Here is a copy of an email distributed by the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy.
***
Speak Up and Help Keep Predatory Lenders in check in Chesterfield County!
Many of you have seen the story
about the hearing on Chesterfield’s proposed zoning ordinance up for
public hearing this week. On Wednesday our county leaders will be
considering whether to impose some of the most
strict local ordinance measures on predatory lenders or leave them take
advantage of the most vulnerable, bring down property values, and
encourage crime in the process. Please help put in place strict measures
on predatory lenders at this critical local level!
All eyes
are on Chesterfield as other localities wish to put in place similar
restrictions, but want to know that the public is behind them. Show your
support for these restrictions
by coming out at 6:30pm on Wednesday January 9th to tell the Board of
Supervisors that these restrictions are not only necessary, but that you
expect them to put them in place because this is everything in their
power to restrict predatory businesses that push families into
bankruptcy and foreclosure, leaving neighborhoods less safe and without
substantial business investment.
What: Public Hearing on the Proposed Regulation to Alternative Financial Institutions
When: Wednesday January 9th at 6:30PM. This policy is the only item on
the public hearing agenda, so we need as many folks as possible to
speak! I will be there with fact sheets at 6PM and will be happy to
answer additional questions as you prepare to speak.
Where: Public Meeting Room, 10001 Iron Bridge Road, Chesterfield, VA 23832
If you can’t come out, please consider emailing or calling your board
of supervisor member before the public hearing. Click here to see who your supervisor is; and then click here
to find their contact information. Ask your Supervisor to vote YES on
the proposal related to Alternative Financial Institutions.
***
As are all my posts to my blog, I alone am responsible for the content of this one. It should clear to the most casual reader that I speak for myself in these posts, not for anyone else, not for any organization or entity whether I'm a member of that organization or not.
Showing posts with label Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Jim Holland Wins Reelection
Four of five incumbants will be returning to the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors. Of the three challenged incumbants, only Marlene Durfee was unable to hold her seat. With three true Republicans on the BOS, it will be interesting to see what influence, if any, Dan Gecker will have on decisions reached by that body.
Vote counts for the Dale Supervisor race are here.
Michael Jackson made a good run at the School Board seat for the Dale district. I expect next time he runs for office, he will win.
Word on the street is that the Chesterfield Planning Commission could see as many as three new members in January.
Vote counts for the Dale Supervisor race are here.
Michael Jackson made a good run at the School Board seat for the Dale district. I expect next time he runs for office, he will win.
Word on the street is that the Chesterfield Planning Commission could see as many as three new members in January.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
RTD -- Election 2011: All politics is local
In its editorial this morning, Richmond Times-Dispatch didn't exactly say, "Vote for Jim Holland." They did say, "The Dale District's Jim Holland responded with dignity to a difficult situation regarding the board's chairmanship." The editorial did not mention Jim's opponent either by name or other reference.
That is about as close as they will ever come to endorsing a Democrat.
That is about as close as they will ever come to endorsing a Democrat.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)