Thursday, August 7, 2014

HCOD Stifles Gloucester Business Growth


During the few years the toll was removed from the Coleman Bridge, Gloucester experienced a growth spurt that will not be experienced again until un-tolled access returns. That growth spurt was used as justification for creating the HCOD. In reality the HCOD was established to satisfy aesthetic and financial gain desires of a few rich persons. What the HCOD actually did was stifle business growth and remove control of property use from the owners. How does this benefit the people of Gloucester or prospective businesses? It doesn't. During the time the HCOD was set in place the economy was good and people were not paying attention to government. Fortunately, more people are paying attention now.

In a recent Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal opinion letter David Peebles mentioned the numerous years of support of the HCOD by the planning commission, board of supervisors and administration. Statistics indicate we the people have not seen any significant return from the implementation and enforcement of the HCOD. In fact, the HCOD has caused the County to lose prospective and established businesses.

Mr. Peebles’ assertion that the EDA, administration and the HCOD are responsible for the existence of good restaurants, shopping centers and other businesses in Gloucester seems to be somewhat distorted. The truth of the matter is; population growth was the driving factor behind those businesses coming to Gloucester.

Mr. Peebles also implied the old Page site is now available to become part of a 100 acre business park. The citizens of Gloucester have an urgent need for a permanent place to take care of and store school buses, county vehicles, grounds equipment and to house the public utilities department. The old Page site is the most practical and financially sensible location to construct such a public infrastructure facility.

I agree with the current efforts being made to overhaul the HCOD. If it is done the right way; property owners will regain control over the use of their property and there will be more opportunity for prospective businesses.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

The Kansas Senate Prayer A Prayer for Our Nation

English: Jesus Christ - detail from Deesis mos...
English: Jesus Christ - detail from Deesis mosaic, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual politically-correct generalities, but what they heard instead was a stirring prayer, passionately calling our country to repentance and righteousness.

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In six short weeks, the Central Christian Church had logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of the prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired the prayer on The Rest of the Story on the radio and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired !!

THE PRAYER


Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask Your forgiveness and to seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, "Woe on those who call evil good," but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that:


We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism.

We have worshiped other gods and called it multi-culturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn children and called it a choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

We have abused power and called it political savvy.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the Center of Your Will.

I ask it in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.



What awesome insight, humility and honesty!!! Attributes sadly lacking in the halls of government and in our society.

With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep our Nation and wholeheartedly become our desire, so that we again can be called a Nation of People Who Love God!

Please send this prayer to as many of your friends as you can. Let us all help to get God back into our lives and most importantly into the lives of our children & grandchildren.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Do We Have a Democracy ?

By; Sue M Long    Above Photo Art by:  Chuck Thompson of TTC Media, (C 2014)

Have you ever pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Democracy for which it stands?

Of course not. But then, what difference does it make? Don’t we have a Democracy? Isn’t it just a matter of semantics?

Actually, a democracy and a republic are two entirely different forms of government. And, understanding the difference is vital to preserving what liberties we still have left. A republic is a government of laws whereas a democracy is government by majority rule.

It has been said that a lynch mob is democracy in action. The mob wants to hang you and you only get one vote. But if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws.

Said another way, democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in — a republic or a democracy? A gentler version is this: After a hearty breakfast of candy bars and
jellybeans, a meal fairly decided by majority vote; you, your spouse and three children take a vote on whether the kids go to school that day. The implications of democratic government are clear and dire.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention held in 1787 behind closed doors resulted in the formation of our Constitution. When Benjamin Franklin emerged, he was asked what have we got? Without hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former and hated and feared the latter. As a result, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. do you find the word democracy. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our federal government should be a republic, it mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” said “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.

The principles of republican vs democratic used to be widely understood and commonly accepted. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 until 1835, said that, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”
But a persistent campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy has reached the point where today if you were to take a toll, the preponderant number of people would say that we are a democracy. Just note how many legislators and TV commentators refer to our democracy in glowing terms - showing their total ignorance of just what form of government we
actually have. And, there are those who know full well the difference but are bent on our no longer being “the land of the free.”
 
It was Lord Woodhouselee who wrote that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
 
Let’s use the opportunities we still have to preserve our Republic.




Committee for Constitutional Government, Post Office Box 972, Gloucester, VA 23061

Federalist Papers No. 47. The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts.

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 30, 1788.

MADISON
To the People of the State of New York:
HAVING reviewed the general form of the proposed government and the general mass of power allotted to it, I proceed to examine the particular structure of this government, and the distribution of this mass of power among its constituent parts.
One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts.
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.
The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning on this point.
The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn.
On the slightest view of the British Constitution, we must perceive that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other. The executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts. All the members of the judiciary department are appointed by him, can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament, and form, when he pleases to consult them, one of his constitutional councils. One branch of the legislative department forms also a great constitutional council to the executive chief, as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The judges, again, are so far connected with the legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a legislative vote.
From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department.
The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner." Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR." Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author.
If we look into the constitutions of the several States, we find that, notwithstanding the emphatical and, in some instances, the unqualified terms in which this axiom has been laid down, there is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct. New Hampshire, whose constitution was the last formed, seems to have been fully aware of the impossibility and inexpediency of avoiding any mixture whatever of these departments, and has qualified the doctrine by declaring "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other AS THE NATURE OF A FREE GOVERNMENT WILL ADMIT; OR AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAIN OF CONNECTION THAT BINDS THE WHOLE FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ONE INDISSOLUBLE BOND OF UNITY AND AMITY." Her constitution accordingly mixes these departments in several respects. The Senate, which is a branch of the legislative department, is also a judicial tribunal for the trial of impeachments. The President, who is the head of the executive department, is the presiding member also of the Senate; and, besides an equal vote in all cases, has a casting vote in case of a tie. The executive head is himself eventually elective every year by the legislative department, and his council is every year chosen by and from the members of the same department. Several of the officers of state are also appointed by the legislature. And the members of the judiciary department are appointed by the executive department.
The constitution of Massachusetts has observed a sufficient though less pointed caution, in expressing this fundamental article of liberty. It declares "that the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them." This declaration corresponds precisely with the doctrine of Montesquieu, as it has been explained, and is not in a single point violated by the plan of the convention. It goes no farther than to prohibit any one of the entire departments from exercising the powers of another department. In the very Constitution to which it is prefixed, a partial mixture of powers has been admitted. The executive magistrate has a qualified negative on the legislative body, and the Senate, which is a part of the legislature, is a court of impeachment for members both of the executive and judiciary departments. The members of the judiciary department, again, are appointable by the executive department, and removable by the same authority on the address of the two legislative branches. Lastly, a number of the officers of government are annually appointed by the legislative department. As the appointment to offices, particularly executive offices, is in its nature an executive function, the compilers of the Constitution have, in this last point at least, violated the rule established by themselves.
I pass over the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they were formed prior to the Revolution, and even before the principle under examination had become an object of political attention.
The constitution of New York contains no declaration on this subject; but appears very clearly to have been framed with an eye to the danger of improperly blending the different departments. It gives, nevertheless, to the executive magistrate, a partial control over the legislative department; and, what is more, gives a like control to the judiciary department; and even blends the executive and judiciary departments in the exercise of this control. In its council of appointment members of the legislative are associated with the executive authority, in the appointment of officers, both executive and judiciary. And its court for the trial of impeachments and correction of errors is to consist of one branch of the legislature and the principal members of the judiciary department.
The constitution of New Jersey has blended the different powers of government more than any of the preceding. The governor, who is the executive magistrate, is appointed by the legislature; is chancellor and ordinary, or surrogate of the State; is a member of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and president, with a casting vote, of one of the legislative branches. The same legislative branch acts again as executive council of the governor, and with him constitutes the Court of Appeals. The members of the judiciary department are appointed by the legislative department and removable by one branch of it, on the impeachment of the other.
According to the constitution of Pennsylvania, the president, who is the head of the executive department, is annually elected by a vote in which the legislative department predominates. In conjunction with an executive council, he appoints the members of the judiciary department, and forms a court of impeachment for trial of all officers, judiciary as well as executive. The judges of the Supreme Court and justices of the peace seem also to be removable by the legislature; and the executive power of pardoning in certain cases, to be referred to the same department. The members of the executive council are made EX-OFFICIO justices of peace throughout the State.
In Delaware, the chief executive magistrate is annually elected by the legislative department. The speakers of the two legislative branches are vice-presidents in the executive department. The executive chief, with six others, appointed, three by each of the legislative branches constitutes the Supreme Court of Appeals; he is joined with the legislative department in the appointment of the other judges. Throughout the States, it appears that the members of the legislature may at the same time be justices of the peace; in this State, the members of one branch of it are EX-OFFICIO justices of the peace; as are also the members of the executive council. The principal officers of the executive department are appointed by the legislative; and one branch of the latter forms a court of impeachments. All officers may be removed on address of the legislature.
Maryland has adopted the maxim in the most unqualified terms; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other. Her constitution, notwithstanding, makes the executive magistrate appointable by the legislative department; and the members of the judiciary by the executive department.
The language of Virginia is still more pointed on this subject. Her constitution declares, "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other; nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time, except that the justices of county courts shall be eligible to either House of Assembly." Yet we find not only this express exception, with respect to the members of the inferior courts, but that the chief magistrate, with his executive council, are appointable by the legislature; that two members of the latter are triennially displaced at the pleasure of the legislature; and that all the principal offices, both executive and judiciary, are filled by the same department. The executive prerogative of pardon, also, is in one case vested in the legislative department.
The constitution of North Carolina, which declares "that the legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other," refers, at the same time, to the legislative department, the appointment not only of the executive chief, but all the principal officers within both that and the judiciary department.
In South Carolina, the constitution makes the executive magistracy eligible by the legislative department. It gives to the latter, also, the appointment of the members of the judiciary department, including even justices of the peace and sheriffs; and the appointment of officers in the executive department, down to captains in the army and navy of the State.
In the constitution of Georgia, where it is declared "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other," we find that the executive department is to be filled by appointments of the legislature; and the executive prerogative of pardon to be finally exercised by the same authority. Even justices of the peace are to be appointed by the legislature.
In citing these cases, in which the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments have not been kept totally separate and distinct, I wish not to be regarded as an advocate for the particular organizations of the several State governments. I am fully aware that among the many excellent principles which they exemplify, they carry strong marks of the haste, and still stronger of the inexperience, under which they were framed. It is but too obvious that in some instances the fundamental principle under consideration has been violated by too great a mixture, and even an actual consolidation, of the different powers; and that in no instance has a competent provision been made for maintaining in practice the separation delineated on paper. What I have wished to evince is, that the charge brought against the proposed Constitution, of violating the sacred maxim of free government, is warranted neither by the real meaning annexed to that maxim by its author, nor by the sense in which it has hitherto been understood in America. This interesting subject will be resumed in the ensuing paper.
PUBLIUS

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums.

‘If Obama Doesn't Follow the Constitution, We Don’t Have To", Say's A Police Officer On Video

English: First page of Constitution of the Uni...
English: First page of Constitution of the United States  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON AUGUST 6, 2014
A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.

Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.

“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”

“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.

At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”

“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”

The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?

http://www.infowars.com/cop-if-obama-doesnt-follow-the-constitution-we-dont-have-to/  Link back to source story.  We normally do not get our news from Alex Jones, but even he sometimes gets some interesting news that should not be ignored.  

Virginia Reaches Temporary Agreement to Allow Safe, Regulated Operation of Uber and Lyft

Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
~ Transportation network companies to come into compliance with Virginia law ~

RICHMOND (August 06, 2014) – Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced today that the Commonwealth of Virginia has reached an agreement with transportation network companies Uber and Lyft that will help ensure the safety of passengers, bring the companies into compliance with Virginia law, provide transparency into their operations, and promote a level playing field for transportation providers. This temporary legal framework, one of the first of its kind in the nation, is the result of extensive discussions between the companies, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, the McAuliffe administration, and Attorney General Herring's office following the issuance of "cease and desist" letters to the companies on June 5.

“In order for Virginia to remain economically competitive, it is important that we welcome innovative companies like Uber and Lyft and provide them with the resources they need to safely and effectively operate in the Commonwealth,” said Governor McAuliffe. “Technology – specifically related to smart phones – continues to advance at a rapid pace, and I am pleased that we were able to work together to find a swift solution that will provide Virginia’s workers, students, and families with more transportation options.”

“I knew there had to be a better way to ensure the safety of Virginia passengers," said Attorney General Herring. "These companies offer services that Virginians want, but it just wasn't acceptable for them to operate without complying with regulations or other measures to help ensure the safety of passengers and motorists. I'm proud that we were able to get folks back to the table and get them talking again, and now we've shown that Virginia can be responsive to innovative businesses while promoting public safety and the rule of law. Because of this cooperation, Virginians are going to have more transportation options that are safer, more transparent, and appropriately regulated.  I hope other states will look to Virginia as a model for how to safely integrate the so-called sharing economy."

"Thanks to the leadership of Governor McAuliffe and Attorney General Herring for putting consumers first and embracing innovation, choice and opportunity," said Justin Kintz, public policy, Uber Technologies, Inc. "We look forward to continuing to work together to create a permanent home for ridesharing, providing residents and visitors with safe, reliable transportation options.”

"Today's agreement allows Lyft to continue providing safe rides and economic opportunity to Virginians as we work with state leaders to secure a permanent future for ridesharing, said Dave Estrada, VP of Government Relations for Lyft. "Virginia has led the way in embracing innovative industries and we applaud Governor McAuliffe and Attorney General Herring for their thoughtful work to reach an agreement that maintains the highest level of public safety while expanding consumer choice. In addition to our involvement in DMV's ongoing study on Transportation Network Companies, we look forward to helping craft new rules for peer-to-peer transportation that increase access to safe, affordable and convenient rides for all Virginia residents."

The Department of Motor Vehicles has informed Uber and Lyft that their applications for transportation broker's licenses and temporary operating authority have been granted, effective immediately, they meet an extensive set of regulations to promote passenger safety, have appropriate insurance, and comply with Virginia law. If at any point either company fails to comply with these terms, DMV can revoke the temporary operating authority.

These conditions include:

·       Extensive background checks of drivers, with immediate disqualifiers including convictions for any felony, fraud, sexual offenses, or violent crimes, or registration as a sex offender.
·       A review of driving history, with disqualification for drivers convicted of three or more moving violations in the last three years, DUI, underage drinking, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, hit and run, or eluding law-enforcement, or a revocation of a driver's license.
·       Zero tolerance for the use of drugs or alcohol by any drivers, and a suspension pending investigation of any driver accused of violating the zero tolerance policy.
·       Only employing drivers who are properly licensed and over 21, and vehicles that carry a maximum of seven passengers and are properly registered and inspected for safety and emissions, where applicable.
·       Rigorous insurance requirements, including requiring drivers to maintain automobile liability insurance, maintaining on behalf of all drivers an additional $1,000,000 of coverage from the moment a driver accepts a trip request until the passenger leaves the vehicle, and liability insurance for drivers who are logged onto the companies' software but not providing services.
·       Maintaining documentation for each driver of his or her background check, sex offender registry check, driving record, proof of insurance, valid driver's license, Social Security number, vehicle registration, and proof of vehicle safety inspection. Documentation must be available to DMV on demand to investigate any complaints, and must be available for periodic audits to ensure compliance.
·       Paying any previously assessed civil penalties for non-compliance and dropping any appeals, which both companies have already done.
·       Features to help customers identify their driver and vehicle, including from the outside of the vehicle.
·       Drivers notifying the companies of any change in their license status, vehicle registration, insurance, or any arrest for a crime that would disqualify them from being a driver.
·       Rate transparency and documentation.
·       Companies advising drivers of their need to comply with applicable tax laws.
·       Only accepting rides booked through the companies’ mobile device apps, not street hails.
·       Companies maintaining a Virginia transportation broker's license.
Virginia DMV is currently leading a study at the request of the General Assembly to developing a long-term legislative solution that addresses services provided by Uber, Lyft, and similar companies, while also ensuring a level playing field for taxicabs and all other passenger transportation services. The study is scheduled to be completed in time for the 2015 legislative session. This temporary authority agreement can serve as a foundation for potential legislation and will also provide valuable data on the operations of these companies as legislation is crafted.

Governor McAuliffe Announces Special Election Date for Eric Cantor’s Congressional Seat

English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / ...
. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 Governor Terry McAuliffe signed a writ of elections declaring a special election to replace the congressional seat vacated by Representative Eric Cantor for November 4th, 2014:
                                                           
“I thank Congressman Cantor for his years of service to Virginia and for his fierce commitment to protecting Virginia’s economic and military assets as majority leader in Congress. Eric Cantor has dedicated his life to public service and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

“In order to make this transition as smooth as possible for Congressman Cantor’s constituents and use Virginia resources most efficiently, a special election to fill the vacant seat will be held on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4th, 2014. Holding a special election on this day will ensure that the people of the 7th District will be represented as soon as practicable during the lame duck session and put Virginia’s congressional delegation in the strongest position possible at the beginning of the next congress.”