a housing development.
Or . . .we know what's best for you, let's clear the flood plain.
Or . . . we know what's best for you, let's keep the views nice from Skyline Drive and prevent building on slopes.
Or . . . we know what's best for you, let's buy back the landfill at a debt of $13M and operate it at a multimillion dollar loss every year.
Now that landfill thing is really a key to how the culture of paternalism got ingrained among the county government. It's a long story, and I think a much more complicated one than Ed Bieloch wrote.
I don't agree that Ed Bieloch is a brilliant author who did good research. I think he missed the mark in his books, and didn't reveal the motives or the background of what was happening with the landfill.
I'm not saying I know what was happening, but I think the motives were more pure and paternalistic than presented. Had the landfill succeeded at being profitable, it would have financed the county and prevented the property tax rise, including the ones that are coming in the future.
BUT, it's downsides were substantial, and many, many citizens objected to the huge trucks barrelling down Rte 211. The trucks were dangerous, and I think someone was killed in a car accident there. This was the final straw and it brought a huge firestorm of citizen outburst, which resulted in the buyback of the landfill.
So it's a long complicated story, both of the landfill and of how the culture of paternalism developed and still exists in the county government. A culture, when it becomes entrenched in a system, takes on a life of its own. When that happens, you can change the people on the Board, and the new ones end up acting exactly like the old ones did.
If it's a cultural ingrainment, which is what I think it is, getting new people on the Board doesn't even work to change it. But I don't think it's a hopeless case. I think it's a matter of "re-education". Sometimes re-education is lengthy, difficult, and painful. It involves public pressure. It requires a lot of citizen involvement. And it might break a few eggs before it makes an omelette.
Speaking of which, I've received a number of phone calls suggesting that there might be widespread support for a recall of Supervisor Charlie Hoke. District 1 residents were the ones most affected and outraged about his behavior toward this flood plain thing, and he has said that since he is not going to run for a nother term, that he believes he can just do whatever he wants for the rest of this one, without listening to or responding to his constituents. I believe A recall could potentially make it to the ballot this November, if anyone were to look into the process and collect the necessary signatures.
This is the kind of action that would have a strong impact toward changing the culture of the Board for the future.
Alice
First of all I would like to say that getting the right people on the board, and when I say that the right kind of people is the ones that will look out for the people first and the govement second is the right kind of people, I believe things will start to turn around.Next there is a process for having an appointed member removed, it is in the general E-code of Page County under article 3 5-6, which states Any appointed memeber may be removed by the board of supervisors for inefficiency, provided that such removal may be made only after a public hearing at which said member is given an opportunity to appear and be heard on the charges against him or her.Food for thought.
Your series entitled "At what Price" almost sounds like the South Park spoff from a few years ago..."not without my anus"
sorry, couldn't resist...
Alice said,
"I don't agree that Ed [Bieloch]Kieloch is a brilliant author who did good research. I think he missed the mark in his books, and didn't reveal the motives or the background of what was happening with the landfill."
I respectfully disagree. His unspoken revalations of the motives and accusations were conspicuously obvious in their absense, at least to this casual observer. I encourage a re-read to pick up what you may have missed. The read is complex and often non-sequential, but it's all pretty much there.
Appropriator, I only read books 1 and 3. I didn't know there was a book 2, but I'll go look for it at the shop you mentioned. With the elections coming up, I am getting more and more interested in the history and present situation at the landfill. I think I'll look more into it.
Alice
In reading the July 18th entry in this forum i can only respond duuhh Miss Alice that is what it is all about getting involved with the VISION of your community. The Comprehensive Plan is a VISION and not set in stone and that citizens can become involved is our civic right and duty whether they are UNelected citizens or not.
It is yours too but you came into this arena so demeaning the supervisors, citizens, and the process by your nails scratching on the blackboard of the process, cacophony screaming of ding dongs, drinking bathwater, three-ring circus, following smells and screaming holy moly that you have lost your own dignity and have become what you accuse others of. The "True Believer" wearing her specialized galsses and gathering her adherents like the blind leading the blind.
My name is Joy Lorien and use to be Joy Sours and I was the Field Director of the Friends of Page Valley ten years ago. As an environmentalist I resent being called a religious fanatic because I have a deep love and respect for this planet and its health that affects the health of its citizens. Every day I feel blessed to be living is such an awesome place and my kin have lived in Page County for years and have met some really special people living here both 'come heres' and locals.
We are in this together Alice and we need people like you and the Turners to become involve and enlightn the Vision not kick, knife and spit on anothers views. You as the messenger have got in the way of the message and hope the humility is there to be a team player and not an antagonistic, egregious person.
Maybe one day we can meet under better circumstances.
Joy, I'm glad you responded here. I agree with your viewpoints to a degree that is far deeper than you realize at this point. I assure you, now that the citizens that read this forum know there even IS a Comprehensive Plan and a vision, no one's going to leave the Planning Commission alone to write it in a vacuum in the future.
I didn't start out kicking and screaming and throwing a fit about this. The website didn't go up, with its Daily Show format, until it became clear that the process was on a set path, and regardless of what was said in meetings, there was an intention to proceed down that track. The website and the Page News ads and letters are meant to inform and entertain, and simple, boring "information" gets lower "ratings" than Ding Dongs and Bathwater gets. This is the Internet. I can post straight "news" or I can get readers. The main website has straight news, but the Blog, where people with ALL viewpoints can click the Comments button and provide their alternative opinion, is an Editorial section. You are welcome to post here as frequently as you choose. If the Blog doesn't both entertain and also inform from all aspects and viewpoints, it won't get as many readers, and widespread readership is the goal for the Blog. When the average citizen in the county prints these pages off, shares them around the neighborhood, and says, "let's go to that Board meeting and see for ourselves what's going on", the Blog has achieved its mission.
Joy, no one would have responded to the flood plain ordinance the way they did if it hadn't threatened and harmed existing property owners to the extent of telling them they had to go "round themselves up and turn themselves in" to get new occupancy certificates for their houses, so a log could be kept of who they were, because the county doesn't know. It then said they would by this means be kept in a database, so that if their houses were ever damaged by any means --- fire, termites, old age, vandalism, whatever -- that they had to abandon their houses and just walk away. If the Supervisors had just rejected that as a solution right from the beginning, the chances are none of this would have ever developed. But they didn't. They proceeded with the Process, as if the Process were more important than keeping idiotic foolishness that seriously harmed people, out of the county's law. What enraged people in this group (and I assure you I am not alone in this group, I'm just the Blogger), was that this was a direct attack on their homes and their property rights. One group of people (ie, the Unelected Citizen and the voting block on the Planning Commission that pushed it through), was pushing their personal value system on the homes and the bank accounts of other citizens. I didn't come into the arena demeaning the Supervisors. I evolved to that by watching their behavior.
The culture of the Board at the beginning of this process was not one of openness and inclusion of the citizens in their deliberation. They appeared to be annoyed at citizen participation, all except for the Unelected Citizen, and they appeared to be taking their direction from the Unelected Citizen's approvals and nods. The irrationality of what we saw when we first started attending these meetings was quite shocking. The culture seemed to have developed in a way that citizen participation was not expected, not sought, and not welcomed. One would think that an ordinance introduced that blithely condemned people's houses that lived in the county, would have been rejected out of hand, both at the Planning Commission level and at the Board. But it wasn't.
The behavior we saw when we first started attending these meetings was a group of people checking out of the corner of their eye to see if they had approval of the Unelected Citizen for what they were doing. It gave the appearance -- however wrongly -- of a group of people who had either been bought or threatened. It looked corrupt and it smelled rotten.
At first, we looked for the corruption, because it gave the appearance of being there. But after a while, we concluded that it wasn't. At least, probably wasn't. More likely, what was happening was a long history of fearful response, which can do that to any group. Pick any set of essentially volunteers, and beat them over the head for long enough, hiring lawyers and badgering them with nitpicking and grinding them into the ground with extra work and unnecessary detail, and you can produce shifty eyes and suspicious responses in anybody. We examined the history of what had happened here, and concluded it was more likely an anthropological behavior in reaction to a perceived threat, than it was an active corruption.
This website, the letters to the editor, the Page News ads . . . were meant to be the 2 X 4 to snap them out of it.
Now that we have their attention, we have every hope that they will return to being the people the citizens elected, and put some sense back into their governing.
Regarding your offense at being called a religious fanatic because you are an Environmentalist. Joy, until this happened, I thought I was an Environmentalist. I don't even know anybody inside our group who didn't think they were an Environmentalist. My goodness, who would purposely move to living on a dirt road in the middle of the woods, if they didn't love the environment? I didn't grow up here. I chose it. So I'm not calling people who love the environment religious fanatics. I'm calling people who are willing to harm other people, impose their views on other people, and attempt to take away another person's livelihood and home, for the sake of their own perceptions about what is "good for the county", religious fanatics.
I hope that's not you, Joy, because if you are going to keep coming to the Planning Commission and Board meetings, then we are going to meet again, and I would like very much to work with you to fix the damage that was done in this last go round and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Alice
...new to here, but must address whoever said on July 17,2007...."I only read books 1 and 3. I didn't know there was a book 2". What did you think was between 1 and 3? Since then, upon reading recent blogs, I noticed that, apparently, your interest was not sincere enough to research the history of the landill and become more informed, as you seem to be asking for information three months later????
Post a Comment