This came in as a Comment from Rick Buxton. I thought it made a good starting point for our next conversations. Any thoughts? As a candidate for District 1 Supervisor, I’d like to address how I got to be a candidate, how I think I match up to Rick’s criteria, and why I am offering to serve Page County. But before I do that, how about some more comments and additional insight on this set of qualifications? We’ll keep this thread going for a while.
Alice
From Rick Buxton:
Alice, I think I have a good idea of where we are now, some idea of how we got here, and a much better view of the direction I would like to see the county go. I don’t think the current BOS is capable of going where I want to see the county go. I see improvement coming through the careful replacement of Board positions as they come up.
In order for the citizens to make good decisions, they need to be informed with facts. Some of the facts I would like to see presented in advance of any Board member selection is individual qualifications. These could be in separate categories such as educational background, prior civic service, and factors that reflect maturity as well as a variety of morals and ethics.
Beliefs and vision are important as well. I would like to know if someone sees the future of flying cars as the reason to support co-signing for airport improvements.
An important factor is one’s commitment to take whatever steps are necessary to do the job well. It is a crime to me that the Board members are often in the position of not having time, or are not willing to make time, to seek multiple opinions or suggestions. Instead, they must take the word of a few “enlightened” individuals. I want someone who is willing to put an issue on hold and spend evenings calling and asking for comments. Or setting up meetings and asking District members what they think before they decide.
I would like to know how one plans to handle this decision-making process before placing my vote. Giving the job it’s moneys’ worth is not good enough. I want someone who is not working for the money or prestige, but desires to do the job well as the most important factor. Don’t think of, “they don’t pay enough”. I want someone who is driven to do the job well regardless. We already have a record of how the current Board members handle this issue.
Another concern is how do you get this information out to the voters? Perhaps it is too early to put out information now, but some plan has to be established to do so. It must be presented in an honest way, without being spun by the media. I don’t have the experience to know how. I do know that once there are a couple of Board members who see things the right way, they can use their positions to help lever like- minded people when they come up for future elections. The first couple of seats will be the most difficult and the most important.
Okay, I have thrown my gallon of gas on the fire!
Rick
_________________________________________________________
Who else wants to throw something on the flame?
June 29, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I noticed Mr. Buxton mentioned the airport. I hope he was kidding about the flying cars. Let me tell you a story about my experience at the airport.
A few years back I knew in advance that I had to go over to the eastern shore for a few days. Since it is an all day trip by car, I decided I would try to find someone to fly me over in a small plane so I could save a couple days driving. Where should I go? Hmmmm….how about the airport? Sounded logical to me. First Mistake, using logic in Page County.
In my case the day I went over and returned was very, very flexable, so I went to the airport with high hopes. I parked and went inside the control building that is there. There were a couple of people there, the person behind the counter asked if they could help me. I told them what I waanted to do. Everyone in the place laughed and thought it was funny. I asked what was so funny about wanting to fly over to the eastern shore. “You can’t hire a plane here”, they said, “this is just for people who own planes”. They all had a good time and I left. On the trip home I came to the conclusion that the Luray Airport exists only for the wealthy who can afford a hundred grand or so for a plane and have plenty of money to waste on fuel. Every time the board of supervisors gives them more millions I just get more p o’d. Don’t believe me? Just stop by or call and tell them you want to hire a plane to take you some where and see what they say…….
July 1, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hi Red Stapler. My comment about flying cars was rather tongue in cheek. I knew Lees’ thoughts on flying cars and used it as an example of the importance of knowing a candidates visions for the county. To me its nuts. The economy is going to hell, manufacturing is leaving the country in droves, the auto industry has crashed, the county is about to go into debt out the wazoo, and someone running for the Chairman of the board believes in the importance of flying cars… I wonder how the average citizen in Page County thinks about their tax money going to this dream, I have a feeling I know. Lee made the statement that if elected he would reflect the views of the citizens of the county, I do not think this is a case in point. This is the second time Lee has gone on about the airport, referring to information found in the literature and journals of general aviation. To me, this reflects a personal interest in the general aviation, one which might supersede the wishes of the average citizen of Page County.
June 30, 2009 at 8:15 am
Follow the money.
Does PTS have a plane there? Hmmm?
Who has planes there?
July 1, 2009 at 6:17 am
Because it is an airport funded by tax dollars, it would be possible to submit a Freedom of Information Act request and ask for the names of the people who are leasing hangars. To submit a FOIA request, which anybody can do, you just have to send an email or letter to the county offices at 743-4142. Say that it is a FOIA request and ask for a specific document — say, the list of people who are leasing hangars, for example — and they will respond within five working days.
June 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm
having shuttle planes to come in was one of the reasons the Airport put up a big fight for a ‘buffer zone’ at the supposivly housing development behind Wal-mart and shuttle planes were the reason they extended the airport.
Here’s another note… I was on the fence about widening 340 from Front Royal to Luray. Taking out the dangerous curves and replacing the bridges is a very good idea. Today, going to Front Royal and coming home, I ended up behind a vehicle that was doing 30 – 35 mph….. any other time there would be a state trooper on the road, but not these two times. I don’t know if anyone knows it but you can get pulled over for going 10 mph under the speed limit (other than weather related speeds) and the fines are higher. The reason: impeeding traffic flow. Atleast have passing lanes like there are on Rt. 11.
July 6, 2009 at 5:15 am
Actually your wrong….take a look at Va. 46.2-818(1) – If that was the case then every blue haired driver in the state would be stopped. And you may want to look at Va 46.2-816 if you are tail gating them! If you are referring to a farm vehicle then see Va 46.2-908.2 or 908.3.
June 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Rick /and or/Red,
I take it that neither of you believe cars will ever fly. If you believe that then you may believe that the wrist radio of Dick Tracy would never come to be or that the microwave oven is majic. I truely hope that you both realize that you may just be wrong.
I googled flying cars 2009 and this is what I came up with as a reason to keep the airport funded by the county/town rather than remain “private” and close completely. By the way there are 16+ million more hits on google if youy care to look.
This is from an article/opinion from a guy named Matthew DeBord published in “the big money”
“What a difference getting airborne makes. Until this month, flying cars were the stuff of Blade Runner, postmillennial defeatist humor about how far we haven’t come since the Futurama era, and, of course, TV spots. “Where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars!” declaimed actor Avery Books in a 2000 ad for IBM that concluded we really don’t need them because we have the Internet. Ah, 2000. We were so innocent then.
Everything changed on March 5, when the Terrafugia Transition took to the skies. You can watch it taxi along a runway in Plattsburgh, N.Y., and achieve liftoff here. Yet this isn’t your father’s flying car. The Transition is a departure from the gee-whiz, futuristic air chariots of yore. In fact, it really isn’t a flying car. It’s a “roadable aircraft,” a plane that drives rather than a car that flies. And it comes complete with a viable business plan, which is unsurprising, given that it was developed by a 32-year-old MIT wunderkind engineer and some tech-savvy MBAs and has so far attracted several rounds of investment. Although the Transition still has to undergo plenty of testing to satisfy various safety requirements, Terrafugia is taking deposits.
By flipping the flying-car fantasy to place the emphasis on fly rather than car, Terrafugia isn’t aiming at customers who mostly drive but dream of flight. Rather, it’s looking to bring the option of driving to those who fly, thereby offering a less expensive yet more versatile type of general aviation. The Transition’s predicted price tag will be near $200,000, and although that’s steep by car standards, it’s a bargain in the new small-plane market. And while there are some other, older flying car designs out there—not to mention at least one competitor for Terrafugia’s folding-wing concept—Terrafugia has gotten there the firstest with the mostest. It helps that they take the potential business seriously and have the talent to give their flying car a plausible destiny. The more you think about it, the more the Transition seems practical rather than an exotic toy.”
Airfields or airports need to be controlled by the local government and not private owners so as to provide access and eggress for the flying taxpayer. If you do not protect the field and well as the airspace any one who owns a flying car or roadable aircraftcould take off anywhere that they had enough room and that is reason enough for me, but there is more….
“For starters, the Transition opens up an underused component of the national transportation grid: small regional airfields. Commercial flight on the big birds is focused on hub systems and excludes airports that lack the long runways jumbo jets need for takeoff and landing. Private jets can go in and out of smaller fields, but the price of entry is high, even if you only go the fractional-ownership route. Buying a small single-engine, prop-driven plane isn’t exactly cheap—more than a quarter of a million bucks new is typical, and that’s before you figure in all the added costs, like fuel and hangaring and the lessons you need to fly it. And once you get where you’re going, if you don’t have a car or other form of earthbound transport waiting, you’re walking, because most smaller airfields lack access to rental cars and taxis.”
Kind of what red experienced in luray….
“Regional airfields are like islands in the transportation ocean, and there are thousands of them. The Transition can zip in and out either by air or on the ground. Massive range is unnecessary because the Transition can always land and refuel, and its versatility means that trips can be made door-to-door. Apart from the wings, which can fold up in 30 seconds, nothing here is particularly esoteric. It runs on regular gas and uses the same engine to drive the prop and the wheels. The Transition wants to make island-hopping an option.
It’s easy to imagine early adopters in Silicon Valley lining up in droves to plunk down deposits on the Transition’s initial limited production—there’s really no conversational substitute for saying you have a flying car parked in the garage. I’d be shocked if both Dean Kamen and Elon Musk aren’t already on the list. But you can also imagine a more pragmatic customer for the Transition—and if the company is going to succeed beyond being the cool new toy, it needs to. A winemaker or vineyard manager with holdings spread out over the state of California would be ideal, as would anyone who needs to deal with a large geographical area where the roads are of reasonable quality. A “roadable aircraft” that can be driven to the airfield, flown a few hundred miles, then driven out to the vines—and gassed up at a Chevron station—would enable this person to cover his territory in a day or two, without having to arrange pickups and drop-offs along the way. Nor would bad weather be an issue; the Transition would simply land and drive through.”
So far the argument for local support, that I am making, is strong if you are a thinker of out of the box ideas. If not you just may believe in the boogie man or giant spiders or rodan/godzilla. Any way more of the reasons for local support of the airfield ……
“Obviously, a flying car also needs to satisfy regulatory masters: It must be safe enough to pass muster with both the NHTSA and the more persnickety FAA. Evidently, Terrafugia is working hard to make both happy, although it’s an uphill battle. Another nagging question is how a lightweight vehicle that can both drive and fly will handle even moderately poor weather conditions aloft—or something as simple as wind on the road when wings are folded. Additional testing will answer these questions and establish the Transition’s operational limits.
It wasn’t as if the Transition’s first flight struck like lightning. Terrafugia has been on the tech-geek radar for a while now. More than a year ago, Wade Roush provided a definitive account of the Transition’s genesis, and like other journalists on the flying-car beat—there are approximately three, me included, and I’m the newcomer of the lot—laid out the history of the idea. (Roush also points out the valuable distinction between the usual suspects of general aviation, your Cessenas and Pipers, and light-sport aircraft, which demand less training and a different type of license.) But now that the wheels have left the ground, it’s clear that no one has ever managed as much flying-car progress as Terrafugia. Going for flying over driving has established proof of concept.
Flying car designs have been around for decades, existing primarily in a DIY environment. The most often cited is the Molt Taylor Aerocar from the 1950s. A version of this straightforward design—no real rival to Terrafugia—has been developed and flown by a California company called Volante Aircraft. This is more a true flying car, given that the plane parts can be removed from the car and towed behind it. So if you’re not interested in the flying part, you can simply drive the car. But if you do want to combine driving and flying, the Volante provides more range and durability because the all-important wings and so on are less exposed to stress while the car is on the road. Unfortunately, the Volante is way less cool than the Transition and has been out-buzzed since the Transition took its maiden flight and was featured on numerous other broadcast outlets. (Who doesn’t love a flying-car story?)
Flying cars have been leaping off the drawing board for a century, but obviously none have ever taken off from a business perspective. Terrafugia may finally break this cycle: The company plans to build several hundred Transitions through 2013 and says it will begin delivering orders in 2011. Depending on how things go with GM and bailout or bankruptcy, this means the flying car may beat the Chevy Volt electric car to market. OK, to date, all the video of the flying cars I’ve seen shows them barely exceeding Wright brothers altitudes. But look at where that rickety first voyage got us in less than 100 years: Yes! The undeniably horrific experience of commercial air travel! The very agony that the 21st-century flying-car industry hopes to alleviate! It’s time to start over, and this is a definite start.
Besides, there’s a whiff of 1930s Utopian hopefulness that has followed the Transition’s first flight. In dark times, we could use a flying car to lift our spirits. But this is also a serious test of, thus far, an untested enterprise. As the Transition takes off again and again in 2009 and 2010, the eyes of the entire transportation world will be watching.”
Yes as chairman I support the airport with tax dollar matches for federal FAA grants to keep hope alive that we can persuade the owners of flying cars to utilize the investments we have made over the years in a safe regional/public owned airfield.
Lee Mcwhorter {Your candidate for Chairman of the board of supervisors} In “PAGE COUNTY VIRGINIA”
July 1, 2009 at 6:26 am
Weighing in on that issue . . . no, I don’t see flying cars in the future as our reason for funding the airport with tax dollars.
I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania. We had an airport. It was privately funded. It made a good living for the family who owned it. If you wanted to go over there and ask if you could charter a flight somewhere — you could. If you wanted to take your kids on an airplane ride — you could. If you wanted to throw a birthday party for a 10 year old in the hangar, and you were willing to pay the price asked — you could. The airport was smaller than the one in Luray, very much smaller.
So I don’t understand why we take tax money for it, but I’m in the process of researching the issue of why we do that. It would seem that an airport would be a profitable business, and if so, it should at least cover its own costs. I have not researched this issue, though, so if anybody has any information about it, please post it or email me at Prof.Richmond@gmail.com
July 1, 2009 at 1:31 pm
OK… this is getting ridiculous… In the agreement of the Clover Project, it is stated that the EDA is responsible for the payments. In the paper, Lowell Baughn said the County is resposible because they “pledge” in good faith. He also wrote: “The failure of Page County to honor its publicly stated good faith intentions to make support payments to the EDA in connection with the Clover Project should never be viewed lightly, by the county or any of its citizens. ” Then he goes on to say that if the county failed to meet this obligation, it is equivilant as not paying you home loan or any loan for that matter. If this is all true and Alice was given the wrong information via the VOIA, then I say we got shafted, again, if this deals falls through like the other past deals. This time it is done by our own. But as far as the rest of the article goes, the tax part is stated in the contract, but Baughn said there isn’t any. Someone is either lying or we are not getting the whole story. I do not remember ever the county asking the citizens for support in this venture because that would be big news for this newspaper and everyone would have known about it before all this had ever happended. What were the other 6 areas that was looked at? Is this going to add more strain to the Town of Stanley on the sewar and water? PTS wasn’t mentioned by Baughn.
July 1, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I haven’t read the article yet. Keith, what questions would you ask if you were submitting a FOIA request?
July 1, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Im not saying you made the wrong request. If you are thinking that, I am sorry if it came across that way. What I was saying the info you were given is clearly contradicted by the article in the paper…. I am pretty sure you will understand when you read the paper.
July 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Lowell also said that location was picked because of a fiber optic backbone running along 340. I don’t remember one going in along that route. When was it put in if it was?
July 1, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’m not aware of a fiberoptic backbone that has been installed. My understanding was that it is proposed to be installed in the future. Any location along 340 would meet that criteria.
Regarding being “adjacent to Stanley’s water and sewer”. Stanley’s water and sewer can’t support a business park. A project for $700K in a grant from the USDA is underway to build water and sewer infrastructure for the adjacent PTS property. This grant stipulates that if PTS does not build and jobs are not provided, the county taxpayers will owe the money back, if it has been spent on the project.
July 1, 2009 at 6:53 pm
There is a long haul run along 340. It is lashed with the Adelphia CATV runs. When Adelphia split its business unit, that fiber became used for long haul transport from Pennsylvania to POP locations.
There are no POP in Page County along this run. Front Royal and Harrisonburg are the closest POP’s.
It costs a great deal to put a POP in and thus requires large commitments. My last quote from this carrier was $8k per month for a 30mbs connections.
That is $267/mbs. This is more that 2x the going rate in Harrisonburg. 4-6x the going rate in DC metro area.
This Fiber runs Rileyville, Luray, Leaksville, then Alma then out of Shenandoah to 33.
This fiber does not run past the industrial park.
For the type of Work PTS does, this Fiber may be acceptable for a small part of what they would potentially at a Data Center.
I have spoken to several folks at Military and DoD focused trade shows about Data Centers. What I have been told is that for a company to run a Data center for Coop or other related Government services such as those the Department of Defense, NSA, CIA and Cyber Command , it would need multiple commercial carriers, a few Sat down links and SiprNet. The SiprNet run would be installed probably along a Rail Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
There is also the matter of Diverse Power. This data center would need diverse power feeds from separate grid sources as well as an alternative power source such as nuclear, natural gas or hydro. Oddly enough the location the county originally was looking at in Shenandoah has both diverse power route options as well as hydro electric power on site.
If you want to drive the fiber route, look on the poles along 340 primary, for the CATV lines, you will see another wire lashed to it that has an orange sleeve on it at each pole. That is the fiber. It loops on into west va and eventually makes its way back to PA again.
If anyone has any more questions about this please let me know.
July 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Keith, I have the paper now. Here’s the weasel-wording that is making it confusing:
1. First, who is responsible for the payments? The contract says the EDA is, and it says the taxpayers are not pledged. Lowell says the Board pledged the taxpayers, and it will be defaulting on a loan if the next Board fails to continue to pay tax money for it. Lowell says if the next Board fails to keep sending tax money, then the county will get a bad credit “reputation”. I would call that a matter of opinion. The new Board will need a lawyer to figure it out, and not the one that did it.
2. Because of that potential that the new Board will decide to back out of it, which they said they could do at the time of the public hearing for the “budget transfer to the EDA”, the EDA and the County are working diligently to pay Mrs. Hudson off, and get the USDA to give a loan commitment. I talked to the USDA about that. They said if they give a loan commitment, it will be more than a “moral” obligation. It will be a real, legal loan. However, the Board will have to approve it, which means there will be a public hearing.
3. Tax benefits. Lowell said there are none that were “initiated by the EDA”. He’s using the word “initiated by the EDA”, as if that were the important part. Yes, the money is tax free to Mrs. Hudson, but “she started it”, so Lowell thinks that doesn’t count. Here is why that is important. The purpose of making money tax free if it comes from a local government is so that such government can be more competitive in bidding against commercial bidders. It should have allowed a lower price.
4. No, the county never asked citizens for support. The key issue here is that, if the the county were actually pledging tax dollars for a commercial venture, it would be required to take something like this to a voter referendum. The slicky-tricky part was the “budget transfer to the EDA” so they didn’t have to ask the voters of Page County if they wanted to each send $9 a month for the rest of their lives to Rebecca Hudson. The reason the document states multiple times, in capital letters, that this does not commit the taxing authority of the county, is because if it DID commit the taxing authority, the voters would have to have been asked if they agreed. So, Lowell writes “did THE EDA comply with Virginia statute” and then he answers yes. What he fails to say is that THE COUNTY complied with Virginia Statute by circumventing the spirit of the law, which was that the voters should have been asked, by a referendum on the ballot, if they wanted to enter into a speculative commercial venture of this magnitude using tax money. AND THAT is the issue. Lowell, and his other friends who are currently reading this because they used the discussions on the Blog to figure out what questions to answer, DOES understand what the issue is. The wording of the questions and answers are designed to be obtuse in order to diffuse a situation where 58 out of 65 voters are willing to sign a petition saying, “Shut this down NOW”.
I hope everyone will take Lowell’s suggestion and send in email questions for him to answer. and PLEASE post the answers here on the Blog for us all to enjoy.
July 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Here is a copy of my FOIA request made June 20. I was informed today just before 5PM that the information is ready for me to pick up. PLEASE read the section on ‘costs’ and recognize the possible additional (enormous) expenses involved in turning this farm into an industrial park, which are CLEARLY NOT included in the purchase price of $7.5MM. But we will know more tomorrow.
___________________________________
FOIA REQUEST:
Please provide all written documentation which details ‘costs’ associated with turning the Hudson farm into an operating industrial
park as well as all documents that demonstrate the County’s and/or Economic Development Authority’s ability to repay all financial obligations incurred in conjunction with ‘Project Clover.’ ‘Costs’ are defined below. Documents in support of ‘ability to repay’ would include commitments on the part of third parties for grant funding,
lease or other financial arrangements with tenants, and all other sources of funds anticipated to ensure the County’s and/or Economic Development Authority’s financial obligations concerning Project Clover are met. Please also provide all documents detailing contingency funding sources as might be required through ’stress test’
analysis. An example of ’stress test’ is provided in ‘Purchase Agreement’ when the sale of the land is presumed to satisfy any
balance owed Ms. Hudson in the event of default. Please provide the documentation in support of the sale of the land being capable of satisfying any outstanding monies owed her – for example, recent real estate comps that support the ability to obtain $6.5MM from the sale of the land – as well as documentation as to next steps should sale of said land not satisfy any outstanding balance.
‘Costs’ as referenced above are defined by the Industrial Revenue and Bond Act under whose authority the EDA operates as follows: “Cost” means, as applied to authority facilities, the cost of construction;
the cost of acquisition of all lands, structures, rights-of-way, franchises, easements and other property rights and interests; the cost of demolishing, removing or relocating any buildings or
structures on lands acquired, including the cost of acquiring any lands to which such buildings or structures may be moved or relocated; the cost of all labor, materials, machinery and equipment; financing
charges and interest on all bonds prior to and during construction and, if deemed advisable by the authority, for a period not exceeding one year after completion of such construction; cost of engineering,
financial and legal services, plans, specifications, studies, surveys,
estimates of cost and of revenues, and other expenses necessary or incident to determining the feasibility or practicability of
constructing the authority facilities; administrative expenses, provisions for working capital, reserves for interest and for extensions, enlargements, additions and improvements; and such other expenses as may be necessary or incident to the construction of the authority facilities, the financing of such construction and the placing of the authority facilities in operation. Any obligation or expense incurred by the Commonwealth or any agency thereof, with the
approval of the authority, for studies, surveys, borings, preparation of plans and specifications or other work or materials in connection with the construction of the authority facilities may be regarded as a
part of the cost of the authority facilities and may be reimbursed to the Commonwealth or any agency thereof out of the proceeds of the bonds issued for such authority facilities as hereinafter authorized.
July 2, 2009 at 5:43 am
Here’s an interesting tool.
http://datapoint.apa.virginia.gov/index.cfm
If you go on that site, you can compare local government revenues and spending. Page, Scott, Wythe, Rockbridge, Prince Edward, and Buchanon counties all have about the same population. You can compare how much each county is spending on various categories. It only goes to 2007, but it’s a good starting point to start asking questions.
You can see things like how much of our revenue as a county is spent on “general county administration” compared to other counties of the same size. You can see where other counties of the same size get their revenue and what they spend it on.
July 2, 2009 at 10:12 am
Regarding the response to my FOIA request: there are four pages. One details the ‘costs’ of $11,825,400 with no mention of broadband or power. The other three pages are ‘Resolution of Support’ in regard to purchase of property for a future industrial/business park by the economic development authority of Page County.
Right now, I have no words.
July 2, 2009 at 10:24 am
I guess you thought there was back up and analysis behind this. As I see it, Here’s what they did. They bought the Atwood property for $66,000, so then every person they approached to buy land laughed at them and said, “sure, the price is $66,000 an acre.” Then they sat in a little bathtub together and drank the bath water and said, “Wow, we can get this one for less than $66,000 an acre, so it’s a steal.”
And that’s how the price was set. No more to it.
The only question for us as taxpayers is: is that legal? And the answer is Yes, if the EDA pays the bill from money that is not tax dollars. However, since there is no money that is not tax dollars . . . that’s the question we are trying to get to the bottom of.
July 2, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Susan,
Can you post your FOIA response as a pdf online?
July 3, 2009 at 8:13 am
Will try, Alex. I am surprised there have been no comments regarding the $11.8 million dollar pricetag…not $7.5MM. All backed by the Board’s Resolution of Support. And I am assured that I have ALL documents that demonstrate the County’s/and EDA’s ability to repay this obligation…which is this Resolution.
July 3, 2009 at 8:57 am
I was curious as to the detail of the 11.8m. What makes up that figure?
July 2, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I’m still having a hard time with this, if the entire board said it was good to go, the Econ. Office said it was good, and the EDA board said it was good, how can all those people be wrong?
That is a lot of people to convince that this was a good deal and I think there are some smart people out there (on the boards) but yet not one of them is saying this is a bad deal. They must know something we don’t. So what is that something?
July 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Charlie, in the beginning, I hoped they knew something we didn’t, too. If this were a business park purchased on an option at a responsible price, then the only problem with it would be that we have to pay for it with tax dollars. Now the problem is that we have to pay for it with tax dollars at an irresponsible, even an outrageous, price. The State of Virginia doesn’t think county government’s should be allowed to commit taxpayers to a debt of this magnitude for a commercial venture without asking the voters what they think in a referendum.
The problem is that the EDA has told everyone, including the Board, that these payments are going to be made with taxes from the new businesses that are coming in.
But the time has passed for that to happen, and there is no backup or documentation to suggest with any level of comfort, that it is in process. The lack of analysis and documentation is similar to the lack of snow clouds and cold weather. When there are no snow clouds, and the temperature is 95 degrees, it doesn’t matter how many highly intelligent weathermen tell you it’s going to snow.
It isn’t going to snow.
July 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I’m old enough to remember when Page County was going to solve all its financial problems. The New Landfill down off Rt 340 was going to have us swimming in dollars! New Schools, New Office Buildings, most likely there wouldn’t be anymore real estate tax, this new landfill would just Pump Out The Cash.
Much like the one down in King George County Va. does. Their Landfill has brought in over $64 million in the last ten years. They have new schools, new courthouse, money to burn, oh yeah, their Real Estate Tax rate is less than Page’s . Speaking of Bond Ratings, here’s a link if you want to see how the revenue from their landfill has helped their Bond Rating.
http://www.stpns.net/view_article.html?articleId=107521765253932212653
You probably wouldn’t believe it, but there were people in Page who fought against the New Landfill. They didn’t want to spend all those millions and millions. They though it was a bad idea. THANK GOD the powers that be didn’t listen, and went ahead and built it! Look at all the millions and millions it has brought in!
What’s that you say? We didn’t make millions? What do you mean? Landfills make ton’s of money, just look at King George County! 64 million in the last 10 years! In Sheandoah County a few years back, the guy who ran it stole hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and the county never even missed the money there was so much money coming in! Only sloppy bookeeping let him get caught!
You say we are still “in the hole” (no pun intended) for our landfill? Millions? How can that be?
Well, we can’t let this go on! I know, lets spend 7+ million on a cowfield, and everybody close their eyes and dream of a Big Industrial Park moving in the field, and BINGO, the money WILL START FLOWING THEN BOY! We’ll MAKE MILLIONS! NEW SCHOOLS ALL AROUND! NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS, why, I’ll bet you real estate taxes will just dissapear! After all, we only have 3000 other counties in the United States to compete with that are desperately looking for some business to move in so they won’t go broke, like the State of California has.
Everybody Ready? OK, just tap your heels together 3 times and everybody repeat,”There’s No Place Like Page, There’s No Place Like Page…”
July 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I just was about to put away the Page News, when I noticed something in Lowell Baughan’s “explanation” that I hadn’t seen before. At the very end, he was explaining why the EDA was not required to hold a public hearing. He said “Federal tax laws do not require the EDA to hold a public hearing in connection with the issuance of obligations for governmental projects (such as the Clover project)”
Governmental projects? An industrial park is a governmental project? And according to all the documents that were used to “transfer the budget to the EDA”, this was not to commit the taxing authority of the county.
So on the one hand, this was transferred to the EDA because county’s are not allowed to commit the taxpayers to a multi year debt for a commercial project without asking their permission. And on the other hand, the EDA didn’t need a public hearing because the project isn’t commercial, it’s “governmental”.
How stupid does he think we are?
July 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I wonder if Lowell didnt think that anyone had read the information of the project before he wrote the article? He gave a lot of misinformation against what we already know, so those that havent read the actual contract is going to believe him.
July 3, 2009 at 3:45 am
Maybe Lowell hasn’t read the contracts. Bathwater can be some potent stuff. I’ve submitted a “political ad” for the Page News next week in response to Lowell. Because I am now a candidate, if I want to write a Letter to the Editor, it is now a “paid political ad”.
Look for it next Wednesday in the Page News and Courier.
July 3, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I am pretty sure he hadn’t because what he responded with is the complete opposite to what we already know. I was reading and I was like “what? the contracts say differently”. I think there is more to what is being told. I remember years ago when the BoS was trying so hard to cut the school bugdet $200,000 without a sensible reason. I remember thinking then that something was wrong and eventually it came out that the county lost $200,000 in some illegal stock or bond options (they were illegal because the county wasnt allowed by the state to invest in what they did) I can’t remember what the stocks or bonds were. The BoS played it off as if not knowing what they had done was wrong, but at the sae time they were trying to cover themselves.
July 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm
btw… can we have a preview of your article?
July 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I don’t like to scoop the Page News and Courier. But before the paper comes out, I have a whole slew of stuff to post about this, in preparation for all the people who are going to read the article and come to the website. I’ll post when I get it all up.
July 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The People do not know best. That’s for Authorities and Supervisors.
Language is a powerful tool.
July 4, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Happy 4th! I was heartened to see this in this week’s Page News and Courier:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
July 5, 2009 at 8:19 pm
There is a Board meeting coming up this Tuesday with Mr. Baughn and Dr. Cardman AND Mark Belton presenting. My district representative intends to invite public comment after each presentation. Here is the agenda:
Agenda
Page County Board of Supervisors
Work Session
July 7, 2009 – 7:00 p.m.
Board of Supervisors Room
Call to Order
Presentation on the Transient Occupancy Tax Karen Riddle
Report from the Economic Development Authority Lowell Baughan
Airport Property Acquisition Powell Markowitz
Report from the Public Works Department Henry Mikus
Rezoning Request – Century Luray Kevin Henry
Resolution Supporting the Hub Zone Program Dr. Tom Cardman
School Board Budget Categorization Mark Belton
Special Entertainment Permit – Shenandoah Speedway Mark Belton
County Office Building Discussion Mark Belton
Henry Mikus
Vehicle Use Policy Committee Update Supervisors Cave/Sours
Tax on Recreational Vehicles Committee Update Supervisors Cave/Sours
Adjourn