Kenny Hogge, Sr. Will Not Talk or Meet with Candidates Before Election

After hearing various comments from multiple people and receiving multiple phone calls and text messages pertaining to my and others’ opinion about the mismanagement of the old Page and bus garage properties; I am letting everyone know, I will not be talking with or meeting with any Gloucester County School Board or Board of Supervisors candidates or board members until after the election. I will accept and publish unedited written statements from any and all candidates and board members.

I do not believe the People’s business should be done behind closed doors.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Va.

Click This Link To View Our Old Page and Bus Garage Properties Opinion: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2017/09/its-not-just-terrible-drinking-water.html

Click This Link to View Our Latest News and Opinions: http:http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/

It’s Not Just the Terrible Drinking Water That Needs Fixing in Gloucester County

Most Gloucester residents know how bad of a job our local government has done providing Gloucester with safe and quality public drinking water, but few realize just how many other areas our local government has mismanaged for years and continue to mismanage today.

One of those areas is utilization of the old Page Middle School and bus garage properties, associated construction and use of taxpayer dollars to fund Crony maneuvers and deceptions to vacate the properties. Kiser and the two boards back then began the mismanagement several years before they built new Page Middle School on T.C. Walker Road against the will of a majority of the community. Most people in Gloucester know that story, so we will focus on what is taking place right now. The following is our brief analysis and opinion about what is going on in this area of our local infrastructure.

The current boards, paid for a study to determine where the best place would be, out of three school board owned properties, to build a new bus garage, county garage and utilities department complex. The initial results deemed the old Page and bus garage properties to be the best and most economical option; that is until school board member Charles Records and supervisors John Meyer, Phillip Bazzani and Ashley Chriscoe got done manipulating the results of the study. Just like when Kiser and his corrupt crew were violating the community's trust, this location study was done for no other reason than to check a box in the process of deceiving the people of Gloucester. From here on we will refer to the current group of deceivers collectively as the Crony Four, because they “are”, the definition of Crony Capitalists with Socialist tendencies and have steered this latest ploy against the taxpayers.

The old Page property still has a VDOT approved entrance/exit and was so depicted in the initial study findings. The Crony Four had that changed. They added the made up, so called requirement of obtaining a right of way from adjacent property owner Harry Corr and reconstructing the Route 17, T.C. Walker intersection to the mix. Part of the so-called reconstruction entails leveling the north and southbound lanes of Route 17 in the vicinity of the intersection. This one made up item alone drove the estimated costs up by several million dollars, making it "appear" cost prohibitive to build on the old Page and bus garage properties. That was the goal, but the real picture is likely quite different than it appears. The very expensive Route 17 leveling is most likely a VDOT requirement to build a thoroughfare road for a large business park or residential development, but it is certainly not a requirement for the construction and uses contained in the initial study findings. We strongly believe the old Page property is wanted by an adjacent landowner and the Crony Four and their predecessors (the Kiser Crew) have and are doing everything possible to make sure they get it; no matter how much it costs the taxpayers in the long run. 

Once the Crony Four added enough fake requirements and costs to rule out the old Page and bus garage properties, they proceeded with cutting the size of the recommended complex. The first thing they did was remove a new yard and facilities for our public utilities department; further demonstrating both boards lack of concern about our crumbling water and sewer infrastructure, our utilities department employees who are trying to hold it all together while significantly understaffed and ultimately demonstrating their lack of concern about the people of Gloucester.

The Crony Four’s plan is to allow utilities to temporally use the old bus garage and its property until it is needed for “economic development reasons”. They seem to believe, or know, a developer will come along who is willing to pay to relocate Utilities’ operation in return for the old Page and bus garage properties, but if they know this, why don’t they let us know what the ultimate plan for the properties is. We believe it is because the Crony Four are doing all of this to take care of one or more of their friends or associates and Charles Records seems to be at the forefront of the current effort?

Over two years ago, we began to believe Charles Records ran for the school board for the sole purpose of trying to remove ownership of the old Page and Bus Garage properties from the school board. At the end of his four year term on the board, it appears this member of the Crony Four has been successful in doing just that and ironically, he is not seeking re-election this November.

During a joint meeting of the school board and board of supervisors on Sept 19^th, County Administrator, Brent Fedors presented a timeline of future actions that includes a completion date for turning the old Page and bus garage properties over to the county. They claim their intent is to turn the old Page property over to Gloucester’s Economic Development Authority, but no information has been provided outlining what the GEDA intends to do with the property. This is troubling; especially since the GEDA already has comparable properties in the Gloucester Business Park that have gone unsold and undeveloped for years. What is so special about the old Page property that justifies the amount of tax dollars and time that have been waisted to obtain it from the school board? Wouldn’t you like to know?

It is not too late to put a stop to what they are doing, but "all" of us must let them know we will not accept what they are doing. Be sure to pass this on to other people in the community.

Look for more from us on how our local government is continuing to waste our tax dollars and allow our infrastructure to crumble in order to satisfy the greed and desires of a few. We will also be providing info on the Gloucester High School master plan in the very near future. If you care about the future of our County and Country; get involved, become informed and speak out. Demand transparency, make the ones we elect answer the hard questions and hold them accountable for their actions.

The following are presentations and meeting video segments pertaining to the latest transportation complex location study:

Transportation facility update.pdf 1 from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Updated combined transportation_facility_report.pdf 2 from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Update trans supporting_documents.pdf 3 from Kenneth Hogge Sr


XZ

Trans facility timeline and other bs from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman Has Not Answered My Coleman Bridge Toll Letter

On February 19, 2017 I sent Virginia Congressman, Rod Wittman a letter via his government website. The topic of my letter was removal of the toll from the George P. Coleman Bridge. (See letter below) As of the publishing of this article; the only response I have received from Congressman Wittman is the automatic reply email that is also shown below.

While I understand Congressman Wittman is a busy man; I do not understand why I have not received some sort of official reply from him or his staff. Maybe it is because there are not enough people in Gloucester and the rest of the Middle Peninsula who want the toll removed from the bridge.

If you find the toll on the Coleman Bridge unacceptable and want to see it removed sooner than later; take a few minutes to call or write to Congressman Wittman and let him know how you feel. His contact information can be found below.

13 News Now Reporter, Niko Clemmons is interested in speaking with people about the toll on the bridge. Contact him at nclemmons@wvec.com and on Facebook at Niko Clemmons

Let your voice be heard.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Virginia

Helping To Drain The Swamp

Letter to Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman:

Hello Congressman Wittman,

I am contacting you because of my concerns about the toll on the George P. Coleman Bridge and how it has and continues to stifle growth in Gloucester County and other areas of the Middle Peninsula.

After considerable research and conversations with numerous people, I understand; when it came time to replace the bridge during the 90’s, there was a concerted effort, by the local governing bodies to our south and parties here in Gloucester, to prevent the federal government from becoming involved in the replacement process, to the extent that reinstating a toll on the bridge was the only option to cover replacement costs.

I further understand; our southern neighbors’ objectives of reinstating a toll were to stifle the unprecedented growth that occurred in localities north of the bridge when the toll was removed from the old bridge. I further understand; our southern neighbors supported reinstating a toll to stop people from moving from those areas to the Middle Peninsula. I further understand; there were certain influential persons in Gloucester who wanted growth stifled because they want Gloucester turned into a retirement community. I further understand; some players wanted growth stifled until such a time as they too would be able to profit from growth in Gloucester. I further understand; if the federal government had been included, in the same manner as it was in the replacement of two bridges in West Point, there would not have been a need to implement the toll.

When the Coleman Bridge replacement plan was presented to the residents of Gloucester, they were left with the impression that the toll would be required for 20 to 25 years. A year or so ago we were informed the toll will remain for another 20 to 25 years. Within the last few months Gloucester Supervisor, Phillip Bazzani has made efforts to have the toll restructured to relieve some of the financial burden the toll primarily places on Gloucester residents. I appreciate Mr. Bazzani’s efforts, but feel traveling the path through the Commonwealth process will result in minimal to no relief.

Whether or not my understandings of how the toll came about are correct or not is basically dependent on whose version of the story one chooses to believe. There is one thing everyone seems to agree on; the swing span portion of the bridge is necessary only because of the Navy ships that navigate the York River.

I am wondering what the possibility would be of moving legislation through Congress, in which the Navy pays off any outstanding debt and assumes permanent financial responsibility of at least, the costs of operations, maintenance and replacement of the span portions of the bridge; or better yet, of the entire bridge.

If such a shift in financial responsibility occurs, there will no longer be any justification for the toll that has stifled growth in a large portion of the Middle Peninsula. It will also relieve the residents of Gloucester County and other affected localities of an unnecessary tax and restriction on travel.

Thank you for the good job you have been doing and for your time.

Respectfully,

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Va.

Automatic reply from Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman:

• Rob Wittman <Congressman.Wittman@mail.house.gov>
 
• Feb 19 at 3:19 PM

To

• Mr. Kenneth Hogge, Sr., Sr.

Message body

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me.  I am eager to answer your questions and to assist you in any way I can.  If you need urgent and immediate assistance with a federal agency, please call my Washington office at (202) 225-4261. You can also call my offices in Stafford (540-659-2734), Tappahannock (804-443-0668), or Mechanicsville (804-730-6595).

Your thoughts and ideas are incredibly important to me as I represent you in Congress.  Please be assured that you will receive a response soon.  Feel free to print this email for your records.

In the meantime, I hope you’ll consider signing up for my enewsletter, which I use to keep folks up to date on my activities here in Washington and across the First Congressional District of Virginia.  You can also stay engaged with me via Facebook and Twitter, where I post videos, answer questions, provide updates, and interact with constituents on the issues important to you.

In addition, my office is able to provide a number of other services to First District residents.  A list of these services can be found here.  Whether you need help with a federal agency, are interested in finding tickets to various tourist attractions in Washington, or are considering applying to a service academy, I am eager to serve you.

Thank you again for emailing me.  I am committed to serving you to the best of my abilities.

Sincerely,

Rob Wittman

Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman’s contact information:

• Rob Wittman <Congressman.Wittman@mail.house.gov>
 
• Today at 10:27 AM

To

• kennysr61@yahoo.com

Message body

Hi Friend- As your voice in Congress, I rely on hearing from you whenever issues arise that concern you and your family. I make it priority to engage with folks in Virginia in a number of different ways. Just last week I heard from and responded to more than 45,000 constituents through email, letters, meetings, social media, and direct outreach. And over the past few weeks I have had two Tele-Townhalls, each with over 1,500 First District constituents participating. During both calls we discussed a myriad of issues from health care reform to our nation's security. I’d like to invite you to join me on one of my upcoming Tele-Townhalls so I can continue to have these successful discussions. Please use the resources below to stay in touch with me!                                              Click the icons below to connect with me! I stand ready and willing to listen to you and want to hear your thoughts. Sincerely, Rob  Offices Hanover Office 6501 Mechanicsville Turnpike Ste. 102 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 Phone: (804) 730-6595 Fax: (804) 730-6597 View Google Directions Stafford Office 95 Dunn Drive Ste. 201 Stafford, VA 22556 Phone: (540) 659-2734 Fax: (540) 659-2737 View Google Directions Tappahannock Office 508 Church Lane Tappahannock, VA 22560 Phone: (804) 443-0668 Fax: (804) 443-0671 View Google Directions Washington D.C. Office 2055 Rayburn H.O.B. Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4261 Fax: (202) 225-4382 View Google Directions

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?, (Part 2)

Above is a picture looking south on route 17 with Ernest Lane to the right of Turlington Septic Service Sign and the stop sign.

In this picture, we have Ernest Lane at it's very front beginning.  Where the shadow shows up in the picture above along the road, this is where blacktopping ends and the road becomes gravel.  To the right is Turlington Septic Service.

When we went to Ernest Lane to look around, we counted that Turlington has 6 commercial trucks in their yard.  This will become important as we go along.

A better view of the trucks at Turlington.

This is a view looking East on Ernest Lane.  Gives you an idea of the type of road that is being discussed.  This is not a blacktopped road.  It is a state maintained road however.  Now let's look at the VDOT Rural Rustic Road project that is up for vote this coming Tuesday night before the Board of Supervisors.

VDOT RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM MANUAL

Background

The Rural Rustic Road concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's low volume unpaved roads. A pilot program, implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this concept. It ensures that VDOT practices environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of Virginia’s rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program, under § 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, became effective July 1, 2003. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Local 

Assistance Division working with the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee established the initial 

guidelines for this program.

The Local Assistance Division, in consultation with the Location and Design Division, has periodically updated the guidelines to reflect legislative revisions to the program. During the 2006 Session, and again during the 2008 Session, the General Assembly expanded the program by increasing the maximum traffic count on eligible roads from the initial 500 vehicles per day (VPD) to the current 1,500 VPD. In addition, during its 2008 Session, the General Assembly established that the maximum speed limit for a road designated as a Rural Rustic Road, on or after July, 1 2008, is 35 MPH. The Commissioner of Highways is authorized under § 46.2-878 of the Code of Virginia to increase, or decrease, this speed limit based on an engineering study.

The 2011 General Assembly Session amended the legislation to provide additional flexibility 

regarding Virginia Storm water Management Program regulations for Rural Rustic Road projects that meet certain criteria. This legislation provided that Rural Rustic Road projects placing a hard surface along the same basic alignment as the prior gravel impervious area with accompanying shoulder and drainage work are treated as routine maintenance activities for the purpose of VSMP regulations. This revision of the Rural Rustic Road Program Manual incorporates all prior legislative changes and provides additional clarifications.

Rural Rustic Road Concept

Fundamentally, the Rural Rustic Road concept is the paving of an existing unpaved road with a 

compacted or impervious surface and reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders, and usually the new hard-surfaced road is on the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the prior gravel impervious area. Furthermore, a focal point of the program is on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway, undisturbed to the maximum extent possible.

Improvements along a Rural Rustic Road project may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 11, 2002, Appendix V. AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤400) may be used as  a guide for roads with current traffic volumes up to 400 VPD. For roads with traffic volumes between 400 and 1,500 VPD, an 18-foot paved surface with 2-foot shoulders is desirable, but not required. The District Location and Design Engineer will be consulted for the higher volume roads (over 400 VPD).

The ideal Rural Rustic Road project usually involves reshaping of the roadbed, cleaning ditches and applying a hard surface within existing right of way. In most cases, it is assumed there are no actual construction plans and therefore, few occasions when a Rural Rustic Road project would require an engineered solution. The Rural Rustic Road concept may still be used to address more significant needed improvements if deemed appropriate. However, improvements beyond those required to address specific safety issues should be weighed against their probable cost. In lieu of more costly improvements, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate warning signs as needed recognizing the program goals of minimal disturbance and providing hard surfacing at the lowest possible cost. Typical examples of when engineered solutions may be required on rural rustic roads are when alignment improvements are needed to address identified safety issues, or improvements are needed to address severe drainage and/or erosion issues. Engineered solutions should be noted on the Scoping Report

 (Appendix II)

 and will usually trigger additional requirements typical of traditional construction projects such as the requirement to have plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in accordance with the 

Department’s IIM-LD-243, as well as those requirements further detailed under the 

Environmental and Hydraulic Requirements.

Program Eligibility Criteria

The following criteria are those by which a candidate road is evaluated to determine its eligibility for hard-surfacing under the Rural Rustic Road Program. The road:

* Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System.

* Must carry no more than 1,500 VPD.

* Must be a priority (line item) in the locality’s approved Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) 

if the funding source is from secondary system allocations. If secondary system 

allocations are not used, the project is not required to be in the SSYP. However, the 

applicable provisions for public involvement must be met.

* Must be used predominately for local traffic. The local nature of the road means that most 

motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features.

* Must have minimal anticipated traffic growth. The County Board of Supervisors will 

endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road Program, and 

cooperate with VDOT through its comprehensive planning process to develop adjacent 

lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts.

In addition, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, must designate the road as a Rural Rustic Road.

Planning and Approval Process

The Local VDOT Manager, as described herein, is the Department’s local liaison responsible for dealing with a County’s Board of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. This is typically the Residency Administrator, unless otherwise designated by the 

District Administrator.

A candidate project is initiated when the Board of Supervisors requests the Local VDOT Manager to evaluate a section of road for the Rural Rustic Road Program or when the Local VDOT Manager reviews a new proposed unpaved road project in the locality’s approved SSYP for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. The comparison of unpaved road improvement options is Appendix VI of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager will consult with other technical experts as deemed appropriate to evaluate the roadway.

Following evaluation, the Local VDOT Manager advises the Board of Supervisors whether the unpaved road can be hard-surfaced through the Rural Rustic Road Program. If the road is not eligible, the Board of Supervisors may appeal the decision through the Local VDOT Manager to the District Administrator, and ultimately the Chief Engineer 

for consideration by the Commissioner of Highways.

The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, designates the road as a Rural Rustic Road. A sample resolution is Appendix III of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager notifies the District Administrator and the Regional Operations Director that the road has been designated as a Rural Rustic Road. The Regional Operations Director may conduct a traffic engineering study to evaluate the road for a posted speed limit, or post the road at the 35 MPH maximum established in §46.2-873.2 of the Code of Virginia.

The Project Manager/Local VDOT Manager conducts a scoping meeting, as appropriate, and completes the Rural Rustic Road Program Project Scoping Report (Appendix II). An exemption has been provided for this program to utilize this scoping report instead of the traditional scoping report (PM-100).

Now let's go back and once again look at what is already planned for this rural rustic road that comes from Bedford Falls subdivision.

Now again we see from Maps that are on the Gloucester County Government website, Bedford Falls has already stated they plan on putting in a road between themselves and Ernest Lane which is going to significantly increase traffic along Ernest Lane.  But it appears they are waiting to put that road in after Ernest Lane is paved by VDOT at the expense of the taxpayers.  So can it still be argued that these are just plans and that they are subject to change?  Well the argument can be made, but we went to Bedford Falls and took pictures there are well.  Here is what we found.

This is a view down Shyan Way.  Just to the right of the white truck is a sign that shows the names of the roads, both under construction and planned.  Let's take a close up look at that sign.

Well there is the sign for Songbird Path.  So it would seem if the argument were to be brought up that it was only something in the planning stages and subject to being scrapped, the argument is no longer valid as the sign is already in place to put that road between Bedford Falls and Ernest Lane.

Let's look at some other issues here as well.

The picture above is from Google Maps and is a view covering Providence Road to Ernest Lane.  Providence is at the bottom while Ernest is towards the top.  Why is this important?  It shows that there is no North Bound traffic entrance directly to Ernest Lane.  If you are traveling North on route 17 from coming across the bridge, you have one of two options to get to your home in Bedford Falls at the moment.  One is to turn left onto Providence Road and drive through some side road neighborhoods before you can get to yours, or you have to travel to Ernest Lane, make a U Turn and turn into Lakeview Drive to get to Bedford Falls.

  Neither one is a great option at the moment.

In the Google map above, at the bottom left of the two roads is Lakeview Drive, at the moment the main way into Seawell's Trace and Bedford Falls, and the upper road is Ernest Lane.  You can not turn left off of route 17 North bound on to Lakeview Drive.  You can turn left on to Ernest Lane however from route 17 North bound.  However, at present, you can not enter Bedford Falls from Ernest Lane.

Now for some other issues.

This is an up close view of Ernest Lane from Route 17.  Now traveling on 17 north bound, there is a turn off lane so that drives are not blocking traffic along 17.  What is lacking here are a number of other issues that must be taken into consideration before Songbird Lane can become a main feed into Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace stemming from Ernest Lane.  

  First, coming off of Ernest Lane, one can not easily turn left to travel north on route 17.  A light needs to be installed for that.  Also, there is no turn off lane from 17 south onto Ernest lane.  With the increased traffic from these two developments onto Ernest Lane, these matters have not at all been taken into consideration.  

  Further, with Turlington Septic Services being on the dirt road part of Ernest Lane with 6 trucks in their yard, the level of surfacing that VDOT will be putting down on Ernest Lane may not be enough to handle the business use at the front of Ernest Lane.  There are also several people who live along Ernest Land who make their living driving tractor trailer trucks and sometimes those trucks do travel Ernest Lane, so again, there may prove to be issues as to whether the surfacing will even hold up.

  So the question really is, does Ernest Lane qualify under the Rustic Rural Road program or not?  It does not appear to us as though it does.  Now it would if Songbird Path was not planned.  Then it would appear that Ernest Lane does qualify.  Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace are a real game changer to the entire picture here however.  Plus, with all the other open land around this area, further development will cause even more complications that would need these issues addressed.  If that is not all, there is still more.

Pictures taken between Ernest Lane and the back end of Bedford Falls homes, seems to show wetland grasses along the property lines.  Has a study even been conducted to show that Songbird Path will "NOT" be crossing any wetlands to enter onto Ernest Lane?  It appears that a lot of issues have not been looked at here and need to be addressed before the Board of Supervisors are even asked to consider keeping Ernest Lane on the Rural Rustic Road program.  Again, it does not look like it qualifies based on developer plans.  Now if the developers want to pave the road properly, put in the stop light along route 17 and also put in the turn off lane going to Ernest Lane, then that is a different story.  In fact, the developers should be made to pay these expenses.  It's not the responsibility of the majority of the taxpayers. 

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?

Ernest Lane is scheduled for road pavement, at least this is the present plan as shown in the recent agenda before the Board of Supervisors for this coming Tuesday night, August 5th, 2014.  At present Ernest Lane is for the most part a dirt road.  So why is this road of concern that it should be considered for pavement?  Well we decided to find out and what we have uncovered is rather interesting.  It looks like the taxpayers are once again being asked to fund a project that will only benefit a few at the expense of the many.

  Above is a Google Maps picture of Ernest Lane.  How old it is we have no idea.  We will be going out to the area very soon to take updated pictures to show you other information we have found in our research.  But in the mean time, let's take a look at the actual information found in the Board of Supervisor's agenda for August 5th, 2014.

Gloucester. VA Earnest Lane VDOT Project Information, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Another area of interest in the above?  It is stated that everyone of concern in the area has been notified of this information.  Well when we checked with just one resident who will be affected by this, he knew nothing about it in any way.  But he does now thanks to the question.

Look at paragraph 2 above.  WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more than 1500 VDP;

Okay, what the heck is VDP?  We tried to look up VDP and found 169 acronyms.  The closest thing we could find for what it might mean is Variety Development Project.  Trying to identify what that means?  Unidentified category is what came back.  So in other words it pretty much means nothing except whatever the folks using it want it to mean.

  Either way, this is a VDOT project which means that all taxpayers in the state are paying for this.  Not just local taxpayers.  But should the taxpayers be funding this?  We have to ask that question based on other statements in the above agenda document and what our findings have shown.

  On the south side of Earnest lane, but not fronting Ernest Lane is Bedford Falls development managed by Epstein Corporation of Yorktown, Virginia.  Now who is the Epstein Corporation?  Well with research on that information, what we were able to come up with, they have ties to some local folks, specifically Breckenridge Ingles as well as Adrian Rider Cook.  The same folks who are behind the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with whom Ashley Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor, Gloucester County, happens to sit on the board at the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles.  Isn't that just some interesting coincidences?

  Why is that even important?  Well, when you look at some of the development plans for the Bedford Falls real estate development, they have in their plans to put a road from Bedford Falls to Ernest Lane.

Now the above map comes straight from Gloucester County's website and is a tax map.  Take a look at the road already named, Songbird Path.  Now let's once again go back to the document above that is part of the agenda for the Board of Supervisors and look at a statement on there.  It clearly states on the document that the Board of Supervisors are unaware of any pending development that will significantly affect "EXISTING" traffic on this road.  Really?  No one looked at this tax map or is it that no one expected anyone else to look at this tax map?

  Here is how this game is played folks.  Go back to the picture at the top or look at the one now below.

  In the highlighted yellow section above, Songbird Path is just waiting to be built which the plans above show will lead right out to Ernest Lane which WILL significantly affect present road traffic.  It gives the developers a second path in and out of Bedford Falls.  This would increase the value to those who live there as well as increase the value of the homes to be sold in this development.  Now if the folks at Epstein Corp had already built Songbird Path, then it would be up to the developers to pave Ernest Lane.  But since they have not yet built that road and it's only pending, then all the developers have to do is wait until VDOT paves it at taxpayer expense and it's an automatic profits increase to Epstein Corp because now they will not have to pave that road and now get the extra profits from increased values all at your expense.

  Isn't that a nice plan?  Again, you have to love all the wording in the above agenda.  It's very very slick and they can claim it means whatever they want it to mean.  The VDP of 1500 can mean 1,500 residences as a low-density term.  So what is high density then? 1,501?  Oh but it gets better folks.  Let's now look at some of the tax information we came across as we were researching all of this.

Can someone please to explain to us how 8.8 acres in this area is only worth a lousy $100.00?  We would like to offer them a chance to triple their money.  We will gladly pay them $300.00 for this 8.8 acre parcel of land.  Right now that is a wooded area right to the left hand side of where Songbird Path is planned for development.  But is this just a mistake?  No, there are more just like this.

Here is another parcel only worth a mere $100.00.  Now why are these folks not paying the proper taxes on this land the same as others have to?  Why are the local taxpayers having to pay extra because these folks are not paying their share?

Now this area has not yet been subdivided and is where the circle presently is and where Songbird Path will move in and out from.  This area is presently at a value of $133, 000.00.  Once subdivided for more houses, it will go up much more.

Another area only worth a lousy $100.00 for 3.27 acres?  Are they kidding?  Who comes up with these values?

Now let's look across the street at county owned property, (questionable as to real ownership and to be covered in a future article) and look at what the county has values set for county property.

Now isn't the above just interesting?  1.41 acres valued at $55,000.00 and another .5 acres valued at $58,000.00.  Where the county got these properties is going to be covered very heavily in the near future.  In the mean time, it really does not matter what the county values any property it owns as it does not pay taxes on it anyway but the point is about why the county values land in the area so high except in the development area is valued so low.  Anyone ever see the prices of the houses in Bedford Falls?  They start at $230,000.00 at the lowest end.

Now here is a GIS map from Gloucester County's own information.  One can clearly see that there is going to be a road put in named Songbird Path which will in fact significantly impact present traffic on Ernest Lane.  Just look at all those houses already planned out.  We can only imagine that there is another set of plans that will later be filed to add houses to Shyan Way circle above as well as Songbird Path.  Why would any developer waste so much land that can be developed?  Might it take the project well beyond or just beyond the meaning for rural development and no expectation of planned development that will change present traffic?  Well we already know that is BS based on what we see and in our own opinion.

  Now some questions.  Did Ashley Chriscoe, on behalf of his ties to Mr Ingles, put in the request for this rural development project here on Ernest Lane as it will benefit Bedford Falls and the profits of the Epstein Corporation?  Will Ashley Chriscoe somehow get business out of this that could make this a conflict of interest?  With Ashley Chriscoe's ties to sitting on the Board of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles in itself be a conflict of interest if Mr Chriscoe was in fact the one who made such request?  We do not know.  We are only asking the obvious tough questions and we think everyone should be asking these questions.

Here is yet another GIS map showing Bedford Falls and how it will impact Ernest Lane.

Now does anyone have any questions as to the potential impact on Ernest Lane from Bedford Falls?   Would anyone say this qualifies for low density?

Now, looking at the website for Bedford Falls, which most of it is still under construction, (Lousy web developers?) shows that Shyan Way will have houses on it.  Not shown in the GIS maps above.

The above picture is used under Federal Fair Use laws and comes off the Bedford Falls website.  So it looks like we were right about a part of this not having been filed yet with the county or the county has not put up those filings yet in regards to houses on Shyan Way circle.  Again, just look above.  Visit the Bedford Falls website.

http://epsteincorporation.com/bedford-falls/

Interesting to say the least.

Last minute update.  VPD not VDP is Vehicles Per Day and is a transportation term.  So the 1,500 Vehicles Per Day is what is being defined as low density for this project.  Well under those terms, we would agree that it will remain low density, but we still have to ask the question, why the expense to the taxpayers instead of the expense to the developer when it's the development that will benefit the most?