Living in LoCo

Can't they just read this blog? I would much rather continue complaining here, than drive all of the way to Leesburg. I'm much funnier when it's anonymous.:)

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on November 13, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see...what issues should they address...hmmm...

1) xcops penchant for handcuffs and other restraining devices. Something HAS to be done.
2) The outrage prices for milk, gasoline, taxes, real estate, and live ammo. (throwing xcop a bone...)
3)Mass transit, mass hysteria and over-mastication.

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on November 13, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a simple message for the new board: Yes to Barnes & Noble! Yes to Wegman's! No to thousands and thousands of new homes! I believe this was Firetti's pitch during the campaign. Or somebody's. This board and this county need to do a better job of bringing in Fortune 500 companies and high-end retail. Without the residential. We need some de-linking here.

Posted by Craig_Colgan (anonymous) on November 13, 2007 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There were two ordinance amendments considered by the Board tonight.
One was an amendment to the nuisance ordinance to make clear that NOTHING in an AR-1 or AR-2 zoning district can be considered a nuisance.

This summer the health department issued a notice of violation against my neighbor who had piled a huge amount of debris on his perimeter, right behind my house. The health department found it was a nuisance, a health hazard, and harbored rodents. In the spirit of the laws apply to some and not to others, the notice of violation was somehow rescinded. My inquiries about the status of the Notice of Violation were met with silence, and unreturned telephone calls or emails.

Now the staff is proposing an amendment to the nuisance ordinance to make debris piles, like the one right behind me, legitimate... This is wrong. No one should be allowed to pile debris on his open border.

Brush piles are typically 6 feet by 8 feet, and for wildlife management, they have very specific criteria for construction and placement. They are not 100 feet by 25 feet and equally tall...

Foxes bred in the huge pile of debris behind me this year. Foxes carry rabies, and they killed a lot of my animals this summer. Should I be forced to kill them to keep my own animals safe?

If someone wants to promote wildlife, then do it somewhere not on the perimeter of their large property where it impacts a neighbor's home and animals...

Large piles of debris should not be allowed on the perimeters of any property adjacent to an existing residence.

Another issue that came up tonight was the Ag district application process. A lot of people have been put into Ag districts without their understanding or true consent, with Ag districts being set up for a limited term then automatically rolled over without the true consent of all landowners. These districts are supposed to be voluntary because they restrict the uses of your land. Many people have been ensnared in them against their will.
To remedy this, the planning commission recommended certain changes, including affirmative applications and fees to be in an ag district, with no automatic rollovers--so that there could be no accidental inclusion. Powers that be, however, like it the way it is--how they can rope in others and control the use of others' land for free, no application fee even. This has caused more than one lawsuit, with the county spending hundreds of thousands of dollars this year litigating to try to keep landowners in districts that they did not want to be in.
It is an expensive program to run, why not make it clear --since it is supposed to be a voluntary program -- who is applying and who is in it and who is not... the $100 application fee is nominal, and would offset partially the administration of the program... and save us a lot of litigation down the road...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am familiar with the issue of being ensnared in an Agricultural district without having volunteered for it, because the County applied an Ag district to me, that on its face, according to the only version publicly available, had expired. The County admits the district was never rolled over or extended, but they say the expiration date was a "typo." I have been litigating the issue for almost 18 months...and I know the county has spent on my case alone close to $200,000, and there are other cases out there where they have spent even more this year.

The Ag districts are supposed to be voluntary. Each one is different, but the one that the County applied to me allows subdivision on 20 percent of the land, with clustered lots. In my case, this provision was simply ignored. I tried to put lots in my children's names, but have been selectively singled out, with made up rules and no action to approve something that was clearly allowed.

Do any of you taxpayers out there care that the County spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on frivilous litigation, unfairly punishing some landowners? that they claim the written words of ordinances don't apply? that citizens cannot rely on the written words of ordinances? There strategy is to make it too difficult or expensive to challenge them, and most people do not. The County Attorney has a budget of over a million dollars a year, just to hire outside counsel, for cases like this...

Does anyone care that the rule of law is so blatantly and frivolously ignored and so much taxpayer money is allocated to litigating these issues in the west?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally did you see Barb there? We are getting worried about her.

Seriously, Sally, I thought all you property rights people said everybody should be able to do whatever they want with their property. Also, does anyone think it is odd that the prime litigator against the county is complaining about how much her litigation is costing the rest of us?

Glad, Sal is back. I was going through rant withdraw there for a while.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Craig: You mean bring in stores but not the people to patronize them? Do I have that right?

Posted by mail3047723 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are already people here to patronize these stores. Right now, Loudouners drive to Fairfax County to shop because all we have here are fast food restaurants, dry cleaners and the pathetic Dulles Town Center that has more sneaker and teen stores than anything else. Heck, Wegmans would even be a tourist attraction. People are driving from Richmond and Charlottesville to shop at the Wegmans in Dulles. Granted, they add more traffic to our roads but at least they aren't trying to send their kids to school here! Residential development, even with developer proffers, doesn't cover the increased expense of new residents. I agree with McGimsey, when commercial land is rezoned for residential then residential land somewhere else has to be rezoned to commercial.

Posted by jt12 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,

I think the laws should be enforced as written, and should not be selectively enforced. Having an application process with a fee makes it pretty hard to be in an ag district by mistake. And I don't think laws should be ignored, notices of violation secretly rescinded, and then the ordinances changed for one person.

As much as you would like to cast "property rights" as a dirty word, all it means is there are laws on the books which citizens should be allowed to rely on, and which allow certain uses, protections and rights.

Enforce the laws as they are written, don't make them up special for some folks or ignore them for others...

It is not right to unfairly ensnare someone in an Ag district that on its face already expired. It is not right to allow a large intentional accumulation of debris, when the health and safety ordinances prohibit this. I am sure you would be thrilled if your neighbor accumulated a pile of construction and other debris bigger than your house right behind your house, and it was filled with all kinds of wild animals, attacking your own animals.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And Eric,

I am not going away, as much as some of you would like! I am more than "Tired of the Good Ol' Boys" as someone else you know (recently re elected?) claims to be, and even more tired of the hypocrisy, double talk, double standards, insider clubs with special rules and favors, reprisal against private constituents...etc... and I am going to work hard to expose it...

If it means litigation, in addition to every thing else, then so be it. It is the right thing to do.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, the traffic is such a mess, that realistically, nothing can fix it. Every additional car on Route 7, just increases existing gridlock more and more. It would probably take hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the capacity of Route 7 to accomodate current and future traffic. One thing that comes to mind, an elevated highway over existing Route 7 from Leesburg to Fairfax County, with all needed interchanges.

Since the idiot (actually they are very smart in a very self serving way) politicians will keep making the traffic problem worst, than at least we should get the planning board to require sidewalks around all new construction. Currently, even commercial construction is approved without sidewalks.

By sidewalks,I mean real sidewalks. Lets stay away from the "jogging paths".With the demographics changing (and not for the better)"jogging paths" would just offer opportunities for more crime.

Posted by Weiser01 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cer10 and Xcop-

We need to remove the missing photo label from the milk carton, Sally is back.

The "Good Ole Boy" network has been voted out of office in case you missed it-Sal. I guess you backed the wrong horses and now your work is cut out for you. Now go on out to pasture......

Posted by stixnstones (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Milk carton??? It's on my bottle of Jack!

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey did you hear Mr. York won another raffle? Just after the election...he won two round trip tickets to anywhere in the world...value was something like $7,000 for each ticket...he is good at "winning" raffles isn't he?

As for winning or losing the election, I see a very difficult time for this next board, with more than a $100 million shortfall, dropping assessments, rising costs. The foreclosure rate is accelerating. We were once the fastest growning county, and now, we will have the greatest rate of foreclosures and bankrupticies.

The School Board budget is key.

As I said, prior to the election, the issue of residential density was a red herring. We are in a severe downturn where residential builders are auctioning off their inventories because they can't afford to hold onto what they have much less start new projects. And the downturn is going to get a lot worse in the next few years because of the lending practices that have been allowed, which are now crashing. Everyone is affected by the sub prime disaster--even people with money market accounts, supposedly safe and conservative investments, are being dragged down.

York and crew masterfully (with a lot of money from the PEC) blamed 5 members of the board for residential density and inadequate proffers and a situation that was created by prior boards (York especially is to blame.) They spun the PR so that this Board was made to look like they had ADDED density in the west, when in reality they down zoned the whole west...the PR was masterful in its misinformation and outright lies...and there was no coordinated PR to counter it...

So call them the "builder board" whatever--I see them as pragmatists, and people who would have carefully handled our money... and tried to get others to build our necessary infrastructure. iI is going to be a rough few years for this next board, and I wish the new board a lot of luck...

I want honest government, fair government, no more Cameron Chase deals, transparent government...open government. No boondoggles, and fair taxes. We all pay. Western Landowners don't even want to pay an application fee for a program that is very expensive that they want--the Ag district program. This kind of ego centric selfishness has to go and cannot be allowed. Small point but big issue.

York and Burton and Waters refused to hand over information from a FOIA request that I made weeks ago--we are litigating those issues of not giving information and redacting information in clearly public documents... I want to see our leaders totally accountable, and I don't want them communicating in secret, having meetings in secret...or allowing some people access to government and others not. I want Burton, York and Waters to hand over the information that I have requested.

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ten feet, Eric et al.

You told me that Snow would wipe me off his shoes when he was done using me. Snow, unlike Burton and crew, is loyal if nothing else! What you were really talking about it the way YOU do business. Use people then wipe them off your shoe...

I guess it is just occurring to Ms. Waters how the people who she thinks have helped her, have only used her until they can got the Board they wanted, and now, they will be as you so eloquently put it, wiping her off their shoes...

I am sure she was happy last night, to have her "friends" vote no to the building she wanted in her district....it is ok to add a few thousand residential units in Ashburn to get transportation improvements, but no where else?

Will see if she survives, but she is in a terrible spot now, with everyone. At least Mr. Delgaudio still has the respect of the party....

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If it means litigation, in addition to every thing else, then so be it. It is the right thing to do."

Just don't complain about the legal bills you ar generating for the tax payers in the process, hypocrit.

"The School Board budget is key." Well, DUH!!

"As I said, prior to the election, the issue of residential density was a red herring. We are in a severe downturn where residential builders are auctioning off their inventories because they can't afford to hold onto what they have much less start new projects."

And here is the great disconnect in your "mind". The school budget is the driver for certain. It is driven by residential development. If residential development is in the tank, then enrollment figures will drop and consequently the budgetary impact. I know it is a grasp for you but try following this logically instead of contradicting yourself ever second sentence.

Ahhhh...it IS good to have the entertainment channel back. I don't wish you to go away, Sally. You and Barb will hopefully be here loud and strong in the next election. That will make it a breeze for our side.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Having an application process with a fee makes it pretty hard to be in an ag district by mistake."

I just went through the reapplication process. Frankly, you would have to pretty much completely out of touch with reality to be in an ag district by mistake....oh....sorry....never mind.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

<sigh> Same ole' Sally.

Where is that off button??? New feature request for the BLog engineering team...I'd like the ability to filter my view by screename, please.

Posted by chris.brancato (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, they have changed the application process significantly in the last year/18 months because of all the problems...I am sure you are aware..just the issue of whether the fee is to be implemented, and if it applies to "roll-overs" etc...is what is still at issue,,,and apparently the testimony was that even a $100 fee would be too discouraging to folks to join to get the large tax break..

But we all know the PEC types should not have to pay taxes, or fees, or anything -- more money for donations to polical candidates.... or PACs with secret members!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've finally been able to pull my self off the floor (which I fell onto while laughing uncontrollably whilst reading more jibberish from you-know-who)and bring myself to the keyboard.
I know who singles you out, lady. And so do you. You look at her every morning.
You BOUGHT the property, you did not INHERIT it. The county is dead right, and all you're doing is burning my taxpayer money to get special treatment. Move along now.
Before you do...I am grateful for a number of things.
I'm GLAD that you reponded to Burton's e-mail and got Roberts on record that he supported looking into personal e-mails that belong to Supervisors. You let me walk right into Snow's three accounts with the county attorney's blessings.
I'm GLAD that you went to the Judge concerning Lori's and York's e-mail contributions, because we followed you thru that door, too. What's ruled for their divulgence is good for Snow's e-mails as well. I'd have thought that someone would have told you to shut your yap, because everytime we needed to get somewhere, you opened the door for us.
Lori has my support on anything she may ask me to do. And stopping these last four installments of the "build-out boys" was a no brainer.
Eugene Delgaudio is a fruitcake, and is out there as far as you are, so I kinda get the comradery thing.If he has the respect of the LCRC, I suppose we'll have to fix that next.
The gang's all well-rested and anxious to start rebuilding that broken down hut next.You know what we're capable of when we set our minds to it, don't you??

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'Eugene Delgaudio is a fruitcake,...' That is offensive to fruitcakes around the world.:)

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, Anyone with a brain can see that I was one of ten heirs. You have never seen the will, or the deed that says I am an heir, but you are such an expert on my life. All you do is repeat false information that you have no clue about. So what if I "purchased" the other heirs rights so that we did not own all of everything together? That does not mean I am not an heir. That is like saying I am no longer a daughter because I got married, and now I am a wife. I am both.

I want the emails that York, Burton and Waters have withheld. I could care less what you are doing, go for it. I support open, transparent, fair government, not secret cabals where only some people get to communicate with the Board.

Did the County charge you $600 to accumulate files, and then did you have to go in day after day, with excuse after excuse why you could not see the files? Did Steve Snow and his aides have the public files that you had requested sequestered in their offices? like York did to me? No, they just gave you the stuff, because I am sure they have nothing to hide...

Ms. Waters, York, and Burton, however, have plenty to hide, and that is why they are appealing the decision to turn over documents...

Are you behind that?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HonchO,

When is your court date re: Snow FOIA, or do you have one?

Let me know, I would be interested in coming.

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So what if I "purchased" the other heirs rights so that we did not own all of everything together?"

I seem to remember Howard's land being out on the open market. Typically that is not how inherited property is distributed now is it?

Here is the new bit I've heard. The horrible brush pile was there BEFORE Sally "inherited" the property. What a great neighbor Sal has become.

I have a scenario I would like to outline. Let's say one party (more than anything) wants to develop her "inherited" property so she can cash out of her investment. She is meeting some resistance for a variety of reasons - say ag district restrictions, the Town doesn't want to annex her, no water or sewer, etc. So she makes life a living Hades for her neighbor (with a really big property) hoping she can run him off (apparently she succeeds) and hoping that a big developer (say a Mr. John Andrews or equivalent - he does have a history of litigating towns in western Loudoun when he doesn't get his way) comes in and buys up the property. Together these two can attack Hamilton in court and intimidate them into annexing their properties (or at least giving up utilities) and she can move forward with development plans and cash out.

Now I must say that this is only my opinion and a theory and speculation on my part on what could potentially happen (hypothetically) and must not be construed as a factual characterization of any parties being discussed. Just thinking out loud here - it does make you think though doesn't it?

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,

My property was never on the open market, or listed with any realtor, like the ones that were sold to people who were not heirs..I was not the only "heir" to buy property, and the statute says "any heir" may automatically remove his property from any ag district.

The "brush" pile behind our house was placed there after we had been in our house for quite a while--10 months or so. It was described as a "spite pile" to me. You have no idea what you are talking about. And I ask you again, how would you like to have some neighbor pile debris, including construction debris, as close as possilbe to you house, a pile, say 100x20? with rats, mice and then fox breediing in it?

As I have said to you before, I sent an email to the town just a month or so ago that I have NO INTEREST in their annexation of my land. Your theory is bull, and you just disregard what I say, or the real truth. I really don't care if they put a water line on my land or not...they are the ones who want it -- and need it-- not me. I have drilled wells, and won't be allowed to use any water line. I tried to get a by right AR1 subdivision approved this summer, and THEY wanted the waterline -- which is not legal in AR-1. So the County and Town fight, and I am held up not even allowed to proceed by right...

Your speculation is libelous and false.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And another thing Eric, since you seem incapable of reading what I have written over and over, I have no intent to "cash out" with the few lots I have tried to create by right. In fact, I want to put all the lots into trust for my children and keep them for a very long time. If you are so interested in my story why don't you go read the court files, which are public record, instead of relying on "gossip" and innuendo, intent on smearing my good name.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Innuendo? Isn't that an Italian suppository?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Your speculation is libelous and false."

Sal, what in the world are you talking about. What does my speculation have to do with you? Read it, it was just a generic hypothetical situation I am describing.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll pause my normal sarcastic postings with this reality check.

Point of order, Ms. Mann...from my chair...you're the ONLY one smearing your good name with your rantings. I really feel for you, ma'am. I honestly and truly do.

I just don't have it in me to be THAT P.O.'ed all the time. If I were having the crap you say you're having...I would have sold my house and moved a LONG time ago. I seek to live my life peacefully, joyfully, amused and mildly annoyed. I really feel for you...

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, you keep repeating false facts, even after I tell you they are false. That is libelous.
Cer10death, if you had come in with an application to do something, the county told you everything was ok, you went all the way through the process, spent several hundred thousand dollars, trying to plan for your estate and your kids, lawfully--then had the county change their mind, telling you that you could not rely on the only ordinance the staff ever had or ever gave you, telling you that a whole paragraph that allows you to proceeed was a "scriveners error" and then yank all the approvals, you would be unhappy too. Get off your high horse. By the way, it is you and every other taxpayer who are paying for the county to litigate issues like this, and last year, not just on my case, but on several others, involving similar malicious prosecution by the county, making up laws, the county has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bullying people out of their rights.
You have no idea what it is like to live in western loudoun where the land barrons control everything, and where the laws do not apply to protect you. The staff is so afraid of some people, they just make stuff up to make them happy and stop whoever they do not like, and then in some cases, they fine people and try to criminally prosecute them for say putting on a blue roof, where permits were issued, but someone unknown then complains..and there is no basis in law to complain about a "bluie roof"--or maybe you did not pay attention to that case.

You live in suburbia, where everyone's property is more or less the same, and everyone is treated more or less the same. It is not that way in western loudoun where "who" you are determines how you get treated.

And if you're seeking to live a joyful, peaceful life is to constantly post juvenile comments belittling people with real problems, then I feel sorry for you. Get off of your computer and do something positive to change a life. I have never seen ONE post of yours that was not intended to be just an annoyance, so I don't need any life lectures from you. My posts are real, my issues are real, and I want real change. You have anything real to contribute, I may read your posts, but mostly I just ask that they be deleted as annoyances.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Might as well. I'm coming to all of yours.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh....I have a pretty reliable source.
And what the hell did you just threaten Eric with? Are you now with the "thought police".
I, and every other reader here saw the words
"Now I must say that this is only my opinion and a theory and speculation on my part" and understood them to mean exactly that. So I'm straight...you want to threaten suit against anyone who dares to have an opinion that you disagree with?? Inquiring minds need to know, cause we can have alot of fun with this.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In a thread entitled "Speak your mind" no less. Geeze. Will you get a grip?
Oh...Snow has actually refused to give up all the stuff in his personal acounts. So I just went thru the door you opened with the good Judge. Thanks again.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking your mind does not mean spewing false facts about my life, Dean. Repeating false things from so called "reliable sources" does not make them true if they are lies. Posting stuff like that on the internet is wrong.

Like I said, I support open, transparent, fair government, so I am waiting for the documents that Waters and York and Burton are withholding... I support your FOIA's but you are sooo angry about mine... Why is York sequestering land development files that I have requested --and which I had to pay the county to accumulate to the tune of $600 --Why does he get to look at them first? And what is he hiding in the documents he won't release? What is Burton or Waters so afraid of giving up??? Why did Ms. Waters redact paragraphs and sentences of public documents she provided me?

Do you have a court date? I would like to be there! I am asking the court to set the cases York and Burton have appealed for a trial date this Monday...will let you know the date I get so you can be the first to know how the judge rules, for your own FOIA's.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Eric, you keep repeating false facts, even after I tell you they are false."

Sal, I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not even mention your name in the scenario I outlined and it was clearly stated to be a hypothetical situation. If you feel you have some kind of association with the concept I outlined, it is your doing not mine.

"Speaking your mind does not mean spewing false facts about my life, Dean."

A. You were never referenced in my scenario as I stated above, and

B. I stated nothng as "fact" - quite the opposite.

Jesh!! I thought being a lawyer and all you could understand simple english.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 2:05 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 4:43 p.m.

Wow, now stephen is an expert on my "facts." Have you looked at the litigation? Why do you all just want to attack me instead of debating issues?

I am not "choosing" to believe anything. There is no "dispute" that a whole paragraph in an ordinance that allowed me to proceed was "deemed" by the county way after the fact to be a "scivenor's error," and a whole new paragraph was then inserted with a completely opposite effect. Personally, I think it is pretty outrageous that a citizen cannot rely on what the county says, or the ordinances that they show you, give you, and that they can jerk approvals away from you by saying the ordinance was wrong--when it was "wrong" for years! When it was the only publicly available version of the ordinance for years! You think that is fair? Let's debate the merits of that, instead of attacking me.

Do you think the County should be able to advertise an ordinance, put it on its website, have staff give it to the public (for years), attach it to staff report after staff report, and then decide for one person, that it was incorrect all those years, and that a completely different ordinance will now be enforced? after a citizen went all the way through the process, got permits to drill wells (at $10,000 each approximately) paid for engineering, lawyers, application fees, spent a lot of money?

If you assume what I say is true, what do you think about the merits of what I am saying?

I think it is important for citizens to be treated equally, that the laws not be selectively applied, that fairness be part of our staff effort? What do you think about these issues, or you just don't care? maybe because you don't see it, like we do in the west, it is just not your issue, but everyone in the county should care how its average citizens are being treated.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well first of all, Sally, who said anything I outlined in my hypothetical scenario was about YOU (except for YOU of course)? Second of all, how do I KNOW that anything that I outlined in my hypothetical scenario is true about you or not (even if I had said that you were involved which I had not)? Do I KNOW this because YOU said it? I believe that would be heresay and therefore inadmissible (speaking as a geologist, of course). Therefore, I KNOW nothing about whether my hypothetical scenario is potentially applicable to anyone in the real world or not.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

C'mon, Stephen (or is it cer10death....I lost track of who is who)...
Let Sally have her daily rants. I depend on it for the entertainment value. Once upon a time, I was kneedeep in elections. But, we won those, already. I have time to kill.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 18, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

None of you want to talk about any issues, like how fair is it to just "say" that the written words of an ag district ordinance don't apply, after they have been the only words available to the public for years...how fair is it to have "voluntary" ag districts, that any "heir" can withdraw from, or an ag district that has expired on its face, applied to one person who was an heir, who was told to go forward with subdivision plans, who drilled wells, etc...especially when ANYONE is supposed to be able to withdraw from ANY ag district for ANY good cause?

This is the same mumbo jumbo that finds that a huge pile of construction debris and other debris, brought from thousands of feet away with front end loaders, intentionally accumulated on the perimeter of a property (when the code prohibits this) which harbors rats and other nuisance animals, which the health department has found to be a nuisance--then the notice of violation is mysteriously and secretly "rescinded," no one will return a telephone call to answer why, or answer an email, and the code is now proposed to be changed so that you can never create a nuisance in either AR-1 or AR-2?

This is the same mumbo jumbo that says a carwash or convenience store, specifically noted in the zoning ordinance to be a special exception use in PD-IP, is somehow not a special exception use at Cameron Chase?

Stephen (Honcho already knows this) they do what they want, and it does not matter what the laws say, they just say black is white or white is black, and they punish people they don't like.

Ms. Waters went out of her way to stop me on my property, and I want to know why? You all say I am torturing my neighbor, and I would suggest, that the opposite is true-- I have been caused a lot of trouble, and expense, and have been harassed on all sides, and have felt like there was a conspiracy to force me to sell my property--because someone else had the political connections to make a lot of money off of it...with the water line coming, etc... they have made it so that I can do nothing with my property, and have allowed my neighbor to do things like accumulate huge piles of debris and other things to try to make my life miserable... I want to know what's up, why, and who is doing this to me...??

Ms. Waters, Mr. York and Mr. Burton have the answers, and that is why I want my FOIA's answered.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 10:47 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 11:31 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by stephen (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 12:01 p.m.

Stephen, Do you have anything that you want the board to consider?
I would like for the Board to look closely at the proposed changes to the nuisance ordinance so someone cannot intentionally create a nuisance in AR1 or AR2 to hurt a neighbor. No debris or manure should be accumulated on the perimeters of any property, but should be accumulated somewhere on the interior of the farm where it will not impact any neighbor.
Changes regarding the Ag district ordinances should be made to ensure people know they are joining an ag district both when they initially join and when it is renewed. And I think a fee should be required to apply/renew to be part of an agricultural district.
FOIA: I want government to be completely open and not conducted in secret with only the most influential of constituents or supporters...
County attorney's litigation: the board needs to look at the million plus that is spent every year on outside attorney's fees, and to look hard at the litigation the county takes. Some of the county's litigation is malicious, frivolous, not well taken, and not in the public interest, especially given the costs... the county has spent about $200,000 I believe, suing on my politically motivated ag district case. This litigation is outrageous given the fact that the only ordinance they ever gave me showed the ag district had expired, that they gave me permits to drill my wells, etc, that I was an "heir" who was entitled to withdraw by right, and that the ag districts are supposed to be voluntary where anyone can withdraw for any good cause. Settle the #@$ case and let me out of the district I did not join, and do not want to be in.

I don't think we should be suing Milari Madison, under a maintenance ordinance (which the board recently lost), to try to make her rebuild a house in Waterford--we could build two houses for the cost of the litigation and buy the lot 3 times..and I think we should take her new plans and review them, and move on...

I think we should settle the down zoning litigation, which is down to 23 litigants, and less than 190 new possible lots, and save our money for next years' budget disaster...move on from the western down zoning which has taken so much time and money over the last 8 years.
I think we should let the 14 people who were wrongfully included in the Goose Creek Historic District out of the district (tomorrow) because that is the right thing to do! There has been too much confusion, time spent, litigation, threats of criminal prosecution, etc... all of it wrong, and we should end it and do the right thing to let them out of the district.

Since I live in western loudoun, most of my issues are western loudoun issues.

What do you want this Board to do here in the last few weeks of the term, or the next Board. If there is anything that you would like me to explain further, just ask, I would be happy to...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Changes regarding the Ag district ordinances should be made to ensure people know they are joining an ag district both when they initially join and when it is renewed. And I think a fee should be required to apply/renew to be part of an agricultural district."

And I like the Ag Dristict ordinance just the way it is. It is absolutely impossible to go through the application and renewal process with out knowing you are joining an ag district (as I have stated before). I see no reason to add a burden of a fee to the process. Knowing how difficult it is to actually join an ag district and renew it, I can only conclude that your stated motive for wanting the fee is not true. The only conclusion that I can draw for the ACTUAL motive for such a fee would be to try to get people to drop out of (or not renew) ag districts. I know who does not like ag districts - developers. Seems that there may be more at foot with this ag district gripe than meets the eye.

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opionion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, The ag district program is a very expensive program, that warrants a fee. You pay a fee for any kind of application at the county, to compensate for the staff time in reviewing the application.

Why should ag district applicants be the only applicants for any kind of land application that pays no fee? Ag district applications go to three required public hearings, all with separate staff reports-- I just think it should have a fee. And I don't think anyone will say a $100 fee discourages what for most are a several thousand dollar annual tax break... Most fees are a lot higher--

Renewing the district by just sending out a first class letter to individual property owners is not a good system--the letter might get lost in the mail, not delivered, no proof of being sent, etc... a lot of landowners said they never got them, and that was their only notice that the district was being renewed. I think it should be an affirmative act to renew.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on guys pick up the pace, you'll never get to 200 at this rate.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

frivolous...now there's a word. Look it up in the dictionary and someone's picture is right there.
Dollar on dollar, the Manns and the Madisons have cost us more than the price of a new school. And they still aren't finished, because they haven't gotten their way yet.
Sue-happy, better-than-you-and-me, and special-enough-for-the-rules-to-not-apply-to.... that's their crowd.
Now, they'd rather try the case here, instead of wait for the court to laugh them out of the building. This is all my opinion. If you don't like it, scan on by and don't read it.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, did you sue Snow over your FOIA request?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Renewing the district by just sending out a first class letter to individual property owners is not a good system--the letter might get lost in the mail, not delivered, no proof of being sent, etc... a lot of landowners said they never got them, and that was their only notice that the district was being renewed. I think it should be an affirmative act to renew."

No Sal, that is not what has to happen. You have to affirmatively apply each cycle to renew. You have to submit a management plan (grassland or forest). If you do not reply and submit your material by the date certain, you are not in the ag distrist.

Furthermore, I can get a better tax deferral through the land use system. An ag district is a benefit for the county more than the owner. It should cost the applicant nothing.

Since you know the system so well, you already knew all this information. Which begs the question, why are you pushing to set up more road blocks for ag districts when one can not accidentially join an ag district? Who is supporting you in this endeavor?

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opionion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 19, 2007 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Will someone at the Washington Post or the LoCo blog writer (Tammi)/editors - PLEASE do the responsible thing and shut down Sally Mann's current user id MANN12 (I am guessing the Post disabled Ms. Mann's previous ID...sallymann)? Would it be possible at the very least to remove any/all the aggressive comments posted by MANN12?

Ms. Mann’s on-going rambling rants and unprovoked threats of 'lawsuits' towards participants ridiculous & intolerable.

Allowing Ms. Mann to consistently manipulate the Post's on-line forum is beyond disappointing and utterly egregious.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,

That is the new change, to allow the districts to lapse, and then to affirmatively renew. I support that.

Are you saying the Ag district does not give anyone a tax break? It may be that the land use tax break is "better" but not everyone qualifies for land use, and not everyone wants to or can farm, to get the tax break.

You have to submit documentation to get the land use break, and apply with a fee to get that...why not for the Ag district?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That is the new change, to allow the districts to lapse, and then to affirmatively renew."

I have been in the ag district for three cycles. Each time (including the first) I had to actively apply by a drop dead date or I was kicked out of the district.

"You have to submit documentation to get the land use break, and apply with a fee to get that...why not for the Ag district?"

And you still have to pay the Land Use fee even though you are in an ag district and complete the revalidation form. Why when the ag district provides an added benefit to the county over land use should the owner have to pay an ADDITIONAL fee to be part of the program.

You see if you scrutinize the program (something I am pretty certain you have done), it is very fair and what you are pushing would have to net effect of reducing enrollment in the program. Why would you want to reduce enrollment in such a program? Is these big swaths of open land really such a draw to the development community that they will do anything - even mislead people about the program - to get their grubby little paws on it?

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, they just changed the renewal rules--so that properties are not automatically rolled over.... I think that is a good change ...and what is the great benefit of the ag district over land use? the ag district lets people who are not farming their land get tax breaks...I don't see how the ag district is a better "deal" for the county than land use. My opinions have nothing to do with the "development community" only my experience with the ag districts, and their poor administration, typos and all. And, my opinion is based on budget and other fairness reasons, just that there should be a fee associated with the ag district program that benefits landowners...you seem to think there is only a benefit to the county, not so! People should pay for programs they want, for the staff time involved in reviewing applications, just like any other program...why should this program get a free ride?

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"People should pay for programs they want, for the staff time involved in reviewing applications, just like any other program...why should this program get a free ride?"

Are you not reading? It does not get a free ride. You do have to pay a fee as it is part of the land use program. Why should you have to pay TWO fees - as is your idea? The idea of the ag district is to build wide swaths of open space in the west of the county. That is why you have to be contiguous to an ag district before you join and that is the added benefit to the county - and it works, too. And you have never been able to join or reup in an ag district by accident.

Either you simply so not understand the program or you are being intentionally misleading. I find it strange that you have so many ties with the development community (as exhibited by this last election cycle) and you just happen to want another fee to be added to ag districts - a program the developers don't like.

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bet on intentionally misleading. There's a history here. Whatever she wants the truth to be, that's what it becomes.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 12:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, the Ag district program and Land Use programs are completely separate. You don't have to be in one to be in the other. Lots of people in the Ag districts would not qualify for the land use program because they are not farming their land, just using it for temporary "open space," and getting a tax break. The land use program requires active farming or forestry. It may be true that people join both programs, but they are two separate programs, it is not required to join both. So, as two programs, they should require two fees. As far as I can see, the Ag district is a guarantee against eminent domain (hence no water line is possible on my lot, or school) and enables you to go to the state and ease your property. For a lot of easements, the only real condition stated to merit the easement was the certification of soil, or other natural resource as demonstrated by the Ag district. The land use program does not do this. Fees should be required of both--they are very different, and both very expensive, programs to administer.

And Dean, I am getting real tired of your continued false assertions against me--the latest that I am "intentionally misleading" people. "Intentionally" misleading is lying. I am not misleading anyone, certainly not "intentionally" and you need to stop. You have nothing to say on any issue that lends to credibility on your part-- You don't like what I say, so you smear me personally. Since you have nothing to add, why don't you go somewhere else?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,

One more thing, in a multitude of archived webcasts before the Planning Commission PLENTY of people were re enrolled in the ag districts without their knowledge or consent before the new system was started where the ag districts were not automatically renewed, and a new application was required to renew. That is why they started the new system.

Until just recently (like in 2006) the County kept very poor records of the ag districts. A lot of changes have been made, and partially because of people like me, who were not happy to have the county tell you you could proceed with a project, then no, we "forgot" to check with economic development. Everyone who was not told up front that they were in an ag district, and who got stuck in this bind with the County letting them proceed with a subdivision-- everyone was allowed to proceed-- the Board allowed them to withdraw...
There were more than one family who did not know they were in Ag districts. They let everyone withdraw in this situation but me, that is... they originally let me withdraw, but then, something happened behind the scenes, and they said no, the ordinance had a "typo" and I was not an "heir" and the county could not have given me any advice, etc...

As much as you want to paint me as a "developer" I am just an ordinary citizen who has been trying for more than 2 years to subdivide less than ten acres to put lots in my kids names... So quite with the false assertions...you KNOW the truth. You want to discuss the issues fairly, let's do it, but stop with the false suggestions to discredit me.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erica,

How about HCA? Is Stevens Miller going to support it in Broadlands?
or out on Route 50? Saw HCA contributed to his campaign...Do you have an opinion about locating HCA in the county?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It may be true that people join both programs, but they are two separate programs, it is not required to join both."

If this were true, I would not have gotten a letter informign me that if I do not file a land use revalidation form and pay the $60 fee (+$30 late fee) by Dec. 5th I will be subject to roll back taxes. I have always had this land in an ag district.

Sorry - you are wrong, Sal. Just like you are wrong about pretty much every gripe you have. And you can not accidentally join an ag district.

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by edeaver (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Since you have nothing to add, why don't you go somewhere else?"
I thought I did add something. My opinion. You don't have to like it. And go somewhere else? Not in AMERICA. That's the wonderful thing about AMERICA. We can and will disagree.It's almost expected.
But as will happen, there will be a weaker argument that can't be made successfully, and sometimes individuals who offer them will resort to the last measure...the mention of a suit.
I like to picture you pulling two handfuls of your own hair out over OPINIONS on the internet. But that's just me. More "grounded" individuals got past getting upset over the "internet" a long time ago.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, you got a letter telling you that you had to file a land use revalidation. You don't have to rejoin the land use program. You can just do the ag district program and sign up for "open space." Then you don't have to farm. The land use revalidation has nothing to do with the Ag district. They are two completely separate programs. There are lots of people who are just in the Ag district who are NOT in land use.... or who are just in land use, and not in Ag districts...if you don't want to farm, don't sign up for land use, and ask to be open space or forest use (if you have 20 acres) in the Ag district. The tax break is not quite as good, but it is still a lot.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, don't you have anything useful to say? You are desperate to discredit me.. How about those Snow FOIA's ... are you suing on those? never answered that question... I thought you were right there behind me...

And, how about HCA, that your good bud Scott York wants so badly? Do you have an opinion about a new hospital in Loudoun, and where should it be? HCA gave Stevens Miller a big contribution, so I am wondering if you all know where he stands on this... What will Lori do since Scott has helped her out so much, will she vote for it to pay him back--or is she really going to do what she thinks is right?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric, you can be in land use and not in an ag district. There is no requirement to join the Ag district program in order to get the land use break. For people who farm, there is not really any benefit in joining the ag district program, except it may give a guarantee that if the County land use program is abolished, that you can still get the tax break for the duration of the ag district term. Also, if you are in the Ag district program, technically you do not have to pay to join the land use program, because you are entitled to land use if you meet the criteria by being in the Ag district. You should ask about this, I think it is still the rule--if you are in an Ag district, you don't have to pay to revalidate...they are intertwined programs, and somewhat redundant programs, but they are separate...and you don't have to belong to both..

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 21, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Discredit you?? You do fine all by yourself. Allow me to point it out for everyone else. According to www.vpap.org, Miller didn't get a HCA contribution, and if it's hiding somewhere as an individual contribution, it's pretty small. All the larger donors have been identified as family members and friends.
Conversely, Mr. Snow has recieved $24K from Blitz Media (how'd that work out?) $11K from Bill Dean at MCDean in FAIRFAX, $10K from Moore Cadillac (say, didn't he pull a favor for their sign, as well as recieve the benefits of an illegal raffle there)and last, but not least, $4K from OpenBand (when he was supposed to be representing his District FROM them.
BUT WAIT... even further down is Haseltine Shockey, who died sometime around the time that she donated!!!!
You have deliberately misrepresented Mr. Miller's record. I wonder if he'll haul YOU into court?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 22, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean (Honcho)--Snow lost the election..so why are you still bringing his VPAP record up? Don't see that it is relevant to anything any more...

What about HCA? How is that going to go down? know that they really want to be in Broadlands, and wondering what Mr. Miller has said/ will do about the location? What is your opinion Dean? Do you think we need another hospital, and where???

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 24, 2007 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You cracked on Miller with a non-fact. And you backed Snow with a $250 contribution.
That's EXACTLY why I point out who took what money.
On the hospital...I think we need the competition. Kinda like two gas stations on the highway. If one is charging $4.00 a gallon, and the other is charging $2.89, where would you buy?
If one station can't change oil with any real competency, which one gets your business.
And the fact that the Ryans would vote against the HCA (because Daddy Ryan is on INOVA's Board)tells me exactly what we need to do. The opposite of whatever lines his pockets. That's my position, and mine alone. I do not speak for anyone else but me.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 24, 2007 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So you are saying that you support the hospital in Broadlands? or somewhere else?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 25, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about the heliport...do you support that with the hospital in Broadlands? every modern facility has one to transport emergencies to Washington Hosp Center, or Ffx Hospital or Childrens'--do you support the heliport in Broadlands?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 25, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The answer is right there. You read past it.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 25, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, are you afraid to say where you think the hospital should be? I did not read "past" anything--you tried not to answer the question, just slamming Jack Ryan, who is out of the picture now. Where exactly do you think the hospital should be? Broadlands? and do you support the heliport?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 25, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's always suprising to me (we, not really, anymore) how you can gleen VOLUMES out of every other posting I've ever made, actually attributing things to me and actions that I never precipitated....yet when you are faced with the possibility that this will blow up in your face like the elections did, you attempt to feign ignorance.
I support the free business market that places competition squarely in front of Larry Beerman and John Ryan. This will make INOVA competitive, or they'll go bankrupt trying. Either way, the free ride they've had in Loudoun is over.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 26, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I am not sure what you are blustering about now. Blowing up in my face? I just asked a question about where you support the hospital...since you seem to have so much sway over Ms. Waters, and seem to be in so deep with Mr. York...

So you support the hospital in Broadlands, just getting it straight. Wonder if that means York and Waters do too. FOLKS there were not happy about a heliport... and that most wanted it in the Route 50 corridor... but I am sure that Scott York will do a deal to make it work (for him!) .... accuse Jack Ryan of what you will, but Stevens Miller will be a one term supervisor if he allows that to happen there... just my opinion... maybe York is growing tired, and figures this is his last term--putting the hospital there seems like a big mistake to me...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 26, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THAT's the Sally I'm used to. I state emphatically that "That's my position, and mine alone. I do not speak for anyone else but me" and you've bastardized that to "Wonder if that means York and Waters do too". Told you how you can gleen VOLUMES out of every posting , and you surely did not dissapoint.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sway over Ms. Waters? You know what...Ms Waters is one of the strongest and most intelligent women I know. I do not suggest or sway her in any way. York is his own man, too. Your rediculous accusations are insulting to a multitude of people, not the least...the membership of an entire committee that you do not know or understand and embarrassed yourself in front of tonite.
In the future, get a better feel for your audience before you launch a pity party in front of them. I know almost everyone in that room, have had positive interaction with most all of them, and I've already gotten alot of negative feedback from them on your performance. I've said it before, and you didn't listen. You're a novice, and you do not know the lay of the land here...

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Your opinion only. You are a hook line and sinker kind of guy, and I think you know what they have planned and you are setting up to defend it no matter what the merits. Ms. Waters did not support it before in that location, but she is going to support it now? It was not appropriate in that location before, but now it is? Because you guys want to try to hurt Jack Ryan? Talk about vendettas. You know as well as anyone, it is needed in the Route 50 corridor, and that in the middle of Broadlands is not a good place...too close to the existing hospital, and not close enough to a lot of people who need access. People are saying that Scott York has been offered a job by HCA, but only after the litigation is settled, and only if they can have the Broadlands site...do you know anything about this? is it true? FBI is going to have a field day with York...if that is the plan...fix Cameron Chase for a job, then fix the Hospital for a job...hope that is not true...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You would like to think I embarrassed myself. Why were you even at the committee meeting? You aren't a member--you are just there glaring at people you disagree with...

Plenty of people have supported me, asked me to come to the meeting, emailed me, talked to me at the meeting, and are very upset about the conduct of Jeff Wolinski and Ms. Waters...which kind of conduct needs to be addressed and stopped. Your whole effort was to destroy 5 of the sitting Republican supervisors and to make sure that Firetti, Higgins or Albright did not get elected.

My point was that Ms. Waters and Jeff Wolinski systematically and very publicly (full page ads) worked against all the other Republicans, and for York and other Democrats. FOIA emails show that, and Waters' apparent blogging on the internet anonymously are just wrong. As a committee we should not be giving money to candidates who use it to turn on the party. Our candidates and public officials are the face of the party and it is very difficult to win an election when they are putting down others who are running...this behavior has to stop. There is a lot of speculation that some committee members "helped" some of the Independents, but that is just speculation, and so far, no hard facts of any real help. But there are hard facts of what Ms. Waters and Mr, Wolinski did, and it is wrong. They need to stop throwing stones and work with people openly and honestly instead of continuing to undermine the party majority behind the scenes and anonymously on blogs. Dean, when you join the committee then you have a voice. Otherwise, you are on the outside, and you might as well be a Democrat, with all your work against the party.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First off, I've told you two times now. My opinion on Brtoadlands is my own. The rest of that pile of crap is your vivid imagination....again.
What I do find to be amusing is that you, after one meeting (And I was a member long before you even discovered the Committee)have placed yourself in the holier-than-thou position of attempting to "help" the republican cause so much, when in FACT, you offered a democrat your FOIA research to use against Ms. Waters, a sitting Republican and a committee-endorsed Republican for office. I saw an overwhelming amount of concern in the room when that information was delivered.
I'm seeing yet another facet of your hypocrisy.
Dale Polen Myers, who you were probably asked to attend by, IS the person who circulated petitions for Ryan and Simpson to run as Independents. There is no may or may not to it. She did it.
My work was not against the Party. My work was for the good of the Party, and specifically against candidates and incumbents who were simply Myers' bad choices, prancing before voters as Republicans. Nothing could be further from the true purpose of the Committee's fiscal conservative and social conservative agendas than these developer candidates.
We will now rebuild the Party as a big tent, right of center Party that can actually get the right republicans back in office.
If we fail, then these developer republicans will never see office in Loudoun again. Voters will never accept them again.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll correct you on another point. I do not have to be a member to correct anything.
A. Witness the election results and B.understand that LCRC membership is not necessary to participate in the Mass Meeting that is approaching.
Further, I am a member of the NATIONAL Republican Party, so I do not have to seek the permission of locals to participate in anything.Are you another one of those who misses or overlooks the proper heirarchy of the Party? The LCRC is a SUBORDINATE of the RPV, and as such is subject to the Party Plan as interpreted by the RPV...not the other way around.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like I get lucky #100! Any Sally Mann visited post can be assured of hitting triple digits. Sally Mann is wrong in too many instances to count. Thanks to Dean for filling me in on the latest rant du jour. I thought she had given up here after her favorites were demolished on election day.

Posted by jeffwolinski (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, you don't have to correct me on anything. You are not even part of the local committee that you seem to know everything about and are so critical of.. Either be a part of it, try to make some positive change, or just GO AWAY. And, you are the one with the vivid imagination, how you are "helping" the party by electing Scott York and democrats. Total unbelievable BS!
Jeff, what am I wrong about? Cameron Chase? now the Hospital in Broadlands? I suppose you support the hospital in Broadlands too? Living in Lovettsville I can see how important it would be for you and Dean to have a hospital there, so close to INOVA. Makes a lot of sense, especially the heliport that everyone who lives nearby wanted... and you don't have any vendettas against Jack Ryan, do you? Never saw such meanness against someone as I have seen you spew against Jack Ryan.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, you have a real condition, there. You can see things that I never typed, but you have trouble with things that I have typed.
Here...read slower.
I am a member of the NATIONAL Republican Party. I have sponsored REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA DINNERS. I will be attending the MASS MEETING in March. I was a FORMER member of the LCRC before you discovered that such an entity existed. You have attended one meeting, and suddenly they're YOUR pals.
I have attended NUMEROUS YEARS of meetings, and I know everyone in the auditorium last night, and have pretty good to absolutely stellar report with almost all of them. The exception it seems was the three folks you associated with. Maistro, DPM, and her husband.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jack Ryan is a documented sore loser and a liar to boot. You saw exactly how popular he was in both the LCRC Convention and the general election. I personally could care less about the Hospital issue, I don't live in the general vicinity of it, and you don't either. However, I do believe in competition, and welcome HCA to the county. Of course Larry Beerman and John Ryan won't be too happy about HCA moving in on INOVA's territory since they sit on the INOVA Board.

Posted by jeffwolinski (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch it Jeff. Soon enough, she'll twist it around and start revisiting how you supported HCA and have advised Lori to support it as well. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what she did to me. She asked me about how I felt, and it mushroomed for her from there to how I....me....was influencing York AND Lori to support it. Nothing has ever been that far from the truth. Remember...Everytime she points at Lovettsville, the other four fingers are indexing HAMILTON....so I don't get it. Why does it matter to her, either?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 27, 2007 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The location of the new hospital does not matter to me so much in my day to day life, other than it is important to space the hospitals far enough away from each other to provide access to as many as possible, and to avoid having them compete for the same geographic area for routine procedures so they will both stay viable. However, I am sure it matters to the folks who will live next to the Hospital in Broadlands. What matters to me is the total hypocrisy that you spew, and how you would support a hospital in a bad location generally, to try to "bankrupt" Jack Ryan-- you guys (and Ms. Waters?) need to get over Jack Ryan, and just concentrate on doing the fair and just thing, that is in the interests of the people. And what is the word on the job thing--is your good friend Scott York going to work any time soon? with a hospital? and Dean, I sat with the Albrights, and spoke to many at the meeting--you just want to keep on keepin on with the same old tired mantra of Dale Polen Myers, blaming her for everything...like she is some super woman who could single handedly run multiple campaigns and work full time...you are really just nuts. Dale and Bob ran a great campaign for Steve Snow, and worked hard, but it's really hard to "win" with all the 'friendly' fire.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am absolutely over Jack Ryan, and so is the general electorate. He is finished in politics for good, and this purely of his own doing. Dale and Bob ran a horrible campaign for a horrible candidate in Steve Snow, as clearly evidenced by his EIGHTEEN percentage point loss. He was demolished. You and others like you have forgotten what the whole point of politics is - to win elections. At that ultimate political goal, Snow failed miserably.

Posted by jeffwolinski (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Snow lost with the help from "insiders" and friendly fire, Jeff. He was a great candidate, is a tremendously principled person, was endorsed by the Loudoun Times Mirror, but the PR did not go his way. Does not help when you have the head of the Tenth District putting down our candidates the week before the election in the Washington Post.. and in my opinion, a lot of urban and "rural" myth was repeated so often that people took it for truth... You and Scott York ran a brilliant PR campaign, have to hand it to you, but that does not diminish Snow in my regard. I am not going to argue with you about Snow, because you will never see any point I make in that regard, and the election is over. However, in my opinion, Snow was way too forthright to be successful as a politician, and for me that says it all. Easy to be in a war and when you see the sophisticated coordinated PR going against you, just switch sides, and shoot at your team, hard to stand up for what you really believe is right.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me set you straight there, Sally. Snow lost because he's disrespectful to his constituents.(View NUMEROUS YouTube and County WEBcasts files to confirm this) He allowed outright lies and picture-doctoring to occur on a number of election materials (You can see that proof on Millers website as well as many others), he took the vote for granted, and he let Maistro and DPM run his campaign.(as a matter of jest, Miller was wondering if he had to declare Maistro's PR as an in-kind contribution)
ASK ANYONE WHO LIVES OUT THERE THAT VOTED AGAINST HIM. The answers you get will have absolutely none of our names attached to them. But I bet they'll indicate one of the above reasons.

The Chairman of the 10th District has every right to bust on sorry choices put forth by the LCRC. The committee is one of his many SUBORDINATES. They exist at his pleasure. Go back to Civics Class.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, you just repeat all the lies, that have become urban myths, so as I said before, that is over. Not going to repeat the election debates. But I do think it is a travesty that Jim Rich would talk down our candidates to the Washington Post in the few days before the election. Talk about "friendly fire." What a slap in the face to all of the folks who contributed and worked hard for those campaigns. Then to have our top leadership working against us so publicly. He needs to get a clue. I think he should resign if that is how he is going to act publicly. I am sure you are pleased as punch that he did that, so please skip any more lectures Dean, and understand that I disagree. It seems you have nothing new to add, just want to do the same old attack thing on Jack Ryan, Steve Snow, Dale Myers, etc., so why don't you save your posts for whatever it is that you would like to see done by the current board now, or the new board. I think that is what we are discussing...

How is it we have no map of all the current roads in the county for our transportation planners to present to the Planning Commission last night? They said it was never funded, so they could not really do the study that they were asked to do. Our own County does not have a map of the roads that are actually built, or our plan for transportation in hard copy? What a joke! Do you agree?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lies? I just pointed you to two sources where you can view these geniuses speak the words themselves...in person. You can view the EXACT advertisement in it's pristine debut. How is that a lie? It still exist as PROOF. Of course, people who cannot defend that type of behavior will completely overlook it and hope it goes away. Because they can't defend it.
I'll not discuss agendas with the likes of you, but rest assured...getting them in office was the first step, and there are many steps to push new agendas with the new Board. We'll start with a new ethics pledge, and attempt to get something in place to deal with obvious Conflicts-of Interest.
Since previous Supervisors had a problem identifying obvious problems in their conduct, I think it needs to be dealt with by the new IA.

The LCRC and all your new friends, who are my old friends, are SUBORDINATES of the 10th Congressional District(have you looked it up yet)and serve at the pleasure of Jim Rich. I'd suggest they clean up their act before he disbands the whole Committee and we start over right now.
Are you aware that the Manassas Park Committee became so currupt that Mr. Rich DID dissolve that Committee? He called Protic in that very day to tell Paul that he'd better win in November, or the 10th would consider dissolving the LCRC.
Didn't you people go to civics classes? It seems that noone in that Committee understands that if Rich made his mind up to dissolve them tomorrow, it'd be over. No ifs, ands or butts about it. Yet they continue to taunt him.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So what do you want in terms of a new ethics pledge? The old one was not comprehensive enough? What about taking jobs within a certain amount of time after the board acting on any application/or taking any action (like settling a lawsuit?)? will that be part of your recommendation? Will people like the county attorney have to sign anything about such conflicts? How about other key people, like Melinda Artman or Julie Pastor? Can they work on an application or make some decision for someone and then go to work for them the next week? Just wondering what your concerns are...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Melinda still works for the county...yes? Or did she leave, and I missed it?
The old one was not signed by five sitting Republicans. THAT spoke volumes to me.
Since the County attorney doesn't actually vote on anything, and only advises, I'd say he'd be fine. The legal interpretation is all we need from him, and that's pretty cut and dried. ESPECIALLY since there are now two attorney's actually sitting on the next dais.
I'm more worried about a repeat where a sitting Supervisor actually does not recuse himself and votes to reward a lawsuit with his treasurer. I'm worried about one of them taking $10K from Mr. Mitchell, and then voting for all of his proposals, as if everyone of those dollar bills actually stood up and voted in the former election. I'm worried about them changing the zoning on a particular peice of property that gives one of their supporters a $8MIL profit just like that. We now have funds for an Independent Council, and I'll work pretty close with him on any concerns.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 28, 2007 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, there are many "valuable" administrative and other decisions...that could lead to conflicts. Just assuming a hypothetical for the County Attorney, he could hire an outside lawfirm (who he pays out of his budget) and pay them very well, then get a job there, or he could administratively "hide" an approval to help some builder, and then go to work there.. The issue of jobs for "decisions" is a real one, and Supervisors/county employees should not be making decisions for people or helping them out in any way & then soon thereafter take jobs from them. I use the County Attorney, not because I think he has done anything, but just because it is a good example, and it could be tempting for the staff to do "whatever" just prior to making a decision to leave county employ... Same with the supervisors, like Cameron Chase-- nobody has any business taking a job with someone who has any kind of business that will come before the Board for any kind of approval, and no sitting supervisor should be writing to any county staff asking for approval of anything, or sitting in on any meetings with staff like Scott York did. Actually what he did probably violated the ethics pledge he signed, and should have been censured somehow.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And If the rumors are true that HCA wants to settle its lawsuit, and will be employing Scott York after the suit is settled, then this is also very wrong, and Scott York should not be thinking about employment with anyone that he is working deals with--even if he does not vote on the lawsuit settlement, and recuses himself--there is too much going on behind the scenes to allow him to take any job with anyone like HCA. That should not be allowed in the new ethics package...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...completely overlooked the Gang of Five personl favors, huh? Like Ric asked on his blog, and I'm asking now...Prove York did anything (beyond a doubt and back it with VERIFIED facts, not opinion)or drop it like a hot potato.I KNOW the rest of the county is tired of hearing the crap.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are the one who cannot prove anything. All you do is bluster with false accusations and innuendo. I have plenty of emails where York asked county employees to do things, and where he met with county employees inappropriately--THERE'S A LOT OF PROOF. I gave it all to the Board, and York clearly violated the ethics pledge with the out of turn meeting with John Merithew (county planner) to rezone Cameron Chase last December...

but for the new ethics package, I had a simple question for you...what about jobs? decisions for jobs...will that be part of what you will propose? can York settle the HCA lawsuit and then go to work for them? or the County attorney or a county planner? will that be part of your package?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I get it. You don't really know the difference between your opinion and what constitutes a fact-supported truth, do you?
Listen, I'm off for a couple of days. Will I see you at the REPUBLICAN Advance?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would say that emails asking county staff to do certain acts, and documents factually detailing the meeting York had with staff are certainly FACTS that you and he would like to ignore. Don't want to discuss ethics as it relates to Scott York taking a jobs? Oh I am so impressed you are going to the ADVANCE. Keep pretending poser, Mr. Friendly Fire.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 30, 2007 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sal writes:

"And If the rumors are true..."

then writes:

"All you do is bluster with false accusations and innuendo..."

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Sal threatens lawsuits because I posted information I have heard about her abuse of the legal system and harrassment of neighbors yet has no problem posting rumors about York and HCA.

Prediction: first Sal will threaten litigation then she will spew more innuendo and charge wrongdoing based on her deductive reasoning reached through her magic FOIA email stack. Documents none of us have seen but we KNOW exist because she SAYS they do and has informed us of what they say. Good thing we have Sal on the case. Suggestion: Set up a website and post the supposedly damning emails or stop talking about them - your information is not reliable nor verifiable otherwise.

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on November 30, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,
The emails that show York asked Staff to do all kinds of things (zoning determinations, bond reductions, site plan issues, etc.) and the documents detailing the meeting with staff about rezoning his employers property are really not in dispute. They are public record, submitted to the Board at its hearings. You don't seriously doubt that they exist, do you? Silly. Just more of the same, denial with anything having to do with York and attack anyone else who disagrees. What York did presented a clear conflict...
With respect to York we were discussing ethics, and should supervisors be allowed to take jobs, or should staff be able to take jobs, from people who are working on deals with the county, when valuable decisions are being made. Do you see a conflict, and if a "new" ethics package is being created? Do you think this should be an issue? My question to you, do you think that Scott York or any supervisor could take a job with a company that was litigating with the county under the scenario I outlined above? I think there should be some sort of prohibition--because really a salary is a lot better than a one time contribution, and the salary does not look right coming after any beneficial decision... What do you think?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on November 30, 2007 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally,
As a member of five generations of soldiers from my family, let me explain friendly fire to you. It is the act of firing on fellow troops that have been mistaken for enemy combatants. I made no such mistake. I have identified my targets and engaged them directly. There is no mistake in my identification. They are not republicans, but piggybackers to the Republican party, and if the democrats would embrace their developer agenda,and allow them to have more input with this next board if they remounced the republican party, they'd jump off the Republican train tomorrow.
You stated above that Mr. Miller had taken a large contribution from HCA. Would you clarify where that information comes from? I have investigated, and I have found that upon the signing of the ethics pledge until the current date, NO CONTRIBUTIONS to any incumbent or candidate have taken place at any level.
Further, there have been tall yarns from you where you have actually embellished exactly what I said, and I believe that to be your very nature. So, I tend to be pretty dismissive of your findings in any of your FOIA'd e-mails due to your habitual embellishment of actual occurances referenced in this blog. In other words, you have a burning desire to see certain things in those e-mails, and an unbiased party might not see those same things, bacause they do not share your agenda. (see your allegation above that Miller took money from the HCA - and that just ain't so.)

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on December 2, 2007 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"You don't seriously doubt that they exist, do you?"

I don't doubt that there are FOIA'ed emails. It is your characterization of these emails and their content that I doubt. Dean pretty much hit the nail on the head. As I said, until you publically POST these supposedly damning emails and they can be evaluated in context your characterization of the material is not reliable nor verifiable.

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on December 3, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am the only other person privy to what is in these redacted emails, and they have NOTHING to do with Sally Mann and her numerous lawsuits. I also asked Scott York about the HCA job rumor and he laughed out loud and said he knew nothing about the healthcare business, therefore he has neither asked for nor been offerred any kind of position with HCA. So much for the latest rumor.

Posted by jeffwolinski (anonymous) on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's the other side (and I mean the whole cast of characters backchannel who're feeding Ms. Mann her disinformation)still trying to play up as if they're somehow respectable, by deliberately feeding rumors about the integrity of the new Supervisors (before they've even taken their new jobs and oaths), all the while representing by those actions, the VERY reasons they and their kind were removed from the Board in the first place.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on December 3, 2007 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,

Why don't you look up the Board record? You don't want to KNOW the truth...obviously there is no way to post the stuff here, but the Post has it, and they could--Tammy why don't you ask Sandya? She has almost all of the emails from Scott York to staff members and copies documenting the inappropriate meetings, with Scott York in attendance.

I am glad to hear York won't be taking that job! Dean, I know full well what "friendly" fire is, and I realize you are not friendly, you just pretend to be Republican. It is called sarcasm.

How about an ethics package to stop staff or board members from taking jobs from companies or others who benefit from their decisions? you guys don't want to talk about any of that?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on December 3, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Why don't you look up the Board record?"

Because I am not the one making possibly unfounded allegations. The burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused or the defender of the accused. Obviously there are many ways to post material to the net. I would suggest .pdfing the documents and posting them to a free site - post the link when you get that done.

"...and I realize you are not friendly, you just pretend to be Republican..."

Dean,

Do I sense denigration of character in this false statement?

Disclaimer: This post is a statement of opinion and is in no way meant to impugn or denigrate anyone or group of persons. Furthermore, NOTHING is to be construed as a statement of FACT. Furthermore, I have no ability to confirm the validity of the material in this post nor do I have any specific confirmable knowledge as to whether the material is either true or false.

Posted by Eric101 (anonymous) on December 4, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eric,
What Sally Mann does not want to recognise or will never understand, is that I've been involved as a conservative Republican for 27 years...ever since I was old enough to vote in my fist election. Most people can quote sports records and averages...I could quote electoral districts and numbers by the time I was 15. One might say that it is one of my passions.

I was a member of numerous conservative groups, as well as conservative PACs,and a member of the LCRC going forward to the contentious 10th District Convention, as well as an executive committee member of two bipartisan political action committees.
If Ms. Mann wants to claim her superiority by joining the LCRC, let her wallow in the stench of her own disdain.
I've explained to her on a number of occasions that I am a card-carrying member of the NATIONAL Republican Party, and she is the newest member of the lowest SUBORDINATE level in that organization. I shall not waste time arguing about exactly who is the republican here or elsewhere.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to add that I caught another lie further up in this thread today. Sally said that I'd worked against Geary Higgins. Evidently SHE needed to go to Vapap and read a bit on who gave who what. I gave Geary's campaign a nice contribution, as I did for Lori's campaign and Ahlemann's campaign. Gee...that's three of the LCRC endorsed REPUBLICANS right there.