Land-Use Laws Aim To Restore Confidence
Article Tools
Share This +
Rules Require New Disclosures
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Two bills aimed at making Loudoun County’s zoning and land-use process more transparent have been signed into law by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and will go into effect July 1.
One law applies only to Loudoun and requires members of the county Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to disclose any business or financial relationships they have had with land-use applicants during the 12 months prior to hearings on an application.
Such relationships include being a partner, employee, agent or attorney of an applicant or of others involved in a project. Some situations — such as an employer-employee tie between applicant and public official — will require the official’s recusal from the proceedings. Business or financial ties involving members of the official’s immediate household also must be disclosed.
The law also requires Loudoun officials to disclose, at the time a land-use application is being considered, any gifts or campaign donations of more than $100 from the applicant.
The second law, which applies statewide, requires local government officers and certain local government employees to list all real property in which they have an ownership interest — regardless of its location — and to name any co-owners of that property. Currently, state law requires the officials to disclose only property they own in the jurisdiction where they serve and in any contiguous county, city or town.
Sen. Mark Herring
Sen. Mark R. Herring (D-Loudoun), who sponsored the two bills, said he made the proposals to stem an erosion of public trust in the county’s land-use process.
“In light of the concerns that so many citizens had last year about the land-use process in Loudoun County, I thought it was important to help restore people’s confidence in the integrity in local government,” Herring said.
In January 2007, The Washington Post published a series of articles detailing close ties between real estate interests and some Loudoun County officials. Following the articles, local authorities announced a federal probe into potential public corruption in the county. Asked about the status of the investigation, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s Washington field office declined to comment Friday.
Herring said he originally introduced the Loudoun-only measure as a statewide bill but met with opposition from some legislators who argued that it would burden localities with unnecessary administrative costs.
“I still think that matters of conflict of interest and disclosure really should be uniform throughout the state. But there is a certain administrative cost that goes along with this, so I understand the argument,” Herring said.
INTERNET ENHANCED
Special Report
Archived Stories
Related Stories
- Jan. 22, 2007 -- Official Backed Plans Of Business Connections
- Jan. 21, 2007 -- Influence of Developers, Allies Runs Deep
Advertisement
Loudoun Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge) said he was pleased that Herring’s bills had passed, adding that he has been working with other board members to adopt county policies that go beyond the new state laws.
An ethics package has been working its way through the board’s Finance/Government Services and Operations Committee and could come to a vote at the board’s next business meeting May 6, Burton said.
Among the most important proposals in the package, Burton said, is one that would prevent land-use applicants from making any changes to an application within 35 days of the board’s voting on it.
“Too often in the past we’ve received changes in the last minute by developers,” Burton said, adding that such revisions prevent an adequate review by supervisors, county staff members and the public.
Other measures being considered by the board would allow members of the public to sign up electronically to speak at public hearings and would require that land-use applications be posted on the county’s Web site 24 hours after board members receive their copies.
Like Herring, Burton said the new measures would do much to restore faith in local officials.
The announcement of the federal probe “left the county with a cloud of suspicion hanging over the business of the board, and so I’ve been trying to get policies adopted and enacted that would remove those clouds,” he said.
Deal of the Day
Take $10 Off The New Hooked Lounge!
Hooked is treating you to an exclusive VIP offer! Celebrate the launch of the Saturday Night Lounge! Take $10 off ...
• View all deals from Hooked | All deals
Latest Deal
• Get $500 Off Invisalign and Free Tooth Whitening! posted: 8/27/08
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
What do you think about Barack Obama’s decision against choosing Tim Kaine as his running mate?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
The amount Mr. Burton returned to HCA's PAC--one ninth of the amount the VLF PAC received from the HCA PAC--was over $1000.
Looks like Mr. York, with his multi-year political/donor relationship with both HCA and employees, may have yet another reason to recuse from the HCA land use vote.
Other than plain old ethics, I mean.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 19, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Barb. But York took VLF money, not HCA money. The VLF was a Bipartisan PAC that wached over, and completed the removal of Supervisors where the perception was that they were beholding to developers. Stretch it as you need to, but York's contributions do not meet that criteria. Developers fueled the cash influx with 55% of all donations coming from OUTSIDE of Loudoun. The VLF was and is a Bipartisan PAC operating INSIDE of Loudoun County.
They beat down-right funny business of FOIA'd material being funneled to (that's the proper use of that word)Roherty and being used by Firetti. All this, in spite of not even being registered as an opposition PAC,...the proper way to do that.
Look for far more from the VLF. Their commitment to Loudoun's citizens isn't over yet, and they remain a very vital player in continuing initiatives that will be seen ov er the next 3.5 years.
Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean, you are funny, sort of.
HCA gave money through their PAC to the VLF PAC, which made massive contributions to eight of nine supervisors.
Mr. Burton has returned the HCA percentage of the VLF money he accepted, as he usually does with contribution money whenever there is a potential for conflict or controversy. Witness his return of all donations from Scott Kasprowicz (the Piedmont Environmetal Council Director appointed by Kaine as deputy Secretary of Transportation thereby securing an automatic berth on the Commonwealth Transportation Board) when the Post ran a story detailing the amount of real estate Kasprowicz had interests in in the Tyson's area (but he's NOT a developer! lol), that stood to directly benefit from the Tyson's rail tunnel so strongly pushed by Kaine et al. Mr. Burton returned several thousand there. The amount of HCA money he returned was over 1K.
Mr. York benefited from the HCA money funneled through the VLF money laundry, which contributed tens of thousands to his campaign. In addition, he received money directly from HCA's PAC in the 03 cycle, as well as contributions from the Descutner family, and Ms. Descutner (of HCA) was his campaign manager in the cycle before that.
It is not realistic to expect Mr. York to return everything he has received from HCA and related parties over the many years of their relationship, which is why he should recuse.
Dean, it isn't like its hard to see more from VLF: the ads during the election cycle campaigning against deals made for contributors, and "ethics", backed up by the viral anonymity of York's Posse on the blogs, were very effective, but primarily for technique. (Which hasn't changed by the same crowd since I moved in)
All the more interesting when nine weeks into the VLF's term of "taking back Loudoun" they vote to set aside a lawsuit for a campaign contributor, and plan to vote on their land use application. Meanwhile, the same posse fires up the same tactics on behalf of the contributors deal.
Dean, do recall that the base the triumvirate VLF, York and his Posse had for their attacks was a story in the post based on a two year study of a FOIA that not only revealed nothing, but was ANSWERED by what the triumvirate called the "Gang of Five", unlike the FOIA fought with our tax dollars by Mssrs. York and Burton, and Mrs. Waters.
In addition Dean, FOIA by its nature is public information. How does one funnel that which is publicly available? It wasn't used for a campaign list, which is one of the few strictures on the material.
You can't "funnel" sunshine Dean.
I'm sure we will see breathtaking policy shenanigans from the good ole boys over the next 3.5. It's 1999 all over again.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep using the word "funneled" in an attempt to cast some negative light on the transaction.It was then, and is now, readily available on vpap.Nothing was hidden for anyone who can search a database.Regarding FOIA's, it is true they are indeed public for individuals. They are, however, not to be used in any political arena unless a registered PAC does the request.
The Burton,York and Waters FOIA's were requested from the private individual, and then shared with the campaign of those running against the incumbents. To be fully immersed in "sunshine", this activity needed to be conducted by a registered PAC, so the record of all financial transactions between the parties was public, and not confined to the parking structure that it occurred in.
The VLF voted to set aside a lawsuit? The lawsuit was removed from the table by HCA so that the vote could be recorded without the weight of a lawsuit hanging over the County's head. It was a good faith move by HCA, and brillaint at that. Don't begrudge tham for removing your ammo.
90% of what you just typed is unadulterated horse crap. I snicker everytime you people have to dig up occurrences of people actually volunteering to serve their county back in 1995, in order to even have something to throw at them now. It looks pathetic.
Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 22, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean, I didn't say it wasn't visible. If it weren't no one would know how much they gave to the VLF gang.
Yes, Dean, the VLF Board voted for a campaign contributor, in complete contravention of their strident campaign literature.
Also recall that they voted to set aside the COUNTY portion of the lawsuit and review their contributor's land use application, days before HCA chose to drop their portion of the suit.
Which they can refile at any time.
That is hardly a good faith movement. It was simple PR after the VLF Board had already voted not to fight the suit and go ahead and re-do the land use.
You are quite funny on FOIA Dean. You keep going on about parking garages; is that the Loudoun equivalent of a grassy knoll?
Wait, don't tell me: their are...indictments coming, that you and only you know about!
I'm still waiting for the last set, that was DEFINITELY coming before the Republican convention.
Back to topic: York has had contributions from the organization and from individuals connected with it for lots longer than you've lived here to be aware of.
He should recuse.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dean,
There was NO MONEY exchanged between me and anyone. What is your insinuation about money exchanging in a parking structure? You are just making stuff up, again.
You must stop with your slander of me. I FOIA'd them, got a court order to produce the information, and they are STILL fighting it, with tax money, as Barbara has pointed out.
Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mann, nobody mentioned your name until you did. Are you slandering yourself?? I DISTINCTLY avoided naming you. Furthermore, I am ENTITLED TO MY OPINIONS. Get over yourself, please. You're really not that important. The Firetti gang just avoided forming a legitimate opposition PAC, and doing it by the same rules everybody else followed....which is par for the course, as I see it.
Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment