Showing posts with label Ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ordinance. Show all posts

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Gloucester, VA Storage Container Use Ordinances



Gloucester, VA Zoning Codes For Containers, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Above are the present ordinances for the use of storage containers in Gloucester County and the proposed new ordinances for the use of storage containers.  Below is a series of pictures that show a complete lack of anyone following present use ordinances or proposed new ordinance guidelines.  So what is the sense of even bringing it up?


As seen right on route 17 south, Gloucester.  Hayes area.  Not one, but two.


Two storage containers right there in plain view on route 17 South in front of a vacant business.  Vacant.  Where is the compliance?  Where are the required permits?  These have been here for over one month.

Wait, there is more.


Two more storage containers in plain view from two roads, one of which is route 17.  These are located on the grounds of the Salvation Army.  We are not picking on any business for this report.  We are showing that there is no enforcement of present ordinances, and that these containers would still be in violation of any changes to the present ordinances.




The above two pictures are showing yet another container located on the property of Franktronics.  Visible from two roads including route 17.  Again, this is not to pick on any business.  But it becomes a fair point to ask, are a few exempt from the laws of the many?  Is this sound business?  What messages are you giving to potential new businesses that are looking at Gloucester as a potential area to expand into?  They can but you can't?  Laws only apply to those we choose to make them apply to?  The land of the chosen few?

  And what messages are you delivering to present business owners in the area?  Again it becomes the same mantra.  The land of the chosen few?  Ask not what Gloucester can do for you.  Ask what Gloucester may do to you?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, November 4, 2013

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?

Gloucester, Virginia:  The Board of Supervisors to consider changes to it's local ordinance that has not been in compliance with state code is now being considered for change.  The wording still does not reflect state code which would mean in our book, a violation to the Dillon Rule and further seeks to sell guns, under certain circumstances, for one dollar each.

  Now on the one hand to be as fair as possible on the one dollar gun sale, we can go along with it under proper considerations.  According to the new ordinance being considered, a Sheriff's deputy can buy his firearm from the county, after 20 years of service, and upon retirement from service, for one dollar.  If a deputy retires before 20 years of service, and after 15 years of service according to the new ordinance, the deputy can buy the gun at fair market value.

  Here is where there is a real problem with the 20 year plan.  It's at taxpayer expense.  Now, if the gun, after 20 years of service, is at a fair market value of let's say $250.00, that is a loss of $249.00 per person, who retires, to the taxpayers.  Now if the ordinance took into consideration the tax ramifications of this ordinance, then wording should have been put into the documents being considered that the one dollar purchase consideration is with the note that the remaining balance of the the fair market value will be added to the compensation  of the retiring officer for tax purposes.

  In other words, no free rides.  We are not looking to take anything away from anyone who has committed a life to law enforcement.  There are plenty of deserving law enforcement officers that should get a fair break.  The tax compensation liability is still more than fair and much less than paying fair market value and is still fair to all taxpayers.  Under present consideration however, the county has the documents that fail to take this aspect into consideration which to us is cheating the taxpayers not only of the county, but the state and at the federal level as well.  It's still compensation and must be factored in.  The ordinance as it is worded is a free ride and cheats everyone.

  Further, state code does not recognize Animal Control as deserving any considerations for the purchase of handguns at anytime from what we have read.  Even if the county allows it with this ordinance change, it has become to late for ex Animal Control officer, Carl Shipley, to fall into the new ordinance to purchase his handgun.  Is the Board of Supervisors going to go out violating more state codes and potentially cheating the taxpayers and the state along with the IRS?  This Tuesday's board meeting will be a very telling tale.

Also, how could county attorney, Twitching Ted (I'm Not An Attorney) Wilmot, the court jester, write this kind of dribble without showing proof that Animal Control should even be considered?  And is the board going to buy this dribble without proof of such?

Below is the documentation from the county on all of this.  Because we can't make this stuff up.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 19, 2013

Why does the Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continue


Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

“For the Common Good. “

I would like to thank Mr. Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney, for proving the point that Mr. Thompson made in saying County Code 3-17 is not a legal law. I will use the letter he sent to Mr. Thompson, with my comments interjected to show how well he proves the point that County Code 3-17 needs to be removed as an illegal law.

"There does not appear to be one specific Virginia State Code section constituting enabling legislation for Gloucester County Code Section 3-17. [This is exactly the point that Mr. Thompson made when he made the request to the county to remove the code. There is no State Code to support the ordinance.] However, that code section’s requirements are legally defensible regulatory measures in light of the following: [Again this is correct there are other areas of the Virginia code that protect dogs while being transported in the back of pickup trucks without being a primary code to stop the vehicle. We do not need to make up another separate law to cover this issue.]



1. The section is limited to public roads and public places, and does not regulate activity on private property; [As discussed during the last County Board of Supervisors meeting the county has no say on State Roads that is a State issue and outside of their control. Public places are covered by County Code 3-46 and no new code is needed. I believe this was part of Mr. Wilmot's argument to get rid of a section of County Code in the last meeting?.]



2. Va. Code Section 3.2-6570 prohibits the carrying by vehicle of any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner; [I did not find this in Code of Virginia Ҥ 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty.

A. Any person who: (i) overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, ill-treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another; (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iii) sores any equine for any purpose or administers drugs or medications to alter or mask such soring for the purpose of sale, show, or exhibition of any kind, unless such administration of drugs or medications is within the context of a veterinary client-patient relationship and solely for therapeutic purposes; (iv) willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal; (v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering; or (vi) causes any of the above things, or being the owner of such animal permits such acts to be done by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

In addition to the penalties provided in this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, require any person convicted of a violation of this subsection to attend an anger management or other appropriate treatment program or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling. The court may impose the costs of such a program or counseling upon the person convicted.

B. Any person who: (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates or kills any animal whether belonging to himself or another; (ii) sores any equine for any purpose or administers drugs or medications to alter or mask such soring for the purpose of sale, show, or exhibit of any kind, unless such administration of drugs or medications is under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian and solely for therapeutic purposes; (iii) maliciously deprives any companion animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iv) instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal set forth in clauses (i) through (iv); or (v) causes any of the actions described in clauses (i) through (iv), or being the owner of such animal permits such acts to be done by another; and has been within five years convicted of a violation of this subsection or subsection A, is guilty of a Class 6 felony if the current violation or any previous violation of this subsection or subsection A resulted in the death of an animal or the euthanasia of an animal based on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, and such condition was a direct result of a violation of this subsection or subsection A.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the dehorning of cattle conducted in a reasonable and customary manner.

D. This section shall not prohibit authorized wildlife management activities or hunting, fishing or trapping as regulated under other titles of the Code of Virginia, including Title 29.1, or to farming activities as provided under this title or regulations adopted hereunder.

E. It is unlawful for any person to kill a domestic dog or cat for the purpose of obtaining the hide, fur or pelt of the dog or cat. A violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony.

F. Any person who: (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another; and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.2-6540,3.2-6540.1, or 3.2-6552.

G. Any person convicted of violating this section may be prohibited by the court from possession or ownership of companion animals.”

Where does it discuss transportation of animals (it does discuss running over animals on purpose)? This covered by 3.2-6508. Transporting animals; requirements; penalty. ]



3. The County has the authority to prohibit cruelty to and abuse of animals and fowl, see Va. Code Sections 3.2-6544(B) and 3.2-6543; [See County Code 3-15 why is an additional law needed when it is covered already in County Code?]



4. The County has the authority to prohibit animals running at large (see, e.g., Va. Code Sections 15.2-1218, 3.2-6538, 3.2-6543, and 3.2-6544) ;[You do not prohibit animals from running at large in the entire county just certain sections and this is covered in County Code 3-46. Again an additional ordinance is not needed as you used in your discussion last month to get rid of a section of the County Code.]



5. The County has the authority to require that animals have “adequate shelter.” “Adequate shelter” is defined, in part, by Va. Code Section 3.2-6500, to include shelter that is “safe and protects each animal from injury.”;[This is covered in County Code 3-15. Again your argument to get rid of redundant code in the Board of Supervisors meeting last month!]



6. No case or opinion of the Attorney General of which I am aware demonstrates the unlawfulness of Gloucester County Code Section 3-17; and [Wow you got me – Based on this argument you need a new County Code to prevent County Employees from driving County Vehicles to Hardees since the existing Code does not say County employees cannot drive County Vehicles to Hardees! – No wait it is covered in the general rule that county vehicles cannot be used for personal use.]



7. Va. Code Section 15.2-1201 generally vests in the County Board of Supervisors the same authority and powers as are vested in City Councils. Va. Code Section 15.2-1102 vests in municipal corporations (here, cities) the authority to legislate to protect welfare, safety and health.

[There are laws and court rulings that supersede these laws.

First: Constitution of Virginia Article V Section 2: Organization and government.

The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the organization, government, powers, change of boundaries, consolidation, and dissolution of counties, cities, towns, and regional governments. The General Assembly may also provide by general law optional plans of government for counties, cities, or towns to be effective if approved by a majority vote of the qualified voters voting on any such plan in any such county, city, or town.

The General Assembly may also provide by special act for the organization, government, and powers of any county, city, town, or regional government, including such powers of legislation, taxation, and assessment as the General Assembly may determine, but no such special act shall be adopted which provides for the extension or contraction of boundaries of any county, city, or town.

Every law providing for the organization of a regional government shall, in addition to any other requirements imposed by the General Assembly, require the approval of the organization of the regional government by a majority vote of the qualified voters voting thereon in each county and city which is to participate in the regional government and of the voters voting thereon in a part of a county or city where only the part is to participate.



Second: A Federal Court Ruling also limits the powers granted by the state to local governments.

Judge J.F. Dillon, the creator of the legal doctrine today known as the Dillon Rule, wrote:

It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express wordsy; second those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted : third those essential to the accomplisment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation – not merely convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the corporation and the power is denied. Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Government Sec. 237 (5* ed., 1911).

In Virginia, municipal powers are expressly granted by the state legislature and the city may do nothing beyond the powers granted within the charter. If the city wishes to expand, constrict, or abrogate any powers they must seek legislative approval from the state legislature.

No inherent right to local self-government exists. When determining Dillon rule related cases, courts will consider whether the statute has been given a rational interpretation that is consistent with its purposes, and not one which will substantially defeat the statutes objective,…”]



I hope that you can understand and appreciate that one of my roles is to defend and assist in enforcing the ordinances passed by the Board the citizens have elected, at least unless such an ordinance has been declared unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, or is clearly unlawful even without a court determination. Mr. Thompson’s assertion that Section 3-17 is unlawful is not sufficient for me to agree. [For someone hired to defend and assist in enforcing the ordinances passed by the Board you have done a good job of throwing them under the bus and showing that this is clearly unlawful without needing it to go to a court of competent jurisdiction! Your position last month to remove a redundant County Code that is covered by multiple State and County Codes definitely applies to this ordinance that is covered by numerous State and County Codes. There is no reason to have this redundant code that is not specifically called out in any single State Code as you state above.]



Ted Wilmot"

County residents tell the Supervisors to get rid of this illegal county code before it gets the county sued.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. Our founding fathers used common sense when establishing our founding documents it is about time the county used some common sense.



“For the Common Good. “



Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay



P.S. Point to ponder: the powers to be want us to believe global warming is caused by man. There are limited documents to prove this. We should believe on faith in this warming – Kind of like a religion? As the ACLU would say you are violating the first amendment right by not separating church and state so no more preaching global warming (or global change) with public funding or in public forums!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Gloucester, VA Ordinance Violations To The Dillion Rule

We are starting a new monthly segment here on GVLN.  The objective?  To expose Gloucester County Ordinances that are on the county's books that look to be in violation of the Dillon Rule, hence in violation of state codes.

  Gloucester County Officials that seem to make up their own laws for their own agenda's despite knowing that doing such is a violation to their offices, oath of office and intentional and willful breaking of laws.

  What we are including with each of these is background information as it is given to us.  The first one we are looking at is Animal Control ordinance 3-17, Animals Riding In Open Vehicles.  Here is the background given to us, this is a Louise Theberge, Mark Hawkins ordinance designed to to go after one specific Gloucester County resident that it is said, Mark Hawkins does not like and wanted to get something on this resident.

  Please note:  We can not verify this information.  Officials will deny such no matter what as it would implicate them on willfully and knowingly breaking laws.  Also, the person this happened to, we can not report on as it could jeopardize that individual.  We are only showing here what has been told to us.  We are not reporting it as fact.  If proven to be wrong, we will be happy to post a correction.  Please do not consider this information as accurate unless evidence can be produced to show such.  This is just third party hearsay creating background history that could prove false.  The questions to the legitimacy or validity of the Gloucester County AC ordinance is very real however.

  Here is the county ordinance as it presently reads for Gloucester Animal Control.

Sec. 3-17. Animals riding in open vehicles.

It shall be unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle on a pubic road to place or keep an animal in any portion of such vehicle that is open in such a manner so as to permit such animal to jump out of or escape the vehicle or to be thrown from the vehicle by acceleration or stopping of the vehicle or by an accident involving the vehicle. The prohibited portions of a motor vehicle shall include, but not be limited to:

(1)The open bed of a truck or upon a motorcycle; or

(2)The rear storage portion of a vehicle with the tailgate, truck, or hatchback portion open or down. For the purposes of this section, the operator of a motor vehicle shall be deemed to have control of any animal found there.

State Code:

§ 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.

3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.
(AKA AC Ordinance 3-15 in state version).

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:
1. Adequate feed;
2. Adequate water;
3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;
4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species,
and weight;
5. Adequate exercise;
6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and
7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.
The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not
require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A

3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3
misdemeanor.

The state codes above are the closest we could find to Gloucester's AC ordinance 3-17.  Not within the context of meeting any Dillon Rule.  In fact, 3-17 appears to us to be a complete fabrication.  Not allowed under state codes.  Plus we will point out that these other state codes cover everything needed for law enforcement to do their jobs.

Therefore we challenge Gloucester officials to show the state code that matches this ordinance and prove that this is within the Dillon Rule and within state codes or request the removal of this ordinance from the books at once under state mandated procedures.  Not doing so after being informed of such violations is a violation to the oath of office and proper codes of conduct.

We do not want a nanny state and will not tolerate such.  We ask that Gloucester officials follow the rules the same as they expect us to.  We will continue to look at ordinances each and every month and do this until they are all cleared off the books or shown to be valid.  We already have a list like this and will be producing these requests at least one per month.  Or Gloucester officials can start cleaning them all up on their own without us showing them everything we keep finding. 

Final note:  We are not attorney's and none of this is to be considered legal advice in any way. We are simply looking at the facts and asking questions along with requesting corrections.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, May 10, 2013

Crossroads To Opportunity Or Failure - What Legacy Will We Leave?

We recently sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors that is meant to be read by Ted Wilmot and the Board.  The letter is below.  We can complain about the new ordinance 10-26 all we want but what good is it if we do not try and see if we can assist the county on getting it right and getting something passed that we can all be proud of.  This is a crossroads area where something incredible can happen for everyone in the county or become a major disaster.


This message is meant mostly for Ted Wilmot, however, each of you will be able to benefit from the information contained. This is regarding Gloucester County Ordinance 10-26 just published along with all the state laws that pertain to 58.1-3717. From what I am able to see you are actually shooting yourselves in the foot on numerous levels that are either going to restrict your ability to collect taxes or flood the roadways with gypsies. Both are very possible the way you are presently presenting the new ordinance.

Let me explain as the key is in section C of 58.1-3717. Let's look at this then I will break it down for each of you.

  1. Any tax imposed pursuant to § 58.1-3703 on peddlers and itinerant merchants shall not exceed $500 per year. Dealers in precious metals shall be taxed at rates provided in § .
What this means is that in lieu of someone paying taxes on income made, this acts like a pre paid tax. If you take an event like the Daffodil festival and throw all 160 plus vendors under a blanket umbrella $500.00 tax and then exempt yourself from having to pay those taxes, you eliminate your right to collect taxes from all of those vendors. You can not send out follow up forms to collect any taxes, you gave up that right under the umbrella and then didn't even pay yourselves.
Had you collected the $500.00 from someone else, you would collect less than $3.50 per merchant total and again would forfeit the right to send out follow up tax forms. If you try and charge each vendor a $500.00 prepaid tax, you will not have one vendor show up to something like the Daffodil festival. Most of the merchants would be hard pressed to make that in profit for the weekend. You would kill any chance for anyone to earn money.
The taxes we are talking about are taxes on gross sales receipts for sales in this area. What first must be established for 2014 is a proper amount of taxes on gross sales receipts for Gloucester from retail sales in Gloucester County. We are NOT talking about sales taxes required by the state and any additional 4% local prepared food taxes. When you have an event like the Daffodil Festival, you stand to collect much more than $500.00 in gross sales receipt taxes and you are already sending out the form for collecting state sales taxes anyway. You are only adding in a few lines to determine how much each merchant at the event owes after the event for gross sales receipts. (Like 32 cents per $100.00 in gross sales).
That is what needs to first be established in a uniform way. What the percentage of gross sales receipt taxes each merchant would be required to pay. That percentage can change from different types of merchants. Food sales can have either a higher or lower percentage than consumer goods retail sales.
A blanket $500.00 tax would be beneficial if used on a smaller event where it is held for say a weekend and there were only 50 vendors with only say about 7,000 people expected to attend.
A Dillon Rule Violation occurs when you restrict the merchant to 5 days or less. You can limit the event, but not the merchant. If you charge a merchant an advanced fee, that fee is good for the entire year. Another Dillon Rule violation is using the term vendor. It's not used by the state and has a new meaning these days than it once had. Vendor now is part of the supply chain for wholesale purposes, and exempt from the accompanied state laws.
Here is where you have some issues. If you grant a $500.00 tax license fee to someone, you do not have the ability to restrict them. I can then go out on 17 where 3 parking spaces are available, such as by Burger King on 17 and sell ugly oil paintings of Elvis for 11 and a half months and there is nothing you can do about it. You sold me a license to do so. You also have restricted your ability to collect gross sales receipt taxes from my sales. (Thank you). This law allows people to conduct sales as a regular brick and mortar business without having the expense of a brick and mortar overhead. All I have to do is put up a tent each day. (This has both good and bad potentials).
Here is what I see as a solution to the issues presently being worked on. For the 2014 Daffodil Festival, instead of thinking you need to charge each merchant a maximum $500.00 prepaid tax, you can charge each merchant a prepaid fee such as $10.00 per retail merchant and $20.00 per food merchant. No blanket, no follow up on gross sales receipts, no issues and everyone is happy. Chances are very high that you will collect more revenue this way and no one will be upset by it. But you have to set up the tax base structure to do so first.
Limitations. Restricting the amount of days a prepaid tax on a merchant can be done if it is based on a rate that would justify the restriction. Example, I want to sell ugly oil paintings of Elvis for 2 weeks. I have no idea what my sales receipts may be as this is the first time I ever tried this business idea. A $30.00 license tax would not be unreasonable and would clearly define the time limits. That the state laws allow from what I have read. The merchant or in reality peddler, would still owe and be responsible for collecting and paying state taxes, but would not be responsible for gross receipts sales taxes.
Look again at the statement in C, it says. Maximum tax that an itinerant merchant can be charged is $500.00. It does not say we recommend you charge each itinerant merchant the maximum license tax of $500.00. The state is NOT looking to hurt businesses. It's not in anyone's best interest to make doing business in the state near impossible. You do that you have no tax base left and county employees all become unpaid volunteers. Will you show up for work tomorrow if you know that you are now not getting paid?
Again, you shoot yourselves in the foot by exempting non profit organizations that bring in for profit merchants into a sales event. It's not the non profit that is hurt by the taxes. The non profit remains a non profit no matter what and nothing has to be added into 10-26 over it. You are leaving much needed tax revenue on the table by creating a blanket that removes your ability to collect gross revenue sales receipt taxes from the merchants.
If you want to help the non profits, then you determine a correct blanket that they can prepay and then they can add in those fees into the setup space charged each merchant. Then the merchant isn't responsible for taxes on gross sales receipts. Otherwise, go for the gross sales receipts taxes owed.
These laws were designed to make life easier for both local governments as well as businesses. Not restrict them and make everything harder and more expensive. It has the ability to increase the tax revenue base. More events mean more money for the county. Understand?
Here is where I think everyone gets confused. This was a dual purpose law that addressed a number of issues in the past. Going to the old door to door rug sucker salesperson, counties were not able to collect proper gross receipt sales taxes on retailers that entered into various counties. People were also fed up with door to door salespeople. This law initially allowed localities to create an assessment value on door to door companies which created an accounting nightmare for all of them. They were all forced to discontinue door to door sales because they then had to break up total sales and account for sales in each county and pay each county it's share of gross sales receipts earned in that locality. It became cost prohibitive.
You can't get rid of these laws or the door to door salespeople come back. You can structure new uses for the laws to help localities however. Event planning is perfect here. You have a tool to help you promote more events, hence increase tax revenues, not destroy the potential. Virginia is considered business friendly, not anti business. Now the confusion should be cleared up.
What you have here are tools if used properly become a wonderful new friend. Use them the wrong way and you have a nightmare where everyone loses. Anyone want to buy an ugly oil painting of Elvis? I can't seem to unload this stock anywhere.
The job an attorney does well is create ambiguous meaning to words. That's what all the college training is really about. I spent hours and hours going over these laws and was able to create a real nasty monster over it all. I was being ambiguous. I had to step back and look at the entire picture as a whole to see what it really meant. Now I am actually excited over all the possibilities, not threatened by them. I realized that it's not ambiguous after all. While I was being ambiguous, I saw the threat that anyone in a sales position can fall under these laws and an abusive ordinance could make criminals out of ordinary working people. And that is a reality. This is a great example of why our country is in such a mess and why government continues to grow and not shrink.
Ambiguity has many nasty potentials. What the county actually has here is what I would imagine anyone in government got into the job for to begin with. Something very exciting and not threatening. Re work the ordinance with the proper groundwork laid first and you have one of the most incredible tools at your fingertips that you can be proud to scream out to everyone about.
You can actually lay the groundwork for alternative forms of business to incubate from. Test the grounds at a low cost. This is an opportunity for Gloucester to take a very serious statewide lead on and change the nation. I would hazard a guess that most localities have no clue how these laws really work or should be applied. Step up and show them. What legacy would you leave behind? One where you worked against business that destroyed your tax base? Or one that you built a mountain of cash from because you saw the right opportunity for everyone to win and structured the right framework for that to happen? I already know where you can increase your revenues right away from structuring the ordinance properly, but will not divulge such until I see it done and at reasonable rates.
As far as 58.1-3717 actually applying to event planning, it has nothing to do with it. An event can be held that has no merchants and no admittance fees or financial collections this licensing tax would in no way apply. But I would imagine you all understand that. Entertainment events held to bring people into a particular store or area is very beneficial and raises gross sales receipts. It should be encouraged. It should also be planned properly for the intended purpose. Street entertainers should also be encouraged. Imagine having people sitting around playing guitars in the courthouse circle. It's like a free concert. It attracts people. If people throw money in their cases, look the other way.
Allow local merchants to set up tables at the courthouse circle area to sell foods and drinks at local concerts. If it works, charge them a small fee in the future for the space and it allows people to get to know the local merchants. Everyone wins. More events, more opportunities more revenues. Don't wait for opportunities, make them. Not everything will work. Or it may work some days and fail in others. You have no idea until you try.

Our Update Not Sent To The County.
  I once again read the newspaper article on how this all came about.  It was brought about by the commissioner of revenue, Kevin Wilson.  Mr Wilson did not read 58.1-3717 properly and did not further read 58.1-3703 afterwards that explains all of this.  I'm not blaming or faulting anyone.  I spent hours reading and re reading all the laws.  The second key was in 58.1-3703 that confirmed the gross sales receipts tax collection mentioned above.  These laws are tricky and not easy to understand.  On the one hand, Mr Wilson was not wrong about the merchants should prove they are legally entitled to do business in the state of Virginia, but that should have been in the application for reserving space ahead of time.  The $500.00 fee was way off though.  The reason it was never done in the past?  It was better to collect the revenue on the gross sales receipts.  It's one or the other.  Not both.
  I had a great teacher growing up.  This guy sat the entire class down and he took out a book of matches.  He said, I know you all know how to light a match, and we did, but pretend I am an alien from another world and explain to me how to light a match.  We could not do it.  Every step we told him to take, he took like an idiot alien.  It was amazing.  When you are looking at law, you have to try and get into the head of the person who wrote it to try and figure out what they were really trying to communicate because many times it's like trying to explain to aliens how to light a match.  You can show them, but if you were texting them, they would never get it.  So you dig for keys.  Oftentimes, your education gets right in your way.  It's right in front of you but if your mind is not in the right frame, you miss it over and over and over again.
  We hope this helps county officials to get everything straight.  Again, it's one thing to complain, it's another to get involved and help out when it's needed.  Before we asked them what legacy they wanted to leave, we asked that of ourselves.  I am continuing to look into all the laws surrounding this matter as this is a new area for me.  I am not an attorney by any means but I am capable of reading and understanding law in many areas.  There are some very complex laws here that need further work.  
Free MP3 download.  Convey - View From Above.  Alternative Pop Song.  Our way of saying thanks for spending time with us.
(cc) Some Rights Reserved - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 8, 2013

Gloucester Board of Supervisors Approve Discriminatory Animal Control Ordinances? Illegal To Own Grazing Animals Now?

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday Night voted on and approved the new ordinance amending Gloucester County Code Chapter 3, dealing with Animal Control.  It is loaded with a bunch of serious issues from what we see.

http://gloucester.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=374&meta_id=23421

The above link is to the section of the video where they are discussing and then approving the new ordinance.  The new ordinance is located http://gloucester.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=23426&view=&showpdf=1 at this link in it's entirety.  Section 3-4 has some very serious issues with it.  The title alone has serious implications for anyone who owns any animal that grazes.


Sec. 3-4.  Animals and fowl prohibited to be at large upon, or to graze alongside of, any
public street or highway.


It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any animal or fowl owned by him or in his
custody or under his control to run at large upon, or to graze alongside, any public street
or highway, whether such street or highway be enclosed by fence or not

Please define alongside.  There is no definition here and can mean anything.  It can be 10 feet from the roadside or 1,000 feet from the roadside.  No definition is given.  So if Animal Control drives by your property and you own a horse and the horse can be seen from the road, if the horse is grazing in public view, that is alongside the public road.  You are now a criminal?

  Also, if you happen to be riding a horse alongside the road, which is legal in the state of Virginia, if you happen to stop to let a few vehicles pass you safely and your horse decides to eat some grass that is growing there, you are now a criminal for allowing that to happen.  This is pure discrimination.  What if I was coming here from someplace like Lancaster County, PA where I just happen to be Amish?  I am thinking about bringing my family here to start a small community.  I would not be allowed to follow my beliefs based on this one ordinance alone.  That is discrimination.  It also discriminates against old order Mennonites that have similar beliefs to the Amish.  It also discriminates against anyone who owns equine that would like to be able to ride them in public, from which there is no state law that says you can not ride or drive equine in public.

  Sec. 3-16.  Allowing animals to defecate on public property or on private property of
other persons.

It shall be unlawful for any owner or person in control of any animal to allow any animal
to defecate on the property of other persons without their consent or that of the
authorized agent or person having control of the premises or on public property.
Immediate removal and sanitary disposal of the defecated matter shall not constitute a
violation of this section. The defecated matter shall be placed in a container and
disposed of in a proper waste receptacle.

Premium Vapes Valentine's Day BOGO

Are you serious?  What state law does this follow?  If someone is riding or driving a horse down a road and the horse emits it's natural exhaust, hence defecation, the owner has to get off their horse, somehow maintain the horse from moving and pick up the horses duty?  Was anyone thinking here when this was written?  Maybe you have to have someone walking behind the horse at all times ready with a shovel?  Again, this would be discrimination to anyone from an Amish or Mennonite Community and for anyone who owns equine that would like to ride or drive such in public.  What right does the county have to openly discriminate in such matters?  This again opens the county to potential lawsuits for discrimination in our view.  The ACLU could have a field day here.

Now if there is a consistent epidemic that could cause serious public health issues because of road apples, (equine defecation), then this ordinance would make sense as long as it was considered a temporary solution to such.  But this is not the case here.  Horse manure is not the same as dog manure.  Horse manure is made up mostly of grasses.  So if you have an animal that defecates on someone else's property and you do not go and pick it up right away, you are a criminal and can be charged as such and it goes on your permanent record.  We have not found any state laws that support this section in the way that it is written.

  We are looking at the rest of the new ordinance and we see other issues as well.  We will address them at a later date however.

As usual, we are not attorney's and this does not constitute legal advice.  Only an attorney can legally advice you.  We are simply questioning everything.



For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Animal Control Code, Law, Ordinance, Section 3-15, Wrongfully Charged? Gloucester, VA

We are going to open this post with the statement; We are not attorney's and the following information does not constitute legal advice.  Only an attorney can give you legal advice.  The purpose of this article is to openly discuss issues we have found with Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15 as it presently exists as of January 18th, 2013 on the Gloucester County, Virginia site.

  If you have been charged and or convicted under Gloucester County Animal Control Ordinance Section 3-15, you may want to seriously consider getting legal advice as soon as possible.  We would suggest finding a competent attorney that is not, I repeat, not practicing in Gloucester County.  You will learn soon why we are making this suggestion.

  In December, 2012 we started arguing the legality of Gloucester County Animal Control Ordinance section 3-15.  We started looking at the ordinance from every standpoint as we felt that there was something seriously wrong with it.  Looks like we were right.  We will cover all of that in this article.  In our opinion, this ordinance is the most abused code in Gloucester County, designed to bypass and overstep state laws causing serious misuse, malicious abuse, and serious charges and or convictions on a section of the population of Gloucester County citizens in a serious violation of the public trust.

Here is the Gloucester County Animal Control Code section 3-15 as it presently stands;
                                                                                                                                                                          


Sec. 3-15.  Failure to perform duties of ownership; penalty.
(a)       Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia:
(1)       Adequate feed;
(2)       Adequate water;
(3)       Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;
(4)       Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;
(5)       Adequate exercise;
(6)       Adequate care, treatment and transportation; and
(7)       Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.
The provisions of this section shall apply to an owner or custodian of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter, pound, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.
(b)       Game and wildlife species shall be cared for in accordance with current regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries.
            (c)        Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

This is still on the Gloucester County government web site under Animal Control as of January 18th, 2013.  Here is what the state law reads that the ordinance is required to emulate.  The State Law is 3.2-6503

§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:

1. Adequate feed;

2. Adequate water;

3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;

4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

5. Adequate exercise;

6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and

7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A 3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                         

Note the major differences between the two.  Under 3-15, 3.) Gloucester added the term sanitized.  Not found in state law. under the corresponding section.  Under provisions highlighted on both 3-15 and 3.2-6503 above, there are again major discrepancies.  Gloucester uses the term all animals that is not found in state law.  That means if you have an elephant, Gloucester considers it to be a domestic pet?  Really?  It falls under 3-15 so yes it does appear that way.
  Also, Gloucester is saying that agricultural animals, fowl and reptiles are also considered the same as domestic pets. Again, this is all well above the state law.  The state of Virginia from what we know, does not allow any locality to create ordinances that are broader than state law.   The ordinance must emulate the state law.  Does anyone see an emulation here?  At first glance maybe, but upon inspection, not that we see.  So what happens when a county ordinance is above and beyond it's scope with state law?  It becomes a non law or null and void from what we understand.  
Here is what state law says about county ordinances.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
§ 3.2-6543. Governing body of any locality may adopt certain ordinances.

A. The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt, and make more stringent, ordinances that parallel §§ 3.2-6521 through 3.2-65393.2-6546 through 3.2-65553.2-65623.2-65693.2-65703.2-6574 through 3.2-6580, and 3.2-6585 through 3.2-6590. Any town may choose to adopt by reference any ordinance of the surrounding county adopted under this section to be applied within its town limits, in lieu of adopting an ordinance of its own.

Any funds collected pursuant to the enforcement of ordinances adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section may be used for the purpose of defraying the costs of local animal control, including efforts to promote sterilization of cats and dogs.

B. Any locality may, by ordinance, establish uniform schedules of civil penalties for violations of specific provisions of ordinances adopted pursuant to this section. Civil penalties may not be imposed for violations of ordinances that parallel §3.2-6570. Designation of a particular violation for a civil penalty shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and preclude prosecution of such violation as a criminal misdemeanor. The schedule for civil penalties shall be uniform for each type of specified violation and the penalty for any one violation shall not be more than $150. Imposition of civil penalties shall not preclude an action for injunctive, declaratory or other equitable relief. Moneys raised pursuant to this subsection shall be placed in the locality's general fund.
An animal control officer or law-enforcement officer may issue a summons for a violation. Any person summoned or issued a ticket for a scheduled violation may make an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the department of finance or the treasurer of the locality issuing the summons or ticket prior to the date fixed for trial in court. Any person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged.
                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                              
www.cashunclaimed.com


  The above section shows what a locality may adopt, and make more stringent.  Not what a locality may adopt, and make broader terms for.  Ted Wilmot proposed changes to the local ordinances here in 2013 to reflect Animal Control law changes made by the state of Virginia back in 2011.  Are we a little behind here? So what that suggests is that Ted Wilmot has opened the county up to the potential of lawsuits for failing to maintain proper county ordinances?   3-15 of Gloucester County Animal Control is presently in violation of state law as we see it.  How many people have been charged with and or convicted of a violation to county ordinance 3-15 that in itself looks like it's a violation of state law?  So people have misdemeanor convictions against them based on an ordinance that itself was in violation of state laws?  This is what you bring to your attorney.

  The potential for a class action lawsuit against the county here is incredible as well as all the individual lawsuits from what we are looking at.  You can view the new proposed changes to section 3-15 on the following embedded PDF.





This is just one of 26 summons filed against one family here in Gloucester, VA.  20 of those charges were filed under Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15.  Ted Wilmot prosecuted this case knowing that the county ordinance was in violation of state law in our view.  19 charges under 3-15 were dropped but one was still charged and convicted putting a misdemeanor charge, fine and court costs against a person here in Gloucester.  The court allowed the charge and conviction proving to be a potential problem and not a potential solution.  So potential lawsuits against the county can not take place in the county.

  The funny part about all of this, in December, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal reported that Gloucester Animal Control served 32 summons during the month of November.  What the paper did not tell you was that 26 of the summons were to only one family that Animal Control Officers pretty much destroyed  in our view.  See our story on this through this internal link.  http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2012/12/gloucester-va-animal-control-section-3_11.html

  It is in our opinion that the county may want to start looking at all the cases filed in court under 3-15 and consider reversing all the misdemeanor charges, fines and court costs.  Where should the money come from for all of this?  The Animal Control Budget of course.  Strip the county down to one Animal Control officer with no secretary.  Oldest out first as that is where the highest payroll is.  Keep the newest person as they have not jumped the pay grade yet, so the budget can be kept in line.  Replace Ted Wilmot with a new attorney with a lower pay grade that won't leave the county open on areas like this.

Again, we are not attorney's and this is not legal advice.  Only an attorney can legally advice you.  We recommend seeking legal advice if you or someone you know has been a victim of Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15.  We do not recommend attorney's from Gloucester as we are not aware of any that have argued the legality of 3-15 making any of them a potential part of the problem and not a part of the potential solution, but keep in mind not every attorney in Gloucester has had to defend clients against this code.  So it's a personal judgement call.  Also, not being attorney's we are not able to foresee all the issues that surround this controversy.


For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.





Enhanced by Zemanta