Showing posts with label Gloucester Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucester Board of Supervisors. Show all posts

Friday, November 22, 2019

Gloucester Board Of Supervisors To Consider 2nd Ammendment Rights

BORROWED FROM MARK THOMPSON - "I've just been told in the Pol group, that the agenda (will be confirmed next week) for the December 3rd Gloucester County BOS meeting, will contain a resolution for our county to declare itself a second amendment sanctuary.

All those who care about their rights to keep and carry their legally owned firearms should attend and make their position known.

Between the armed robbery at the point today, and the draconian bills that were pre-filed today in the VA General Assembly, this is an important issue to us in our county.

Inform yourself using the VA LIS, and please plan to attend if you have something to say. The bills are self-explanatory. As written, the "assault weapons ban" reclassifies nearly every commonly owned defensive handgun as an assault weapon, and bans either the firearm, the magazines for it, or both.

This is nothing more than an assault on law abiding gun owners, and chp holders who purchased and have carried their arms legally for years. This bill in particular does absolutely nothing for "safety" and is punishment, for those who do not agree with, or have a different culture than those who now hold the gavel in Richmond.

Be there. Let your voice be heard. Stand in defiance of assault on the constitution of VA, the US, and on law abiding good people.

December 3rd, at 6:30 PM, at the old Courthouse in the traffic circle. The agenda should be confirmed next week.

Join us and send a message that Gloucester citizens will not be pushed over."

Monday, October 23, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal, in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to:
To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: 

Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Gloucester County Supervisor’s Trees Destroyed By Tree Trimmers

I never cease to be amazed at the things that happen in this county. The following entry is contained in the Gloucester County, Virginia Utilities Department June report:

“Resolved the complaint from adjacent property owner that tree removal for replacement of Pump Station #12 with Smith & Loveless package station  encroached on their property by requiring the contractor plant replacement trees to satisfy property owner;”

I’ll be damned!! After obtaining way more land than needed, in what I and others consider nothing short of a public corruption property deal, they encroach upon the adjacent property owner’s land to make room to install a new sewer pump system.

As many of you may know; I served on the Gloucester County Public Utilities Advisory Committee for a couple of years or so. I resigned from the committee in 2016 after the committee and the Board of Supervisors approved what I and others strongly believe was a public corruption land deal between Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. and the Utilities Department. We consider the deal to be public corruption primarly because it appears evident the Gloucester County tax assessor or another person or persons with access, lowered the assessed value of Utilities Department properties and increased the assessed value of Mr. Kern’s property. Click here to read the Gloucester County public corruption land deal story:

At-Large Supervisor John Meyer, who is also the owner of the destroyed trees, had this to say in response to an email I sent to the Board of Supervisors about the tree debacle.
“No less amazed than I.  The professional tree service 1) did not know where the property line was and 2) allowed the large trees they were cutting to fall across the property line, wiping out a half-dozen smaller trees in the process.
The County did hold the tree-service responsible and they did replace the trees (six-footers) at no additional cost to the County.
Next time you head down Belroi, take a look at the way Dominion Power mangled the trees between the 1st entrance to Courthouse Square and the Summerville Apartments.  Somebody on their payroll doesn’t like trees!

Proper communication with the tree company and supervision of the trimming by the Utilities Department would have likely prevented the destruction of Mr. Meyer’s trees. As for Mr. Meyer’s complaint about the appearance of trees on Belroi Rd; well I guess now that it has happened on the road to his estate he can see something that has been the norm for decades. First, it is far cheaper to trim trees than to completely remove them. Second, if Dominion hated trees as Mr. Meyer suggests, they would find a way to cut all of them down instead of just trimming them. Maybe the Board of Supervisors can drum up another corrupt crony capitalism deal to get the power lines buried down Belroi Rd. Then the trees Dominion Power chopped up can grow out again, so VDOT can come along and chop them up again. Isn’t it just awful living in an aesthetically imperfect world? But then again; in a free society no individual or class of individuals has the right to determine what should or should not be considered visually appealing to other people; not even the elected class.   

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Crony Capitalism defines crony capitalism as; an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.
Sound familiar??

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 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: 

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Gloucester County, Va. Real Estate Tax Assessment Corruption??

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.

You Decide

If this story does not cause you to question the integrity of the Board of Supervisors and real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County, Virginia, nothing will.

On October 4, 2016 the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a land swap deal between Gloucester’s Department of Public Utilities (Utilities) and Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. When the land swap proposal was first presented to the BOS, then Chairman John Meyer asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal; in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to Utilities. Supervisor Meyer’s personal involvement is further exemplified by Mr. Kerns’ written assertion that he also offered to sell his property to adjacent landowners. There is also significant evidence strongly suggesting there was local government corruption involving real estate tax assessments in the land swap deal. Let’s explore who actually won in the deal.

The story as I know it started to form while I was serving on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC). During a Committee meeting in late 2015, the Director of Utilities spoke briefly about a possible land swap deal between Utilities and Mr. Kerns. During the same meeting the Director also spoke about failing septic systems in the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project (Project) area. (This Project was frozen by the BOS in 2014 due to a lack of funding and the unwillingness of property owners to commit to connecting to the system.) During that PUAC meeting the Director also spoke about Utilities’ efforts in attempting to obtain grant funding to finance the extension of public sewer down just one street in the Project area. That street was Laurel Drive and is the same street where one of Utilities’ properties involved in the land swap is located. A few months later the Director informed the committee the grant funding was unobtainable in the current fiscal year, but Utilities intended to apply during the next fiscal year. In the back of my mind I wondered if there was a connection between Utilities efforts to install new sewer service just on Laurel Drive and the land swap that he spoke of. After watching the story unfold I absolutely believe there was a connection. If public sewer were available at the Terrapin Cove lot, the owner would have been able to build a duplex or similar type of rental unit on the property instead of just a single family dwelling. In this article I will focus primarily on the assessment values of the properties contained in the land swap deal.  

The land swap proposal next came to my attention in late July 2016 when it appeared on the County’s website as an agenda item for the August 2, 2016 BOS meeting. Utilities was requesting the BOS to approve advertising a Public Hearing on the land swap deal. I found this troubling because the PUAC had not been provided with any information pertaining to the deal and had not been given the opportunity to vet it before the Director presented it to the BOS. Upon researching the locations, values and such pertaining to the properties contained in the deal; I found some highly questionable anomalies in the County’s real estate tax assessment values. The following information obtained from Gloucester County’s online real estate tax database; clearly demonstrates the anomalies I am talking about.
Assessment Comparison
RPC                Street                             Acres      2015 Assess         2010 Assess     

*14627          Belroi Rd                         1.62         $41,780               $25,000*

16706    Terrapin Cv./Laurel Dr           .32           $24,290                $45,000

10095        Booker St                            .3             $9,920                  $49,700

*/Red = Kerns property
Black = Utilities property

As you see; the County assessed values of the two Utilities properties decreased dramatically during the 2015 assessment cycle. It is also clearly evident the County’s assessed value of Mr. Kerns’ property dramatically increased during the same assessment cycle. For some strange reason, all of the dramatic shifts in property values substantially benefited Mr. Kerns.
Another anomaly I discovered was the difference in assessment values between the Terrapin Cove property and a cleared vacant property on Laurel Drive that shares a property line with the Terrapin Cove property. The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online property database reflects the differences:

Terrapin Cove and Laurel Drive Property Value Comparison
RPC                Street                       Acres          2010               2015              2017               

16706        Terrapin Cove                .32           $45,000          $24,290         $43,720

19606           Laurel Dr.                   .297          $45,000          $46,810         $46,810

As you can see; the assessment values were consistent in 2010, but in 2015 the larger Terrapin Cove property mysteriously lost value long enough for Utilities and Mr. Kerns to make the land swap deal. And look at that; after the land swap deal was completed, the Terrapin Cove property increased in value during the 2017 assessment cycle, but more on that later because those values were an unknown at the time.

When I discovered the questionable changes in the 2015 assessment values I shared them with York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani. He in turn created a PowerPoint presentation representing my concerns that he shared with me and said he shared with the rest of the BOS and members of County staff. The PowerPoint presentation was never shown to the public. Utilities presented the land swap deal to the BOS on August 2, 2016 and the BOS sent it back to the PUAC for vetting. The BOS also instructed the County Administrator to obtain independent appraisals on all of the properties contained in the proposal.

During that same BOS meeting the County Administrator publicly said, the County Assessor said, that among other complex things (that he did not elaborate on), assessing the value of non-taxable property was not on the list of priorities to be accomplished during the 2015 assessment cycle; therefore little time was spent insuring the accuracy of those values because they are nontaxable properties. My question is; why did the values of only those two Utilities owned properties dramatically decrease when the values of the other two buildable Utilities’ properties contained in the deal experienced unusual increases in value? More about the third, unbuildable property later. Also; what caused Mr. Kerns property to increase in value so much?

The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online real estate tax database demonstrates the 2010 through 2017 assessed values of the other Utilities owned properties that found their way into the proposal Utilities presented to the BOS.

Assessment Comparison of Utilities’ Properties Contained in the Land Swap Proposal
RPC                 2010 Asses       2015 Assess       2017 Assess

28607                 $50,000              $59,970             $47,660

12656                 $35,000              $46,940             $36,100

19691                 $4,700                $4,060               $1,800

Bunting's Appraisal Service, which has a lengthy history of providing real estate services to Gloucester’s local government, was hired by Utilities to provide the independent appraisals. The following demonstrates the difference between those appraisals and the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017.

County Assessments vs. Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess    2015 Assess      Ind Apraisal        2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

As you can see; the 2016 independent appraisal values also strongly favored Mr. Kerns in comparison to the 2010 assessments and the 2017 assessments that were released only a few days after the deal was completed.

The PUAC met on two occasions to discuss the land swap deal. (Keep in mind we did not know the 2017 values) The independent appraisals had not been received by the first time we met so the discussion was tabled until they were available for review. During the brief second PUAC discussion, a vote was taken by the committee members and resulted in a split decision to recommend the BOS approve the deal. The vote was 4 to approve, 2 to disapprove and 1 member abstained from voting. I voted against the land swap deal for multiple reasons like; there was no data supported business case presented to justify acquiring the property, but the most profound reason I voted the way I did was because I clearly saw the whole deal as being government corruption. In fact, during the last PUAC discussion, one of my fellow committee members said I was just upset about the assessments and can’t let it go. He was right and I say he is part of the corruption for letting it go. Meeting Minutes from the Land swap deal Public Hearing reflect Utilities’ director insinuating I voted the way I did because I felt the Utilities property values were to low. Funny how there was no mention of me disagreeing with giving away highly marketable real estate based on his unsupported speculations. 

The BOS unanimously approved the land swap deal after a Public Hearing; during which the County Administrator said the assessment anomalies were the result of a glitch in the new assessment software and that the County assessor had notified the state about the glitch. I don’t buy it at all. But that is not where the land swap deal story ends. On February 17th the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed the Terrapin Cove Road property as being sold by Mr. Kerns for $55,000. According to the Gazette Journal and online property records; Mr. Kerns sold the property to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. In other words; the two properties share a property line. I wonder if the new owner knows the whole story behind how Mr. Kerns obtained possession of the property and how the assessment values have been manipulated. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value. He would have saved $25,000.

After finding out Mr. Kerns’ property had been sold; I checked the 2017 County assessment that was released to the public only a few weeks after the BOS approved the land swap deal. I could not believe my eyes. The following demonstrates the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017 and the 2016 independent appraisal values:

2010 thru 2017 Assessments and 2016 Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess      2015 Assess    Ind Apraisal         2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

When the BOS approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the 2016 independent appraisal values. The combined value of Utilities two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of Utilities former properties is now $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns former property is now valued at $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from Utilities. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from Utilities became worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on Utilities.

So why did Mr. Kerns decide to sell or trade his property instead of building rental units on it? I guess it could have been for any number of reasons, but I have a theory that is probably not to far off target. Like I said earlier; the entrance to Supervisor Meyer’s personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns unloaded on Utilities. I believe having renters living at the entrance to his home did not sit well with Supervisor Meyer, but he opted not to pay $50,000 for the property. From there the land swap plan was hatched. I believe somewhere along the way someone with full access to the County’s real estate tax assessment database manipulated the property values of the three properties exchanged in the deal.

The land swap deal is just another example of the corruption that takes place within Gloucester County’s local government. Should there be a forensic audit performed on everything pertaining to real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County? Let us know what you think by emailing us at or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point
Retired United States Army

Helping to Drain the Swamp

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Gloucester, VA BoS Meeting, April 15th, 2014 With Newsletter

Once again, members from the local school come before the Board of Supervisors whining about money and for some very strange reason, these people think that money comes from thin air and has no limitations.  If the school board is this concerned about money, let them print their own and see how many school employees as well as service companies and corporations would be willing to accept that.  After all, it comes from thin air, so make your own.

The York District Herald 2014- Issue No 6 from Chuck Thompson

My recent issue of the Newsletter incorrectly identified the wrong person as being the Chair of the School Board.  The Chair of the School Board is Mr. George Burak.  He can be reached at

Latest newsletter from Phillip Bazzani, Gloucester Board of Supervisors.   The recent GMGJ newspaper covered the story about Kim Hensley throwing a hissy fit about outsourcing services in an effort to save money that was presented as a suggestion through a presentation created by Mr Bazzani.  We have posted that presentation here on this site and showed the video of her hissy fit.

  It is clear that the school board is not open to suggestions on how they throw money around.  They clearly want all the money they can get their hands on and want to be free to spend it anywhere in anyway they see fit even when it does nothing for the teachers and students of this county.  Watch the videos for yourself and look at what these people are preaching.  It's totally irresponsible.  And the sad part is, they are filtering it down to our youth.  And you wonder why little Johnny and little Becky are having so many issues?  Look at those leading the charge?  They are not hiding anything, but most people will not take the time to see what is being presented by the school board or what they are arguing.  It is completely chaotic.     
Enhanced by Zemanta