Showing posts with label Remote procedure call. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Remote procedure call. Show all posts

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.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Gloucester, VA FOIA Fraud?

Watch the above video all the way through if you can, it's about 4 hours long, but to make a long story short, we were at this meeting and we watched everything going on during the entire meeting.  Here is what we sent to Mr Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor member at large.

"Mr Chriscoe:  We are going to FIOA your text messages made and received during the BoS meeting.  We not only saw what you were doing, we also heard your phone going off numerous times.  Thought there was a policy passed last year that prohibited this.  Since it was done during a BoS meeting, it becomes BoS business.  May we suggest you refrain from this in the future?"

A response from Mr Chriscoe;

My phone did not go off during the meeting.  I did receive a text during the meeting, not pertaining to county business.  I also used my phone as a calculator during a portion of the meeting.  I do not send texts during meetings of any kind they are sent automatically by the meeting setting on my phone.

Thank you for the interest in what I do.  Sorry to disappoint.


Ashley Chriscoe

Board of Supervisors

Our Response;

" All we can do is go by what we see and hear.  Your phone seemed to have beeped numerous times during the meeting.  Also, your claim that you were making calculations is of concern as you did not bring up any numbers during the meeting that would release you of such a claim.  May we point out that appearance should always be a concern that must be taken into consideration at all times during a Board meeting.  Also, conversations with numerous people after the meeting, the consensus was unanimous, that the appearance was you were texting during the meeting.  

  We are not trying to be offensive to you.  We are showing you what we are seeing and are simply asking for transparency.  Please go back and review the meeting video and take an honest look at yourself and ask what it is that everyone else is seeing."

Again Mr Chriscoe Responds;

I understand your point.  My harshest critic watches all of the meetings.  And at no time did my mom say anything about my phone.  She says I am an on it all the time and she made no mention of it.  I do keep my phone silenced and if I do get a text I get a green light that blinks.  My mother is a widow and I have two kids at home.  If something happens to one of them someone can always get a hold of me.  At our next meeting if you are there I will show you the feature I use so that the phone does not vibrate or make a sound.  I apologize if it looked like I was using my phone. 

I did have to use my iPad during the meting because the laptop on the counter quit working prior to the meeting.  

Thanks for watching.  Keep pointing these things out.  They are helpful.


Ashley Chriscoe

Board of Supervisors"

There is an old saying that we have adopted here.  Trust but verify.  So as we stated, we did a FOIA request for any and all text messages.  It went like this.

"Hello Christie;

  Attached is a PDF formal FOIA request for information regarding any and all text messages sent and or received by Ashley Chriscoe during the July 1st, 2014 Board of Supervisor's meeting between the hours of 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM.  As always, thank you for everything that you do."

The response back from Christie Lewis is as follows.

I am in receipt of your attached FOIA request as emailed and received on Tuesday, July 8, 2014 for “ digital copies of any and all text messages of Ashley Chriscoe during the July 1st, 2014 Board of Supervisor's meeting between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.” 

Mr. Chriscoe has indicated that he reviewed all text messages and only one text message was received and one was sent through automatic response during the timeframe specified.  These texts were not related to public business and do not constitute public records as defined under “Public Records” in the Code of Virginia § 2.2-3701.

FOIA provisions allow a locality to charge a reasonable fee to access and search for requested records.  Total time being charged for this request is 45 minutes at a rate of $15 per hour for a total charge of $11.25.  Please remit payment by check made payable to the “County of Gloucester” for the total amount and mail to Gloucester Community Education, P.O. Box 1306, Gloucester, VA 23061 or you may bring payment in person to our office.  We ask that you call ahead to 693-5730 to ensure staff is available to receive payment.  We are unable to make change, so we ask to please bring the exact amount if paying in person.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.


Christi Lewis
Community Education Director

We asked for a justification of the above expense as Mr Chriscoe had already went through his text messages prior to the request.  How can he have possibly spent one hour once again reviewing his messages and why would it take anyone so long?  Also, let's look at the facts.  Christie Lewis only asked Mr Chriscoe for any digital copies of any text messages that he may have sent or received during the time frame in question.  She did not search any phone records to verify anything.  She simply asked him for any records.  So we have no idea whether or not he is even telling the truth.  

  Second.  Christie Lewis asks Mr Chriscoe how much time he spent searching his phone records and just goes along with that.  No verification on time spent here either and all this after Mr Chriscoe already told me the same story prior to the FOIA request.  Does anyone wonder why we question the integrity of local government officials?  Here is more of the conversation.

Another email to us from Christie Lewis;

"Mr. Chriscoe indicated he spent approximately one hour reviewing and responding to your request.  The county guideline is to provide a courtesy 15 minutes of response time so we billed for 45 minutes at the clerical rate of $15 per hour."

Our response to this is as follows:

"Please ask Mr Chriscoe to justify his time spent going through his cell phone for one hour after having already provided information on such prior to said request."

Again, we were at the meeting and kept hearing cell phone tones that would indicate a message came in on someone's phone during the meeting and it was coming from the front of the meeting room.  Mr Chriscoe had his head down and looking at something in front of him throughout a great deal of the 4 hour meeting.  It looked as though he was in fact texting.  We tried to work with county officials to clear all of this up, but there has been no response to us from the last email we sent asking Mr Chriscoe to justify his time spent looking through his cell phone messages or was that possibly deleting his cell phone messages?  We are presently looking into potential fraud on this.  This is not what we expect nor is it what anyone should expect of any county officials at any time.  It's disgraceful.  

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,

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Gloucester, VA Real Estate Sales Along Highway 17 Are Telling

If you have not been paying attention, maybe it's time you did.  Are you missing the big profit potentials along route 17 in the Page Middle school area?  It's the development mecca of the future in this county and it's being snatched up as fast as it can be grabbed by people who seem to have an inside track as to what is going on and what will be going on in the future.

  Take a look at the names on the real estate transactions and start asking yourself a lot of questions as to why these folks are buying up what they are.  Also start paying more attention to what the Board of Supervisors are bringing up and start asking a lot of questions there are well.  Who will benefit?  What did they know in advance and what do they know now?  One name you will see below keeps coming up as a person very much part of the secret government of Gloucester that does everything behind closed doors that the public will never have access to through the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust.  Ashley Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor member, is on the board of this non profit foundation that was once listed as a fraternity but has since been changed to have the appearance of a more acceptable trust.  It's not a 501 (c) 3 tax deductible foundation but instead a 501 (c) 4 foundation that does not have a tax deductible status for any potential financial contributions made to it.

  Highway Seventeen, LLC;
is a Virginia Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on September 23, 2013. The company's filing status is listed as 00 Active and its File Number is S472487. The Registered Agent on file for this company isBreckenridge Ingles and is located at 6516 Main Street P. O. Box 708 GloucesterVA 23061-0000. The company's principal address is 6338 George Washington Memorial Highway GloucesterVA 23061-0000.
RPC: 26002, Name: HIGHWAY SEVENTEEN LLC, Map#: 039-39, Acres: 22.84,    Assessed: $52,400.00, Vacant Land,Sale Price: $242,500.00, Sale Date 12/09/13
RPC: 29784, Name: HIGHWAY SEVENTEEN LLC, Map#: 039 39A Acres: 7.68, Assessed: $62,500.00, Vacant Land, SalePrice: $242,500.00, Sale Date: 12/09/13
Kkn, LLC
is a Virginia Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on May 29, 2008. The company's filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is S260645. The Registered Agent on file for this company is Michael T Soberick and is located at 2614 George Washington Mem Hwy Po Box 388 Gloucester PointVA 23062. The company's principal address is 6338 George Washington Memorial Hwy White MarshVA 23183.
RPC: 10860, Name: KKN LLC, Map#:039 25, Acres: 3.50, Assessed: $45,300.00,  Vacant Land, Sale Price: $206,000.00, Sale Date: 05/24/13
RPC: 20333, Name: KKN LLC, Map#: 039 24, Address: 5456 GEORGE WASH MEM HWY, Acres: 0.50, Assessed: $121,100.00, Dwelling, Sale Price:    $206,000.00,Sale Date: 5/24/2013
RPC: 30367, Name: KKN LLC, Map#: 039 22, Acres: 2.43, Assessed: $12,200.00, Vacant Land, Sale Price: $206,000.00, Sale Date: 5/24/2013
RPC: 31858, Name: KKN LLC, Map#: 039 23, Address: 5462 GEORGE WASH MEM HWY, Acres: 0.50, Assessed: $60,200.00, Commercial, Sale Price: $206,000.00, Sale Date: 5/24/2013

All of the above information is a matter of public record.  Take a very close look at the assessed values of each of these properties and what they ended up selling for.  Everything between WaWa and Lowe's along route 17 in Gloucester is very hot and getting hotter.  Any investment holding period for this area should be considered for around 5 to 10 years.  

There is no question that special considerations will be sought to avoid expenses by those who own property along this area and that these interests will want you, the local citizen who will gain nothing by their investments, will profit nothing from them but higher taxes to support their own profit returns.  Again, that means that the Board of Supervisors will need to be watched very carefully on everything that comes up to see if they are trying to sneak in extra expenses on us.  Anything coming out of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust must be viewed with incredibly skeptical eyes as well as anything brought up by Ashley Chriscoe as he sits on their board.  More of a liability than an asset to anyone in the county for the stated reason in our view.

Above, the Gloucester Main Street shopping center owned by the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with the very clear sign of Ba al in the design of their buildings.  Below, the sign of Ba al shown.  See:  for further information on the meaning.  This gives a much better idea of why the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust likes to do everything behind closed doors and out of the public view in our opinion.

Isn't it interesting to note where they have placed one of their symbols?  Right above one of their offices.  Yes it means something.  What, exactly, is the main question.  Is anyone comfortable with anyone in the county working with these people at any level?  All hail Ba al?

Friday, June 6, 2014

Gloucester, VA Bos's Christ Hutson: Second Conflict of Interest Vote?

Inappropriate Actions
During the May 20, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Chris Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project.  Part of the project entails installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point at a cost of $773,638.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it.  The following information was obtained from the Gloucester County online property database and is for property on Laurel drive that is owned by Mr. Hutson’s father and mother in-law
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
RPC #: 32740
Physical Location:
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
Chris Hutson should have abstained from voting on the Terrapin Cove sewer project in accordance with Commonwealth of Virginia Conflict of Interest laws.  Without publicly disclosing his family relations to a project area property owner, Chris Hutson not only voted for the project, he also acted as the primary public body advocate during the design, review and procurement processes.  Shortly after the BOS meeting this information was brought to the attention of all of the Supervisors via an email message.  After the email notification was sent it was further realized that Chris Hutson’s father in-law has served on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee since 2004 and was reappointed for another four year term by Mr. Hutson in 2012.  The appearance alone screams inappropriate.
During the June 3, 2014 BOS meeting the Terrapin Cove project was brought back to the floor for further discussion by Supervisor Ashley Chrisco, on the premise that funding is now uncertain due to the Commonwealth not yet approving its budget.  The Terrapin Cove project is not a Commonwealth funded project and the County’s ability to fund it has been uncertain from the beginning.  The BOS voted to delay the project start up and to pull funding from it until the Commonwealth approves its budget.  The Supervisors then directed that a certified letter be sent to each property owner within the project area asking the owners for a binding commitment to hook up to the sewer system if the project moves forward.  This and other steps should have been accomplished before money was spent to design the sewer expansion. 
Does this area of the County need public sewer?  I don’t think so but admit that it could be arguable.  At issue here is the conflict of interest vote made by Mr. Hutson and the efforts taken in the June 3rd BOS meeting to cover it up.  Does Gloucester County really want politicians who are self serving, not forthcoming and who have no conscious when it comes to spending hard earned tax dollars?  The answer is an emphatic NO.  The three newest Supervisors are the ones who initially voted against the project and did so with stated justifications.  These three seem to be working very hard to do what is in the best interest of the County as a whole; the other four should join them.   
During the June 5, 2014 BOS and Planning Commission meeting Chris Hutson encouraged citizens and business owners to bring instances of improprieties related to construction inspections to the BOS attention so they can be looked into.  How can he make such a hypocritical statement after voting on a project that he or his spouse “may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment from?”
We the people of Gloucester County deserve much more from our elected officials.  I encourage my fellow citizens to express their opinions on this matter and to remember these types of behaviors when election season returns.  Just remember; Political Parties do not make a good government, good people do.
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Our Notes:  Mr Hutson voted yet again despite what looks like a clear conflict of interest.  Even if it were the correct vote to reverse the earlier decision, he still should have abstained from the vote.  Nothing much other than non funding the sewer extension was corrected, but instead, was compounded.  Once was too much, twice is just a complete violation of the public trust and a slap in the face to every citizen within the county.  Exactly why is Mr Hutson serving on the board other than to possibly personally financially gain by doing such?   That is just "NOT" sound government.
Enhanced by Zemanta