Michael J. Firetti

Office sought: Chairman Supervisor
Party: Republican
Age: 46
Residence: Purcellville.
Web site:
http://www.votefiretti.com
E-mail:
m.firetti@verizon.net

Occupaton: Business entrepreneur.

Education: Course work, business, George Mason University.

Elected offices/civic activities: Civic and financial support for St. Jude's Hospital, Children's Hospital, Children's National Medical Center, Christian Children's Fund and Loudoun YMCA.

Questions & Answers

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: No. It was a complete failure. It was a contorted package of ridiculous fees that was designed so some lawmakers could claim they “did not raise taxes”. Did it convince you? When you go to sell your home and find out that you - the seller – has to pay a tax of about $4000 to simply sell your home (i.e. transfer tax, or should I say, fee…) then you know for sure that it’s a tax. The other big revenue generator was the so called abusive driver fees. Already the courts are getting clogged and the litigation is getting underway challenging these fees. In short, these were fees that haven’t worked anywhere else and are regressive and unfair. So what’s the solution?First, we need to face the fact that, like state government, we need to tighten our belt and move some of the current revenues and create a transportation fund. Here in Loudoun I would propose we ask county agencies to generate a 5% savings which would yield about $70 million per year (more than a quarter billion over the next four years) to create a local transportation fund. Inevitably, as in most states, local governments will be asked to assume some responsibility for roads and the sooner we take that responsibility, the faster our morning commutes and the faster our commutes back home in the evening. By simply fixing some of the county’s “hotspots”, we can begin making a real difference in how people move around the county. We need to partner with the airport on the road network around the airport including Route 606 and we need to work with developers to complete critical segments even if it means taking proffer dollars and moving them to more critical needs. In short, we need to be realistic, we need to get to work rather than waiting for others to act, and we need planning that does more than document gridlock --- we need long-term planning that tackles the real problems and offers realistic solutions. We owe our children and those that follow us a better effort than what’s now on the table at the county.

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

A: I am not currently on the board so I did not have an opportunity to sign it. Let’s be honest- we don’t need more ethics agreements; we need more ethics from our elected officials. Most ethics are common sense – for example, don’t take a salary from someone you’re regulating (as my opponent has done); don’t use your public position to intimidate or bully citizens or those seeking government services (talk to the zoning department); don’t engage in unspoken quid pro quos (standard practice). Treat people with respect and in a manner you’d like to be treated. Most of the ethics agreements that have come before the board are totally insincere. Instead of promoting better ethics, they are designed to embarrass someone’s opponent. They are typically restatements of what is already required or what anyone with common sense would do anyway. Ethics is not a feel good topic; it shouldn’t be a political tool to attack someone else; and it doesn’t have to be made up of lots of fine print. Instead, we need new leadership here in Loudoun that puts this bad chapter during the past few years behind us and practices what it preaches rather than more documents that mean nothing to the citizens.

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: My policy has two fundamental principles – first, we need to respect the rule of law. And second, we need to look at what’s best for Loudoun County. There should be no dispute about the fact that the rule of law is fundamental to our survival as a society. As a result, there should be no difference in the way we enforce immigration laws from any other laws. Period. But let’s be honest – the issue isn’t so much about enforcement as it is about taking the next step and trying to make up for the failure of the state and federal government to meet their own enforcement responsibilities. When we cross this line, we add costs to the property tax because added enforcement and incarceration aren’t free by any stretch of the imagination. Second the courts have been pretty consistent in saying that local governments don’t have the authority, especially in a Dillon state like Virginia, to take on these state and federal responsibilities. Yes, it’s a very difficult situation given the lack of responsible federal action. Some would say that we should insist that employers not hire undocumented aliens. It’s time for a reality check—that’s already federal law. So that’s simply rhetoric. Some would say we need to have those doing business with the county sign affidavits to ensure they have proper documentation. Ok, but they are already in violation of federal law if they are hiring undocumented people, and I don’t see any value added in adding this layer of bureaucracy. It’s just another cost for taxpayers and it doesn’t help resolve the underlying problem. Right now the problem isn’t a lack of documentation for most illegal aliens, they have papers but they’re not legitimate. If you need papers, a passport, a work permit, social security card or any other document, there are places in New York and Washington where they can be purchased for about $350. (No problema!). How are employers supposed to be able to discern actual from fake documents when technology and unethical people combine to get around the law. Finally, when I say that we need to do what’s best for Loudoun County, I mean that we have to look at the costs and benefits that go with any proposals. We should avoid rhetoric and emotionalism – and stick to the facts. Currently the largest costs that go with this problem are for education and health care –and they are outside the control of the county. The federal courts have made it very clear that these services must be provided, until they rule differently. So, some would say, all the more reason to deport them. And when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is ready to do this the costs will decline. It’s not a problem of not knowing where these people are – they are at the 7- Eleven and when the Center for Workers was open, they met in an orderly way there each day. That’s not the problem – the INS refuses to pick people up and deport them unless they’ve committed felonies. As a result, we need to work together in a responsible way to get a federal solution that we can then implement at the local level. For now, we need to avoid adding a lot of costs to the county budget that make a few feel better but do nothing to solve the underlying problem. We don’t need more property taxes, we need the rule of law.

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 support the notion of a comprehensive plan. We have to have planned development in order to protect the unique character and resources of our county. So the issue shouldn’t be about the comprehensive plan – any sensible person who understands land use would agree. However, we all have our own vision for what it should look like. As a result, the comprehensive plan is, and should be, a dynamic document. It should reflect the latest knowledge and thinking on land use and it should be updated to reflect actual circumstances rather than what no longer exists on the ground. How can anyone argue with the notion of a suburban east, a rural west, and a transition in between? In short the question is more about the nature of what happens in the transition area than the east or west, right? In short, we all recognize that Dulles Airport and the new World Trade Center are the defining elements of eastern Loudoun, just as the rolling hills and scenic vistas are for western Loudoun. The basic political issue here is how much development is right for Loudoun. Clearly market forces play a role here as well as our own vision of what we want it to become when it’s fully built out. Too often the argument is about stopping growth rather than good planning; it’s about traffic circles that are designed to slow traffic rather than solutions that move traffic as expeditiously as possible to its destination. We need to stop fighting growth and start managing it. The past decade has seen irresponsible growth under my opponent that has left the cost to future taxpayers rather than internalizing the costs as new projects are approved. I will change that and make developers pay for the costs they create in public services. And need I repeat, we need to start by placing our primary attention on attracting Class A businesses to our county.

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 homes and new jobs in the county?

A: Yes, additional steps are needed. The fundamental problem we have is a rapidly declining commercial property base. We are now under 15%, when we should be at about 25-30%. Why is this a problem? First, it means that residential property taxes have to cover more of the load and in the long run it means higher property taxes if we are going to protect the quality of our schools. Second, it means that we have to commute to get to good jobs rather than having good jobs close to home. Third, it means that Loudoun traffic will include an additional load from surrounding counties on their way to jobs in Fairfax, Tysons and DC. We need an entirely new attitude toward business and we need new leadership that wants to attract Fortune 500 companies to the county. Over the past 16 years, my opponent has protected the western elites rather than managing growth in a smart and sensible way. We should be seeking out opportunities like Volkswagen rather than simply turning our backs. As Chairman, this will be my number one priority, to attract the very best companies to Loudoun and build the commercial tax base. I also believe that we need to insist on planned communities rather than by-right development. In planned communities, developers are required to help pay for schools, roads, parks and other infrastructure. By-right development means that developers can build without paying for the impact on the community, and that’s both wrong and preventable. But my opponent has permitted thousands of by-right homes over the past 16 years and now we see the results – traffic, poor roads and uneven infrastructure – all where it could have been different. Now the taxpayers will have to assume that burden, and I will make sure this is avoided as we move forward with responsible development.

Your Thoughts...

What do you think about Barack Obama’s decision against choosing Tim Kaine as his running mate?