Loudoun Board Bars Use of Builder Campaign Funds
Article Tools
Share This +
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Loudoun County supervisors voted yesterday to bar themselves from accepting campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before the board as part of a broad effort to restore public confidence in a body that some have viewed as too close to the development community.
Supervisors voted overwhelmingly for the change, with only Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling) dissenting. Delgaudio said such a policy was tantamount to curbing freedom of expression.
But Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said it was a necessary step, even though it will put incumbent supervisors at a disadvantage when running for reelection against challengers without such limitations.
"We are holding ourselves to a higher standard ... than the people who might challenge us," Waters said. "But I think that it will help build the public trust, not only for the people, but for the applicants, so we're all clear what the rules are."
The change is part of an ethics package proposed in January by Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who has called for greater transparency in the wake of rapid growth in the county — growth that he and other critics have said was spurred by county leaders who were too friendly with developers.
In recent elections, developers and others in the building community have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to local political campaigns. Some of the county officials who have benefited the most from the donations — Republicans Stephen J. Snow (Dulles), Bruce E. Tulloch (Potomac), Mick Staton Jr. (Potomac), Jim Clem (Leesburg) and Delgaudio — were generally supportive of the growth, which they said was a sign of economic strength. All but Delgaudio have been replaced on the board.
In January 2007, the close relationships between developers and some supervisors were detailed in a series in The Washington Post. Shortly after the stories were published, local authorities announced a federal probe into potential public corruption in Loudoun County. To date, authorities have not announced any charges.
Bob Maistros, who worked for Snow's campaign, said Snow and others were unfairly labeled as unethical because of their pro-growth perspective.
"People took the growth issue and implied that anyone who wasn't no-growth was in the pocket of developers. That's unfair and it's inaccurate," he said. "That's what damaged the public trust in the board, the use of the ethics issue as a proxy for the pitched battle over growth versus no growth."
In the end, in the face of intense opposition from residents who blamed the growth for their crowded schools and roads and rising tax bills, past supervisors rejected several high-profile development proposals. Still, it wasn't enough for voters, who ousted pro-growth supervisors (with the exception of Delgaudio) in favor of those who were critical of growth.
The current board has sought to be open in its relations with the community. During every regular board meeting, board members engage in a detailed and sometimes lengthy disclosure period in which they list all the people they have met with since the previous meeting — landowners, business owners, community activists and journalists.
John A. Andrews II, a developer and former School Board member, praised the board's decision yesterday to decline campaign contributions from those who have issues pending before the board.
"I just think it makes for cleaner government, so I have no problems with it," he said.
One plan to improve accountability, however, has not come through. Last year, in an effort to improve its reputation and save the county money, the previous board voted to hire an inspector general to conduct internal investigations. But supervisors did not follow through this year because of the tight budget.
Tagged: Board of Supervisors, development, growth, schools, Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio
Deal of the Day
Take 15% Off Lunch at Nick's Corner Grill!
Take 15% off your lunch bill Monday through Thursdays until 4pm! This is for a limited time only. Located in ...
• View all deals from Nick's Corner Grill | All deals
Urgent Deal
• Take 15% Off at the Grand Opening of Go Bananas in Lansdowne! expires: 9/6/08
|
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
Gotta love it - discouraging bribery = "curbing freedom of expression"!
Posted by blueridgepro (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another blow to free speach. This is McCain-Feingold writ small.
Posted by foobar2 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As Supervisor McGimsey noted, this policy is most certainly an "anti-applicant" policy, but is most certainly not an "anti-special interests" policy. It is nothing more than a political move to slay once again an industry that the current Board likes to blame for all of the ills facing Loudoun County.
Non-applicant special interest groups, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council's Voter's To Stop Sprawl and applicant-controlled PAC's such as HCA's wonderfully-named "Good Government Fund" can still use their dollars to finance the Loudoun Board legislation they want.
If you think about it, there is some real hypocracy here.
Posted by Jill4x (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoke and Mirrors, Smoke and Mirrors.
Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact is that in the past, developers have fed at the trough at their liesure in Loudoun and the infrastructure and quality of life in the county has suffered as a result. Any actions to discourage future abuses is welcomed and regardless of what any current Supervisor says - its not curbing freedom of speech. Geez, what a weak pathetic response.
Posted by ButterBeansBacon (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Political contributions ARE freedom of speech, and there are differences between contribution and donation.
It will be interesting to see if those VLF supervisors (except for Mr. Burton, who returned the contribution) recuse themselves from their contributor HCA's application now. The language passed yesterday was strengthened beyond what was advertised, so I don't know if returning the money makes a difference.
Some special interests DO get a pass, because they may not meet the narrow definition of direct "benefit", and they don't file land applications.
However, the multimillion-dollar budgets of the "good" groups use a lot of intangibles in pressing their cases against other people's use of land. They reap a benefit less easily proved tangible when their own private disneyland continues the way they prefer when applications are denied (perhaps based on their contributions and lobbying).
But they are a "greater good", so its okay.
And it takes a lot more work to ferret out the tax benefits they receive from expenditures and government bodies instituted to promote their hobbies and lifestyle, and the property value increase they enjoy through their control of others' property by fiat.
All this is is the six month progress report, so it said "ethics" and "FBI". It throws "schools" in because they're about to do a number to delay all schools in Dulles for their tranisiton zone contributors they appointed to several county positions who don't want to look at secondary schools, but DO want all day kindergarten and more at the second most expensive school in the county (two to three times the cost of a seat anywhere in Dulles at last count), that their own kids are bused to in the rural policy area.
The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?
Or maybe just the same old ecoganic sustainable heirloom wine in a brand-newly recycled artisan glass bottle.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Delgaudio doesn't like it, it must be a good move.
Posted by koolkat_1960 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The political contributions in Loudoun were indeed free speech. They spoke to Snow, Tulloch, Clem, Delgaudio etc. and said "Green Stamp" all of our project on the backs of the Loudoun taxpayers in exchange for our Cash. It's kinda funny that speech can say so so many things.
Posted by jay.kennedy (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Woo!
Posted by reston75 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jay.kennedy, what does that say about the number of contributors appointed by this board to positions of power? The pendulum has swung again, which is the real blow to ALL taxpayers in the disruption it causes.
As for "free speech", that was the Supreme Court case Delgaudio was referencing in his board discussion remarks: political contributions (as opposed to DONATIONS) are protected free speech.
Look it up.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does this mean fewer pieces of litter marked "Delgaudio" will be spread throughout eastern Loudoun and western Fairfax during the next election?
Posted by Koolio96 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barb,I'm not arguing with you and I agree that it is free speech, but all I heard from that free-speech was Dirty Polen-Myers, Dirty Tulloch, Dirty Clem, Dirty Staton, and Dirty Dirty Dirty Snow.
I think a bunch of other voters heard the exact same thing I did thank god !!! I will take my chances and trust in the appointments of this board until they are shown to be as dirty as the last.
Posted by jay.kennedy (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Koolio96 wrote: Does this mean fewer pieces of litter marked "Delgaudio"?
-----------------------------------------
Delagudio will be replaced by another politician who will vigorously pursue the detention, deportation of illegal aliens, koolio. Heres to hoping Eugene's replacement is even tougher in that regard! Vamos!
Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OhTheHumanity or OhTheBigotedCruelty?
Posted by DouginMountVernon (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobody thinks having illegal aliens in our country is a good thing. But you folks who despise their presence enough to advocate mass deportation have no idea what you're asking for. The economic disruption alone, not to mention the simply inhumane cruelty in dividing families and orphaning US citizens, would cripple this country to the point that your McMansions will devalue even further while prices at the grocery store and for home services will continue throught the roof.
You don't know what you're asking for.
The only answer is a path to citizenship, and it's a win-win. There are problems with the system, and problems in the neighborhoods, all of which need to be addressed. But stop advocating cruel and unobtainable goals because they're not going to solve anything.
Unless of course, it's not a solution you seek, rather the basest flames of ugly bigotry and intolerance that you continue to fan so quixotically.
Posted by DouginMountVernon (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes jay, the VLF candidates used their contributors' money to make a lot of criminal accusations, which were supposed to come true before the election was even held.
Where are those indictments? I guess in the litter that flooded our mailboxes....
Start watching the actions of the At Large appointee to Parks, Rec and Open Space:
She sent a lot of fun emails newsletters urging electoral action against "criminals" over the past several years as a "private citizen", yet appeared on VPAP as "self-employed/direct mail marketing". I guess so! But who was paying?
She has so far filed paperwork on a county owned property to have it declared an endangered historic resource, even though that is the purview of the owner (the county), and has not yet registered this particlar one of her many "groups" as a 501c3 or anything else--she just made up a new email list and letterhead and got her resource designation.
She wants the county to divert funds from the regional rec and senior center to give her a private preschool and daycare more in keeping with her "rural" lifestyle.
She has also come to several public meetings now without disclosing her position to speak against the planned secondary schools already included in the adopted county CIP, this week at the board urging them to "do whatever you have to, condemn some land " to get them moved, which will delay the schools opening.
So what, not her kids, right?
No, her kids will go across Route 15 into a rural village for the second most expensive school seats in the county, more than double the cost per seat of the kids she is doing her best to screw into a bus ride to Ashburn or beyond.
So much for the envirnmental argument about busing, eh?
She was joined by the Dulles District rep, who was there to speak against schools, roads and a private rec facility that was making major proffers.
I think, but may be wrong, that there are more pressing recreation needs on the At Large rep's plate than getting herself a private preschool and elementary school experience at taxpayer expense.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead of "barring," why couldn't the board have simply "pledged" not to accept donations from developers.
I actually agree with Delgaudio (never happened before). This has been declared "speech."
Posted by louiebird (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment