Friday, March 17, 2017

How The Left Back Doors United States Rights And Freedoms

The picture on the left is now as American as Apple Pie according to our government.  From Hillary Clinton's leaked emails.

H: FYI: ANY FOREIGN NATION OR LEADER WITH A FRONT COMPANY BECOMES A "PERSON" UNDER US LAW. S



Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's Ties To The Mafia And How He Got This Seat

Terry McAuliffe has ties to the Mafia and this information is straight from John Podesta.  In fact it's off his own email server and is up on wiki leaks for anyone to see.  But we are going to post one of the emails right here so you can read it for yourself and then you can check it live against the link to wiki leaks.

"

In Nevada, Clinton’s campaign manager faces his biggest test - The Washington Post

Mobster McAuliffe Strikes Again, Vetoes House Bill 1470 Claiming Coal Tax Exemptions

Mobster Terry McAuliffe vetoes house bill 1470 claiming it gives a tax incentive to coal companies.  We don't see it, and if it does, so what?  They deserve tax credits considering what the socialist propagandists have done lying about the industry.

  Here is the statement from the mobster's office.



Governor McAuliffe Bill Reinstating Costly and Ineffective Coal Tax Credit without Meaningful Reform

Governor Terry McAuliffe today vetoed Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the coalfield enhancement tax credit without meaningful reforms:

March 17, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the allowance of the coalfield employment enhancement tax credit without meaningful reform.

As I stated last year when I vetoed similar legislation, I work tirelessly to build a new Virginia economy and ensure that the Commonwealth is the best place to live, work, and run a business. Making the most effective use of every dollar taxpayers entrust to their government is an essential part of that effort.

In January 2012, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) published its final report, Review of the Effectiveness of Virginia Tax Preferences, Senate Document No. 4. That report established that the coal tax credits were intended to slow the decline of coal production and employment. Instead, JLARC found that the decline of coal production and employment was the same or even faster than was predicted before the credits were created. JLARC's report concluded that the economic activity had not moved in the desired direction and that the credits had not achieved their goal.

Specifically, from 1988 until 2016, coal mine operators, electricity generators, and other coal-related companies have claimed over $637 million in tax credits. However, during the same period, the number of coal miners in Virginia has declined from 11,106 to 2,483. It would be unwise to spend additional taxpayer dollars on a tax credit that has fallen so short of its intended effectiveness.

Given the findings of the JLARC study and the lack of meaningful reform, including in this year’s legislative session, I believe it would be inappropriate to sign this legislation.

Accordingly, I veto this bill.

Sincerely,

Terence R. McAuliffe

Now let's look at the actual bill.  Can someone please show me where the tax incentive for coal companies are?  I may have overlooked them, but I don't think so.  

HOUSE BILL NO. 1470
Offered January 11, 2017
Prefiled December 9, 2016
A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia, relating to land preservation tax credits; limitations.
----------
Patrons-- Ware, Aird, Hugo, Jones and Orrock
----------
Referred to Committee on Finance
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 58.1-512. Land preservation tax credits for individuals and corporations.
A. 1. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax liability imposed by §§ 58.1-320 and 58.1-400, an amount equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of any land or interest in land located in Virginia which is conveyed for the purpose of agricultural and forestal use, open space, natural resource, and/or biodiversity conservation, or land, agricultural, watershed and/or historic preservation, as an unconditional donation by the landowner/taxpayer to a public or private conservation agency eligible to hold such land and interests therein for conservation or preservation purposes. For such conveyances made on or after January 1, 2007, the tax credit shall be 40 percent of the fair market value of the land or interest in land so conveyed.
2. For taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2017, the amount of credit issued under this article shall not exceed $2 million for each conveyance of land or interest in land.
3. For purposes of the limitation set forth in subdivision 2, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit requested for the current conveyance. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.
B. The fair market value of qualified donations made under this section shall be determined in accordance with § 58.1-512.1 and substantiated by a "qualified appraisal" prepared by a "qualified appraiser," as those terms are defined under applicable federal law and regulations governing charitable contributions. The value of the donated interest in land that qualifies for credit under this section, as determined according to appropriate federal law and regulations, shall be subject to the limits established by United States Internal Revenue Code § 170(e). In order to qualify for a tax credit under this section, the qualified appraisal shall be signed by the qualified appraiser, who must be licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia as provided in § 54.1-2011, and a copy of the appraisal shall be submitted to the Department. In the event that any appraiser falsely or fraudulently overstates the value of the contributed property in an appraisal that the appraiser has signed, the Department may disallow further appraisals signed by the appraiser and shall refer the appraiser to the Real Estate Appraiser Board for appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to § 54.1-2013, which may include, but need not be limited to, revocation of the appraiser's license. Any appraisal that, upon audit by the Department, is determined to be false or fraudulent, may be disregarded by the Department in determining the fair market value of the property and the amount of tax credit to be allowed under this section.
C. 1. The amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided under subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $50,000 for 2000 taxable years; $75,000 for 2001 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2002 through 2008 taxable years; $50,000 for each of 2009, 2010, and 2011 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years; and $20,000 for each of 2015 and 2016 taxable years; and $50,000 for 2017 taxable years and for each taxable year thereafter. However, the amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided in subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on or and after January 1, 2015, the amount of the credit claimed shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year but before January 1, 2017, and shall not exceed $50,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on and after January 1, 2017, provided that no part of the charitable contributions deduction under § 170 of the Internal Revenue Code related to such fee simple donation is allowable by reason of a sale or exchange of property. In addition, for each taxpayer, in any one taxable year the credit used may not exceed the amount of individual, fiduciary or corporate income tax otherwise due. Any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 10 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended. A credit shall not be reduced by the amount of unused credit that could have been claimed in a prior year by the taxpayer but was unclaimed. For taxpayers affected by the credit reduction for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and thereafter, any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 13 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended.
2. Qualified donations shall include the conveyance of a fee interest in real property or the conveyance in perpetuity of a less-than-fee interest in real property, such as a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction, provided that such less-than-fee interest qualifies as a charitable deduction under § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation shall compile an annual report on qualified donations of less-than-fee interests accepted by any public or private conservation agency in the respective calendar year and shall submit the report by December 1 of each year to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Finance. In preparing such report, the Department of Conservation and Recreation shall consult and coordinate with the Department of Taxation and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and Consumer Services to provide an estimate of the number of acres of land currently being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" as defined in § 3.2-300 that have been protected by qualified donations of less-than-fee interests. This report shall include information, when available, on land qualifying for credits being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" that have onsite operational best management practices, which are designed to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment entering public waters. In addition, the report shall include information, when available, on riparian buffers, both vegetated/forested buffers and no-plow buffers, required by deed restriction on land qualifying for credits in order to protect water quality. This information shall be reported in summary fashion as appropriate to preserve confidentiality of information. Qualified donations shall not include the conveyance of a fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property by a charitable organization that (i) meets the definition of "holder" in § 10.1-1009 and (ii) holds one or more conservation easements acquired pursuant to the authority conferred on a "holder" by § 10.1-1010.
3. Any fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property that has been dedicated as open space within, or as part of, a residential subdivision or any other type of residential or commercial development; dedicated as open space in, or as part of, any real estate development plan; or dedicated for the purpose of fulfilling density requirements to obtain approvals for zoning, subdivision, site plan, or building permits shall not be a qualified donation under this article.
4. Qualified donations shall be eligible for the tax credit herein described if such donations are made to the Commonwealth of Virginia, an instrumentality thereof, or a charitable organization described in § 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if such charitable organization (i) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(2) or (ii) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(3) and is controlled by an organization described in § 509(a)(2).
5. The preservation, agricultural preservation, historic preservation or similar use and purpose of such property shall be assured in perpetuity. In the case of conveyances of a fee interest to a charitable organization that is a "holder" as defined in § 10.1-1009, the credit shall not be allowed until the charitable organization agrees that subsequent conveyances of the fee interest in the property will be (i) subject to a previous conveyance in perpetuity of a conservation easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1009, or subject to the conveyance in perpetuity of an open-space easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1700, or (ii) conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia or to a federal conservation agency. No credit shall be allowed with respect to any subsequent conveyances by the charitable organization.
D. The issuance of tax credits under this article for donations made on and after January 1, 2007, shall be in accordance with procedures and deadlines established by the Department and shall be administered under the following conditions:
1. The taxpayer shall apply for a credit after completing the donation by submitting a form or forms prescribed by the Department in consultation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation. If the application requests a credit of $1 million or more or if the donation meets the conditions of subdivision 3 c, then a copy of the application shall also be filed with the Department of Conservation and Recreation by the taxpayer. The application shall include, but not be limited to:
a. A description of the conservation purpose or purposes being served by the donation;
b. The fair market value of land being donated in the absence of any easement or other restriction;
c. The public benefit derived from the donation;
d. The extent to which water quality best management practices will be implemented on the property; and
e. Whether the property is fully or partially forested and a forest management plan is included in the terms of the donation.
2. Applications for otherwise qualified donations of a less-than-fee interest shall be accompanied by an affidavit describing how the donated interest in land meets the requirements of § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations adopted thereunder. The application with accompanying affidavit shall be submitted to the Department of Taxation, with a copy also provided to the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
3. a. No credit in the amount of $1 million or more shall be issued with respect to a donation unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, based on the criteria adopted by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation for this purpose. Such criteria and subsequent amendments shall be exempt from the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), but the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation shall provide for adequate public participation, including adequate notice and opportunity to provide comments on the proposed criteria. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action.
b. For purposes of determining whether a credit requires verification of the conservation value, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit claimed for the current donation. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.
c. If (i) the real property that is the subject of the donation was partitioned from or part of another parcel of land and any other portion of such parcel, or any land partitioned from such parcel of land, has been allowed a tax credit under this article (or an application for tax credit is pending) within three years of such donation and (ii) the tax credit that would otherwise be allowed to the donor for such donation is at least $250,000, then no credit under this article shall be issued with respect to such donation described in clause (i) unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed or interpreted (a) as allowing additional tax credit for any land or interest in land previously conveyed for which tax credit has already been allowed under this article or (b) affecting the validity of any tax credit allowed under this article for a prior conveyance of any land or interest in land.
4. a. Tax credits shall be issued on a calendar year basis, and in no case shall the Department issue more than the maximum allowed for the calendar year. The maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall be $100 million plus any credits previously issued under this article but subsequently disallowed or invalidated by the Department. Credits previously issued but subsequently disallowed or invalidated shall be reissued in a subsequent calendar year. All credits shall be issued in the order that each complete application is filed. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. If within 30 days after an application for credits has been filed the Tax Commissioner provides written notice to the donor that he has determined that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted, the application shall not be deemed complete until the fair market value of the donation has been finally determined by the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall make a final determination within 180 days of notifying the donor, unless the donor has filed an appeal. The donor shall have the right to appeal any decision of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.). If more than one complete application is filed at the same time, the credits with respect to those applications shall be issued in the order that the conveyances were recorded in the appropriate circuit court of the Commonwealth. In the event that a credit requires verification of the conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and such verification has not been received at the time the maximum $100 million allowed is reached for the calendar year of the donation, such credit shall not be issued for that calendar year but shall be issued in the calendar year that the conservation value of the credit is verified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
No credit shall be allowed for any land or interest in land conveyed on or after July 1, 2015, unless a complete application for tax credit with regard to the conveyance has been filed with the Department by December 31 of the year following the calendar year of the conveyance. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. Solely for purposes of this condition, any application for which the Tax Commissioner has given written notice to the donor that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted shall be deemed timely filed, provided that the application was otherwise complete as of such filing deadline.
b. Beginning with calendar year 2008, the $100 million amount contained in subdivision 4 a shall be increased by an amount equal to $100 million multiplied by the percentage by which the consumer price index for all-urban consumers published by the United States Department of Labor (CPI-U) for the 12-month period ending August 31 of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending August 31, 2006.
c. Beginning with calendar year 2015 and ending December 31, 2016, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $75 million. Beginning with calendar year 2017, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $50 million. In no case shall the Department issue any tax credit for a donation from any allocation or pool of tax credits attributable to a calendar year prior to the year in which the complete tax credit application for the donation was filed.
Beginning with the submission due on or before December 20, 2015, and in each year thereafter, the Governor shall include in "The Budget Bill" submitted pursuant to subsection A of § 2.2-1509 or in his amendments to the general appropriation act in effect submitted pursuant to subsection E of § 2.2-1509 a recommended appropriation from the general fund equal to the difference between the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision b and $75 million for calendar years 2015 and 2016 or $50 million for calendar year 2017 and each year thereafter, but not more than $20 million, to be allocated as follows: 80 percent to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-1020, with no less than 50 percent of such appropriation to be used for fee simple acquisitions with public access or acquisitions of easements with public access; 10 percent to the Virginia Battlefield Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-2202.4; and 10 percent to the Virginia Farmland Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 3.2-201.
5. a. Any taxpayer that has been issued a tax credit by the Department shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 10 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 13 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article.
b. Any taxpayer to whom a credit has been transferred may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 11 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 14 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer.
6. Neither the verification of conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation nor the issuance of a credit by the Department of Taxation shall in any way be construed or interpreted as prohibiting the Department of Taxation or the Tax Commissioner from auditing any credit claimed pursuant to the provisions of this article or from assessing tax relating to the claiming of any credit under this article.
E. In any review or appeal before the Tax Commissioner or in any court in the Commonwealth the burden of proof shall be on the taxpayer to show that the fair market value and conservation value at the time of the qualified donation is consistent with this section and that all requirements of this article have been satisfied.
§ 58.1-513. Limitations; transfer of credit; gain or loss from tax credit.
A. Any taxpayer claiming a tax credit under this article shall not claim a credit under any similar Virginia law for costs related to the same project. To the extent a credit is taken in accordance with this article, no subtraction allowed for the gain on the sale of (i) land dedicated to open-space use or (ii) an easement dedicated to open-space use under subsection C of § 58.1-322 shall be allowed for three years following the year in which the credit is taken. Any building which serves as the basis, in whole or in part, of a tax credit under this article shall not serve as the basis of the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 for a period of five years following the donation on which the credit is based; and any building which serves as the basis for the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 shall not serve as the basis, in whole or in part, for a tax credit under this article for a period of five years following the completion of the rehabilitation project on which the credit is based.
B. Any tax credits that arise under this article from the donation of land or an interest in land made by a pass-through tax entity such as a trust, estate, partnership, limited liability company or partnership, limited partnership, subchapter S corporation or other fiduciary shall be used either by such entity if it is the taxpayer on behalf of such entity or by the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary, as the case may be, in proportion to their interest in such entity in the event that income, deductions and tax liability pass through such entity to such member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary or as set forth in the agreement of said entity. Such tax credits shall not be claimed by both the entity and the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary for the same donation.
C. 1. Any taxpayer holding a credit under this article may transfer unused but otherwise allowable credit for use by another taxpayer on Virginia income tax returns. A taxpayer who transfers any amount of credit under this article shall file a notification of such transfer to the Department in accordance with procedures and forms prescribed by the Tax Commissioner.
2. A fee of two 2.5 percent of the value of the donated interest shall be imposed upon any transfer arising from the sale by any taxpayer of credits under this article and upon the distribution of a portion of credits under this article to a member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary pursuant to subsection B. Revenues generated by such fees first shall be used by the Department of Taxation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation for their costs in implementing this article but in no event shall such amount exceed 50 percent of the total revenue generated by the fee on an annual basis. The remainder of such revenues shall be transferred to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund for distribution to the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, that are responsible for enforcing the conservation and preservation purposes of the donated interests. Distribution of such revenues shall be made annually by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation proportionally based on a three-year average of the number of donated interests accepted by the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, during the immediately preceding three-year period.
D. To the extent included in and not otherwise subtracted from federal adjusted gross income pursuant to § 58.1-322 or federal taxable income pursuant to § 58.1-402, there shall be subtracted any amount of gain or income recognized by a taxpayer on the application of a tax credit under this article against a Virginia income tax liability.
E. The transfer of the credit and its application against a tax liability shall not create gain or loss for the transferor or the transferee of such credit.
F. A pass-through tax entity, such as a partnership, limited liability company or Subchapter S corporation, may appoint a tax matters representative, who shall be a general partner, member/manager or shareholder, and register that representative with the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall be entitled to deal with the tax matters representative as representative of the taxpayers to whom credits have been allocated or transferred by the entity under this article with respect to those credits. In the event a pass-through tax entity allocates or transfers tax credits arising under this article to its partners, members or shareholders and the allocated or transferred credits shall be disallowed, in whole or in part, such that an assessment of additional tax against a taxpayer shall be made, the Tax Commissioner shall first make written demand for payment of any additional tax, together with interest and penalties, from the tax matters representative. In the event such payment demand is not satisfied, the Tax Commissioner shall proceed to collection against the taxpayers in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.).

Looking at the above code, I am happy this was vetoed.  It's government taking good land away from ever being sold or used again by anyone other than the government.  That is a very bad deal for everyone.  Even though you are the one's ultimately paying for this government land grab, it works against the people and for the government.  Once it's off the market, it stays off the market forever and can not be used.  Very bad idea.  This is just more theft by your government for the government and against the people and at your expense.  Ya gotta thank these mobsters.  

  So you are wondering why we are now calling Terry McAuliffe a mobster?  That is coming in an article very soon showing his ties to the mob whom he hired to gain his seat in the highest office in Virginia.  And it comes from his good friend, John Podesta. 



Zoning Is Theft, Tell Your Elected Officials To Pay Up Or Tear Up The Laws.

Zoning.  The government controls it and they are the ones who have made up the entire system.  Does zoning do anything for "We The People" though?  Why yes it does.  It robs us.  It is an insidious system of theft from the pockets of anyone who wishes to do something with the property they purchase for whatever use they had planned.

  It is nothing more than a socialist construct that allows government, against your rights, to dictate how, what, when and where, you can do something with private property.  Wait, did I say private property?  How can property possibly be private if the government can step in at anytime and tell you what you can and can not do with it?  Someone somewhere is lying to us.  Let's look at the basic definition of zoning to see if we can get a better grasp of what it is supposed to be.

  "Zoning:  The basic purpose and function of zoning is to divide a municipality into residential, commercial, and industrial districts (or zones), that are for the most part separate from one another, with the use of property within each district being reasonably uniform."   http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/land-use-and-zoning-basics.html

   Already we have issues with the government determining what can be done with private property.  That means private property is no longer private.  If that is the case, then that means the government has an ownership stake in all property.  If that is the case, and they are saying it is, then the government should also be paying a percentage of taxes on property under your name or entity that you hold property under and the government should be getting bills from you on any and all maintenance and upkeep you do on any property.  When is the last time this has happened?  It hasn't you say?  Why not.

  If the government is going to dictate to you what can be done with property, then the government needs to also step up and start paying their fair share or get out of our way.  Paying for zoning changes and having to go through public hearings for those changes is tantamount to pure theft.  The government is stealing from you and all the rest of us.  It's time to tell the government to get out of our way and stop stealing from us or they better step up and start paying their fair share of all the work and materials we add to any given property.  Tear up the zoning laws.  Stop the theft.  Tell your elected officials to pay up or tear it up.  This is not a government service unless you consider theft of your money a government service.  

Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception

Gloucester VA Links and News: The Waterline At Page Middle School:  Disaster Wai...

Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception.

When we elect and hire people to manage our tax dollars, we do so with the expectation that those folks will take care of our money just like, if not better than, they manage their own financial affairs. We expect them to use our money to provide necessary services, build and maintain our infrastructure, educate our kids and take care of the employees they hire.

Several years ago I and other Gloucester County, Virginia residents began suggesting that our school system and county government consolidate services as a way of reducing costs and getting more bang for our tax dollars. The way things are now, we are paying for two finance, vehicle maintenance, buildings and grounds, information technology and human resource departments. So far we have heard a lot of promises and witnessed lost opportunities. Not so long ago the school system’s finance and human resource directors resigned. Instead of capturing the opportunity to consolidate finance departments and human resource departments with the county, the school system promoted one of their finance employees to director, increased her pay and hired a new human resource director.

The Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board recently spent tens of thousands of dollars to have a study done on where and how much it will cost to build a consolidated vehicle maintenance and utility yard facility. When the county and school system left public works, buildings and grounds and all other industrial type functions out of the equation, it was the first signal that they had no intentions of consolidating anything; that is until the consultant publicized pictures of the county garage. Now it appears they are forced to consolidate vehicle maintenance or to at least act like they intend to do so. At this point it also looks like they are trying to cut corners by wanting to reduce the amount of bus parking space and number of maintenance bays that were recommended in the study.

Once the study was completed and presented to the school board, they sent the consultant back to the drawing board to create a scenario in which the utility department’s yard was left out of the consolidation plan. When the BOS and school board met together to discuss the transportation study, it was quickly evident there were members of both boards who were not pleased with the consultants findings because they have other intentions for the old Page and bus garage land. As the meeting progressed, both boards pushed the utility department yard right out of the picture. In fact, Supervisor Ashley Chriscoe said the utility department can make due with what they have now. I find that completely absurd. The utility department needs new facilities just as bad as the school system needs a new bus facility and the county needs a new vehicle maintenance facility. Take a look at the pictures in the slideshare presentation at the end of this article to see a glimpse of how neglected these areas of our infrastructure are. Gloucester resident Howard Mowry told the BOS during a recent public comment period that hazmat and the fire marshal need to condemn the county garage that is located at the intersection of Providence Road and Route 17. Look at the slideshare pictures and you will understand why he said it. Better yet, take some time to visit these public facilities. You will quickly realize the pictures do not show the whole view. 

The utility department not only needs a new yard, they also need a new office. The office they currently occupy on Carriage Street in the Courthouse area has a basement that is full of black mold due to moisture problems. The building was formally the health department building until they were moved because of the mold issues. I know I would not want to spend eight or more hours a day in a building with such mold issues; would you?

When I suggested consolidating all industrial type functions, I suggested doing so on the old Page Middle School and bus garage properties. I also suggested building a strip mall type office building on part of the front portion of the land to provide office space for the consolidated departments. I suggested dedicating a portion of the land for a future fire and rescue facility. Neither board seems to care for my suggestions just like they didn’t seem to care for the results of the study they spent our tax dollars on. The funny thing about the study was; even though the two boards limited the amount of land on the old Page property that could be utilized for the proposed facilities, the consultant made the facilities fit and demonstrated that it would be several million dollars cheaper to build on the old Page and bus garage properties than on the new Page property. The two boards have now added what they are calling safe ingress and egress requirements by claiming the T.C. Walker and Route 17 intersection must be turned into a four way intersection and land must be bought from Harry Corr before a consolidated facility can be located at the old Page site. Well, these so called “requirements” are not requirements at all. It is just their way of running up the cost to build on that site up so they can justify moving the bus garage off the property.

It would seem there are members of both boards who want the school board to give the old Page and bus garage land to the county to be part of some “so called” economic development plan that they have not shared anything about with the general public. Is it just a coincidence that a local developer and school board member is leading the effort to completely abandon the land? I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in coincidences. I do believe fulfilling our infrastructure needs and providing safe decent workplaces for our employees is far more important than filling a couple of greedy people’s pockets.      

Our local government and school system could easily eliminate between five and seven department heads if they would create and implement a comprehensive consolidation plan and eliminate other unnecessary departments and positions. Tax dollar savings from these reductions alone would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

It is time to reduce the size of our local government and school system administration and reinvest in our infrastructure. If we don’t, real estate and other local taxes will continue to rise and areas of our infrastructure will fail; resulting in more wasted tax dollars.

Be sure to check out the slideshare presentation and after that you will find a video of the BOS and School Board discussion on the transportation facility.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Helping To Drain The Swamp



Monday, March 13, 2017

Gloucester County, Virginia FY 2018 Budget Process; Get Involved!!

Image result for chuck thompson gloucester va. library photos
The Gloucester Board of Supervisors has now started contemplating how they will allow our local government to spend your tax dollars next year. The County Administrator is recommending a one and a half cent real estate tax increase which is the amount of increase the BOS approved last year. If the BOS follow the Administrator’s recommendation, the real estate tax rate will increase from to 69.5 to 71 cents per $100 of assessed value.

There is a small minority of people in Gloucester who, for one personal cause or another, want the real estate tax rate to increase significantly. Like I have many times in the past; I suggest those folks donate as much as they want to their causes and passions, but leave the rest of us out of it. The typical response to my suggestion is something along the lines of them not trusting that their donated money will be used for their cause. What sense does that make?

The majority of people in Gloucester do not want real estate taxes increased at all. I am one of those folks and believe there should be no further tax increases until our local government makes all money matters completely transparent to the public, eliminates all unnecessary spending, consolidates services with our school system, eliminates redundant and unnecessary services and establishes a detailed plan that quantifies and addresses our numerous and neglected infrastructure needs.

Over the last several years there have been efforts by a handful of us to encourage the BOS to put in place measures and policies that will enhance transparency in our local government. When the current BOS evolved through the addition of three board members who are up for reelection this November, they appeared to take significant steps towards making the County’s financial matters more open to the people. After a little over three years, the steps that were initially made have mostly been erased and we are now left with abandoned efforts and broken promises.

During the BOS budget deliberations last year; I pointed out several things our local government spends money on that are a complete waste of tax dollars. The most ludicrous of these expenditures is the amount of tax dollars they throw away on renting our public library and local health department spaces. In my opinion; the rental agreement for the courthouse library and health department space was created as an unethical backdoor funding mechanism to financially empower the Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust. The taxpayers of Gloucester have and continue to be forced to provide money to this “not for profit” non-government organization that has taken control of the courthouse area of the county and the current BOS treats them just as good as prior boards did. The logical thing to do is close the Hayes library until a building can be purchased or built to replace it. All money currently budgeted to that library should be placed in a separate account to go towards buying our way out of the current lease agreement and towards building or buying the necessary library space. Money should be borrowed to build a new main library on the property where Page Middle School is located and to build new health department space in the Gloucester business park where Sentara and the free clinic are located. The Commonwealth rents the health department space from Gloucester County, so those rent payments will ultimately pay to build the building and will eventually turn into a revenue stream. All tolled our local government is throwing away in the neighborhood of a half million dollars annually by not owning our own library and health department spaces.

I also pointed out that almost a half million dollars is being wasted yearly on the community education department. Instead of breaking up this department and returning all of its functions to the school system, social services, information technology and county administration departments; our local government doubled down by giving the director a nice raise and by changing the name of the department to the department of community engagement. This department pays multiple people to manage community use of our public school facilities. Each one of these people receives a salary and benefits that are paid for with tax dollars. I suggested having each school’s administration office re-assume these responsibilities utilizing current school system employees and teachers. Even if we need to pay a few employees and teachers a little more money to perform this function after school, we will still save a significant amount on salaries and benefits by not having the extra employees. Social Services is the governmental department that is supposed to provide assistance to those in the community who are in need. The community engagement department facilitates and supports various non-profit, non-government organizations that should be supported and facilitated by our local social services department. If someone is in need, social services should be the one stop place to go to connect with available government and community resources. There was no need to create a special department to do this. Community engagement also responds to Freedom of Information Act requests for information and publishes the Beehive and the Weekly Town Crier. These functions and all other media and public affairs type functions should become a joint effort between county administration and information technology. There is no need to pay a director over $100,000 plus benefits yearly to manage these functions.

Gloucester’s animal control department spends most of its time patrolling the roads throughout the county. Last year I suggested ending the patrolling and turning animal control into a strictly reactionary department. If someone has a concern about an animal issue they will call. We certainly do not need to be paying employees to visit the public beach under the bridge and the York River Yacht Haven pool at Gloucester Point multiple times a day; or to hang out and shoot the breeze in various local stores. I also suggested routing all animal control dispatch calls through the Sheriff’s department and to limit the number of full time animal control employees to two. These changes should result in significant tax dollar savings and improve animal control’s relationship with the overall community.

These are just a few examples of the unnecessary and costly ways our local government frivolously spends our tax dollars. Consolidating county and school system functions is another way that Gloucester can significantly cut costs and enhance service. We will soon share what our BOS and School Board have done about consolidation over the last three years.

We have provided other information pertaining to Gloucester’s lease agreements, budget and real estate tax rates at the end of this article. Be sure to check it all out.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your comments and Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Helping To Drain The Swamp
 

The following are current real estate tax rates:
Gloucester……….69.5 cents per $100 of assessed value
Mathews…………54 cents per $100 of assessed value
New Kent………..83 cents per $100 of assessed value
West Point………72 cents per $100 of assessed value
York……………..75.15 cents per $100.00 of assessed value
Williamsburg…….57 cents per $100 of assessed value
Newport News…..1 dollar and 22 cents per $100 of assessed value
Hampton………...1 dollar and 24 cents per $100 of assessed value

Gloucester’s Proposed FY18 Budget Presentation:



Gloucester’s FY 2017 Budget:
View this slide share to see Gloucester’s library, health department and other lease agreements: