Friends of the Chesterfield Public Library

After a two year break I am getting back into blogging. I'm starting with a promotion for the Really Big Booksale being put on this weekend at the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds.

The Friends of the Chesterfield County Library are proud to bring you a Really Big Book Sale! Thousands of books, CDs, DVDs, magazines, books on tape/CD and much more will be for sale at the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds, 10300 Courthouse Road, Chesterfield, VA 23832.

Hours are:
  Friday and Saturday, June 8 and 9: 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM
  Sunday, June 10: 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM

This is a great idea to get some inexpensive books for summer reading. A wide selection of children, teen and young adult books will be available.

Prices are ridiculously low. Stop buy and browse. You will surely find something you want to read.


Friends of the Chesterfield County Public Library is a 501c(3) non-profit dedicated to enhancing the programs, materials, and outreach of the CCPL. The Friends are all volunteers.


www.facebook.com/pg/chesterfieldfriends/
www.chesterfieldfriends.org/

School Board Bully

Last night’s (May 24^th) meeting of the Chesterfield County School Board did not get off to an auspicious start.  First, although documents being used during meetings (work sessions and regular meetings) are routinely made available online at http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/chesterfield/Board.nsf/Public, the process is not without flaws. Tuesday morning an addendum to Memo 51, “Recommended Personnel Action,” was posted to this web site but ordinary citizens were blocked from accessing that addendum.

In what would seem to be a praiseworthy action, Robert W. Thompson, School Board member from the Matoaca Magisterial District, asked this item be moved from the consent agenda to the discussion agenda. His stated reason was so the public would be allowed to comment on the additions introduced in the addendum. 

Be aware that for a member of the public to speak to an action item, citizens are generally required to sign up with the Clerk of the School Board not later than 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Since this item wasn’t on the action agenda until approximately 6:35 PM during the meeting, this requirement could not be met. As the clerk was calling the names of three people who had signed up to speak (they must sign up by telling the clerk that they will want to speak on every action item or else it was unofficially known to some people the agenda was going to change) I walked from my seat around the back of the public meeting room to the clerk’s end of the dais. I got her attention and indicated I would have signed by to speak before the deadline if I had known this was going to be in the action agenda. She nodded her understanding and I returned to my seat.

When the third person finished talking the clerk called my name and I went up to the speaker’s lectern to make my points. I said Mr. Thompson’s claimed interest in the public being informed and having an opportunity to make comments was useless (I do not remember my exact words but “useless” was the meaning) because the addendum was not available to the public for them to review or for them to decide whether to comment. I also pointed out that technically I should not have been allowed to comment because I hadn’t signed up before 2:00 PM, something I could not have done because I didn’t know that action item was going to exist. My intent was to highlight the problems caused by the School Board’s unnecessary requirement that people sign up before 2PM if they wish to speak that night.

Mr. Robert W. Thompson, School Board Member from Matoaca, chose to interpret my comment about what I believe is a bad School Board policy as taking a shot at the Clerk and making her look bad. He did this by charging up to me after the meeting, putting his face about 6 inches from mine and yelling at me at the top of his lungs. He would not allow me to respond, he simply repeated, all at the top of his lungs, that I had taken a shot at the Clerk, made her look bad, and would never be allowed to sign up late again (presumably even when the Board changes the agenda to add a new action item). His unprofessional behavior was witnessed by four other people. Two are school system employees and cannot be expected to say anything about what they saw and heard. Two others are regular critics of the School Board and while they can be expected to confirm what I’ve said, anything they say will likely be dismissed by the entire board.

Thompson wouldn’t listen to my response so I’ll state it here. I had no intention whatsoever of causing trouble or discomfort for the Clerk of the School Board. I have always found her to be a helpful, professional individual who does her job well.

I encountered School Board Chair, Dianne Smith in the parking lot after the meeting. If she wants to know how Thompson talked to me, she has only to recall the voice I used in talking to her. She listened patiently as I recounted Thompson’s unprofessional behavior (during which I described him as an ‘effing SOB’ but without the abbreviations). I also criticized the Board’s policy of requiring citizen speakers to sign up in advance. I told her my opinion, that the deadline for a citizen making a comment should be when she looked around the room and said, “seeing no one else, the public comment period is closed.” I also apologized for using the F-word and asked her to tell the clerk that I had no intention of making her look bad. I'll repeat that last part. I had no intention whatsoever of causing trouble, pain or embarrassment for the Clerk of the Chesterfield County School Board.

I find Robert Thompson to be a dissembling, arrogant bully who uses, or attempts to use, intimidation to silence his critics. In my opinion, he knew my intent was to criticize him and the other Board members for their bad policy and he simply twisted the facts to make it look like I was trying to injure the Clerk.

If you think I’m asking or going to ask for an apology from Thompson, you are mistaken. I do not care what he might have to say to me personally on any subject. I do care what he says and does in public or while pretending to perform his duties as a School Board member and I'll respond accordingly the next time he steps out of line with me OR with anyone else.

Edits:
"fact" changed to "face" in the 5th paragraph
"This morning" changed to "Tuesday morning" in the 1st paragraph.

In Home Day-Care

There was a time, not too long ago, when applications for a conditional use permit to operate a family day-care home breezed through the Chesterfield Planning Commission with little controversy and no opposition. If any neighbors showed up at a community meeting or the public hearing, it was to express support for the applicant.

This article on CBS 6's web pages, Daycare dilemma; owner fights to keep doors open,  about an application for a family home day-care in Brandermill is an example of the controversy and opposition that some of  these cases are now generating.

There is a lot that could be said about this issue but this post is about one specific sentence in the linked article. The sentence reads, "The county is looking to the BCA for guidance." That is not precisely accurate because the implication is that the contents of restrictive covenants on residences in Brandermill will determine the recommendation of the Chesterfield Planning Commission. Some members of the Commission do hold the opinion that we should consider restrictive covenants when making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. I do not agree with that view. 

In my opinion, it is not the role of the Planning Commission to consider contractual relationships in making its decisions. Restrictive covenants are contracts among home owners. If disputes arise among the parties to a contract, those disputes are properly resolved by the parties themselves or, as a last resort, by the courts. Neither the Chesterfield Planning Commission nor the Chesterfield Planning Department has the expertise or the resources to make judgments on contracts. Due process, rules of evidence, and a host of other legal requirements are likely to be violated if a bunch of amateurs (even intelligent, highly motivated amateurs) start trying to act as judge and jury in legal disputes between adversarial parties. Our job is to determine whether such things as applications for rezoning and conditional use (among others related to land use) are in the best interest of Chesterfield County and its citizens.

Therefore, when this, or any other case, comes up for a vote by the Planning Commission, I will not consider opinions or assertions on what contracts require the applicant or other interested parties to do or not do. I'll make my decisions on the merits of each case related to land use in Chesterfield County and on the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county.

Predatory Lenders in Chesterfield County

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.

The Tolling of Interstate 95

In my role as a Chesterfield Planning Commission member I was appointed, in January of this year, to the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (or RAMPO). RAMPO exists to allocate federal highway money to specific projects in the Richmond area.

To do that, we need to know what highway projects are being funded from other sources so we don't duplicate efforts and stuff like that. Yesterday, we got an update on the tolling of I-95 proposed by Governor Bob McDonnell back at the start of his term. VDOT is moving forward on that idea. Their proposal is a single toll station in Sussex County north of Emporia collecting from traffic travelling in both directions. The toll would be $4.00 each way ($12 for 18 wheelers). To reduce avoidance tactics,  those leaving I-95 one or two exits before the toll station in each direction would pay $2.00 and those entering I-95 one or two on-ramps after the toll station would also pay $2.00. Thus, through travelers would, in theory, still pay $4 (or drive on local roads for even more miles). This plan is expected to generate $40 million per year.

There is a pot of federal money for maintenance of Interstate highways. Virginia gets money from that pot but if a toll is put on I-95, none of that Federal Interstate maintenance money can be spent on I-95. We will still get all those dollars but they will have to be spent only on the other Interstate highways in Virginia. So it appears as though the effect of tolling I-95 will decrease the amount of maintenance done on I-95 by $10 million and increase the maintenance on other Virginia Interstates by $50 million. That wouldn't be a bad deal except I-95 needs  more maintenance, not less.

But, there's an out according to the VDOT person making the presentation. Other federal highway money (he used bridge replacement as an example) isn't restricted to a specific set of highways but is often restricted in other ways as to how it can be spent. Another Interstate's maintenance activities could get a chunk of this $50 million being taken away from I-95 (say, $10 million used to replace a bridge) and transfer over to I-95 a similar amount (say, $10 million of bridge replacement money).

This is all well and good as long as I-95 needs more bridge replacement money than is currently planned to be spent on that highway. Well then, the VDOT guy would say, transfer safety money instead or some other specified use money to meet I-95's needs.

All well and good again as long as the restrictions on how these other pots of federal highway money can be spent don't keep enough of those dollars from being used on I-95.

 In short, $50 million per year currently planned for use on other Virginia highways will have to be spent on I-95. If that doesn't happen, the drivers paying tolls on I-95 will be funding maintenance of other Interstates in Virginia.

The VDOT proposal also calls for "open road tolling." That is, drivers will be expected to have transponders in their vehicles like EZ-Pass and to pay their tolls using that technology. As is the case on 895 and the Powhite Parkway, photos will be taken of toll evader's  license plates and they will receive a bill in the mail. Guess for yourself how many out-of-staters will respond favorably to that. (Don't forget, VDOT also wants to add a $1.00 per month fee for having a transponder in your car.)

Finally, I'm not persuaded that tolling I-95 is worth the costs. First, I find the projected toll revenues and operating costs to be optimistic at best. Second, the costs imposed on people in Sussex county to either pay $2 to $4 each way for local trips or to drive out of their way are ignored. Those costs, measured in dollars may be low in the greater scheme of things but they are significant to the people bearing those costs. Just ask Brandermill/Wood Lake residents who pay around $8 per day in tolls just to drive to and from work. (By the way, I don't whether people who live in Brandermill or Woodlake and work in downtown Richmond to have much sympathy for the potential plight of Sussex county commuters but, I expect those Chesterfield residents can guess the reactions of affected Sussex citizens.) Third, the qualitative costs of having additional traffic on US 301, US 1 and other local roads can't be measured in dollars so, even though they exist, those costs are ignored.

Public hearings haven't been scheduled yet but we're promised they will happen some day, real close to the time the application is due to the federal Department of Transportation.

For not much more information on tolling I-95, go to VDOT's Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Program web page.