Thursday, July 02, 2009

Perriello protest in Garrett zone



Charlottesville, Va.—This afternoon protesters assembled outside Congressman Tom Perriello’s office. At ground zero for eminent domain abuse, the protest came 42 years after the referendum that set in motion the city’s largest, ongoing urban renewal project. For me, the context overwhelmed the content of the protest.

Ridge Schuyler is the congressman’s spokesman and took notes as he stood behind the speakers atop the stairs leading to the office. Schuyler left the Nature Conservancy to work for Perriello. Schuyler has come under criticism for supporting the Community Water Supply Plan to expand Ragged Mountain reservoir instead of dredging.

The protest began at 4 pm. After saying he would not be in town, Perriello was scheduled to speak at the University of Virginia at 5:30. Technically the university is in the county. People shouted, “Where is Perriello?” Schuyler promised to pass on to Perriello the crowd’s displeasure.

The only candidate for elected office with a presence was Bradley S. Rees. He’s running for the Republican nomination to oppose Perriello in 2010. A single campaign volunteer handed out flyers.
























Condos built 2004 on land vacant since 1972.


"Luxury Gleason Condos: urban renewal still not over", Nov. 27, 2006










Landmark Hotel stands blighted. Photo shows proximity of Garrett and Main Streets.

Levy Avenue parking lot rents for $1 a year.


Levy Avenue razed 1972.


Levy and 6th SE, Old Scottsville Rd. Site of the final holdouts on this block and most expensive property 1972. "Levy Avenue update: All 5 owners identified", Nov. 17, 2007.



Garrett neighborhood Feb. 1, 2006.
(A) Perriello's office.
(B) Garrett Square / Friendship Court.
(C) Levy Avenue.
(F) H.M. Gleason.
(G) ACAC.
(I) Ix Factory, 1929-1999.
(Red Outline) Garrett Street urban renewal project, now called the Warehouse District. Alexander Garrett built his mansion in 1820s on Oak Hill farm (hill removed in 1977 clearance) across from Gleason and torn down 1952. Garrett Street developed 1860. Town's first public school 1870. Fourth St. (Ware) developed 1915 site of Garrett Square. There is much more history of this neighborhood only two blocks from Main St.


1935 Charlottesville.


Vinegar Hill Feb. 1, 2006.
(A)Crossroads. Main, Ridge, South, and McIntire. Lewis and Clark Statue.
(B) Lane High 1940, County Office Building 1970s.
(C) Omni (Radisson) 1980s two decades after clearance 1964.
(D) 1894 Jefferson School lost with Vinegar Hill clearance. 1926 Jefferson School to left of (D). First Jefferson School 1865 on W. Main.


1960 Vinegar Hill.
(A) Mooney Oldsmobile / RSC equipment rental. Site of future condo tower. "Land for condo tower once owned by John West and Madam Marguiretta", Sep. 13, 2007.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Kelo Anniversary on Schilling Show

Charlottesville, Va.—On Monday, WINA’s Rob Schilling talked about eminent domain on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision June 23, 2005 in the case of Susette Kelo versus New London, CT.

Steven Anderson of the Institute for Justice updated listeners on the Kelo case. The 90-acre neighborhood is now vacant land and not paying taxes. Nothing has been built. Kelo’s pink house has been relocated and stands as a historical marker for due process. Kelo now resides just outside of New London. The land was stolen in order to entice Pfizer Pharmaceutical to move its headquarters there. The Supreme Court ruled the theft to be legal in a 5-to-4 vote.

Anderson spoke about this case in Charlottesville Feb. 15, 2005, a week before the court heard oral arguments Feb. 22. Since the infamous ruling, 43 states have reformed eminent domain to varying degrees.

Jim Lark of the Jefferson Area Libertarians also appeared on the show. Schilling exposed Delegate David Toscano (57th, Charlottesville) for his position against private property civil rights. According to Schilling, Toscano said in a Feb. 2009 newsletter that he opposes a state constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain to legitimate public uses. If state senator Creigh Deeds is elected governor, Toscano may run for this office. And former city councilor Blake Caravati may run for Toscano’s seat.

Toscano has long opposed civil rights when it comes to ownership of homes and businesses. On Dec. 14, 2006 both Toscano and Deeds said eminent domain was not a problem in Virginia. Yet a month later, they both voted for the reform bill introduced by Delegate Rob Bell.

Toscano spoke at the city council meeting Nov. 21, 2005, where Caravati introduced a city charter amendment to dramatically expand eminent domain in Charlottesville for “affordable housing" again. Of the five councilors, the sole Republican Schilling voted against the amendment in favor of civil rights. Current Mayor Dave Norris supported the amendment.

Citizen journalist Blair Hawkins spoke at that meeting against the amendment. Hawkins asked Toscano to vote against the amendment in the House of Delegates if it passed Council, obligating Toscano to introduce it into the General Assembly. Hawkins followed up with a letter in opposition. A state senate committee blocked the bill until the eminent domain language was removed.

Toscano was present and a city councilor when Hawkins delivered two speeches on eminent domain June 5, 2000, the public hearing to rename the 9th-10th Connector for Sally Hemings, slave of Thomas Jefferson. (1) Letter to Mayor Daugherty to investigate urban renewal. (2) Property Street for Sally Hemings and Laura Dowell. Toscano is a long-time supporter of public housing and forced relocation of minorities.

Hour 1, Schilling Show, Steven Anderson in 2nd half-hour.

Hour 2, Schilling Show, Jim Lark in 1st half-hour.

“UVa alumnus talks about eminent domain”, Feb. 16, 2005, Charlottesville Independent Media. Reprinted: “Arin Sime for Va Senate”, Oct. 23, 2007, Blair’s Blog.

Deeds and Toscano: Eminent domain not a problem in Va., Dec. 14, 2006.

“The letter that stopped Charlottesville’s eminent domain amendment” Jan. 8, 2006 – Includes text of proposed Section 50.7, passed by the Council Nov. 21, 2005, introduced by Blake Caravati who only weeks later announced he would not seek reelection. The amendment passed 4-1. For: Kendra Hamilton, David Brown, Kevin Lynch, Blake Caravati. Against: Rob Schilling.

“Response to David Toscano and Tammy Londeree on my endorsement of Rob Schilling published on George Loper's blog” April 30, 2006 – Toscano claims credit for stripping eminent domain from Charlottesville charter amendment introduced in ’06 session. In so doing, he claims the bill was passed, then amended by him and later passed again. The Daily Progress reported that a Senate committee, not the House of Delegates, made the changes.

John and Nancy McCord speak in Charlottesville Jan. 13, 2007.

2007: Virginia Reforms Eminent Domain, Jan. 12, 2008.

Latest Archive Request on WINA”, Feb 12, 2009.

Blair to be on WINA, May 5, 2009.

Audio on car tax, archives, May 6, 2009.

On the air, I gave Councilor Holly Edwards credit for trying to get a meeting with Housing Authority Director Randy Bickers and UVA’s Dr. Scot French. I have not heard from Edwards since then. I’m seeking to publish the Housing Authority’s urban renewal archives, which comprise 6,845 documents and 1,189 photographs. Or they could publish what remains of the archives. Except for about 300 photos, I have been denied access since my first request Mar. 25, 2004.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Cuccinelli GOP AG, Adnan's speech




Charlottesville, Va.—On Saturday May 30 at the Richmond Coliseum, Virginia Republicans selected state senator Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General in the November election. Cuccinelli won 57% of weighted votes of 7,000 delegates and was opposed by former federal prosecutor John Brownlee and former Arlington School Board Chairman Dave Foster.

If no candidate had received a majority, there would have been a second round of voting between the biggest vote-getters to ensure majority support of the party. If a county/city has fewer delegates attend than allocated based on the previous Republican presidential votes in the district, the delegate votes are weighted so the district has a full vote.

This year, the sitting attorney general is running for governor. Bob McDonnell was unopposed at the convention. But Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling was opposed by Patrick Muldoon, who picked up 16% of the weighted vote. Bolling will run for a second term.

The office of state party chairman has been controversial in recent years. No chairman has served out his 4-year term in recent memory. On Apr. 4, Jeff Frederick was ousted by the state central committee on a 57-18 vote (76%-24%), after being elected last year with 63% against John Hager.

On Saturday Pat Mullins won 70% and was endorsed by temporary chair Mike Thomas, who led the ouster of Frederick. The protest vote went to Bill Stanley who garnered 30% of the delegates.

Democrats elected their candidates in a June 9 primary with 6.4% of 5 million registered voters. State Senator Creigh Deeds won for governor against Terry McAuliffe and Bryan Moran. Deeds lost to McDonnell 4 years ago in the attorney general race by about three hundred votes in a recount. Jody Wagner won against Mike Signer for lieutenant governor.

Delegate Steve Shannon was unopposed and will face state senator Cuccinelli in the general election Nov. 3. Shannon and Cuccinelli both represent Fairfax and surrounding areas in northern Virginia.


Republican Convention

The format of the convention was typical: parade of speeches. Sean Hannity was the keynote speaker. There were no nominating speeches. Each candidate had ten minutes and loud music played a couple seconds if you ran over. McDonnell for governor, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Patrick Muldoon for lieutenant governor, Ken Cuccinnelli, John Brownlee and Dave Foster for attorney general, Pat Mullins and Bill Stanley for party chairman.

Out of the three contests, I voted for the winner once. You might say I was a Cuccinelli delegate because of my interest in eminent domain and his work in the legislature even before the 2005 Kelo decision brought this issue into the news. In the other two competitions my vote was a protest vote. Muldoon had the most enthusiastic and vocal supporters. Muldoon blamed all the party’s problems on the only incumbent seeking reelection.

The most flamboyant speech was Ken Cuccinelli with the yellow DONT TREAD ON ME snake flags, big and small, waving throughout the coliseum. The flags were passed out moments before the speech.

After the eight speeches came the voting. Instead of leaving early, many people stayed in case there was a run-off in the attorney general race. While the results were counted, filler speeches and music from the UVA Glee Club played on. People were socializing and moving around and having lunch. Congressman Eric Cantor was booed and dismissed. Cantor voted for the initial $700 billion bailout in 2008.

The most memorable speech was from a naturalized US citizen from Kuwait, Corps of Cadets commander at Virginia Tech, Adnan Barqawi. When he began speaking, people were still chatting. Halfway through, everyone was listening and applauding the statements. When Adnan left the stage, there was a standing ovation that went on and on. Thanks to Rick Sincere for the footage.










Eminent domain stars reveal legislative agenda, Jun. 29, 2006

Goode Republicans elect chairman, marriage amendment resolution, Apr. 29, 2008

Va Republican Chairman Frederick faces ouster, Mar. 18, 2009

Va Republican Chairman Frederick purged, Apr. 7, 2009

Weighted Vote (from RPV Chairman Pat Mullins Jun. 4 2009)

Lieutenant Governor- Weighted Total: 10522.69
Bill Bolling: 8799.08 (84%)
Patrick Muldoon: 1723.61 (16%)

Attorney General- Weighted Total: 10521.38
Ken Cuccinelli: 5980.31 (57%)
John Brownlee: 3861.46 (37%)
Foster: 679.61 (6%)

State Party Chair- Weighted Total: 10524.01
Pat Mullins: 7346.77 (70%)
Bill Stanley: 3177.24 (30%)














The June Albemarle-Charlottesville GOP Breakfast will be on Saturday, June 13 at 8:15am, at the Golden Corral (1185 Seminole Trail 29N). Our guest speaker will be Jeff Horgan, Virginia State Director for Americans for Fair Taxation.































Monday, May 18, 2009

Update on Stolen Laptops

Charlottesville, Va.- Voter Registrar Sheri Iachetta has sent out a letter to city voters. She reassures the public that no one, whose identities were stolen, has reported identity theft. The two laptops were taken in a burglary Nov. 5, 2008 at the Tonsler precinct polling station right after the election. The computers were double password protected.

Do I feel reassured? No. I had forgotten about it. Now I think something is up. The computers contained the names and addresses of registered voters. Did they contain only information about Tonsler or city-wide? The letter is "out of an abundance of caution, the State Board of Elections has asked us to inform you." You can get your social security number changed to a DMV number for free.



Letter from Charlottesville General Registrar, May 2009

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Audio on car tax, archives

Charlottesville, Va.- Audio of Hour 1 of the Schilling Show May 6, 2009.

Thanks to Rob and WINA for another 15 minutes of fame. For more info and background:

"Blair to be on WINA", May 5, 2009 Includes sample tax bill and "Charlottesville tickets Va. Beach cars: A hundred reasons to do nothing", Sep. 8, 2004.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Blair to be on WINA

Charlottesville, Va.—I will appear on the Rob Schilling Show Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 12:15pm on WINA Am-1070.

I’ll be complaining about the city’s car tax decal ordinance. The decal or license fee has gone up to $33.50. The decal was eliminated a few years ago but they continue to charge for the sticker. One reason given at the time was it would save money. Who’s saving any money? We’re losing more money than ever.

What’s the solution? Hide the decal fee in the actual personal property tax. At least that would be honest. But the city has already fiddled with the formula to compute the car tax. Some people pay less but overall, it was a tax increase. When I look at my statement for my only vehicle, there’s the tax and the tax relief. We have former Governor Jim Gilmore to thank for the tax relief. It was 70% but now appears closer to 50%.

Below is the story I wrote on the Sep. 7, 2004 City Council meeting. “Charlottesville tickets Va. Beach cars: A hundred reasons to do nothing.” Councilor Schilling asks how many complaints, how many tickets are we talking about. Neither Assistant City Attorney Lisa Kelly (introduced simply as “Ms. Kelly”) nor Police Chief Tim Longo knew the magnitude of the problem. They were unprepared.

On the radio, I’ll also update Rob’s listeners on my call to the show Feb. 12 this year. I asked Councilor Holly Edwards for help getting the Housing Authority / urban renewal archives released to the public. I followed up a couple weeks ago. Now Holly’s trying to arrange a meeting with Housing Authority’s newest director Randy Bickers and UVA’s Dr. Scot French. In Feb. 2007 French talked about Vinegar Hill at First Baptist Church on West Main, site of the first Jefferson School in 1865. In Nov. 2007 French said the archives had been digitized and would be online in a couple months.

That hasn’t happened. So I continue to pressure to have the 6,845 text documents, 1,189 photographs, and 189 maps and blueprints made public. Nobody likes to talk about urban renewal. The questions people have are not so complex. They want to know what was here before urban renewal. What is our history? What are our roots? These are the answers we’re seeking.

Why would there be resistance to preserving this history? Until someone tells you why they’re doing something bad, you have to speculate the motive. I predict the archives will show that Vinegar Hill is not the only, not the biggest, not the most controversial urban renewal in the city’s history. The archives are top secret because they show Councilor Satyendra Huja fibbed when he relied on the Vinegar Hill myth and said urban renewal happened before he became city planner in 1973. In fact, it never stopped.

“Latest Archive Request on WINA”, Feb. 12, 2009. Includes urban renewal timeline.




Charlottesville tickets Va. Beach cars: A hundred reasons to do nothing
(Charlottesville Independent Media, September 8, 2004)


So we're looking for some direction from you. As you can see various city officials have received correspondence from Va. Beach's commissioner of revenue, and our office has received correspondence from the city attorney's office in Va. Beach. And Senator Creigh Deeds has also weighed in on the issue and asked if the city of Charlottesville will help work this out with Va. Beach. And he would like to know what is your pleasure.



"Before the Court" Nov 19 2001

BACKGROUND

I focus on this story because the car tax and its enforcement process have caused so much headache that former governor Gilmore rose to that office on the platform to phase out the car tax state-wide. The phase-out is stuck at 70 percent; you pay 30 percent now.

This issue was well-publicized in 2001 when Greene county supervisors voted unanimously twice that then sheriff William Morris should enforce the car tax decal ordinance by issuing citations. A judge ruled that it was a matter for the public since the sheriff is elected county-wide as a check and balance on the county legislature. After the enforcement process was halted, both personal property tax revenue and compliance with the decal ordinance increased. Apparently, people were not paying as a political protest against the collection method.

The car tax issue in Charlottesville that same year went unnoticed in the mainstream press. The fine for not displaying a proper decal more than tripled on July 1 2001 and was documented in The Witness Report alternative.

( "Parking Ticket or Tax Notice?", Aug. 26 2001 "Civil Disobedience," Oct 11 2001, "Before the Court," Nov 19 2001, "Sheriff Vindicated," Dec 20 2001.
All 19 pages. )

I believe that Charlottesville's car tax decal ordinance has been struck down by a circuit judge. In the story "Before the Court," I wrote the letter to the court. Subsequently, I have registered 2 vehicles in the city. The 3 tickets totaling $160 have been expunged from my record. I did not hear back from the court and was hoping the tickets would just go away; as they have.

Tuesday Sep 7 2004 - Charlottesville City Council broadcast live on Adelphia Cable channel 10 and not rebroadcast at any other time.

REPORT ON DECAL LICENSE CHANGES

This agenda item was off to a bad start when city staff spokeswoman Ms. Kelly had to be called in from the hallway when the mayor called for the report.

KELLY: "You have before you some information about a request that was received from the city of Virginia Beach asking us to stop ticketing their citizens' vehicles for failure to display a local license decal.

What has happened is that Va. Beach has stopped issuing their own local decal in favor of entering into an agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles for the state to collect taxes, their local taxes for them, at the time when the vehicle registration is renewed every year.

This state program was set up in 1992. So far only Va. Beach has chosen to participate in the program. And we aren't able to get very good information about whether or not that participation has either saved Va. Beach any money or has resulted in a loss of revenue for Va. Beach. What we can tell you is that at this point the Department of Motor Vehicles is not accepting additional localities into the program.

And there's only one other locality that we're aware of, York County, that is also not issuing their own local decal license. However they're not participating in the state program. They've just chosen not to issue local decals within their community..."

Apparently, some Va. Beach residents are being ticketed in Charlottesville for not displaying a local decal. So they complained to their local officials who have now complained to Charlottesville officials. Right now, if you get a ticket, you call the Charlottesville's treasurer's office and mail in proof that your car is registered in Va. Beach. But Va. Beach residents don't want to get the ticket in the first place.

KELLY: "The options you have before you are 3 right now:

1- Do what Va. Beach is asking and cease enforcement of the decal requirement. This would protect Va. Beach residents. But the problem is that it would bring our own enforcement to a halt because our officers who are out doing parking enforcement don't have the computer hand-held mobile units that would allow them to do sort-of an instant check to figure out where a car is registered.

2- The second option is to come up with a program where we would sell to people in Va. Beach or York County a local decal, whether it was one of our own city decals, which is what Albemarle County apparently does, or some other kind of decal or card that they could affix to their car so that the parking enforcement officers would be able to tell if they are a properly registered car in Va. Beach. They just don't have a decal.

The downside of doing that is that it's a fair amount of time and effort to be spent by the city treasurer's office. Jennifer Brown is willing to do that. In the long run, having that type of permit may actually save her and her employees some work because they're spending a lot of time now resolving complaints brought by the Va. Beach citizens.

The upside of that is that may help some Va. Beach citizens avoid, the people who, particularly the people who visit here more frequently to avoid further tickets. The problem is it won't take care of everyone because there may be an occasional visitor from Va. Beach who doesn't know the permit is available or unwilling to pay for one for a one-time visit.

3- And the third option is simply to continue the status quo, to say to Va. Beach residents who may receive the occasional ticket, just put your proof of residency and a your vehicle registration in the mail and the ticket will dismissed, no fees, no penalties.

So we're looking for some direction from you. As you can see various city officials have received correspondence from Va. Beach's commissioner of revenue, and our office has received correspondence from the city attorney's office in Va. Beach. And Senator Creigh Deeds has also weighed in on the issue and asked if the city of Charlottesville will help work this out with Va. Beach. And he would like to know what is your pleasure."

Councilor Kevin LYNCH: What would it take to have the 4 or 5 parking enforcement officers aquire the mobile equipment to enable instant wireless vehicle checks? It seems like we would already have the ability to get that information quickly.

KELLY: "I'm sure it's a matter of money" but not sure how much. But there's also the software that goes with it, the programming, access to the database. "I'm sure it's not as monumental a task as some." But money is the issue.

Councilor Rob SCHILLING: How many tickets are we talking about here? How many cars without decals? How many from Va. Beach?

KELLY: (doesn't know)

Police Chief Tim LONGO: "I don't know the answer to that question but my guess would be it's not a significant number. I will tell you that when they're issued, we certainly hear about them very loudly and very clearly from Va. beach residents. But with respect to the computer issue, we are moving in the direction of implementing mobile data in vehicles. We're probably 2 years out with the implementation of the 800-megahetz radio system...right now that verification has to be done through voice radio. It's a tremendous amount of radio traffic. And to do that over the radio would compromise safety."

SCHILLING: How about issuing cell phones to the parking patrol so they can call in a license number?

LONGO: We make cell phones available to our officers but unfortunately that call would go to our emergency communications center. "Because of the volume of vehicles that are checked and ticketed on a daily basis city-wide that would create a tremendous amount of traffic on the emercency communications center and their operators."

SCHILLING: Is there a way to make a call to a non-emergency number? I'm looking for a low-tech solution because I don't like any of the ones proposed so far. Can we set up a separate line?

LONGO: "Well, it wouldn't necessarily be a rare occurrence because it would require every ticket we issue for the, whether there's no decal, for the traffic control officer, parking control officer to run that tag. It could create a significant amount of phone traffic that would be a staffing issue for emergencency communications center. And I could not make that decision unilaterally. We could pursue talking with Mr. Hanson and his staff" and come up with something.

SCHILLING: I would appreciate it.

Councilor Kendra HAMILTON: There was a reference to repeat offenders. Are people getting tickets over and over again? University students?

KELLY: I believe there are. Some students and visiting parents from Va. Beach, football games and other events account for repeat visits.

Mayor David BROWN: Would it be helpful when we issued a ticket, we could provide information on how a citizen could deal with this, perhaps a flyer attached to the ticket. printed on the envelope or something to mitigate this process and avoid creating new work for anybody.

LONGO: "It would not likely be practical, Mr. Mayor, because the ticket is generated by a hand-held device that's electronically generated. I suspect that adding any language on those citations, as you suggest, would come with a significant price tag."

SCHILLING: Could we have some kind of a sticker to notify police that the car is registered in Va. Beach?

LONGO: If a significant number of these vehicles are university related, then the university is in a position to issue some kind of decal during orientation. Such a decal would be less problematic for the police, more problematic for property owners, but less problematic for the city treasurer.

HAMILTON: "That's an excellent suggestion... I get traffic tickets all over the place. I either pay them or challenge them. Then if it's too much trouble to challenge them, I pay them. So I question shifting the burden to city staff or our officers...I think the burden needs to be on the people incurring the violation."

BROWN: Do you think that continuing with status quo may result in a legal challenge and create even more than we were anticipating?

KELLY: "I'm not sure there is an option that may not result in that problem." One challenge could be whether police have the authority to pull you over for not displaying the decal. Another problem is Va. Beach residents may not want to pay for the decal when they don't have to pay in Va. Beach. "If we continue the status quo, the Va. Beach city attorney and commissioner of revenue have indicated that they think we are behaving unlawfully...I'm not sure there is an option that won't result in a challenge. So we should do what's best for us."

HAMILTON: How flexible are the Va. Beach officials in helping us work this out? What is their attitude?

KELLY: So far they insist we stop issuing the tickets.

LYNCH: Charlottesville can't be the only place where Va. Beach residents visit. Have you spoken to other communities, like Blacksburg with a large student population?

KELLY: Charlottesville has an "ordinance that prohibits you from operating a vehicle on a city street without the required decal and also an ordinance that prohibits the parking of a vehicle on city streets without a decal. Some localities just have one or the other." "I suspect a substantial number of our violations are being generated by the parking issue and not the operating or moving issue."

BROWN: If the city treasurer can create a new decal or permitting system and the university could educate their people, we could work something out.

KELLY: Va. Beach wants to know from us which direction city council is headed.

HAMILTON: Can the treasurer simply issue a decal or one at reduced rate to a Va. Beach visitor?

KELLY: Two problems with that: the decal indicates where you car is garaged and has to match up with state registration if the state license plate is run. If we issue a city decal to someone, our computer system will automatically generate a personal property tax assessment for that vehicle, then we have to go into the software and cancel it out. So there is some expense.

LYNCH: Can we get more information on how many tickets we're talking about. Dozens a month, hundreds a month?

KELLY: Still doesn't know. Will find out, sense that it's less than a dozen a month.

LYNCH: Maybe we should stick with status quo for 2 years until we get the hand-held ability to run a vehicle check.

City manager Gary O'CONNELL: "It's beyond hand-held. It's every police officer having access. And you've got the traffic people that are doing it, then the police officers that are doing it. So you're into hundreds of thousands of dollars...So a low-tech solution is the way to go." Let's give notice to the university before we create a special decal.

LYNCH: But only the traffic cops are doing the parked cars, right? The regular police run the license anyway in a traffic stop.

LONGO: It's a little more complicated than that. You're talking about infrastructure and thousands of man-hours.

BROWN: Brought the discussion to a close.

SCHILLING: I want to stick with the status quo and look for mitigating low-tech work-arounds. "We're using a sledge hammer to kill a fly here", he said of the proposals so far.

HAMILTON: Can we say to Va. Beach, in about 2 years, this will not be an issue? Will they work with us?

KELLY: "My guess is yes." If we go with option 2, that takes care of repeat offenses but you have more expense but a permit fee may be able to cover that. We're thinking it would cost the same to issue a separate decal as it does for the usual one, about $25 per decal.

... a few more requests from the councilors and city attorney for more specifics and numbers. Council took no action, indicating that status quo is preferable to alternatives of actually having to do something. Councilor Blake Caravati was absent on a junket to France.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Eminent Domain Testimonials

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Tax Day Tea Party in Charlottesville

Charlottesville, Va.- Estimated 1,500 people attend rally to protest high taxes and even higher spending.

Jefferson Area TeaParty



Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Va. Republican Chairman Frederick purged

Charlottesville, Va.—On Saturday Apr. 4, behind closed doors, the Republican Party’s State Central Committee purged Chairman Jeff Frederick in a 57 to 18 vote. Frederick was elected at last year’s May convention with 63% of the 3,000 delegates, unseating former Lt. Governor John Hager.

This year’s convention will be held in Richmond on May 30 with 10,000 delegates expected to attend.

The Republican Party of Virginia website has no mention of the change in leadership. The only change is that Frederick’s photograph is no longer displayed. It’s as if Frederick never existed and the ouster never happened. The man who spearheaded the purge, Mike Thomas will take over.

The blogs I consulted in my previous story (Includes the 10 charges, Frederick's response, petition to keep Frederick, and Committee member Rachel Schoenewald's response) have not yet updated the story. Perhaps they will. Bearing Drift and Bacon’s Rebellion.

“Va. GOP Chairman Frederick ousted” video clip, Apr. 4, 2009, NBC-29 Dateline News

“Va. GOP Regroups After Frederick Ousting” video clip, Apr. 6, 2009, NBC-29 Dateline News. Albemarle GOP Chairman Christian Schoenewald calls the ousting ethical because the charges alleged unethical conduct.

“Virginia Republican Party Chairman Ousted”, Apr. 5, 2009, Charlottesville Newsplex

Virginia Republican Party Chairman Jeff Frederick was ousted Saturday after a troubled 10-month tenure capped by devastating losses in last year's elections.

The state party's governing central committee voted 57-to-18 to remove Frederick after key Virginia Republican elected officials and top party leaders called for him to resign or be fired.

The effort to sack the conservative, often combative and sometimes embarrassing state legislator from Prince William came after 58 members of the central committee signed off on a list of 10 charges against him.

The focus of the allegations was his handling of state party finances.

Mike Thomas, a leader of the movement to oust Frederick, takes over as interim party chairman, a role he has served three times since 2003.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Va. Republican Chairman Federick faces ouster

Update: Petition: "We support Chairman Jeff Frederick". Started by Willie Deutsch on Mar 20, 2009.

Charlottesville, Va.—The Republican Party State Central Committee (SCC) will attempt on April 4 to unseat popularly elected Chairman Jeff Federick. The committee consists of 77 members. Frederick was elected at the Richmond convention last year, unseating John Hager.

I received two robocalls this week from a group calling itself Grassroot Republicans of Virginia. The first Monday evening credited 5th Congressional District Chairman “elitist” Tucker Watkins with the ouster attempt. The robocall this afternoon asked me to contact my committee representative Rachel Schoenwald.

I called Rachel and she called me back. I said I support Frederick and asked why this is a committee action and not a recall vote. She said it’s the party rules and referred me to the Bearing Drift Blog for more details. My position on political parties has long been to change the rules if the arbitrary rules are blocking your goals.

Rachel’s husband, Albemarle County Republican Chairman Christian Schoenwald, will address this matter Thursday morning on the Joe Thomas show on WCHV 1260 AM / 94.1 FM.

As a delegate, I voted for Frederick last year. From the research I’ve done, the case against Frederick seems flimsy. While the ouster is not a legal proceeding, principles of due process should be followed. (A) The accused is presumed innocent. In other words, the SCC is presumed to be lying and must present evidence. (B) The secrecy surrounding the charges, up to this point, is tantamount to anonymous accusers. (C) Some of the charges are in the form of a negative. Frederick doesn’t have to prove he followed a procedure; the accusers should prove he did NOT follow the procedure.

The difficulty of proving a negative is why the accused has presumption of innocence in the first place. What evidence can the accuser produce? There’s no evidence he did it, therefore he must not have done it. So zero evidence is used to support the charge?

If Frederick simply stepped aside for the good of the party, it would appear as an admission of guilt. If he's innocent of one or more of the charges, he should fight it. In my decade of political involvement, I've learned this much: you have to go public. Private discussion with an official has no effect. Just as privately telling a bank robber to stop robbing banks has no effect. Or telling a politician his actions do not reflect his rhetoric has no effect. People will do in darkness what they would never think of doing in the sunlight while people are watching.

I’ll continue to follow this story. Below are links and excerpts to sources I’ve consulted so far.

Republican Party of Virginia

“Pro-Frederick Robocalls Begin” by Jason Kenney, Mar. 12. Includes audio of one of the calls.

“Jeff’s a Fighter” by JR Hoeft, Mar. 17.

“The State Central Committee Votes for Itself” by Jame Atticus Bowden, Mar. 17.

The State Central Committee (SCC), Republican Party of Virginia, will vote on April 4th, 2009 to lynch its chairman, Jeff Frederick or not. The letter of accusations is kept secret to only the members of the SCC. I’m an elected member of the SCC for the 1st CD - since 2000. But, I’m not allowed to share with the elected city and county chairman or the rank and file Republicans, what the accusations are, so much for being open and above board. When Republicans across the Commonwealth can see the charges, they will see that a cabal on the committee created this crisis.


“Frederick’s Letter To Grassroots And Unit Chairmen” by Jason Kenny, Mar. 17.

Notice of Intent to Remove Jeff Frederick as
State Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia
Initial Response to Charges - Summary


The Call to remove Chairman Frederick consists of ten charges. Charges 1, 2, and 3 concern the Chairman’s management of RPV finances. Of those three charges, Charge 1 is the most specific, while Charges 2 and 3 are widely ambiguous, lacking specific references detailing the allegations. The remaining seven charges in the Call concern alleged infractions of the Party Plan or specific interpretations of the Party Plan.

Charge 1:

Failure to transmit, in a timely manner, online contributions made to the Republican Party of Virginia and processed by his own company. Withholding 7% of online contributions made to the RPV for a period of weeks during the summer of 2008 after repeatedly assuring the Executive Committee that he was not using his company as a vendor for RPV.

Response to Charge 1:

While waiting for a newly contracted vendor to complete work on a new RPV website and for a new online donation vendor to complete its setup requirements, the Chairman established a “place holding” website through his own firm, GXS Strategies, Inc., also using its online donation company and subsidiary, ChargedContributions.com, for a period of 91 days. In return for a 7% discount fee, it was expected that ChargedContributions.com would cover all incidental expenses related to any transactions, including payments to merchant banks and credit cards.

Key facts:

· This “place holder” approach was immediately successful. Under the previous chairman, the Party raised only $2,000 online for the first five months of 2008 combined. After the Chairman and RPV staff set up an efficient, yet temporary system, the Party raised over $21,000 online in just three months at no cost to the Party. The funds collected by the RPV website were deposited into a non-interest bearing escrow account for distribution to the Party. Distributions were made on 8 July and 1 October.

· The “place holder” page automatically reported contributions to the RPV employees’ responsible for fundraising supervision, and, providing redundant transparency, the entire account was accessible to RPV employees.

· Of the $21,135.00 in contributions collected for RPV by ChargedContributions.com, the company retained 7% of the total, or $1,479.45, to cover incidental expenses and required remittances to merchant banks, credit card companies, and an online processing service. After fulfilling obligations to merchant banks and credit card companies, ChargedContributions.com retained a maximum total of $581.62 to cover other incidental expenses associated with the credit card collection process.

· In order to fully comply with Virginia campaign finance disclosure law regarding the work it did on behalf of RPV in constructing the “place holder” website and donation page, GXS Strategies, Inc., of which ChargedContributions.com is a subsidiary, reported an in-kind contribution to RPV in the amount of $17,717.61 on 8 September.

· Far from withholding money from RPV to benefit himself, Chairman Frederick’s company provided free services to the Party in an amount that was 30 times greater than the total of the alleged monetary compensation received by his company.

· All records, documentation, and filings verifying this information and detailing these transactions can be accessed via the Virginia Public Access Project, The State Board of Elections, the Federal Elections Committee, and internal RPV documents.

To summarize Charge 1, the Chairman’s company donated $17,717.61 in-kind to the RPV. During the period this company was used, RPV netted $19,655.58 from its online donations. The Chairman’s company provided interim services for 91 days, and the Executive Committee and RPV staff had a full accounting of the fundraising.

Charge 2:

Repeated failure to fully comply with a July 22, 2008 directive unanimously adopted by the RPV Executive Committee to disclose existing and pending contracts with vendors.

Response to Charge 2:

A search of existing contracts reveals that the Executive Director of the RPV provided every known contract to members of the Executive Committee, and that a good-faith effort was made to inform members of future contracts. The Executive Committee itself acknowledged in September 2008 that they were in possession of those records, and no member has indicated to RPV, in writing or otherwise, of the existence of any contract or agreement by which we have not fully complied with this directive, let alone repeatedly so.

Charge 3:

Unauthorized expenditures of RPV funds for unbudgeted activities without either State Central Committee or Executive Committee consent.

Response to Charge 3:

While there is no specific allegation in this charge, it has been suggested by more than one Executive Committee member that the Chairman’s procurement of office space in Northern Virginia was a breach of his authority.

The Chairman rented space at a rate of $600 per month for an office in Prince William County to serve as a Northern Virginia satellite office for RPV and for his legislative constituent service office. It was his intention to use the office space for himself for donor meetings and for other business to be conducted by RPV’s Northern Virginia Field Director and its Finance Director. For the period beginning 15 October 2008 and ending 15 June 2009, Friends of Jeff Frederick paid $2,400 for its portion of the office and RPV paid $2,400.00 for its portion. All payments were made directly to the landlord.

The Party Plan grants the Chairman authority to operate the State Headquarters within the approved budgets for personnel, but makes no other restrictions on the Chairman’s ability to authorize expenditures.

Charge 4:

Failure to provide members of the State Central Committee with a reasonable time to review and consider the proposed 2009 budget prior to proposed adoption by the State Central Committee. Failure to provide one or more members of the State Central Committee with any opportunity to see the proposed budget prior to the meeting.

Charge 5:

Disregard for the minimal rights of members of the State Central Committee to participate in discussion and debate at the December 2008 meeting by refusing to recognize numerous members attempting to speak and failing to ascertain the required 2/3 vote necessary to end debate. Lack of transparency in the budget process by giving members less than 36 hours to consider the budget rather than the usual three weeks.

Charge 6:

Corruption of process by failing to conduct a proper vote on 2009 budget by (1) beginning, but not completing, either a hand count or roll call vote, both properly called for; and (2) unilaterally declaring the vote result without even a partial count of those in favor and no count whatsoever of those opposed.

Response to Charges 4, 5, and 6:

These charges all refer to the approval of the 2009 RPV Budget at the 5 December meeting of the State Central Committee. They state that Chairman Frederick demonstrated a less than firm grasp on the proceedings at various SCC meetings by failing to provide adequate time for budget review, or by failing to recognize various members during debate. More accurately, though, they reflect the disappointment of some State Central members in the outcome of this meeting.

The Executive Committee recommended against approval of the budget by the State Central Committee. But after a prolonged and contentious debate, the State Central Committee voted to approve the budget, which is now in force.

Robert’s Rules of Order and the Party Plan provide every member the opportunity to object and to challenge the Chair on rulings and by raising points of order. Further, Robert’s is clear that it is the responsibility of each member to guard the process by interaction and objection. In this case, no objections were made to the rulings, votes, and procedures described in these charges at the time of the meeting.

Charge 7:

Failure to “promptly convene” the Appeals Committee upon timely receipt of an appeal of a ruling by the General Counsel.

Response to Charge 7:

The “Appeals Committee” is not recognized by the Party Plan, so it not subject to any specific timeline. Moreover, decisions of the Appeals Committee must be affirmed by State Central if they overturn the ruling of RPV General Counsel. The appeal in question was filed specifically to the Appeals Committee the day before the December 2008 meeting of the State Central Committee. Because of an amendment made to the RPV Budget at the December 2008 State Central Committee meeting, the Party’s then-General Counsel stepped down. A meeting of the Appeals Committee could not be scheduled until after a new General Counsel accepted the post.

After a new General Counsel accepted the post, several attempts were made to schedule this meeting to comply with the availability of all participants. Despite these difficulties, the Appeals Committee is scheduled to meet on 20 March 2008, two weeks prior to the first State Central Committee meeting since December.

Charge 8:

Circumventing the State Central Committee by appointing committee and otherwise assuming Duties clearly prescribed in Article III, Section D, as duties of the State Central Committee without consultation or authorization.

Response to Charge 8:

There is ample and long-standing precedent for the Chairman to establish ad hoc committees without SCC approval. In fact, members of the Executive Committee and the SCC both offered positive feedback on the establishment of these committees, and further, no member lodged any objections. Further one of the established committees was specifically requested by a District Chairman on the Executive Committee.

Charge 9:

Damage to the reputation and effectiveness of the Republican Party of Virginia through refusal to coordinate activities, including campaign messages, with Republican nominees for public office.

Response to Charge 9:

Evidence to the contrary on this charge is extensive and heavily documented. In fact, the Chairman and RPV staff undertook several sensitive assignments from both federal and state elected officials and nominees.

Since Chairman Frederick assumed his current position, RPV staff works cooperatively, frequently, and regularly with Republican nominees, candidates, and elected officials. There are numerous examples to support this fact.

[NOTE: Since much of the evidence contradicting this charge contains sensitive internal campaign documents, supporting documentation is being offered exclusively to members of the State Central Committee.]

Charge 10:

Failure to notify the Executive Committee of a possible breach of security and/or compromise of security of data residing on servers and failure to act promptly to investigate potential breach when requested to do so.

Response to Charge 10:

In November 2008, some members of the Executive Committee alleged that there had been a breach of RPV’s e-mail lists. Less than 24 hours after the breach was alleged, Chairman Frederick utilized experts in his firm to investigate the possibility of any breach. After an extensive system analysis, which included an examination of log files, no evidence of a breach was found and the Executive Committee was so informed.