I am very interested in finding out who's money Ms. Paice is representing. I happen to live in her, "stated constituent base" of Ashburn residents and I resent the fact she is trying to include me in it.

Who the heck is writing her checks? In fact, in a recent mass email from Donna Fortier, PR Director for Inova, Ms. Fortier offered Ms. Paice's service to the distribution list. All that was required to join Ms. Paice's class action efforts was to provide her your name. That's it just your name, no money commitment, no time commitment, nothing, just a name. Who the heck is paying for all her time and appearances at Board meetings? Is Ms. Fortier paying for it? At this point, Ms. Paice's involvement is a serious credibility indictment on Inova. Someone needs to come forward and reveal Ms. Paice's patron. Ms. Fortier would you like to start? I am pleased to hear several Board members are refusing to meet with Ms. Paice until she is forthright about her effort.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One other observation. The last sentence of this article catches my eye. I am impressed that HCA wants to settle the lawsuit before going to trial. Whereas opponents want it to go to court. Are the opponents really Ms. Paice's veiled client(s)? The Board of Supervisors should reject the hidden agenda of Ms. Paice and embrace HCA's offer to amicable settle this outside of the court room. Let's get the legal stuff out of the way and get on with providing more healthcare in Loudoun County!

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, I read your link. Heck you are really digging aren't you. You've gone back three boards ago for this nugget. It is dominated by seven year old Board comments about the need for additional healthcare in Loudoun County. Can you tell me why it has been in the interest of Inova to keep that from happening? Why has Inova fought HCA's effort to solve the problem the BOS was talking about at the beginning of this decade? Corporate greed is the answer. Inova is very interested in protecting their healthcare monopoly. I give them one thing, they are consistent, and they have been fighting to keep other options out of Loudoun for a long time. Your link is very helpful in reminding folks of that effort. Not very admirable if you ask me.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This article, along with last week's illuminating front page article about Inova's tactics to preserve their monopoly, and then that fraudulent ad that Inova ran - has told the real story here. Inova will do anything to keep out competition.

Loudoun County shouldn't want to do business with a company that thinks this is how you win here. I thought we were letting the fresh air in, seeking quality commercial development. The good ol boys network is over. Nothing Inova has done here is fair or open or even true. There is much to be learned here. It is so disappointing.

And what about all that tax money that HCA will bring in? We've already lost millions by all this delay. Wouldn't it be nice to have $3-$4 million a year going into our coffers? (By the way, Inova doesn't pay Loudoun County any taxes.)

Let's be smart on this one. A settlement makes absolute sense.

Posted by PerfectTiming (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course it is about health care. It's also really about who decides where hospitals are built. And I hate to break it to you - but it's not up to you or me where any hospital goes.

The state health care people decide where hospitals will go - and they decided a couple years ago. The former Board of Supervisors got in the way of that happening. The state health people gave the Certificate of Public Need to the Broadlands application. It's time for everybody's sake -and healthcare - to move on that application. Let's deal with reality. For you to think any of my thoughts have to do with a vendetta or punishment of some sort is ludicrous.

Your conclusions about my comments are pretty whacky. Can you hear yourself?

Posted by PerfectTiming (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

•Who is Ms. Paice representing? Answer: Inova/LHI
•Who is paying for her legal services? Answer: Inova/LHI
Interesting that Donna has abused her power on the HOA board to acquire private emails and private resident info to target her INOVA funded fear mongering lit - No surprise that it was Donna who spear headed this so called “Concerned Citizens of Broadlands” – what a mockery as she has done nothing with the Neighborhood Watch program she chairs for her Broadlands community.
Ms. Paice is truly a world class opportunistic litigious pariah and will profit handsomely - considering that Inova is paying for her services. I bet her ’07 donation $1800 to Del. Herring might have greased her skids to represent this so-called group - Donna Fortier and Rhonda Wilson Paice are two peas in the Inova Pod.

Posted by qzpmal1145 (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika, as I believe Ms. Paice is a lifelong Loudouner with a 20+ year practice in Leesburg, I am assuming you have proof of all of your accusations?

As a major Democratic contributor, you of course know that Senator Herring is a Loudouner who has taken up the mantle of the man who raised him, former State Senator Waddell. You surely also know that Senator Herring, as a lifelong Leesburg resident and former Leesburg Supervisor has supported Inova on many occasions as the community hospital of the County.

Lee, if you really want to twist peoples' tails with whatever you're digging on, head over to the library and pull up any articles by David Bradley of the OLD Loudoun Easterner, from about 2001/02.

He ran quite a few pieces on Ms. Descutner's decision to remain on the healthcare task force (and participate in making recommendations) after accepting a position with HCA.

In fact, nearly any article by Bradley will detail the connections of the 99 BoS and the policy/cronyism--some of which has picked up right where it left off, it seems!

Well, the more things change, eh?

I know you had a hell of a problem with Snow's job with Dietze, so I guess you are on the same track here?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice, I see 'ol "one side of the story" Munsey's already here.
I didn't see the mention of INOVA having a person on the very same task force (and who also participated in making recommendations), but that defeats your point, doesn't it?
:)

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello honcho.

Wasn't it Loudoun Hospital, Inc. (LHI, as opposed to ILH, or INOVA Loudoun Hospital) that was represented, as it should have been, as the county community hospital? I repeat, articles from that time should provide plenty of info that could be beneficial to anyone who didn't live here yet.

I enjoyed your presentation on this issue at the BoS, honcho.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee,

The Belmont Ridge widening is critical to this area. Currently young Briar Woods H.S. drives travel the two lanes of Belmont Ridge Road from Broadlands to their school. That is why there is such a strong level of support for this wonderful proffer. You should be talking to the Broadland supporters who see this as a critical element to the hospital becoming part of the neighborhood. HCA can certain fix this critical need, but it is fantasy to think they can fix every transportation issue in Loudoun.

You also need to look at the population growth figures. You keep saying something about "double hospital", and what you fail to recognize is that this area is MORE than "double the people", since Loudoun Hospital was built. The COPN certified the need and took into account the location and the population growth. Your "double hospital" chant is appearing as an uninformed chant based on emotion not fact.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to answer Erica's pointed question. Is Resident Concern Fading? Two comments here, one, it was a fallacy from the beginning that there was strong resident concern? Most of the negative "concern" was bought by Inova and their agents. In reality there was very little local resident opposition. Second, I wish I had been at Monday's BOS hearing. I have heard from multiple sources that the Inova showing was a total fizzle. I think that is a very telling sign and reflects great insight to answer Erica's question.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Erica, I would watch the accusations you have said about me abusing my HOA powers by stealing emails, etc..because those accusations are slanderous. Those are the same mischaracterizations that led to Glenn being banned from the Broadlands forum...

I guess by the constant disgust you seem to have for me, I will have to decline your personal invitation to your own baby shower.

Posted by Dmfortier (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, here is another article I point your way. I would love to hear your opinion. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/m...

Since you have a propensity to ignore good news on HCA I'll summarize it for you. The link highlights HCAs recent selection as one of Fortune Magazines most admired companies. HCA is ranked as #4 in a nationwide survey of the most admired companies in the Healthcare: Medical Facilities sector. This ain't news from 2000-2001; it's recent. Check it out and then balance this against the Washington Post article I keep trying to get you to read.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Fortier, I am glad you pointed out how I was suspended from the Broadland's forum. My support of the Broadland's Hospital, on the forum, must have been getting to close to the truth. From what I hear you championed the effort to get me suspended. I find it very ironic that you used your position as a HOA Board member to censor a forum participant that has been critical of your employer, INOVA. If I was banned for posting about the obvious conflict of interest you have, and your propensity of exploiting your position on the HOA Board, then I am grateful you assisted me in making my point.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee-
It was the concern raised by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, concerned about access from the Rte 50 corridor to BRMC, that let to HCA proferring this road improvement. Hmmm...
Once again, Lee speaks without knowing the facts. Hmmm......
There goes another of Lee's wacky conspiracy theories. Hmmmm.......

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Fortier, do tread very carefully here. I have followed your efforts and your associates. I know their common association, I know who is really pulling the strings, and I know who's rallying the troops from behind the curtain. And if their name were dropped into this, it becomes a slam dunk for HCA, now, doesn't it?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, you do a lot of threatening. Is that really wise?

Any truth to the rumor that Mr. Miller put up a motion this evening during the budget work session to send the HCA application back through the process for another look, thereby negating next week's trial?

If, as one of the tc posse posted days ago, this was going to happen, is it then also true what the same poster said: that Mr. York would be taking a job with HCA?

What a howler that would be from the VLF majority that campaigned on honor, integrity, and getting rid of conflict-of-interest insider deals for campaign contributors!

Honcho, where ARE those FBI indictments?

Too much!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you are right, I did bring up your inappropriate behavior of abuse, mischaracterizations and personal attacks (that you led) to the board as I felt they were uncalled for. Forums are a place to civily share information and opinions in a good hearted manner which I ( and many other residents, and other board members)felt you stepped over the line.

My responsiblity as a board member is to ensure that all are treated fairly and that bad behaviors are addressed. If you see my attention to that matter as abusing my HOA authority then shame on you...I wonder what those that you say you represent in Ashburn feel about your behavior.

I have never hidden who I am employed by as I was against this hospital location 4 years prior to being hired by Inova.

Posted by Dmfortier (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The latest:

HCA Virginia Dismisses Lawsuit Against
Loudoun’s Prior Board of Supervisors
Will Re-Apply for Zoning Permit to Build
Broadlands Regional Medical Center

Reston, VA, Wednesday, March 5, 2008 – HCA Virginia today announced that it will dismiss its legal claims against Loudoun County’s prior Board of Supervisors for denying the company’s zoning request for Broadlands Regional Medical Center (BRMC). That court case had been scheduled for trial beginning Monday, March 10, in Loudoun County Circuit Court.

In addition, the company announced plans to re-submit its zoning request to build the 164-bed hospital in Ashburn.

“This action gives the Board an opportunity to evaluate our application without pre-conditions or the pressure of looming litigation,” said Margaret Lewis, President of HCA’s Reston-based Capital Division. “We look forward to a fair and impartial review of our application. Our objective remains unchanged: to bring the county a hospital it supports and needs, and to improve healthcare access for all.”

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Donna-
Don't exaggerate your time of "being against this location" before officially joining Loudoun Hospital.
I believe the hospital was announced in June 2002 and you disclosed your employment at Loudoun Hospital in January 2004. That's 1 yr, 7 months, not 4 years.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Common sense has finally arrived in Loudoun County! Thank you BOS for working out a very difficult situation. The set of cards you inherited was not an easy one, and I am encouraged by the grace in which you have maneuvered through this mine field. Now on to fair and balanced debate about the needs of Loudoun County as related to healthcare.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shevco, is that a cut-and-paste from the latest post at tc?

I'd love to see the time stamp on the press release--before or after Mr. ("I haven't made a decision on the hospital") Miller made his motion?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Donna thank you for being forthright. How you fail to see or admit that your influence as a Broadlands HOA Board Member and your paid position with INOVA is not a conflict I can't answer. It baffles me. For you to switch hats from your paid job as PR Director for Inova and then enter a Broadland's HOA Board meeting and initiate the suspension of someone who opposes your employer amazes me. If you are motivated to censor me, it sure makes the other more serious acquisitions more plausible.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not sure how the formating will come out on this post but here is what a friend of mine sent me minutes ago.

HCA Virginia Contact
Mark Foust
703.650.2903 (Office)
804.306.8508 (Cell)

HCA Virginia Dismisses Lawsuit Against
Loudoun’s Prior Board of Supervisors
Will Re-Apply for Zoning Permit to Build
Broadlands Regional Medical Center

Reston, VA, Wednesday, March 5, 2008 – HCA Virginia today announced that it will dismiss its legal claims against Loudoun County’s prior Board of Supervisors for denying the company’s zoning request for Broadlands Regional Medical Center (BRMC). That court case had been scheduled for trial beginning Monday, March 10, in Loudoun County Circuit Court.

In addition, the company announced plans to re-submit its zoning request to build the 164-bed hospital in Ashburn.

“This action gives the Board an opportunity to evaluate our application without pre-conditions or the pressure of looming litigation,” said Margaret Lewis, President of HCA’s Reston-based Capital Division. “We look forward to a fair and impartial review of our application. Our objective remains unchanged: to bring the county a hospital it supports and needs, and to improve healthcare access for all.”

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, do you really want to discuss conflict of interest?

By the Board's own campaign rhetoric, anyone who ran on the VLF ticket should recuse themselves from any vote on an HCA application.

Particularly Mr. York.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Other than Donna, the only other conflict of interest I've been intrigued by is Dale Myer's involvement in trying to kill the BRMC appeal. I have no specifics but there is a lot of smoke out there. I've heard that the Shockey's sold land to INOVA, who brokered that deal? That's my rhetorical question for the evening.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, the population justification for BRMC existed over five years ago. You're tossing apples and oranges. Stick to facts.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, of course a lot has happened in five years. You're missing the facts. Over five years ago the then current population justified the BRMC (the apple); your reference to a school board comment is about growth (the orange). Show me where there has been a decline in the population in Dulles North and I might consider your inference. Otherwise, it has no relevance.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will also reserve judgment on Mr. Montgomery until someone proves to me he is not a paid spokesman for INOVA. Lee, you need to start questions this stuff more before jumping to conclusions. I certainly plan to look into Mr. Montgomery's motives. As far as I know he might be a member of the Broadlands HOA. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, no tunnel vision here. It's no secret that Dulles South is in dire need of schools due to the growth. In fact, I support the School Board's position on their claim. However, an orange is still an orange. Now let's get back to the apple.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
I threatened to drop the one name in here that would melt your arguments like a torch.
That's not particularly dangerous to me, because I've done my research, can identify all the parties, their collective motivation, and more importantly the lead dog on the sled. But thanks for your concern. Someone else beat me to it. Damn.
Why don't you just drop the "York is going to work for HCA" crap. He's been very clear that that opportunity is not something that will ever happen.By repeating it, you waste ther reader's time and even insult most of them with worthless diatribe.
Banging the VLF (you know that they're the PEC????!!!!)over this is quite silly, also. I realize that it's the last stop that the Snow campaign leftovers could pull...but alas, it will fail, too. They are a small but determined lot, after all.<snicker>
The stars are all falling into place,planets are aligning, and lots of people should be preparing for the BRMC's arrival. It's long overdue. Finally, there will be a healthy and competitive approach to healthcare in Loudoun County. The two organizations will compliment each other by keeping each other on their best behavior to gain their shares of customers in Loudoun. It's the free market(a Republican hallmark, remember?)triumph, after all.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, if 10-feet-tall-and-bulletproof said York will take a job with HCA then I guess we should all believe it, right?

You, Glenn and the rest of the posse are fun to watch. So now its Dale Myers' fault? I see.

I know no Mr. Montgomery, so I'll wait to get melted thanks.

Yes, I know that most of the donors to VLF are also PEC (hard to find through VPAP's convoluted cross-referencing, not to mention the self-designation of occupation by donors), but I'm more interested in the person on tc who noted the amount of money the HCA PAC laundered through VLF.

Now, the 10-footer first implied that there was no HCA money, but when called out with references then claimed that he took issue with the use of the word "funneled".

I prefer to think of it as "laundered", because if it is squeaky clean after passing through the new version of VSS, then the Board can pretend they are just doing the right thing for "the people" and not executing the predetermined plan of their cronies, in complete contravention of their lofty campaign rhetoric.

(And where ARE those FBI indictments?--snort!--)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Calling out the FBI is not a particularly wise move. It took 4 years of investigation before they indicted certain Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor members in Fairfax County.

So,if I were you, I'd keep the FBI snorting to a minimum. Believe me, they don't like snorts.

Posted by PerfectTiming (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone, please enlighten us if you have any insight into the rumor of Dale Myer's involvement. I have absolutely none. As mentioned, I've heard it more than once, which qualifies it as an unsubstantiated rumor.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look, Barb. You have a reading problem, or what? (if you do just tell me and I'll cut some slack.) I reported that York has NO intention of working for HCA....not that he will take a job with them.

And yeah... I do mind the word funneled. It implied that the money was not in the public view. Vpap is that public view. So where is the "other" money that was funneled? Didn't think so.
Thank God Loudoun had the VLF, Loudoun Coalition, and numerous bastions of freedom in blogs and bulletins to get the message in front of the voters about a whole plethora of issues that affected them. Extraordinarily high percentages of outside contributions were pointed out. Nothing was fabricated. We used verified and confirmed information, as well as videos and text from the Supervisors themselves. Sorry you've overlooked all of that to needlessly slam good people who stepped up to right a wrong.
But hey, they never fabricated a car, though. Gotta give 'em props for that...

Finally, from the time that Robert Claude Cotten was investigated, right up to the time he was indicted,five years elapsed. Do keep cackling. It'll have excellent entertainment value later.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm already enjoying this too much. I remember being schooled by Barbara here , and being told that the elections were not going to go the way I'd anticipated. I think we all know the grain of salt I take her post with at this point.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Other than Donna, the only other conflict of interest I've been intrigued by is Dale Myer's involvement in trying to kill the BRMC appeal. I have no specifics but there is a lot of smoke out there. I've heard that the Shockey's sold land to INOVA, who brokered that deal? That's my rhetorical question for the evening.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:11 p.m."

Glenn, are you trolling for rumor confirmation, or just trolling?

Honcho, here are the posts from 10-foot:
"March 3, 2008 at 2:50 am
...
HCA is coming. All you have to do now is accept that.
- 10 feet tall and Bulletproof

March 3, 2008 at 3:08 am

And you know what I heard, Lee? Scott York is going to be working for HCA!!!!!!!!
They are going to give him a quick tutorial on applying band-aids to patients.
I suppose that you oppose actual oil companies and electric companies meeting with the President to address energy concerns and alternative power ideas, huh? You know, since they’re the “experts” on those types of matters, it sure does look fishy.
- 10 feet tall and Bulletproof

Funny, but didn't the posse and VLF oppose supervisors meeting with development companies on development?

Perhaps the best hypocrisy there recently was the vilification of Pat McSweeney's group switching to paper filings, when Siker's group never did it any other way. Seems when McSweeney does it, it isn't "transparent".

As to the FBI, that whole thing started with a FOIA, remember?

All county and all personal e-mails, which were handed over. No trials, no appeals, no court cases.

And no sources on the subsequent FBI non-stories except those "who could not be named because of the sensitivity of the investigation".

I'll snort all I please, I'm a private citizen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Lee-
Scott York has been on the record supporting BRMC for a long time. Why is it such a conspiracy for him to continue with this opinion?

You hear one comment from the School Board about growth, and are now presenting it as the gospel? That means you are obviously in firm support of funding 100% of the proposed school budget, right? After all, if the School Board says they need it, we must believe it, right?
I'm sure you don't see the hypocracy of your own words?

Please point out to me all these lots down on RTE 50. The BoS just turned down another rezoning application in Dulles South and don't forget the CPAM that was defeated.
The biggest growth that is near Dulles South will be the continued development around Brambleton and Loudoun Valley. This area is between Ashburn and Dulles South. My guess is the School Board considers this "Dulles South." For proximity to hospital location purposes, it is in between Rte 50 and BRMC.

In the Ashburn area, you have 6000 unbuilt units at Moorefield Station. 2000 or so at Loudoun Station. 1200 at One Loudoun. Around 1000 at the other retirement community on Loudoun County Parkway. About 2000 on the Belmont Ridge corridor.
Maybe someone here can point out all the unbuilt units on Rte 50 that can match this that I'm not aware of.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shevco, it looks like you believe the projected population density maps that HCA presented for their second try at the COPN (which somehow mysteriously neglected to mention that they didn't have their zoning yet--which I guess explains the anonymous hysteria at tc and here about the lawsuit. HCA was going to lose, because the state doesn't trump local land use, does it?).

Mark Looney, Megan Descutner, and Brian Dearing made a presentation to the South Riding HOA Strategic Planning Committee in 2004, in which they shared the materials used for that process. It included population maps that projected a total of 6000 people east of Gum Spring Rd. and south of Route 50 by 2010.

We laughed out loud, because in 2004 there were already more than 6000 houses in that small area of Dulles South, many more!

When asked how they could have shown such a thing, they fell back on "well this is the official information from county staff". We then asked how staff could say that (particularly when the tax rolls would prove it laughable), and were told "Staff told us that under the Comprehensive Plan, there would be no further growth in Dulles South."

Well, I hate to break it to them, but even with nothing but by-right McMansions full of contributor/appointees, there has been and will be more.

Maybe we're just all still counting the phantom growth of 50,000 houses that Steve Snow was definitely going to add to Route 50 if anyone voted for him, right? At least, that's what two robocalls paid for by Paul Siker told me on election day.

I'd still love to know who paid Siker to pay for them, but as he filed on paper, I'll have to wait until I have time to buzz down to Richmond.

Well, thank goodness the whole county listened to the Who and decided not to be fooled again by people who cut backroom deals for their campaign contributors!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition Shev, with Dulles Rail on life support, the phasing at Moorefield isn't going to be 6000 any time soon. With the downturn in building, high density paper houses on the Greenway won't materialize as quickly as they would have with subway.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regardless of debate about growth numbers, it is a moot point when talking about a hospital. Both INOVA and HCA have done their own separate economic models, and both entities have publicly stated, Rt 50's population does not currently support a hospital in that area. Both also have said, their growth studies project a population base at least 10 years away from supporting a vibrant hospital along Rt 50. The real, boots on the ground numbers, are in the east. The Commonwealth supports that, and has certified a hospital need within that area, hence the COPN awarded to HCA for beds. That is a fact, unaffected by politics. Additionally, both INOVA and HCA also agree, additional hospital care is overdue for Loudoun and is needed now. At least that was what INOVA was saying until recently, and they now are fighting HCA with the "need" argument. It will be very interesting to see where and how Mr. Montgomery is getting his motivation from. He's filed by paper so I can't track down his sourcing. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, your post on the stalking horse of Mr. Montgomery is misleading. The Health System Agency of Northern Virginia is not a PAC, so it doesn't "file on paper" in the same sense that a fly-by-night like lc2007 is (or was, since it has vanished from the web).

According to this excerpt from loudoun.gov/bos/docs, it is one of the regional organizations to which Loudoun County belongs or contributes.

Here is the excerpt from the County budget for fy2006 defining the organization which Mr. Montgomery represents:

"The Health System Agency of Northern Virginia plans for the orderly development and efficient operation of healthcare facilities and services in Loudoun County and the rest of Northern Virginia. The Agency also provides data, technical analyses and advice, and other information to individuals, hospitals, nursing homes, and health departments.The Agency carries out Health Services planning and regulation under the Virginia health planning program and the Virginia Medical Care facilities Certificate of public need law. Approximately 12% of those served by the Health System Agency are Loudoun citizens."

Sounds like its part of the State COPN procedure.

There goes another bulletproof rumor.

(Unless, of course, the good ole bad anonymous boys are suggesting that the County somehow secretly funds PACS to screw themselves out of their own backroom deals? Makes sense to me!)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Donna – Interesting that you have elevated this to personal threats, I stand behind my facts, such as:

- You used the HOA logo on your letter (signing it with you HOA title) to new residents voicing your opposition to brmc.
- Using your HOA position to have certain members of a forum banned, although I understand it was a board decision, however you were the catalyst.
- You presented "fake" photos of medical waste as a fear tactic (Kind of reminds me of Lamborghini-gate)
- You stating on several on-line forums and over exaggerating the length of how long you got involved with the anti-brmc campaign prior to your employment at Inova. How does 17 months equate to 48 months…which one is it?
- Using your employment at Inova as a platform to run for the HOA BoD position.
- Using neighborhood children to stand at the grocery stores to get signature for your petition.

I feel sorry for you that you have decided to decline our welcome home party and used such a public venue as this to voice your intentions, but our party will go on w/o you. It seems like you can’t separate personal from business and that’s just sad.

I have no personal disgust for you (at this time) conversely it appears that you are disgusted by the “recall factor” of residents like myself - You can’t erase your history on this issue.

My disgust is solely for your actions as proven by facts.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll await insight from a more reliable source, before making a judgment call.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You do that, Glenn. Look it up on the County website and get back to me.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing generates more comments (other that gay penguins) than this stupid hospital. Build the darn thing already, how can you have too many hospitals?

Posted by blarf (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Barb and Lee, it's me. When I signed up for this blog, it would only take my email address and insert it as my name. Therefore, I couldn't use "vacliff." Most people that know me know my email address name.
But Lee you still have not, will not, and won't answer my question about where the growth is. Why...because you don't know and are too lazy to look.
So, do your own research. Look up Moorefield Station. How many approved units?
Look up Loudoun Station. How many approved units?
Look up One Loudoun. How many approved units?
Look up the several properties west of Belmont Ridge between Truro Parish and Hay Rd (sorry, can't remember the names). How many approved units?
The retirement project on Loudoun County Parkway (I think it's Erickson's). How many approved units?
These are the things that come to the top of my head. I'm aware that Moorefield Station and Loudoun Station have a lot of their units based on Metro, but even without it there will be several thousand units there.
By my count, these projects are well over 11,000 units.

Lee-share with me all the approved units along RTE 50 waiting to be built. I am talking reality. You are truly the one living in a fantasy world.

Lee- you are quoting the school board numbers. Please share for us what communities they are looking at, and what timeline they are looking at. Is it a one year, five year, ten year projection? It makes a HUGE difference. Were they including Brambleton/Loudoun Valley Estates areas? For the hospital argument, they are in between the two locations.
Since you are using this "school board" fact as the entire basis of your argument, I'm sure you can provide us some specifics.

Does this now mean you fully support the school board's budget request? After all, if you are basing your whole development growth argument on the numbers according to the school board, then they must be right about the budget they need?
I've asked you this several times, but you refuse to answer. Why? Because it shows the complete and utter hypocrisy of your own comments.

I don't care who Scott York communicates with, and it is completely pointless to this argument. I'll bet he communicates with Inova. So what does that mean? He's the Chairman of the Board, he communicates with lots of people and businesses!!!

Stick to drawing your pretty pictures. It's the one thing you do well.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, you did not approve of the "projected" budget the school board put forth yet you will believe (ergo approve) of their "projected" housing growth.
Do you only believe what is convenient to you?

And you also want people to "prove me wrong", yet when you present your so-called facts (opinions) you provide no proof what-so-ever.

Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've done a little digging on Mr. Dean Montgomery. It's amazing what the internet can do these days. I would like to ask Mr. Montgomery a few questions. First, he has supported on multiple occasions INOVA requests for hospital beds in Loudoun County. This support coming in many forms over the past three years. I am curious how that support and expert opinion jives with his recent claims. Claims that Loudoun "doesn't need any beds". Second, Inova Fairfax is currently petitioning the Commonwealth for 100 more beds. Does Mr. Montgomery plan to continue his support for Inova beds as related to this request? If so, why are beds good for Fairfax, but not good for Loudoun. Third, a comment; Mr. Montgomery's opinion against HCA's efforts to get beds into Loudoun goes back to the public hearings for the COPN. Subsequent to the eventual COPN award in March 2004, Mr. Montgomery provided testimony to the State Health Commission that was very similar to what he is saying now in the recent article. Regardless of Mr. Montgomery's 2004 efforts, supporting the Inova monopoly, his views were rejected and the COPN was approved. His comments are now stale and out of date. Has he not adjusted his opinion even with the growth that has happened in Loudoun since 2004? Sounds to me like he is very comfortable in his role as another of many paid Inova spokesman (spokeswoman).

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of digging; Lee, would you like to borrow a bigger shovel. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Donna, regarding your post on March 5th at 5:05 PM:

Thanks for the RSVP for the world to see. We disagree with you temendously on the hospital issue and how you have mangaged things from your end. However, aside from this, both Erika and I believe you to be a decent person and that is why you got the invite. For the record, it is not a baby shower but a welcome home open house.....big difference. Very immature way to RSVP, but we will just mark you as a no and leave it at that.

Dwayne Cotti

Posted by qzpmal1145 (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lamborghini-gate... That's hilarious.Biggest incident in the county of turning a nonexistant item into an empty campaign showboat. Irony is Barbara now accuses US of being nefarious.I suppose only the photochopper knows for sure.
She posts my previous attempts at sarcasm as a fact, all the while overlooking the sorry bandaid joke. (reminds me of someone....oh, yeah...[redacted].
She sure did sound steamed that she has to drive all the way to Richmond because the Loudoun Coalition used the old-fashined and time-honored paper method. Where in the world do you think the idea was hatched!
McSweeny may be crazy as a ***house rat, but he's no dummy.

Middle of taxes, so I'm just dropping in for a sec.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, glad to see it's you. I thought so, but you never can tell with some of these cowboys that have as many aliases as Dillinger.

I'm thinking about the growth arguments in relation to Glenn's (and apparently honcho's thwarted desire to be the first one to say "look over there!") determination to somehow say Montgomery is pulling Donna's strings or is paid by Inova--if Montgomery is of the opinion there is currently adequate service, it helps neither hospital. It could support Glenn's seeming contention that there is something fishy in the COPN process, but in my opinion that would relate to HCA getting one on the second try on land for which they still do not have adequate zoning.

I'm also thinking of comments made by one of the tc visitors, either nova conservative or outside observer: the issue isn't whether Broadlands is close enough for Middleburg, but whether Lansdowne is.

The same kind of holds true for the growth projection wars: we have only one hospital in Loudoun. Should the next one (for years into the foreseeable future, and you know that is true given the size of the service area) be so close to the only existing one?

We won't agree, and I think with all the stupid lawsuits the county is fighting (most notably three supervisors refusal to respond adequately to a FOIA, unlike the as yet unindicted "gang of five") it was shameless pandering to campaign backers (something all the VLF crowd flogged mercilessly) to tend to a lawsuit the county would have won, for a major contributor.

Particularly if they all thought enough of Ms. Buckley to make her VC, partially on her experience as a former county attorney, but didn't think enough of her advice on this matter to follow it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, if you're sarcastic, today, or the other day at 3 a.m., fine by me.

You and Glenn have a lot of fun being part of the posse.

As 10-foot said over at tc: "It isn't about GETTING power, it's about KEEPING it."

Which is why you guys are blatant hypocrites, and arrogantly proud of it.

Yes, this is an insider deal for old cronies. Slice it, dice it, and threaten anyone who disagrees with you anyway you want.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Save the biggest shovel for Honcho. A Ten Foot Shovel! not sure if that is big enough...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, I never said anything was wrong with the COPN. Also, for the record, I said nothing about Mr. Montgomery pulling Donna's string. Geez, I constantly have to correct Barbara. As for the curious and out of context reference of the FOIA issue, I will defer to Ms. Mann for that.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

around 9PM I was giving my lil pea a bath - while singing "ding dong the witch is dead" and he laughed with much delight.

...guess I was wrong about that one. Looks like the west wind brought the return of Ms. Redacted.

and for those in the know - Who's got bets on how long it will take for you know who to link PEC to HCA? Hmmmm....

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, what you did say was that someone who is apparently part of the state COPN structure is somehow funded and linked to her/Inova. If that were true, then there surely WOULD be something wrong with the COPN procedure, wouldn't there.

No out of context on FOIA either--there are FOIA lawsuits ongoing, and the county chooses to put THIS lawsuit aside? In the open and aboveboard government that these paragons campaigned to be, why should there be a judge's ruling that some supervisors did not fully comply with a sunshine law request?

Erika, congratulations on your baby. I'm imagining you singing "Ding! Dong!" and enjoying it myself.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, jeez, once again that is not what I said, and you're inference is only convenient to your tangential argument.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will also reserve judgment on Mr. Montgomery until someone proves to me he is not a paid spokesman for INOVA. Lee, you need to start questions this stuff more before jumping to conclusions. I certainly plan to look into Mr. Montgomery's motives. As far as I know he might be a member of the Broadlands HOA. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 10:44 p.m.

It will be very interesting to see where and how Mr. Montgomery is getting his motivation from. He's filed by paper so I can't track down his sourcing. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:35 a.m.
Sounds to me like he is very comfortable in his role as another of many paid Inova spokesman (spokeswoman).

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

There's what you said, Glenn. Now, since we do speak a living language, I guess it can mean whatever you want it to.

Or whatever you need it to.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, Thank you - being a mom is pretty awesome and the HARDEST job I have had thus far.

I genuinely admit it is far more interesting to have you back in the fold. We have rarely agreed on views/opinion, but having the benefit of your comments has lead to intense yet informative exchanges. Those exchanges have truly been an educated and beyond my expectations (sometimes in a good way too).

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're welcome, and good luck to you. Three in the morning can be a lonesome time with teeth and earaches!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, you'd never make it in sound bit marketing, but as a chanting monk, you might have a future.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bit=bite

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, I can't chase you all over the web and address your uninformed chant. I've already challenged you, with facts, on the flawed and lack of logic within your cutesy dozen. Blog etiquette keeps me from double posting the same information on more than one site and more than one time. At the least man, make it into a haiku and provide yourself some level of respect. :)

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn: you, of all people, piously lecturing Lee on manners? You're a funny (set of) guy(s) there, sport.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see HCA has dropped its lawsuit--well, that makes everything hunky-dory while the new ethical Board rubber stamps a run through the process for a campaign contributor.

When the new plans conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (which they also chanted about upholding while railing against backroom deals for contributors with land use applications), I guess we can say "It isn't a Bible, it's only a guideline" instead of doing what they should do and initiate a CPAM.

Because all CPAMs are bad, right?

Too much.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, Google on VPAP, and then go to their site.

There are a variety of ways to search it, by candidate, by PAC, by donor, and so on.

Look up the PAC HCA for Good Governance, and you'll see what they gave.

Look up Voters For Loudoun's Future and prepare to be stunned.

Look up the individual candidates and you can sort the donations a variety of ways.

Have fun!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara - per your suggestion I went ahead and looked up HCA's PAC and Voter’s For Loudoun’s Future (VLF)…I will admit that I did not track this during the Nov’07 BoS race.

Two of the largest contributions via HCA

1) Moving forward Loudoun (TPAC-D – run by Gov Kaine) @ $10K – Cash.
2) VLF $9,500

Point of interest concerning VLF - aggregated (from HCA PAC)
$5,000 CASH - $4,000 In Kind (phone banking).

With all due respect there is nothing staggering or odious about HCA and/or VLF #'s.

What I found stagger is the Hon. Steve Snow’s spent >$200K vs. Stevens Miller spent $76,543 and Snow lost the Dulles district race by 15.06%.

While Chairman York, who has the ALL of Loudoun Co and only spent $189, 600 vs. Mike Firetti $400,356 and Chairman York won by 11.1%.

Now those numbers are staggering.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika, I said the VLF numbers were stunning, and they are: from itemized donations to individual candidates--
York, $55,256 VLF (up from $45,728 when they were called VSS in 03, plus $3000 HCA in 03)

Miller, $16,224 VLF

That took all of two minutes. Now, if you'd like to change the subject feel free, but the fact remains that this action by the board for HCA is precisely what they spent 4 years whining about other people doing, and no charges have been filed against the 03 Board to this day. (Except for the FOIA cases three of the VLF slate are fighting--those good proponents of ethical open government!)

York at the very least should be recusing himself from any vote on this, and since the VLF set spent so much time up at previous Board meetings shouting that ethical people shouldn't vote on any application filed by a donor, it is hypocrisy of the first order to do it first thing out of the gate themselves.

Sorry, but after the holier-than-thou they made about wanted criminals making backroom deals for campaign contributors, to vote on this in between straw votes on the school budget is an absolute travesty, even if it is all technically squeaky clean because the money was funneled from a corporation with a land use application through their PAC and then laundered though yet another PAC or two.

Where are those indictments, by the way?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey,

It is amazing what you can find in two minutes. Like the $79,000 in donations to Snow from the Real Estate and Construction industy. The reason we expected Snow to recuse himself from votes is not because he was receiving donations from real estate and construction but because he worked for a construction company that was associated with projects that were up for vote.....big difference. However, why are you hashing up the past. Don't you know that your side lost horribly because we the people did not want to buy their bill of goods any longer.

If you are still that concerned, you know when the public hearings are. I suggest you attend and voice your concerns to the board.

On another note, I am certain that the federal authorities are really concerned with your expectations on what their time table should be.

Was also curious if you will be moving to Arizona too or have you been able to detach yourself from that hip yet.....or are you attached to another hip now?

Posted by qzpmal1145 (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara - you are the one who brought up HCA's PAC & VLF and are now using the "deflection" tactic, but I digress.

Point being is Firetti & Snow spent over $600,000 to lose their respective races. Do you really want me to dive into how much of that came from the Building/Real Estate industry?

Talk about hipocracy - need we forget the "Deitz" letter?
You seem to opine (at length) about York & Miller - you know when the public input/meetings are. Go down and address the dias or at the very least send an email.

I know that you have taken the time to send your thoughts/email to the BoS about people who speak the truth, (vulgar or not)on several occasions.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee - (and Barbara can correct me due to her past as the Dulles Dist PC)...in most projects before the BoS - they are considered as "special exemptions" as they can deviate from the Comprehensive Plan.

You keep posting about York & Ms. Descutner and allude to some type of conspiracy, so let's explain this - yet agian.

First Ms. Descutner is a nurse by training, she was MORE than qualified for a position that Chairman York appointed her to in 2001. After her work on the Task Force, HCA was impressed with her knowledge and LATER offered her the PR position (time frame of 2003).

I thought we had called a truce, but as long as you continue to spread viral post - I for one will attempt to re-educate you on the reality vs. your preception.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika and husband: You're right, Snow and Firetti lost. That's why they weren't there to cast a vote on setting this lawsuit aside. Of course I can look up Snow's donations, but I don't see how it is germane to this topic as he can't vote on it.

Yes I do know when the public input is.

As for the FBI, do you think it is their policy to ignore accusations about public officials, or might it be their job to check it out? It has already been published in a variety of places that it IS their policy to neither confirm nor deny whether an investigation is underway.

Why were there so many non-stories and so much campaign literature (same paid for by HCA through the PAC-laundries?) that talked about FBI investigations?

A neighbor asked me last week if now that they lost the election, was the whole FBI thing just going to go away?

Good question. The agency itself will no doubt continue to neither confirm nor deny.

But the Post sure has run dry on it.

In fact, the only people I still hear flogging it are anonymous viral types like the tc crowd. And to my mind that is nothing more than their usual MO.

We saw a good example of it with Glenn and honcho's childish attempt to threaten people into thinking that an official with a state agency is a piad INOVA flack.

By all means, continue to do a rerun of the election. But as you point out, it is over.

The results of that election are now paying back their viral supporters with appointments to county bodies, and their financial supporters with legal (and soon to be land use?) votes.

And it looks remarkably hypocritical after the rhetoric that went out during the season.

So yes, Mr. York at the least should recuse himself from voting on this (just to be consistent with what was said during his winning campaign), and we should ALL be asking where those indictments are.

I'm under no illusions that you want me to stop talking about it because you care about Steve or the others.

P.S.--is tc still attempting to give legs to the rumor that Snow has or is moving? Too funny! I've got some e-mails from some very unusual people asking for confirmation on what they've heard...from the posse playpen.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika, if that is the timeline that you are being told on the task force, then why not look it up at the library?

As for special exception uses, they are uses listed that basically require the same land use process as a rezoning. Submission, staff review, pc review, bos review, with public input etc.

The only difference is that special exception uses are contained in a list for the specific zoning as examples of uses that could be considered, but not allowed by right. If it isn't on the list and the owner wants to do it, then they must rezone.

Erika, who called a truce? I wished you well on your baby after your (habitually) snarky comment about dead witches, you thanked me, and I said you're welcome. I wish you well on your baby, who wouldn't? That doesn't mean I agree with you or your methods.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara -the truce was not with you - but with Lbuvidas. I did find one thing we agree on, we both don't agree with each other's methods. At least that's a start?
and for the record you have a kings ranson of snarky albeit more cerebral comments but yours tend to come off more condecending than informative. Which is a shame b/c of your vast knowledge people tend to tune you out.

Posted by Ehodell (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well thanks, I think.

I am often accused of condescension, but I think that is projection (by a lot of people who project quite a bit--namely those who think it is different when THEY do something they like to complain about in others).

It is certainly not my intent to sound that way, but I can't help it if you hear it that way. Sometimes its difficult to attempt to be polite and still say exactly what you mean.

Of course, if I didn't give a damn about saying it politely if possible, maybe the problem would go away for the people I disagree with who get their feelings hurt anyway.

But I doubt it, so don't look for me to start cussing at you in chatspeak any time soon.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How does Cameron Chase have a convenience store, a free standing car wash or other plainly special exception uses in the zoning code? YORK'S DEVELOPMENT company, which he worked for until he resigned right before the election, apparently got special exception uses without going through the public hearing process. HOW?????

Ms. Munsey is right to bring up the double standards and hypocrisy. Settle this hospital lawsuit, with a REAL land use impact, but spend literally millions defending FOIA lawsuits, ridiculous ag district lawsuits (with no impact to anyone) where the ag district on its face had expired (but the county says it was a typo, and went longer) and defending the storage of hay in graffiti decorated 18 wheeler trucks in the historic districts (which districts do not even allow signs, much less old trucks on hills.) At the same time fighting with an historic district homeowner about simply replacing rotten floor boards on her front porch, when the floor boards were the same materials, the same size, the same, but new.

The priorities of the county are simply this: favoritism, reprisal. Their litigation budget is in the millions to punish people they do not like and to let "friends" do what they want whether the law allows it or not--just "reinterpret" the law for "friends", and "enemies" are stonewalled, punished, and have the laws "interpreted" in ridiculous ways and made up to hurt them at all costs--even when there is no public benefit to what they are doing.

I have FOIA'd the expenses in my ag district litigation, where the county has hired an outside firm to defend the "typo" in the expiration date. You can withdraw from an ag district for "good cause" and an heir can withdraw by right. The county admits I was an heir in their pleadings, and they admit that the ordinance had a "scriveners error" and they admit that the Office of Assessments did not tell me about the Ag district, and also that it was a "mistake" not to tell me and to make me pay fees and file an application that should not have been required-- if they had looked up my property as they should have and found I was in an ag district. The FOIA shows the county spent nearly $200,000 (through Jan. 08) but that is only part of the expenses--the county attorney's office litigated much of it and those costs are not included. Plus it is turning out to be a week long trial, and these costs do not show the non stop litigation in February and March, where they have made this a priority. This could easily be another $100,000.
The reality may be that they have spent about a half million dollars on JUST this ag district case, when even they say the district expires this year, and all they have done is DELAY me. A half million dollars just to DELAY someone --when all I want to do is put lots in trust (a ten year trust) for my children...

Very messed up county if you ask me...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see reference to a Dillinger AE, so I'm particularly elated with the time spent on someone's useless research. That's too funny, and speaks volumes about character and utilization of the moments of one's life.
Too bad I've NEVER used it on any of the local forums or blogs. So what exactly was the relevance of pointing at it? Oh... you can find THAT snakepit? Jump on in. Where do you think I developed my rhino hide?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sally, I think a lot of this IS personal, which explains the posse turning on Lee when they were only too happy to have him post as much as he pleased when it agreed with the chorus, and with people pointing everywhere they can but at the FACT that this board has just cut a deal for a contributor, when that was the sum and substance of their front groups' campaigning.

Honcho, I don't know what you're on about now, but rave on.

Are you saying that Dillinger is one of your names? Okay. I used it as a simile after Cliff identified himself, but more in the sense of a famous public enemy having lots of names to hide crimes with. If it hit you personally I'm sorry, but that really is your construct, and your problem.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only search that came back in numerous far-reaching search parameters was: One American in Virginia, who goes by the Internet nick "John Dillinger," agreed to cooperate with "vendors" from Eastern Europe. These groups "acquired" credit card numbers, then sent them by e-mail and instant message to Dillinger, who then encoded them onto credit cards. He then took these credit cards to ATMs and made cash withdrawals; a percentage of the money was then sent back to the "vendor" and Dillinger kept the rest. Dillinger was eventually busted by the feds, though, and was sentenced in February 2007 to 94 months in jail.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll point out, too, that Lee was never a member of the Posse(what is really funny here is that you and your friends named "the posse" as a derogatory reference, and we turned it around and gave it legs in just another example of how bad your antics crashed and burned in November)and although he did post at Tooconservative,(anyone who wishes to post, and can follow simple rules about what will and will not be tolerated there, can readily do so)he wasn't an intergal part of any discussions. He didn't bring us information, he just kept abreast of the latest breaking news like the rest of the county did. And he opined often.
Others used to post there, as well. Until the sane opinions dissproved their rude offerings and allegations time after time. After that, they seemed to shrivel away.
This has never been "personal" until the other side went too far in their efforts to smear and malign people who were genuinely interested in what was best for the county.
And all of those entities who maligned us didn't even have the decency to form a PAC to throw their efforts behind. So, while our efforts sat in sunlight in front of the voters, our opposition's were darkened by clandestine meetings in darkened garages and parking lots, and a few backrooms, where God only knows how much money and influence was exchanged, rumors were hatched, Calls were butchered, and malfeasance was planned without the first record of a transaction that could be viewed by the general public.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho,

You accused me of being a PAC when I simply complained about the reprisal against me, having laws made up against me, creative "interpretations" of laws to actually hurt me, and then complaining that the laws do not apply to some (Cameron Chase.) I am not a PAC, I am a citizen and a taxpayer who has seen unbelievable abuse and favoritism by York et al. Special exception uses, clear as day in the zoning ordinance, that appeared without the required public hearings, on land owned by York's employer.

Honcho, your imaginations about meetings in darkened garages shows how paranoid you all are... it is just one very abused and very persistent citizen, not any PAC. If only I was as powerful, big and well funded as VLF, PEC and those other groups that you represent.

There are several of us in western loudoun who have felt the selective and made up laws game acutely. I am just a citizen and suing pro se--this has turned into a circus, with the latest being a hearing on friday accusing me of "unathorized practice of law"--a crime. I am pro se and have a right to represent myself. Intimidation? They would love to frighten me with the thought of being accused of a crime for asking to withdraw from an ag district that I should have had a right to withdraw from, that they let everyone else withdraw from, and that on its face, expired in 2002.
They have spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to hurt me. Reprisal, abusive legal positions, waste of taxpayer resources. Hide the ball, don't answer FOIA's, make up the rules as you go. Wrong.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish there was some way to get Mann and Lee on the opposite side of an issue. Now that would be a manly (no offense Ms. Mann) debate. Unfortunately, I wouldn't have enough time to read the word poundage produced. Barbara not to change the subject but who do you think killed Kennedy and is there really a chance we never put a man on the moon?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, I'm sorry but I honestly think you've gone off the edge here.

I toss off a reference to a Depression-era Public Enemy number one, and you assume I think you are an internet criminal who goes by the name?

It really is endemic with your crew that it's all about you, isn't it?

As I said, be my guest to rave on.

As for who knows how much money changed hands in garages, who is the conspiracy theorist here anyway?

Lee, you've struck some nerve, and they sure don't seem to like it. It does seem to be personal.

It is crystal clear that their new board just popped one hell of a good imitation of everything their groups campaigned against, only nine weeks into Utopia too, and they seem to really want to change that subject.

Glenn, I firmly believe in the magic bullet theory, of course! Ask the guy in the tinfoil Stetson about the other stuff.

Now, two questions for you: How could this board cut this deal for a campaign backer in between straw votes on the school budget after two years of harping on backroom deals for contributors, and WHERE are those indictments?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 8, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the Board had allowed me to withdraw from the Ag District (as they let numerous others withdraw who said they bought property they did not know was in an Ag district, or who said the County gave them bad information, not telling them they were in an Ag district) I would pay ROLL BACK TAXES. My land has been exempted from tax because it is "agricultural" and I have only paid about $1 a year in property tax since the year 2000.

Just on my little ten acres that I want to take out of the district would result in me paying about $20,000 in back taxes going back to the year 2000 plus interest and penalties. So if you let me take ten acres out of the Ag district, then my property will have to pay a lot of back taxes exempted previously as agricultural land.

Also, if you let me subdivide into the 5 cluster lots I have asked for, then the county will assess me going forward based on those 5 lots (right now they are assessing my one acre lot at $200,000 or approx. $2,000 per lot.) So, if they let me subdivide, then my land is more valuable and I will pay approx. $10,000 per year more each year in the future.

So, letting me out of the AG district, letting me subdivide (and put lots in a ten year trust for my kids, which I have proffered to put in a consent decree) would not only result in the payment of back taxes exempted since the year 2000 plus interest and penalties, but also much more tax going forward... So by forcing me to stay in the Ag district, they are foregoing about $100,000 in property taxes... AND spending hundreds of thousands to do this...Makes no sense at all.

My case is so small, but there are many like mine...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that the Bad Old Anonymous Boys Network has a new hysterical post at tc against INOVA.

And with no mention at all about how they, and their other front groups, campaigned against supervisors cutting land use deals for contributors.

When Loudoun Hospital moved from Leesburg to Lansdowne, one of the justifiers was that it moved closer to the population base. The same argument is now being used by the anti-INOVA types to justify two hospitals close together there.

Is this hypocrisy justified by those in the western area who have never forgiven Loudoun for moving out of the county seat?

It would seem so, to some degree. Before the posse starts bleating about an east/west divide, let me say that support for Loudoun Hospital has always seemed to be one of the VERY few places you could find people from both sides of the growth debate sitting down together in common cause to benefit the community hospital, so I do NOT think this is an east/west issue.

I just think that a few of the newer crop of no-growthers (i.e. LI and some of the posse) are more in line with those long timers who are still steamed over the move to Lansdowne.

So we have payback running hand in hand with "it's okay if my BoS votes to pay back a contributor because I agree with it".

Interesting also that LI mentions my posting on the subject. Not my opinion, just that I have one. Funny how posse posters who contributed to campaigns and got county appointments as a result are not part of any old boy network, and have all the first amendment rights in the world.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vacliff, one thing about Moorefield Station is that the rezoning and proffers were dependent on the metro and public transportation being provided. I believe most of the residences are proffered to have no driveways, and no garages, and that there were proffers that the residences would be designed to use public transportation--so if there is no metro, who will buy these? I have heard that Moorefield
Station may go partially by right since the rezoning depending on metro is no good now. The numbers of projected growth are very complicated. Barbara knows more about Moorefield Station, and projected growth than most of us.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sad. Just sad. I expected more from you, Barb. But I also understand that when you're out of real ammo, one must start picking up whatever is available and throwing it.
You and the Snow Machine throw out "no-growther" when in fact we've always been "reasonable growthers".This is just the beginning of the misdirection attempt by you.
And offering up that certain reasonable individuals now have replaced unstable ones who gave the developer's an edge in shoving their high costs down our collective throats?
Get a grip. Currently, there are people in those positions who do what they do with the people's financial consequences in mind...not to aid any contributor, but to give Loudoun citizens a fair shake, something they've been in dire need of for years.
I know you and Team Snow are upset about that, but weighing all matters before the populance, I believe we are representing the people, and Team Snow represents only itself and it's greedy minions.Sally....Why are we discussing your ^%*#$^#^& land again?? I think you bring exactly NOTHING to this discussion but your desperate need for a pity party.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, it seems you still can't answer why it is okay for your board to do this for a contributor, and not hypocritical for them to do so.

It also seems you have no ammo but personal attack.

The new thread at tc reads as if LI thinks Inova opened Lansdowne while Cornwall was still open. I realize he didn't live here yet when Loudoun Hospital moved out of Leesburg, which was long before they entered into any partnership with Inova, but had LHI already made good on their promise to reopen the emergency room at Cornwall by the time LI got here?

The thread really doesn't track as anything but a continued attempt to paint Inova as evil and somehow in league with dark forces you all so nobly campaigned against (where are those indictments?).

Please answer the question (as Glenn and your BOABN might say if the tables were turned): Why is it okay for this board to put aside a lawsuit and reconsider a land use application for a contributor?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, you are the one who sounds desperate to deflect the truth of the matter when it is pretty apparent HCA was a major contributor in the last campaign. Pay to play? Pay Back? Vendettas? Yes, I think to all those questions.

And yeah, it makes perfect sense to fight about an ag district withdrawal of ten acres on the border of a town and an elementary school... when an heir has an automatic right to withdraw, and everyone else can withdraw for any good cause, and when estate planning and family lots have been found good cause before.... perfect sense to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend an ag district ordinance that has a typo in it--the expiration date! When ag districts are VOLUNTARY. NO, no reprisal there...not after the Board let me withdraw, then after I was out for two weeks, then politics intervened, and got put back in...

You think this is a wise way to spend our money? Can you explain to me what the public benefit is of keeping me from putting lots in trust for my kids?

And you support the comprehensive plan, but not for the HCA site??? CPAMS=evil, except if they are for York's employer (to add residential) or for HCA, also York supporter? and who is the hypocrite here? Bust the Plan, no problem, for a supporter. Decide not to fight a major use like a hospital that clearly does not conform to the comprehensive plan or the existing zoning, but fight to the death on a minor ag district withdrawal that would not allow anything worse than a by right rural subdivision? I would say you are the one bringing NOTHING but obfuscation and smear tactics to the discussion, because you don't really like what the real truth is... just my opinion, Deane.

Double standards, double talk, huge political machine to spin the truth. David and Goliath, call me David.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As has been pointed out in several places by several people more articulate than me, travel around here isn't a straight line or based on how many miles. A 5-mile trip can be anywhere from 8 minutes to 45 and we all know it.

lbuvidas, stop with this silly 'hospital care first for the many..." this is a good site that is accessed by the Greenway and what will be a four lane road to its west, and existing 4 lane divided road to its east as well as a 4 lane divided road to its south. People throughout the County and region will have BETTER access to Broadlands than Loudoun Hospital and when the population is there on Rt. 50, it will happen there too. Maddening and illogical.

Posted by playingketchup (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, you are right. Feel confident in that. The comprehensive plan should control this decision, but it won't. They accuse you of being a "water carrier" for evil INOVA just because you disagree with them on putting the hospital on this site (where legally it should not go.) Soon will they accuse you of being part of an illegal PAC meeting in garages and exchanging money, and one of Dale Myers' best friends, and a secret supporter of the evil Greenvest, to boot???--you have obviously been paid off if you disagree with them! HA! They have got the spin, and the bloggers in force to attack and manipulate public perception... and unfortunately, when they can't get you to stop, they start maligning your character.... and complaining about the length of your posts, or what you say... instead of addressing the issues, or explaining their positions politely, or just plain decent discussion. Don't be surprised if there will soon be clip art about you on their site, and they make a name up for you to disparage you even when you aren't there. Discouragement, intimidation, veiled threats, libel. The rules do not apply to them. Remember, they are "bulletproof." Good luck!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it now says it all that Mann and Lee are now courting each others opinions. BTW, after 100 posts on LoCo, the only people listening are down to about, oh say 5.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Playingketchup, funny how the Greenway is the Greedway sometimes, isn't it? In my opinion, another reason not to have residents dependent on using it at ever higher tolls to access care. Another reason to make sure that the next hospital has full heli capability no matter where it is--and that would only increase the impact on the Broadlands residents to add it back in.

Lee, my favorite posse Freudian slip (aside from fairly heavy use of the imperial "we") was this offer at the first board meeting of the year: "If there's anything I can do to you, uh, for you..." You are supposed to discount those little things, Leej!

I see that the game is beginning again where I must be posting anonymously at tc--this from the folks who boasted they could get the crumbs off of someone's table through the internet, and delighted in jumping all over people with "We see you over there at 68.13.41.214! You there, 73.692.8.142! Watch it!"

Sorry guys, but you should know better than anyone it isn't me.

Sally, ever heard the lyrics to "10 feet tall and bulletproof"? Interesting song.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, given that the Post didn't cover it until today, and that only with a small article in the local insert, I would venture that a good chunk of the county has yet to learn that the deal has begun. I bet if the old BoS had done it, it would have been front page of Metro the next day.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have fun, kids. You are now grasping at any slightest string thrown before you. I do mean...ANY. When nailed to the proverbial wall with the facts, the lot of you cast a handful of marbles out onto the floor and expect us to chase them down for you. You now have three of the most controversial and disputatious people in the county defending INOVA. I rallied, and you all answered. My work is done here.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 9, 2008 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FACT: The hospital in the proposed Broadlands location violates not only the comprehensive plan but also the zoning ordinance.

FACT: Two years ago Scott York's employer sought and got a CPAM to re-plan to residential land that was planned for keynote employment--in Ashburn. ( All other CPAMS are apparently "bad.")

FACT: The last Board campaigned on preserving the comp plan, no more CPAMS, "ethics" and not making decisions based on "pay to play," which is what they accused the "gang of five" of doing.

FACT: HCA --apparently--through PACs made tremendous contributions to the winning members of this Board.

FACT: a CPAM should be required to re-plan for HCA (but apparently that will not be required--how do they get around that?)

Conclusion: Could it be that HCA effectively paid to play, and they will be excused from applying for a CPAM, and the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance will be ignored to favor a large contributor? Politics and insider connections trump the public interest.

Now, how have you "nailed" anyone to the "proverbial wall" 10 foot? All the "facts" go against you. The only "facts" that help you are that HCA has big ins with this Board to have them overlook the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan-- again, selective enforcement of the laws, and creative interpretations to "help" "friends" and "hurt" any one who might disagree... I wonder if INOVA --or any of the neighbors-- sued to enforce the comp plan and zoning ordinance if they could stop it? My guess is, that it so blatantly violates the plan, that if people wanted to, they could sue to stop it.

Now where does that get us? Why don't we just enforce the laws fairly and consistently, and do what is right? stop with this selective/creative enforcement of the plan and our ordinances?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee,

You are just a good soul who innocently is asking why aren't they following the law? Why aren't they doing what is really in the public interest? so much of what these goons accuse others of, is really their own MO.

Like I said, good luck! my last post here too :)

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, there is nothing 'innocent' going on here.

Posted by playingketchup (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You may be right, ketchup. Certainly the crowd of tc/BRMC bloggers are taking up right where they left off, or rather keeping on with their agenda. They got their board elected, and now it is time for that board to deliver the payola. Which is why they will never address the hypocrisy of their own method of campaigning for people who just did everything they campaigned against

Or supposedly campaigned against--remember, it's okay if they agree with you! ;)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, I have always supported a helipad at Broadlands. The flight approach is already there and perfect, the Greenway. I flight approach to the hospital would never go over a single house. We can join arms and ask them to include it. That would make Barbara snort...

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Ms. Munsey, you misinterpret my comment. I am not talking about anything more than the games that have been played regarding this much-needed hospital. This County needs a hospital in Broadlands and then another on Rt. 50 as well as the other services Inova has in its plans. I just don't see why it all can't happen and we take politics out of it for the good of the people of this County.

Posted by playingketchup (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only one problem ketchup: the size of the service area (from Alexandria to Winchester), coupled with the fact that these are not new beds, means that if Broadlands is built "first" it will be the only hospital Loudoun gets for at least a generation to come. Not fearmongering, not scare tactics, FACT.

I agree, we should take politics out of it for the good of the county. But it has been political from day one, since Mr. York gave a surprise press conference to announce the done deal, and most residents learned about it when the newspaper articles came out.

Glenn, may I watch you walk into Broadlands and announce the need for a helipad? Please?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I call BS on you. Show me the basis for your hyperbole about this being the last hospital in a generation. It sounds just like that fear mongering CEO of Loudoun Inova. He said the same thing. Consider the source.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

York ran with the Broadlands Hospital being one of his strong and stated re-election planks. No surprise there. I imagine he will continue to press for the wish of the voters. He won overwhelming. He sits in Leesburg with a strong mandate for increasing healthcare.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, call me anything you like. As my mother always said, "Consider the source." (That cuts both way of course!)

As I said, the size of the service area used for planning runs from Alexandria to Winchester. The COPN allows them to MOVE beds from the two Arlington hospitals they bought, yes?

Beds per resident may be tallied by county, but the planning area is the district mentioned. With two hospitals on top of one another in one small area of the whole, it is highly unlikely that a COPN will be approved any time soon in the same relatively small area of the whole. That is simple logic.

If there is no growth on Route 50, there is no reason to suddenly expect it to be believable that oops! we found some! We need another hospital! It may annoy you to have Lee repeat it (while you delighted in his volubility during election season), but he has it in a nutshell: two in one spot does not serve the entire county well.

Actually, most of the York literature I received was about taking back Loudoun from wanted criminals who were being pursued by the FBI for cutting backroom deals for campaign contributors.

So Glenn: Where are the indictments, and why is it okay to vote on this in the middle of the school budget for one of their campaign contributors?

Right, right I know: You agree with it so it is okay.

(p.s.--watch out for that word mandate. After the fun the posse had with it in another context, it is really hard to take you seriously when you use it.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 10, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, York lost the popular vote in the Dulles District. Firetti won Dulles, even though Snow lost. With the poplular momentum against Republicans and Snow, it tells you a lot that York lost that district.

Posted by salmann (anonymous) on March 11, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Told you. Barb is tossing the marbles again.
When the facts get in the way, she can always difuse the absence of a straight answer with the same old tried and true "what about the investigations". Any time wasted in responding to the "other" questions just allows her to avoid the questions and points that were primarily directed at her. I recognise it as a Munsey signature.
Ms, Mann...we're all PAINFULLY aware that you see what you need to see as facts.I've only met a couple of people who let their thoughts turn into their reality,and neither turned out well.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

honcho, the posse MO is to accuse others (loudly, with threats, and many lofty remarks about others' (lack of) virtues) of doing whatever it is you're doing at the moment.

The FBI never interviewed me, and they talked to Steve once and they were done with him.

You guys made great hay over your insider connections giving you top secret info that had you certain they would all be in jail long ere now.

Will the same MO work for the hospital deal? Probably, since SLN/VSS/CLF/VLF has the same game plan: accuse others LOUDLY of whatever you plan to do yourself.

The issue on the table is the hospital, and the fact that the new board just voted to do-over a land use deal for a contributor, which they campaigned strongly against (others doing).

All the sidetracks in the world can't change that, and never will.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mischaracterizations by the master may not ever stop, either. DPM and Snow got stopped DEAD in their tracks, and you're sore about that. But don't attempt to twist that into some conspiracy theory about the "rogue VLF faction". They provided the platform to unseat 4 BOS members who were as fiscally conservative as my labrador. Now, you've started the same old "chant it long enough, and it'll come true" game about their intentions. I know the honeymoon period is long from being over, but damned if they haven't taken a stronger stance against Hatrick and a runaway budget (thanks to the build out chapter of the CPR...thanks boys) than the four Supervisors they replaced.
You may not like them because they won't rubberstamp your pet project, but the county as a whole is already far better with these guys in the driver's seats. I'm hoping that they stay on course and continue to serve the people of Loudoun instead of special interest money that saturated their competition's bank accounts , and more than half of that coming from outside this county.
But if they slide, and if they falter like the Supervisors before them, I'll be happy to end their political futures as well.
The only compass I use is the one that serves the people of Loudoun and the one that guards against special interest trumping our needs and services.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If your compass is one that truly serves the people of Loudoun and one that guards against special interests trumping the people's needs and services, then how can you support the HCA slap in the face of reapplying for the same special exception at a location already found inappropriate after public debate on the prior special exception, and when the comprehensive plan does not allow it there? HCA (special interest--large contributor) trumps comprehensive plan (public interest, duly adopted after public debate and process)??? Double talk, and double standards. You would be screaming bloody murder if it was anyone else. The do over is highly inappropriate and irregular, and will surely be subject to attack on multiple grounds, should the public be forced to stand up for their rights. There is no factual change to justify allowing the special exception now. In fact, the circumstances are clearer that this is not an appropriate location for the hospital.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Mann, out of 88 special exceptions 87 were granted. The only one not granted was for HCA. There was validity in the law suit. They've now dropped it and a fair analysis can be made. The CPAM is a sham. It was a result of the same influences who denied the special exceptions.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Then the solution is to amend the zoning ordinance and do away with the public hearing process for special exceptions. If we grant them all, then why are we spending so much money and time on staff reports and public hearings? Maybe some of the special exception uses should not be special exception uses? Many special exception uses are things like car washes, minor uses, not comparable to a hospital.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AND it *could* be possible that most landowners do not bother applying for a special exception use that does not conform to the comprehensive plan? why would they waste their time and money if their application should not be approved under the existing laws?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 17, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho, neither Snow nor Myers is currently in office. The five supervisors who got this ball rolling all had contributions from HCA (albeit funneled through the HCA PAC to be laundered through the VLF PAC). As VLF candidates, they campaigned AGAINST doing what they just did. In other words, nine weeks into their term they are hypocrites. I understand that you are the keeper of the gate, the flame, all that is holy etc etc etc, but try and get your brain around the fact that they just did what they campaigned against, for a contributor.

Speaking of which, why did Mr. Burton return the HCA/VLF money? That is what he usually does if there is any appearance of impropriety. I would say there is one hell of an appearance, especially after all that PAC-funded outrageous campaign lit.

BTW, WHERE are those indictments? I thought your buddies at the DOJ were keeping you tight with the intimate skinny on that. Well? They weren't in jail before the election, or before Christmas, or by Valentine's Day. Just missed St. Patrick's, and Easter.....

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 23, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, have you considered anger management classes?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on March 23, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marevetz..she's not angry. She is , however, VERY busy difusing this tick tocker of a boom boom for INOVA. She'll lead you everywhere else, except the actual discussion.She's outright mischaracterized the new Supervisors, and in the same post, attacked a couple of them. They do this when they've lost an election, I just expected them to be bigger about it. That's my problem...I expected reason and respectability. Then I realized the actual crowd we were dealing with was the old Team Snow Job. The realization of what their strong suite is washed over me, and I relaxed, knowing that their skillset is one of the only ones on the planet that can indeed snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm ecstatic to see these three carrying the torch for INOVA...given their recent history of endorsements.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on March 23, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho,

So you want to build a seven story hospital (not anywhere near your home--in a different magisterial district altogether) where the comp plan does not allow it, but you are incensed about poles in YOUR neighborhood to carry cell phone/broadband? Poles disguised as trees? that might block your view??

You have no standing to criticize these good folks who reasonably should expect the hospital to be built on route 50. You are such an obvious hypocrite, and political henchman.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 24, 2008 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what Honcho (who is against cell phone towers and lives in western Loudoun) says to another poster who favors cell phone towers from another blog:

"You seem perfectly content with the way Sterling and Ashburn look now…and that’s fine. There is a contingent out here that moved from that area to get further away from what you find to be acceptable.
I’m not knocking there as being less than out here. What I am pointing out is that we have completely different outlooks and thresholds for where we are prepared to live and accept in our respective neighborhoods. And visable towers is not something that is acceptable out out here..."

He is special since he has "different outlooks and thresholds...." I would love to see someone try to build something like a seven story hospital with a potential heli-pad across from or anywhere near Honcho. I would love to see someone "try" to violate the comprehensive plan anywhere near Honcho :) Then we would hear some fightin' words, for sure.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on March 24, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, actually honcho is right on this one: I'm not mad. I don't know if they offer classes that would benefit you. In fact, I think you greatly enjoy behaving as badly as you do under your various names.

Tick tocker of a boom boom, honcho? O-ka-a-a-y......you really are a one-trick pony, aren't you? Snow can't vote on any of this. He is no longer relevant to the equation. I realize that as one of the snipers of the secret PAC money slander factory, you have to keep revisiting your great achievement (where ARE those indictments? Golly!), but the last Board is the one you guys ACCUSED of doing secret backroom deals to benefit contributors on land use, remember?

This pseudo-Democratic Board that you worked to get elected is now doing what the money laundries pumped out the slander (supposedly) AGAINST.

This is called HYPOCRISY.

I don't think you have one of the reading disabilities you often accuse others of suffering when you are changing your story between threats, so I have to conclude that you may be running true to form and continuing your one note script.

Nevertheless, it doesn't change what has occurred with this vote for a contributor. As I've said to you before, rave on.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 24, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)