UPDATE: The article has been posted on www.ruralcrescent.org and can be read there.
The election of Peter Candland might very well signify the death knell for the Rural Crescent. For those who may not believe that Peter Candland could be the nail in the coffin for the Rural Crescent and sane land use for the entire county, think again. This article from the Washington Business Journal leave voters with no illusions. I am going to urge everyone to put this article up on your facebook page, send it to your e-mail list, send it to friends who may have friends who vote in the Gainesville district. People must get out and vote for Ann Wheeler, not just because she signed the Rural Crescent Pledge, but because, overall, she is the more qualified candidate.
Post this thread on your facebook page, the message must get out that Peter Candland, like Corey, like Wally, is sure to be the next “Developers Candidate”. The Rural Crescent protected this County during the last out of control housing boom, now is the not the time to wonder about its fiscal value for all residents!
Don’t believe me? Fine, look at VPAP and see who are Candlands biggest supporters! He has recieved over 23,000.00 dollars from the building industry, 5,800.00 of which is specifially from Real Estate Developers and 3,200 from home builders.
>”Prince William board shift could open rural area“
For the first time in 13 years, a window may be opening — albeit a narrow one — for developers to build in Prince William County’s 80,000-acre preservation area, known as the Rural Crescent.
Peter Candland, the Republican nominee for Gainesville District supervisor, acknowledges his election Nov. 8 in the GOP-heavy district may be a game changer for Prince William development policy.
John Stirrup was a vocal and dependable advocate for the Rural Crescent, I cannot understand what made him so publicly support Peter Candland.
Moonhowlings has always recognized John on his steadfast support of the Rural Crescent.
Candlands election would would signify a complete shift in development policy from John Stirrups tenure. The Gainesville Sector Plan, rezoned in 2003, has enough commercial zoning to fit TWO Tysons Corners. The problem in Prince William County is not a lack of commercial land, but a lack of quality business’s interested in filling those land bays. Destroying the Rural Crescent should NOT be in the future for Prince William County.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
I did NOT say Candland was a “mad dog”!! I asked if a poster was an individual and gave the last name, and it was not Candland. If you don’t have the decency to correct you error to that “mad dog”. I WILL!!
Reread somethings. I for one said I hope he’s willing to work with us in-town folks, and that he was a nice man, and I seriously doubted he left my porch thinking I was agressive. I thought tsquad spoke the truth. I guess not.
Lafayette: What in the world are you talking about?
Where did I suggest that you called Candland a “mad-dog?”
I would apologize, and exhibit the required level of decency, if there was some coherent explanation of what I needed to apologize for.
Now, in some bizarre connection you have chosen to make offline, you attribute my comments to the “squad” — which I assume is the not to be named “scumbag” of that other blog that “does not allow comments.”
Take a breath, look at what I said, and then ask for my apology for something I am responsible for — if anything — from which you could have reasonably taken offense.
Why can’t I just be me?
If I say anything participants on this blog disagree with, it is because I am “Mad Dog” or I am “Jamie” or some other concocted persona.
This is not a serious discussion. Name calling does not actually work (just ask Ann Wheeler).
Here is what I think, and my apologies in advance if you cannot accept the criticism.
Prince William County is a dynamic place, with a changing landscape that requires adaptation and new approaches when necessary.
The population has grown, and the old-town crowd is being squeezed out by a new group of young families who have a different vision than those who hold tightly to the rural crescent philosophy (as differentiated from the actual language of the rural crescent policy).
The majority of Prince William County voters have spoken clearly that they want solutions to crowded roads; they want public water and sewers in their homes; they want a more efficient government; and they want a stronger commercial presence to balance the tax base.
To do that, you need office buildings, new roads (God forbid, maybe widening Rt 234 and other improvements at the 324/29 intersection), new communities, and leaders who can adapt rather than being handcuffed by some inflexible commitment to keeping things exactly as they are (i.e., the rural crescent philosophy).
I also believe that the issue between Candland and Elena could be resolved in a heartbeat with some common sense. People make mistakes. Maybe Candland made one. Maybe Elena did not handle the response as appropriately as she should. Who knows since there has been so much “gossip.”
But bludgeoning anyone and everyone who deigns to disagree with your position is simply counter-productive.
And one last observation: You cannot conveniently act as though Ann Wheeler and the activities of those who supported her — when those activities were offensive, unfair, or just plain wrong — are to be ignored as if they never occurred. Words have impact, and much was said that Candland would have every right to take offense at, and remember.
Relationships are built on trust, and that starts with honest communication. None of us is perfect, and heaven knows candidates make mistakes.
Let’s own up to them, and see if there is room to work together.
Why is it not legitimate to hold a different position that someone else, to actually research some of the issues, and then express opinions relating to the discussion without having those opinions be characterized as being part of a “mad-dog” pro-Candland position?
I’ve never tried to comment on that blog nor have a called anyone a scumbag! I wouldn’t read or post on that blog for all the tea in China.
You words above here. I don’t need an apology, nor expect one. I feel this is indicating some have accuesed Candland as having/being a mad dog. That’s of course, my perception.
Bottom line is there is nothing I could say to you that you would agree with. So, I’m done wasting my time. It is my sincere hope that Candland is a man of his word and will do all he said he would do. I wish nothing but the best for the Gainesville District and have my entire life.
@Lafayette
Layfayette: Perhaps you did not intend to do so, but you accused me of being someone named “Mad-Dog Haddow” because, as I recall, he was “pit-bullish” in promoting Candland. I never suggested that you said that Candland was that person.
Your attribution to me of being the person whom you dubbed “Mad-Dog” is your characterization, not mine.
I suggest you read your own posts and then decide who said what.
I am searching for my gray crayola so I can get in the game of covering over all the harsh rhetoric and claim I was always pretty even handed (which, by the way, is exactly what I have been throughout). I hope this conveys the point.
GFP2-
“To do that, you need office buildings, new roads (God forbid, maybe widening Rt 234 and other improvements at the 324/29 intersection), new communities, and leaders who can adapt rather than being handcuffed by some inflexible commitment to keeping things exactly as they are (i.e., the rural crescent philosophy).”
Okay, fine if Candland believes that he should be “flexible” on the rural crescent, then he should just say that to voters but then he should not say he supports the rural crescent. If his view is the same as above, he doesn’t really support it if it stands in the way of his idea of progress. Ed Wilbourn was proud of his similar position on the rural crescent and at least he was truthful about it. But then again, he lost, so maybe Candland figured that he had to lie about his real position to get elected. Or he is too naive to really have a position on it because he doesn’t understand a very complicated issue and hasn’t bothered to investigate both sides to hear more.
What Candland did is a little like saying “I support babies. I support babies. I support babies”
Are you pro-life? Answer: “I support babies and I am willing to listen to both sides of the issue. I think I am a game changer compared to my predecessor who was pro-life.”
But are you also pro life, do you specifically believe in protecting the lives of the unborn? Answer: “I support babies and I keep telling people that I support babies.”
Do you support a woman’s right to chose? Answer: “I support babies. Stop spreading lies that I don’t support babies because I do support babies.”
What about if a mother’s life is at risk? Answer: “I support babies. I support babies. I refuse to sign anything written by a right wing tea partier but I support babies. I don’t believe in signing pledges but I support babies. Quit saying I don’t support babies because I do.”
You have referred to yourself as a game changer when it comes to the current restrictions on abortions and I see you have several large political donations from a Dr. Tiller, are you a game changer?” Answer: ” Yes I am a game changer. I support babies. I have said that I support babies over and over. I won’t sign that rabid tea partying right wing nut job’s pro-life petition because who I totally disagree with them on other issues like taxes and healthcare. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support babies because I do support those babies.”
If a conservative voter heard a candidate repeatedly saying “I support babies” and also “I want to listen to both sides of the issue” and furthermore “I am a game changer”, no voter would NEVER believe that candidate was pro life. That is Peter Candland on the rural crescent and that is why people who cared about the rural crescent did not believe him.
BTW I know Candland is not pro-choice but I used this extreme example to provide an understanding of why people are reacting the way they are to his constant refrain of I support the Rural Crescent.
He should have been loud and proud of what ever his real position is instead of talking out of both sides of his mouth. To the development community “I am a game changer, I want to listen to both sides, I am open minded,” and to the voters “I totally support the rural crescent.”
I do not speak for Peter Candland. I only am one of an apparent sizable majority of Gainesville District voters who did.
Nothing I have said should be taken as Candland’s position. I think he has been very clear about where he stands on the rural crescent. Notwithstanding what I believe was a gross overreaction to the analysis by a reporter for the Washington Business Journal, Candland simply said he would listen to all sides, but he supported the rural crescent.
My point was to the broader issue of what voters want out of the Board of Supervisors, and the example I pointed to was Chairman Stewart who, despite his allegedly being the pocket of the developers. If Stewart is as bad as those on this blog claim he is on the rural crescent and the development issues, then how is it that he wins such huge majorities?
If the majority of people in Prince William County, and the majority of the Gainesville District, want to go in a different direction than current rural crescent policy, then it is the duty of the Board to follow that mandate.
In that sense, perhaps Candland has more integrity than he is given credit for by his refusal to sign pledges — any pledges including the anti-tax pledge groups — so that he can remain open to what the majority of his constituents want him to do.
As I said, this is a dynamic issue.