Dale Candidates Forum

Last night the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce and the Chesterfield Business Council jointly sponsored a forum for Board of Supervisors and School Board candidates in the Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfield County.

With only a little bit of tongue in cheek I suggest that Cliff Bickford (R) could shorten his entire presentation to one slogan, "Vote for Me and I'll Be Just Like Jim Holland."

Differences
Education

However, there were significant differences between Bickford and Holland (D, incumbent). First and foremost is the importance of education. Both candidates favor increased efforts towards economic development but the totality of their remarks showed one important difference on what is needed to achieve success.

Bickford, unfortunately, doesn't seem to grasp the importance of quality education to attracting investment by large national and international firms. He opposes pay raises for teachers. He opposes increasing the budget for the school system. He opposes finding a replacement for the federal stimulus money that will no longer be available which will result in a "catastrophic" (School Board member David Wyman's word later in the evening) reduction in the school budget.

Jim Holland, on the other hand, sees clearly that large firms are not going to invest in an area unless they are confident the school system will produce a quality work force. Another reason investing firms insist on quality local education is that current employees will resist transferring their families to an area with poor schools. Quality new hires will also be more difficult to attract if the school system is less than it should be.

Comprehensive Plan

Another difference between the two candidates was their response to the question of which version of the comprehensive plan (the Steering Committee's original or the Planning Commission's markup) would each vote for if the decision had to be made today. By his response, Jim Holland rejected the two false premises of the question, that decision had to be made now and that there are only two choices. Jim said he would consider the changes recommended by the Planning Commission after gathering information from county staff, his Planning Commissioner and, most importantly, from the citizens of his district and the county.

As always, Holland made clear the importance of gathering facts and carefully analyzing alternatives before making a decision.

Cliff Bickford bought into the false premises, first describing his problem with the two versions.

The Planning Commission recommendations will likely include combining the revitalization section with the economic development section. The logic is that the two activities overlap considerably and the county's economic development office is responsible for both. Despite the fact that there is no substantive change or elimination of revitalization goals and objectives, Bickford doesn't like this cosmetic change in the way the plan is formatted.

Bickford's problem with the Steering Committee draft is that it calls for very low density in the Countryside area, one residential unit per 25 acres. (The Planning Committee markup changes this to one unit per 5 acres.) This is a substantive issue; the final decision will require tradeoffs among the many interested parties. However, Bickford said he would vote for the Steering Committee version of the Plan because of the irrelevant, cosmetic change suggested by the Planning Commission.

In summary, Bickford would accept a density in the Countryside he finds to be a serious shortcoming to avoid a word-smithing change he doesn't like.

Addendum: October 19th, 2011, 11:30 PM

Another takeaway from Monday night's forum is that Bickford does not understand that cash proffers do not apply to commercial development. Cash proffers are paid by residential developers as they file for building permits.  Cash proffers on residential development do not inhibit commercial development in Chesterfield County.

In considering modification of the cash proffer system, the Board of Supervisors will have answer the question of whether reducing a cost of residential development is the right strategy when the goal is to increase the commercial percentage in the real estate tax base.