Jim G. Burton*

Occupaton: Member, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors; retired Air Force colonel.

Education: BS, U.S. Air Force Academy; MBA, Auburn; completed course work MSME, Auburn; three professional military schools.

Elected offices/civic activities: Member, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 1996-present; past president and secretary, Aldie Ruritan; former board of directors, Goose Creek Association; co-founder, Tax Action 91; former board of directors, Loudoun Citizens HealthWatch; former chairman, building committee, St. George's United Methodist Church; Little League and Babe Ruth baseball coach; Pop Warner football coach.

Questions & Answers

Q: Did you sign the Board of Supervisors’ ethics agreement? Would you sign it if elected? Why or why not?

A: I not only signed the ethics pledge, I prepared and proposed such a pledge to the Board in 2004. A few supervisors signed it; some did not. This year the full Board adopted a slightly amended version of my original ethics pledge. Anything we can do to restore the public confidence in the integrity and openness of its government is well worth the effort. In addition to signing an ethics pledge myself, I would also ask that my planning commissioner sign such a pledge as a condition of his or her appointment to the Commission.

Q: What is the appropriate role for local government in enforcement of federal immigration laws, and how do you view the current debate in Loudoun on the issue of illegal immigration?

A: The Federal government has completely failed in its responsibility to enforce the existing immigration laws and enact new laws which are reasonable and workable for today’s existing conditions. Immigration control is a Federal, not a state or local duty, and states and localities should not have to have to address this issue, although some have chosen to do so. On the state level, the General Assembly in its 2007 session created two commissions to study the impact of illegal immigration on the state. Briefly, the Virginia Commission on Immigration will look at the costs and benefits of immigration on the state while the Crime Commission Task Force will review crimes committed by and against illegal immigrants in the state, the costs associated with these crimes, and what can and cannot be done at the state and local levels. It seems premature to me for Loudoun County to address illegal immigration before the reports of these two commissions are completed and released. Nevertheless, the question of immigration has arisen, unfortunately in an election year when, to their discredit, some politicians undoubtedly will use it to distract the public from other issues which they would prefer voters not examine too closely, such as ethics, traffic, rampant growth, their own records or lack thereof, etc. And I am saddened and disappointed by some of the emotional rhetoric that has occurred and some of the attitudes which have surfaced as the debate has progressed. That having been said, I believe that the current debate is necessary and eventually will be beneficial in shedding light on the real facts pertinent to this issue and helping both the Board and the citizens of Loudoun County learn how complex the issue is and exactly what actions local government can and cannot legally take. As I write this, the Board is in the knowledge gathering stage and has not yet taken a position on imposing any restrictions to providing services to immigrants. It may, in fact, be unable to do so. Various court cases (Herndon, Virginia; Hazelton, Pennsylvania; Texas among others) have made it clear that local governments cannot deny many services to an immigrant simply because that person is here illegally. When our research is completed, it very well may be that Loudoun County, legally, can do very little about illegal immigration. I, personally, am not interested in leading our county into one or more lawsuits which we have little hope of winning simply to make a point with the INS, the Congress, and the President that we are displeased with their performance of their responsibilities.

Q: Do you support the transportation package passed by the General Assembly this year? What other ideas do you have for generating money to pay for road improvements in Loudoun?

A: I would have preferred it if the General Assembly had lived up to its responsibility to provide transportation improvements by adopting some sort of state financial plan, rather than passing the buck to local jurisdictions to raise local taxes. However, given the severity of the congestion mess in northern Virginia, I will reluctantly support the current plan if, and only if, it passes constitutional muster. So far the court has ruled that the proposal is constitutional, but that ruling is being appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Q: Do you support the county’s current comprehensive plan and the notion that Loudoun should be suburban in the east and rural in the west, with a transition area in between? If not, what do you think is a better approach?

A: I strongly support the current comprehensive plan’s approach of a suburban east, a transition area, and a rural west. I was one of the architects of that plan in 2001 and again during this Board’s term. I was co-author of the Clem/Burton plan, most of which was adopted by this Board. At the last minute, the Board majority voted to increase the permitted density by 4000 houses in the northern tier of the rural area, over my objections.

Q: Do you believe that any additional steps are needed to control the pace of growth in Loudoun? What would you do to create more of a balance between new home and new jobs in the county?

A: Yes, additional measures are needed. Unfortunately, since Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, we need the General Assembly’s permission to implement any new measures. I have testified before the General Assembly numerous times on behalf of Loudoun, requesting permission to implement various growth control measures. Every request was denied, and so we are left with the one basic tool granted by the General Assembly – local control over zoning. This tool has proved to be controversial and ineffective in controlling near-term growth, but may have an effect in the long term. Creating a better balance between new homes and new jobs in the county requires a two-pronged approach. (1) Slowing the rate of residential growth will help considerably if (2) new jobs are also created concurrently which pay a living wage. Although Loudoun led the nation in new job creation between 2000 and 2006 (approximately 39,000 net new jobs), the majority were service industry jobs that do not pay a living wage. This cannot continue, since it results in a majority of those who live in Loudoun commuting to high-paying jobs in Fairfax, Arlington, and Washington while many of those who actually work in Loudoun must commute into the county from other, outlying counties. Recruiting companies which pay high wages to come to Loudoun is the essential second prong necessary to create the desired balance between new homes and new jobs which will keep more of our local work force here in Loudoun.

Your Thoughts...

Results of a county survey indicate 92 percent of Loudoun residents think highly of the county's quality of life. How do you rank it?