Showing posts with label John Meyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Meyer. Show all posts

Monday, January 19, 2015

How To Beg for Money From Your Local Government

In the above Gloucester County section of this video, you get to see how to properly beg for money from the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors.  You send up a pretty woman with that Barby Doll look and you smoke screen the folks with bizarre concepts such as having provided an incredible gift somehow bestowed on the county, such as the space that the county rents from you for one of the public libraries in the area.  (Yes, this is what the folks at the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust tell us, the space that the county rents from them was a gift to the county.)

  A gift to the county that we must pay for.  If it were not for government rents at their shopping center, the place would crumble to nothing and these folks have the audacity to tell us they gave us a gift?  But the entire Board of Supervisors buy into this little game anyway.  How foolish they are.  You have to watch the clip to the end and watch the hilarity of two of the board member speaking or should we say, attempting to speak to the issue of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, begging for taxpayer money.

  Robert, JJ, Orth starts to speak, but is being, what appears, as less than honest.  Listen to his voice.  The lips can lie, but the body cannot.  Mr Orth is stumbling with his words and using um and uh sounds and sounds very dry.  These are key features that would highly suggest that he is being less than honest.

  Next we have John Meyer who has different tells.  He also seems to be less than honest and forthright.  His hand moves towards his mouth as though to say he should not be saying what he is saying.  We agree with that gesture when looking at it all in these terms.

  Now if you will also note, the board never votes to fund the project the Gloucester Main Street Preservation People begged for.  Instead, the board just agrees to give them their begged for plea.  The local paper did such a nice cover up story on all of this.  Why didn't they vote?  Because of the potential for a conflict of interest.  The new chair, Ashley Chriscoe is on the Board of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust and it would be a very clear conflict of interest for him to vote on this matter.  Why didn't he just excuse himself and let the others vote?  Because each one of them could, by reason, of a new election that happened latter that evening, become the next person on the Board for the GMSPT, creating yet another conflict of interest.

  So did this prevent the conflict of interest from occurring?  No.  They all agreed to fund it anyway.  They just did not vote on it.  That is why the uncomfortable little dance.  By the way, giving away money like that is a violation of Constitutional laws.  Thanks.  Each of you took an oath to uphold the US and Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutions and each of you have violated that oath over and over and over again.  And they wonder why people hate the county government so much?  Really?

  Wait until you see some of the other crap these folks pulled in this one meeting.  More to come.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

Your meetings seem to get more interesting overtime. Where can you go to a county meeting to talk about a “cat house”? Did you not go to or see the meeting. Check out the video.

"The Land of the Life Worth Living" for everyone in the county.
If you have not seen this meeting it is available on Mr. Thompson’s website. I cannot do justice to what was shared in the meeting. But here are a few highlights to whet your appetite.

At hour 3 in the meeting Mr “Ted” Wilmot, you know his complete name with out me have to write it out, started discussing changes to the Animal Control Ordinances to bring them into compliance with Virginia Code. He used phrases like: “consistent with state definition”, “track state code definitions”, “track precisely with state code”.

Now after hearing him use these phrases I have to wonder why Gloucester County Ordinance Chapter 3 Section 3-18 is still part of the code?

Amend Section 3-18 as follows:
Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the
benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches
eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.
(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as
to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a
Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer
shall have the authority to remove any animal foundleft in an
enclosed a vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress.
The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The
animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses
incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent
treatment and impoundment.
(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be
ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by
Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in
evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner
was the person who committed the violation.”

Virginia Code Title 3.2 Chapter 65 Comprehensive Animal Care (3.2-6500 thru 3.2-6590) and specifically 3.2-6508 Transporting animals; requirements; penalty.

"§ 3.2-6508. Transporting animals; requirements; penalty.

A. No owner, railroad or other common carrier when transporting any animal shall allow that animal to be confined in any type of conveyance more than 24 consecutive hours without being exercised, properly rested, fed and watered as necessary for that particular type and species of animal. A reasonable extension of this time shall be permitted when an accident, storm or other act of God causes a delay. Adequate space in the primary enclosure within any type of conveyance shall be provided each animal depending upon the particular type and species of animal.

B. No person shall import into the Commonwealth, nor export from the Commonwealth, for the purpose of sale or offering for sale any dog or cat under the age of eight weeks without its dam.

C. Violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. “

I do not see anything that looks like the county code in this section or as Mr. Wilmot would say “consistent with state definition”, “track state code definitions”, “track precisely with state code”. Does Mr. Wilmot know we live in a Commonwealth and not a state? Inquiring minds want to know?

Lets look further: 3.2-6566 Preventing cruelty to animals; interference; penalty

Ҥ 3.2-6566. Preventing cruelty to animals; interference; penalty.

Each animal control officer, humane investigator or State Veterinarian's representative shall interfere to prevent the perpetration of any act of cruelty upon any animal in his presence. Any person who shall interfere with or obstruct or resist any humane investigator or State Veterinarian's representative in the discharge of his rights, powers, and duties as authorized and prescribed by law is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. “

Not here either. Lets continue: 3.2-6568 Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals

Ҥ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals.

When an affidavit is made under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate or judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer to search the building or place. After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the search was made. “

I believe Section 3-18 paragraph (b) violates Virginia Code. Does Mr. Wilmot have a real law degree and everything or did he just forget to stop at a “Bar” or was that pass a bar? Maybe his vast staff did this work and he did not check it to make sure it was legal?

I cannot find in Virginia Code where this is a legal ordinance. Lets look at the proposed ordinance to see what it says:

Animals in enclosed vehicles.

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the
 benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.”

This says animals in a vehicle a horse trailer back of an open pickup truck, etc. if it is 80 degrees Fahrenheit or greater you can have your animal taken with this new change if you do not have air conditioning. When are the animal control vehicles going to meet this requirement. Bring them into compliance and then consider 3-18 after it is made part of the Virginia Code.

If the Board considers passing this they are “criminals with no regards for the rule of law”? I believe your oath of office state you will uphold the US and Virginia Constitution and laws. This does not appear to meet those requirements?

If you want to hear about these changes listen at hour 3 for about 10 minutes and learn about the county's position on cat houses.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents. This change does not meet either of these., you decide?

"The Land of the Life Worth Living" for everyone in the county.

Alexander James Jay

P.S. So why are we hiring another Animal Control Officer don't the ones we have get in enough mischief without needing another one?

"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1816

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, 1822

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN
Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

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.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Gloucester, VA Planning Commission and BoS Meeting Video, June, 2014

Do we mention the funny thing that happened to the BoS after their meeting with the microphones left and and with who said what about whom?  Nah.  Let's skip that, it's just not a nice thing to repeat.  But for those of us who know, it was very telling to say the least.

Mr Meyer's Notes from this meeting that he would like to convey to everyone in the county.  Sorry again for the massive delay on getting this up.

Fellow Citizens,

I want to thank those of you who were able to turn out Thursday night and
especially those who were able to voice their opinions on the Highway
Corridor Overlay District.  I was impressed with the reasoning and clarity
in the citizens' oral arguments - for and against limiting or eliminating
the HCOD.

I wish the Board and the Planning Commission had been as well prepared as
the citizens were.  It became clear that the two bodies had two different
concepts as to what the purpose of the meeting was.  Despite the resulting
inelegance, the outcome was pretty clear.  The BOS wants a severely reduced
version of the HCOD, and the PC will provide their opinion as to what they
think that should be.

To me, the underlying principle is property rights.  I think we've gotten a
little too enamored with telling our neighbors what they can or cannot do
with their property.  In this case, the 1998 Planning Commission decided
that they knew best what businesses on Hwy 14 and 17 should look like, and
thereby imposed their aesthetic standards on the people who actually own the
property.  I don't believe such government heavy-handiness is warranted.

The debate is still open until the end of the month, so it's not too late to
make your opinion known.  If you feel strongly about some aspect, or all
aspects of the HCOD, please write your District Supervisor and/or Ashley
Chriscoe and I.  We want to know what you think.

Thank you,

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's February 18th, 2014 Meeting Agenda Information

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting feb 4th, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Here is the meeting agenda information for the Board of Supervisor's meeting for this Tuesday evening, February 18th, 2014.  This is the financial overviews part of the agenda.

Gloucester Court House Village Sub-Area Plan: 
The Board was approached by the Main Street Preservation Trust (MSPT) about additional planning for the Court House area. A Plan was developed to be an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and to provide the policy framework for future land use and development in the area, including land use regulations and infrastructure decisions. Staff worked closely with MSPT staff and the consultant team hired by MSPT to prepare the plan based on guidance from a County Administrator appointed Steering Committee and the input from the public through 2 public outreach meetings, stakeholder interviews, and other outreach efforts. A public hearing on the Plan was held by the Planning Commission in January who then forwarded a recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors. The Board adopted the Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on February 5, 2013. 

  Now can someone please explain the legality of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust in all of this?  The secret shadow government concern?  The organization that wrote off over 1.7 million dollars on just over 5 million in assets without any visible justification for doing so that we could find and reported on this site?  An organization that we will soon be asking, where is the missing money?  (Coming soon).  An organization that seems to have a great number of questions about their own legality?  Exactly how is this being allowed?

E. Decision on Memorandum of Agreement for Regional Sewer Wet Weather Management Plan - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities

Just say no. No thanks no how.

H. Discussion on mandatory sewer connection per County ordinance - Chris Hutson - Member, Board of Supervisors

We the people do not want this. Throw it out. Throw it out, Throw it out. Why are you going to force people to pay for something they will not use. How is this helping anyone? It is theft. Are you going to pay for not using goods and services from all local businesses? If not, then don't expect us to pay for something we do not want or will use. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Are you getting the message. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Let Chris Hutson pay for all the hook ups if he wants this. Hey Chris, how deep are your own pockets. (Not very deep from what we have heard. Multiple bankruptcies in that past?)

From: Meyer, John Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:17 AM 
To: Garton, Brenda; Board Of Supervisors 
 Cc: Warren, Darrell William 
 Subject: Agenda item for next week JJ, Brenda,

 Would like to add an item to next week's agenda. The Board should consider having the Sheriff's Department budget briefed and voted on as separate from the Administrator's budget. While having the Administrator consolidate the budgets for the Administration staff and the Sheriff saves time for the Board, and may require less effort on the part of the Sheriff, it creates an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the Administrator. To include the Administrator in the approval chain for the Sheriff Department's budget gives the Administrator fiduciary control over an organization for which she has no responsibility for or authority over. Since the Administrator does have responsibility for the other County offices, the Administrator is often forced to make choices between funding for functions that she is accountable for, and Sheriff Department functions for which the Administrator has no accountability. 

 I would suggest that the County might be better served by having the Sheriff develop and advocate for his own budget to the BOS. It would then be the responsibility of the BOS to make the appropriate tradeoffs between the Administration and Sheriff's budgets. Obviously, the other Constitutional Officers could stake a similar claim - and if they choose to have their budgets considered separately from the Administrator's, they should probably be allowed to do so. While this appears to me to be structurally and functionally "cleaner", it is also apparent that this would add an additional layer of complexity to the Board's already involved budget approval process. I think this warrants discussion at next week's BOS meeting and a decision two weeks hence.

Our Notes:  Well Done Mr Meyer.  We hope this goes through.  

D.Decision on proposed purchase of property for New Utility Facility - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities

We already have the land on route 17 known as the old Page Middle school.  The county needs to spend money like drunken sailors why?  Again, Just Say No.  Several of you were just voted in because you ran on tickets of cleaning up the insanity of county spending.  Please show us that you really meant that.

Again, Mr Bazzani, please remember to turn on your microphone before you speak.  We can not hear you otherwise.  Thank you in advance.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Gloucester, VA Early Board of Supervisors Results, Meyer, Bazzani and Winebarger, Keith Hodges Wins Delegate Race

Early results for who won the Board of Supervisors race are in and here are the results.  John Meyer won the At Large position for the county.  Mike Winebarger took the Petsworth district and Phil Bazzani took the York district.

  Congratulations gentlemen.  We see a very positive future for the county under the new leadership coming in.

  Keith Hodges maintained his seat on the house of delegates.  Congratulations to Mr Hodges.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 18, 2013

Gloucester, VA Mid Penn Vote, BoS Candidates Video

October Mid Pen Vote for Gloucester, Virginia Board of Supervisors seats.  This forum was held Sunday October 13th, 2013 at the meeting room in the Gloucester Courthouse library and started at 3:00 PM.  It ran for about one hour and 20 minutes.  Below is a YouTube video that is more of an audio with a few pictures from this event.  Not everyone could get to this and not everyone was off to come to this forum.  Now is your chance to hear the issues before the candidates and make your own selection based on what you hear and other information you have already gathered.

As soon as we get a chance, we will also be putting up the audio from the school board forum that took place at 2:00 PM this same day.  Make sure to turn off the audio from the radio station playing below.  It's on the right hand side panel and is Xtra 99 FM, the local radio station.  A stop button will pop up when you mouse over the name of the station.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Gloucester, VA Candidates For Board of Supervisor's Positions, 2013/14

Come and meet the candidates for the upcoming seats on the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors positions.  3 seats are open this season for 2014.  Those seats are York District, Petsworth District and At Large position.  The At Large supervisor's position is one where that particular supervisor represents all residents of the county and not just one specific district within the county.

  We are going to introduce each candidate from left to right.

1. Phil Bazzani, York District candidate
2. Graham Blake, York District
3. Mike Jenkins, Petsworth District
4. Grant Keller, At Large Position, Covers Entire County
5. John Meyer, At Large Position, Covers Entire County
6. Marsha Mickle, York District
7. Mr Winebarger, Petsworth District

As soon as we get a chance, we will be putting up audio from the forum so that everyone can hear the candidates positions.  We will try and get that up before the end of the week.  The central themes of the forum were very clear, taxes are going up and are out of control, a lack of new business into the area to help grow the tax base and take some of the burden off the residents, a present Board of Supervisors who are out of control and do not listen to the people they are supposed to serve.

Now it is up to you, the voter, to decide whom you think are the best candidates to represent you in both the county as well as your district.  To help that process, we have made our selection based on sound ideas, passion for wanting to do the best job they can, the right ideas and ideals and the best answers.  What we can tell you is that the decisions were very tough on building our A list and we debated our decisions for several hours based on the facts before us.

Our A list selection is as follows;

For Petsworth:  Mr Winebarger had the most passion for the position with very sound answers to tough questions.

For York District;  Marsha Mickle.  Our toughest decision.  Phil Bazzani was an extremely tough person to beat, but we felt Marsha Mickle had a little more personal passion for the position and the time to do an incredible job for her constituents.

For At Large;  Grant Keller.  Again this was an extremely tough call to make.  John Meyer was at the top of our list even coming out of the forum.  We spent over 4 hours with Grant Keller after the forum and he convinced us that he is in fact the right person for the job.  He presented us with his ideas and concerns and we felt we had to throw our support to him after an incredible job and well thought out objectives and visions that he clearly conveyed.

Now that makes our B list rather clear with one exception.  The York district has 3 people seeking to represent the constituents.  So our B choice has to go to Phil Bazzani.  Graham Blake moves to the C list.  What was sad are the jokes overheard about Mr Blake based on his age that he might not live through the 4 year term and there was speculation that he may even need naps during the 3 hour meetings.  Though he is up there in age, we thought the jokes were reckless.  He does have considerable experience he brings to the table that still needs to be taken into consideration.

On a final note for this post, we would like to thank Katie Thompson and her staff for producing this forum and a job very well done.

Enhanced by Zemanta