So the truth is out. Confirmed, via the most recent article in the in an interview with The Washington Post that he plans to introduce a policy next year on the concept of “clustering,”a new approach to managing the county’s rural area.
Allow me to interject some facts here. There IS a “cluster ordinance” in the comprehensive plan for allowing clustering of homes on large tracts of land. I will put a copy of the ordinance up on the rural crescent website and link to it so people can become better informed. I am hopeful that maybe even Corey and Peter Candland will visit the link in order to educate themselves on the current cluster ordinance.
Lo and behold, Peter Candland is already finding ways to do Corey’s bidding! I don’t think that Peter has a full understanding of land use or else he would understand why Corey’s proposal is bunk.
“That, I believe, succeeds at nothing,” Stewart said. “I think that we need to look at better ways of preserving very large areas of rural ground as well as promoting more commercial office space and high-end retail. We have to take the emotion out of this debate and give it a cold, hard, objective look.”
Stewart said his argument is that having a hodgepodge of 10-acre lots doesn’t make sense. Better, he said, to have a development on 100 acres, where 30 acres are developed and the other 70 are open space, he said. Stewart said that such a policy would take a long time to develop, and the board would do so “in conjunction with the community.”
Candland said he rejects the commonly used term “slow growth,” saying “managed growth” more adequately describes his philosophy to encourage growth along with adequate infrastructure. But he largely agrees with Stewart’s philosophy of bringing the county more high-end retail and office space, he said, adding that improving the county’s quality of life will drive economic growth.
“Plain and simple,” Candland said, “we need to bring business to Prince William County.”
The level of ignorance astounds me. I wonder if Corey and Peter are aware that there is plenty of undeveloped land in the “Development Area” that has YET to be rezoned for its allowed long range use. There is not a lack of opportunity for high end retail and commercial (anyone heard of Innnovation?) in Prince William County. There is a lack of those high end retailers and Corporations CHOOSING to do business here.
Busting open the Rural Crescent will only have one sure fire result, higher taxes for everyone. Gotta love those conservative values.
I wonder if Michael Neibauer from the Washington Business Journal will have a follow up article to citizens of Prince William County affirming his pre and post prediction on Canlands election being the “game change” for development in the western end.
Not that there’s some massive push to build new homes in Prince William County, especially the western end. But when a proposal does come along — and it will — Candland’s victory may give the developer a narrow opening.
How predictable. Is Corey that much of a creature of the wind? Didn’t he run on a low growth/environmental ticket in 2003? Is there not a pledge signed agreeing to 10 acre lots and no sewer hook up?
Perhaps that is the next question for Corey. He would be having a Cain/Perry moment on that one. Pledge? Long pause.
There’s not a big push to build townhouses and houses now, in the Rural Crescent or the development area, but there is a big push to get the comp plan amendments and rezonings done while developers control the Board of Supervisors, as they will for at least the next four years.
A residential development is a project that takes years to plan, build and market. The developers know that the economy will turn around – it already has in some ways. Two, three, four years from now this economic mess will be behind us, unemployment will have fallen, and we’ll be back on track, regardless of who wins the presidential election next year.
Building in the rural area is vastly cheaper and more profitable for developers than building in the existing development area. There is open space that requires little more than bulldozing down the trees to put the infrastructure in place. Taxpayers fund the roads, sewer, schools, police, etc.
Expect proffers to pay for any of this? Not with the board coming in next January. Look at the joke of what they called proffers for Avendale. Among other scams in that one, the Planning Office took the developer’s word for the value of proffered land and applied it toward requested monetary proffers, and then Corey and Wally rammed it down our throats. That was the current board. The incoming board will be many times worse.
Expect lots of sham rhetoric about property rights and everyone’s right to do as they please with their own property. Everyone who says that should have the property next door to them rezoned for a hog farm or toxic waste dump. Citizens who live here now have a right not to have to pay higher taxes on their property to subsidize the corporate welfare the board will demand to repay their bribes (oh, er, campaign contributions, sorry). Get ready to dig deeper into your pockets at tax time. Also, get ready for more congestion on the roads and overcrowding in the schools as the state has no money to support anymore.
But Corey got rid of the illegal aliens!!!! Believe that if you want, but just wait to see what happens when the developers who bought him, Candland and the others want the cheap labor to maximize their bottom lines.
Watch as your quality of life circles the toilet and goes down the drain.
NTK, Thanks for pointing out all those consequences of the new board. I expect you are right. It sure doesn’t take much reading between the lines.
If Corey thinks we can’t afford the Rural Crescent,, has someone talked to him about how we can afford NOT to have it? A taxpayer in a single family house the size I see being built in western PWC in no way even meets the school cost per pupil per year for one child. That doesn’t include building and school infastructure costs. Most people have children.
The only thing I see is services being cut. Fairfax has even cut back library hours. If they are doing it in Fairfax, expect it to happen in PWC. We love to emulate FxC. Fairfax doesn’t open its libraries to 1 pm something like every other day. Libraries are a quality of life issue. A few developers get richer while PWC residents get their services curtailed, classroom sizes grow bigger, county employ pay stagnates….the list goes on.
I like NTK’s cure for private land use….Pig farm time. Meanwhile, if someone feels like challenging the system, start with putting in a few chickens in YOUR yard. Let me know how that works out for you.
In Corey’s example, on 100 acres of rural crescent land a maximum of 10 homes are currently allowed. Is his proposal to put those 10 homes on 30 acres and permanently protect the other 70 acres? Or is his proposal to allow more than 10 homes (30? 50? 100?) on the 30 acres and permanently protect the other 70 acres?
Given Corey’s (and his butt-monkey…err suporter’s) math, its likely 120 houses on 30 acres. They purport that it is a simple math problem and they are just planning for the future. That manner of thinking is simplistic, delusional or fradulent and certainly not realistic.
In their emphasize of the “math”, they simply focus on that part of the equation regarding population forecasts for NOVA. The more important math regards the current number of lane miles available, current capacity of the road, water systems, etc., the capacity for expansion of those systems and the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure to support the increased population. All of the county’s plans are based on construction of new infrastructure largely at the Commonwealth’s and developers’ expense. The dirty secret that none of the BOCS or their supporters dare talk about is that VDOT has already stated unequivocally that as soon as the present round of stimulus funds and budget surpluses (I have better word for those but it is really impolite) run out, there won’t be enough money under the current funding formula to do routine maintenance much less new projects and proffer have never and are not designed to fund the true construction cost much less maintenance cost.
Ironically, it is that very math that allows me to be comfortable in the knowledge that the bi-county parkway likely will not be build as there is no realistic means to fund it with State dollars and it is far too ambitious a project with too little in potential toll revenue to make the project viable for a PPA. Conversely, don’t look for the Haymarket Bypass or similar proffered roads to be constructed anytime in the next five, ten or twenty years under present circumstances.
On the other hand, it is that math that leaves me very uncomfortable with the apparent direction of the BOCS as regards development. Their policy is driven by flawed math (not that they really care) that will ultimately result in disastrous circumstance both physically and fiscally for all county taxpayers.
Unfortunately, this is simply a charade and house of cards that Corey has built in anticipation of moving on to higher office and Wally has pushed for his own purposes. The only upside is that the true villains and enablers (through their own greed and stupidity) Jenkins, Nohe and Caddigan, will be left holding the bag (along with the rest of us taxpayers) and will eventually have to face the embarrassing music. Karma’s a bitch.
@Blue Moon
It’s not clear what he meant. I expect ten homes on thirty acres would be the minimum they would seek. Keep in mind that the Board can do whatever they want. All it takes is a Comp Plan Amendment. They could come in and ask for 1,000 homes on 30 acres and the Board could approve it.
Another problem is developer salami tactics. They come in one year asking for a modest number of homes and get that approved. Later they come back saying market conditions have changed and they want approval to build on some of the land that was supposed to be set aside as open space, and/or greater density on the land that was approved for development.
Recall what I wrote above. These developments are long-term, multi-year projects. The developers and their land use attorneys/lobbyists have the resources, patience and know-how to get what they want and screw over citizens and taxpayers. And, it always helps to have ambitious politicians on the payroll who will do what you want in exchange for support of their careers.
Here’s another thing to watch out for on these rural cluster developments. The intent of the ordinance is to allow a modest amount of development in exchange for iron-clad protection of the designated open-space. This would be done by placing the open-space land in a conservation easement that has no loopholes or weasel-wording in it to allow development later. We’ll need to review these proposals carefully when they come forward. My guess is that the strong protection of the open-space area will not be there.
Another key “tell” as the poker players describe it, is whether they are looking for sewer to be run into the cluster development area. Sewer in the Rural Crescent has been the Holy Grail sought by Wally Covington since the first day he sat as member of the Board. Once the sewer is in, other land owners have certain “by-right” privileges to hook in. This allows developers to come back to the trough again for approval for even more density.
Always remember that they don’t ask for everything they want all at once. They tried that with Brentswood in 2006 thinking they had Sean Connaughton as Chair (whom they had bought), a more-or-less subservient Board, and a public that wasn’t paying attention. They miscalculated public opinion and Brentswood was deferred (not killed). They won’t make the same mistake again.
Elena – I sent you the PDF copy I made of the clustering section of the Comp Plan. Can you post that here for everyone to read?
Another question I have is how much do people really care? There’s obviously a small group of us (we write here and other places) who care passionately about conservation, keeping taxes low, protecting our quality of life, and not subsidizing corporate welfare just so some politicians can advance their careers.
Alone, we’re easy for Stewart, Candland, Covington and the others to ignore. People have to decide whether they want to sit back, enjoy the lifestyle they have while it’s still here, or do something about it. The only way Brentswood was deferred in 2006 (I’m not going to say stopped because it’s still on the planning schedule and likely to come back soon) was the public getting infuriated and speaking out.
How about it everyone? You can contact Moonhowlings to let us know. By the way, I’m a Republican but willing to stand up to a Board controlled by people who claim to be Republican but are acting in their own interests and the interests of their corporate sponsors while throwing Republican values of small government and high taxes out the window. Republicans, Democrats and Independents must join together if we’re going to have any influence on this charade.
Therein lies the BS Blue Moon. You can cluster in the Rural Area. Here is a portion of the current ordinance.
2. A minimum rural cluster development area of 50 acres shall be required. Additions to existing rural cluster developments may be less than 50 acres but must meet all other provisions of sections 32-300.40 through 32-300.43
3. No rural cluster development shall be further divided or otherwise redeveloped, except in accordance with sections 32-300.40 through 32-300.43
4. The minimum size of lots for residential use shall be three acres and the maximum size of lots for residential use shall be five acres, except that some lots may exceed five acres in size to accommodate topographic features, fit within a particular road layout, or address other design considerations.
5. The total number of dwellings within a rural cluster development shall not exceed one dwelling for each ten acres of land, except that a farm dwelling or historic dwelling is allowed in addition to the cluster subdivision lots, pursuant to section 32-400.40.3.
6. The rural cluster development shall have no more than one access to a public street external to that development, except for the following:
(a) More than one access is required pursuant to section 600 of the Design and Construction Standards Manual;
(b) A second or separate entrance is needed for a use located in the open space area;
Opps, sorry,
“Republican values of small government and LOW taxes out the window.”
When thinking of what’s coming our way if this Board is able to do what they’re planning, HIGH taxes is what sticks in my mind.
NTK,
I was busy copying a portion while you were posting! I am kinda crazy today, but I plan on having it up on http://www.ruralcrescent.org ASAP.
@Moon-howler
Let’s “do the math” as Corey and his supporters (I can’t quite bring myself to use Mom’s term – old-fashioned Southerner here) request. When you build tax revenue negative residential development, the “math” dictates that you must raise taxes on everyone and/or reduce the level of services. Average property taxes have nearly doubled over the past approximately ten years, more or less since Corey has been on the Board. Note that in his campaign Corey chose a tax year based on the height of the real estate bubble to use as a comparison with last year’s taxes to try to portray himself as a tax-cutter.
Regarding levels of services, I drive the Route 234 Bypass every morning and often traffic is backed up a mile to get on I-66 even as early as 6:00 or 7:00, even when there’s no accidents. I’ve had kids in the PWC public schools for at least a decade and average class sizes have grown significantly.
This is the legacy left to us by people like Sean Connaughton, Ed Wilbourn, Ben Thompson, John Jenkins and Wally Covington. I apologize if I missed any of the honor role of developer stooges. Corey is now picking up the torch and carrying that tradition forward.
I want to thank Moonhowler for the title, stroke of GENIUS peppered with naughty!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
The bottom line is that we have a form of government where our elected leaders are expected to enact policies that reflect the views of the majority of those who elected them.
It was no secret to the voters in the Gainesville District that Martha Hendley was the stronger of the two candidates in the Republican Party on a more orthodox (meaning a more rigid protectionist position) view of protecting the rural crescent.
Ditto for the general election where Ann Wheeler made it the central issue of her campaign, but she got beat soundly by Candland.
So what do the majority of voters in the Gainesville District want?
You can just look at the results of the Chairman’s race, and how Stewart did in the Gainesville District.
It is abundantly clear that the majority of voters want a less restrictive approach to the rural crescent.
Whether the majority of voters is right or not is completely irrelevant.
They rule.
You cannot blame Stewart or Candland, they both explained very clearly where they stood on this highly sensitive issue.
Cry as you will, but the die is cast, and it was cast by voters.
@Gainesville First, Actually, that is not true. Candland was vague and unspecific. We have a signed statement by Corey stating his position which supports the comprehensive plan. No one is crying. I believe what we are saying is LIAR. Big difference.. What I find interesting is that it only took weeks for someone from camp Candland to come along and simply admit that your candidate used weasel words to obsfucate the truth from the voters after all the “I support the Rural Crescent’ BS.
That didn’t take long. The election is over and I no longer have to worry about ‘rubbing off’ on Ann. How about I just tell it like it is? Candland equivocated to get into office and plans on being Corey’s butt monkey for 4 years.
@Gainesville
I left off the fact that I got a robo call the night before the election from Candland asking for my vote and reassuring me that Candland supported the Rural Crescent.
Unless Candland supports paving it over, I plan on holding him to his word or calling him a liar publically. It’s his call. I know what I heard.
Gainesville,
Are you living in an alternate reality. Peter Candland spent the last week of his campaign telling the Gainesville District voters that he fully supported the comp plan and had no intention of altering the rural crescent. If memory serves me correctly, this blog TOLD people he was lying and was NOT going to uphold the tenents of the Rural Crescent.
Not to worry though Gainesville, Peter invested alot of time telling us all how much he believed in the Rural Crescent so we have plenty of print and video to share at the drop of a hat.
We’ll see how many residents in the county are interested in their taxes increasing when the REAL numbers come out about how much it costs to develop the rural area.
I don’t think most people moved here to PWC to have it end up looking like Fairfax or Arlington.
Moon is absolutely right. The voters spoke, but based their votes on trust in what Candland said. They believed him when he said he supported preserving the Rural Crescent. That’s what the majority of people in the district want. This blog pointed out quite correctly that “Candland lied and the Rural Crescent died” or is going to die. It hasn’t taken even two weeks since the election for statements from Stewart and Candland to prove that Moon and Elena were right.
I was only addressing the “alternate reality” of people on this blog who want to have it both ways: we get to trash Candland over and over again, but we expect him to do our bidding.
Politics is littered with policy changes that are a part of the “actual reality” and your videos and print will meet a strong headwind of politicians who will follow the will of the majority.
I believe a good, solid case can be made that voters made the clear decision between the orthodox rural crescent view and the responsible growth rural crescent view, and if memory serves, that is what Candland promised.
No lies. Just keeping faith.
It is this blog that seems to be operating in the alternate reality of the political realities of Prince William County voters.
I mean no offense by that, only making the observation.
I personally respect the viewpoints offered, but I think it is just too close to being over the top on the animus for Candland.
At the debate Candland specifically said NO CHANGES TO THE COMP PLAN concerning the rural crescent. This cluster plan (with sewer) or commercial development in the rural crescent (with sewer) CAN NOT happen without Stewart’s suggested changes to the comp plan. The less than ten acre proposal Stewart is proposing CAN NOT happen without changes to the Comp Plan.
So Candland can’t have it both ways. He lied about no changes to the comp plan.
What he should have said “I favor changes in the comp plan to allow sewer for cluster development and commercial development and I favor changes the minimum 10 acre requirement for residential dwellings, however I do support preserving parts of the rural crescent.”
Gainesville: There is no way to have it both ways. You have to change the comp plan that he specifically said that he would not even change. The fact that he hasn’t even been sworn in yet makes it a lie. Had he been in office 2 years, then made changes, he could have at least claimed that he had changed his mind but this was a bad faced blatant lie. Why didn’t he just say he supported changes to the comp plan? Why make all the robo calls saying he supported the rural crescent? Why not at least be Ed Wilbourn and be honest with how he felt about changes to the rural crescent? He lied and was deliberately vague which is exactly what Elena said he was doing the entire time.
Goodbye RC pretty much summed up the entire problem with Candland. Now I remember he did say NO changes to the comp plan because several people here commented on that remark.
Thanks, Goodbye for your summation of a very salient point.
Gainesville, you recent postings demonstrate the problem with GOP victories, namely, a propensity to over reach subsequent to the election. The greatest problem most have with elected officials is their tendency to say one thing to get elected and actions that are diametrically opposed once in office. It often leads to short careers in public office, see Loudoun County.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
I thought we were done with shills like GFP2 for a while but logged on this morning and found that the b***s*** apologetics for Candland have not ceased.
The voters in Gainesville are good people. They took Candland at his word when he lied and then voted for him. Candland and his butt-monkeys (thanks Mom) sent out fliers, did robo-calls, etc. trying to convince the voters that Candland supported the RC. Candland and his butt-monkeys tried to assasinate Elena’s and Hendley’s character as a ruse for not signing the Rural Crescent pledge, but then said he does support the RC. OK, support the RC means no change to the 10-acre lot size and no sewer. That’s what Gainesville voters want overwhelmingly and is what Candland led them to believe with his “I hate Elena but support the RC” rhetoric. As post-election comments from both Candland and Stewart make clear (why didn’t they tell us about the Fuster Cluck before we voted?) neither have any intention of supporting the RC in any form that Gainesville residents would recognize.
Your presence and propaganda here are wearing thin and annoying anyone with a brain who can think for themselves. Please shut the cluck up.
Republicans – why do you marginalize people like Mom and NTK who still seem to adhere to what your party once stood for and elect scumbags like Stewart and Candland?
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
Also;
“we get to trash Candland over and over again, but we expect him to do our bidding.” I have no expectation whatsoever that Candland will do my “bidding” or act in the best interests of the Gainesville District. I did not give him tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to buy his vote, nor am I acting as a political mentor for him as is Stewart and expecting him to repay the favors. Politics around here, as most places I suppose, is not based on doing what you think is best for your community, but instead making deals to advance your own interests. I would not dare to presume that Candland would even take time to hear what I have to say, because it runs contrary to what he has to do to repay the debts he incurred in the campaign. I have resigned myself to the situation and hope that Mom is right, and that people will see through this sham and make corrections in four years.
“hope that Mom is right, and that people will see through this sham and make corrections in four years”
Two words: Ed Wilbourn
@Mom
Ed Wilbourn, is off limits like Don R! 👿 One major thing gets him a “Moon Pass” . I actually share Moon’s stance on that one.
Sorry Laf, Ed made it personal.
It’s personal for us too. 🙂
@Laf,
Double personal for me. the fact that I don’t have to swim in my downstairs because of the Flatbranch improvement is pretty personal. I used to always get stuck on the wrong side of Flatbranch just like Lafayette did.
Then there is the kid connection.
I also didn’t empty out my church to get out the vote. I don’t expect him to do my bidding either.
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Ed Wilbourn was openly against the RC, at least we knew where he stood. He never pretended to be something he was not.
Theseus,
You are on fire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love it 😉
@Theseus
Theseus:
What an intelligent and civil response.
You don’t like my opinion, so you call me a “shill” for Candland — just because I do not oppose him with the venom you do.
Then the astoundingly astute remark:
“Your presence and propaganda here are wearing thin and annoying anyone with a brain who can think for themselves. Please shut the cluck up.”
Not only are my opinions characterized as “propaganda” — again because I deign to disagree, but my very presence is “wearing thin.”
Elena joins the fray by commenting that “Theseus, You are on fire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love it.”
So is there tolerance for dissent on Moonhowlings?
It appears not. By many, just name-calling rather than any thoughtful response.
And I really like the very insightful comment by “Not Brigham” who alleges some nefarious religious component to Candland’s election. I assume the “Not Brigham” refers to Brigham Young, a former leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often referred to as “Mormons.” If Not Brigham has any proof that there was some effort within Candland’s church to organize a get out the vote effort, then prove it. Or at least declare the thought process from which this conclusion was reached.
Looking for excuses to dismiss the credibility of a candidate’s win over our preferred candidate is a futile exercise.
By the way, I have a good friend who voted for Ann Wheeler solely because they know the Wheeler’s from their church and think they are a wonderful family.
So, by the logic applied by “Not Brigham,” this was a religious war that was won by the Latter Day Saints.
I will bow out so as not to further promote “propaganda” (despite my obviously mistaken view that a dissenting opinion was permitted on Moonhowlings) or create discomfort among those who just want to back-slap one another on a monolithic political theology.
@GFP2
Perhaps you are just too gentle or refined for the blogosphere. I know at the end of the day, that our blog treats people, even those with whom some of us disagree, far better than most get treated on blogs. We have a variety of people of different stripes here. Yet most of us only snarl.
Were you aware that we have quarterly meet-ups out in Gainesville? The entire blog gets together, maybe 20-30 people. Cargo even joins us from Richmond and Marin honors us with his new twins.
Efforts to make us appear savage will probably fall on deaf ears, or should I have said ‘eyes?’
Are you objecting to someone’s screen name? You know, unless someone says something fairly offensive, I am not going to ban a person because of their name. Slowpoke is here. Blue Moon has said some things here contrary to my beliefs. I am not banning that person or crying over it. I think you are taking a quantum leap over Not Brigham and I am not following your complaint. Want to spell it out? Do you want me to ban them? I am not even sure what they are saying.
Damn, I feel left out.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
Your opinions are welcome here. Constant repetition of the same worn-out lies that everyone can see through and that even statements by Stewart and Candland themselves show to be lies are not.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
And if you had been on the receiving end of the lies and personal attacks from Candland and his butt-monkeys as Elena was, you might cheer on someone who hits back too.
Gainesville,
You continue to spew silly statements, not based on facts, but on a desire to pretend as though our past and current concerns regarding the integrity of the rural crescent are baseless. You said it prior to the election, we had no reasont to be concerned about the RC, you defended Candland and his “supposed” support for the RC. Now, you backtracka and suggest that the “voters have spoken”and that no on cares about the Rural Area.
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, not in land use at least.
@Elena
Okay, you got me, but only a little.
I thought I had made the point that I did not speak for Candland. Perhaps I needed to be more clear.
But it appears to me that none of the arguments, facts, opinions, or comments are given any weight unless I fall into line and simply cheerlead on the anti-Candland message.
I looked at the election results from voters in the Gainesville District from two distinct perspectives: First how the voters decided on the relative positions between Candland and Wheeler. Wheeler was the stronger of the two on the specifics of the rural crescent issue from her campaign rhetoric, and more importantly, Wheeler’s message was that Candland would destroy the rural crescent.
So, in that context, my comments were about the decision of the voters as the issue was played out between two candidates.
To test the hypothesis as to whether Gainesville District voters were locked into the strong anti-development position on the rural crescent, I looked at the voting stats for the Chairman’s race where Lateef clearly painted Stewart as the pro-development candidate who would destroy the rural crescent.
Gainesville voters — the majority of them — apparently did not view the rural crescent to be a significant one in making their decision on who to vote for.
The facts are in the election results.
There is no connection that I see, nor one that I have claimed, that Candland’s position on the rural crescent is altered by the outcome that was dictated by the voters.
I simply observed that Candland and Stewart are not going to be held to the rigid standard you have set by the voters in the Gainesville District.
How Candland actually reconciles future votes on these issues and what he said in his campaign are a completely different issue, and one that i agree could create problems for him if he departs from his statements in the campaign.
I am not a “butt-monkey” for Stewart. I am not a “shill” for Candland. I do not spew “propaganda” for someone else — I simply express my own opinions.
I also reject the notion that my comments are “silly.” They are simply different.
Reducing my arguments to simply that I have tried to draw a connection between Candland’s position on the rural crescent and the observation that voters do not have the same intensity of feelings on this issue are two distinct comments and not indictable as my trying to “have it both ways.”
Moonhowlings: A place for civil debate?
Again, only if you are in agreement, and the only issue is who can cook up the most creative descriptive derogatory name to call those who do not agree with Moonhowling bloggers. Now that gets the juices flowing.
In the end, the name calling is pedestrian at best, demeans those who engage in it, and fundamentally attacks the integrity of the principles of allowing dissenting views.
Sorry this has not been a more illuminating discussion.
Gainesville,
Let us begin with this historical premise. Republicans have a distinct advantage in PWC, espcecially the western end of the county. I don’t know how long you have been following PWC poltics, but that fact cannot be disputed.
Any Demorat running in the Gainesville or Brentsville District begins many lengths behind in the race to “win”. You can look at all the polling data you like, but the reality has been, and remains, only a Republican can win. John Stirrup ran as a smart growth candidate against Ed Wilbourn and handily won, Ed then decided to run as an Independent. What constiuency supported John? You seem to know so much, you tell me.
The win of Candland is not a referendum for or against anything, except that people vote party line and isn’t that a shame.
I suggest you are trying to have it both ways by defending Candland pre election on his supposed support of the RC and now, having won, you suggest he did NOT wholly support the RC. Well, we have the inside nova written statements, robo calls, and debate video that tell us otherwise.
Corey, the biggest two faced self serving politican I have ever had the displeasure of once calling friend, has a written statement and pledge affirming his complete and total support of the RC.
Candland gave varying excuses of why he refused to sign the pledge, from his dislike of me and my values, to not signing any pledge.
He will fit right in with Corey and isn’t that sad. Corey will need developer money to run for higher office, anyone who doesn’t see that is being willfully duped.
@Gainesville First – Politics 2nd
“Gainesville voters — the majority of them — apparently did not view the rural crescent to be a significant one in making their decision on who to vote for.”
“To test the hypothesis as to whether Gainesville District voters were locked into the strong anti-development position on the rural crescent, I looked at the voting stats for the Chairman’s race where Lateef clearly painted Stewart as the pro-development candidate who would destroy the rural crescent.”
Give me a break, please. As heavily Republican as the Gainesville District is the Republican candidate should have won by a landslide – at least 15 or 20 percentage points. Wheeler had a chance and the election was as close as it was because many Republicans didn’t believe Candland about supporting the Rural Crescent and voted for her. I personally know some Gainesville Republican voters who did just that.
Stewart won not because Lateef painted him as a “pro-development candidate who would destroy the rural crescent” but because the Democrats nominated a much too liberal candidate in heavily Republican Prince William County, and Stewart was able to slime him successfully with a concocted scandal related to his family helping him not be evicted from his home.
To Theseus & Elena:
It is difficult for me to understand the thesis that I am trying to “have it both ways” when I hear the rebuttal argument framed as it has been.
For example, the point is made by Elena that I defended Candland “pre election” on his support of the rural crescent, and I now suggest Candland did not “wholly support the RC.”
While I made no such representation, the juxtaposition of pre-election arguments — where this blog was replete with predictions of a huge Candland loss — to the Elena/Theseus claim that a Republican is a slam-dunk winner in the Gainesville District, a la history having proven the point.
My point, and it is one that keeps getting brushed aside, is that voters in Prince William County and the Gainesville District to not attach the same weight or significance to the rural crescent issue that many participants on this blog attach to it. Based on the expressed preference of the voters for candidates who were defined during the campaign as being potential enemies of the rural crescent, it is the VOTERS who have clearly expressed themselves on this topic.
I do not suggest that Candland has taken a softer stance on the rural crescent, but rather that he should consider it given the views of the voters who elected him.
No name calling on my end. No disrespectful comments to those who disagree with my views. No disparagement of the views of those who support other candidates than me.
GVF, time to back off the meds. I don’t recall any predictions of “a huge Candland loss”, the reality was more resignation to the fact that he would likely win despite any other’s efforts simply because of the demographics of western PWC.
What the election numbers truly show is apathy or disgust with the choices. Despite a double digit growth in population there were nearly the same number of voters as in 2007 thus a 5% drop in percentage of the population voting.
To extrapolate a clear expression regarding the Rural Crescent by the voters is so overly simplistic as to be laughable. In order for that assertion to be true, one would have to presume that 1. the only issue was the Rural Crescent, 2. The candidates positions on the Rural Crescent were the only reason voters went to the poll and most importantly 3. All of the voters were sufficiently educated on the impacts/drawbacks of the Rural Crescent. We all know that is not true otherwise the candidates would not have spent substantial time and effort on tiny little issues such as taxes, county services, parks, etc.
If you want to have a substantive debate, fine, I’m game but please, take your simplistic (and seemingly changing) positions and strawmen someplace else, by and large we’re just too smart for that (even Slowpoke).
“Okay, you got me” says it all, some of us forget nothing, especially those of us from the Elephant Clan with long, long memories.
@MoM
Awww…pokie is a smart guy. He just plays at the mouse-hood.
As for Elephant Clan, back when I was a member, I did have a better memory. Strange, I never thought it it. I must have lost my ass during the donkey clan years.
Oh, one last thing, the numbers at the polls were skewed in this election. I’ll bet you a fifth of your favorite Single Malt Scotch (presuming you’re not a Mormon and thus prevented from playing this game) that if you compare the Gainesville District voter rolls for the general and particularly the primary election with those from ’07 and ’09, you will find an extraordinarily high percentage of voters who have never voted in off-year elections before. If you take it a step further, and I do have the resources to do this, I’ll bet you an additional fifth that a majority of them will have current ties to the Grizzlies, Gainesville Little league or the Church of Latter Day Saints. In a district where an “R” should win on the basis of party affiliation alone, that says a lot about the quality and potentially the motives of the candidate.
MoM, you leave nothing to one’s imagination. Any takers on MoM’s very solid single malt bet?
I’d buy it for her, just for those last two posts alone.
Just keeping my head down today to keep it from getting shot off, but Mom, I’d be delighted to join you to help knock off those bottles of single malt.
Here is the what I know GV2,
People who care about taxes and general quality of life issues and who understand the integral role land use plays in those issues will work to keep development where it belongs, out of the Rural Crescent.
Crickets chirping!
Perhaps it would be good to see what Candland actually does in office before passing judgement. Even if he does all the terrible things most people here seem to think he will, can we agree that the LDS church should not be blamed? Let’s not forget that the LDS church counts major figures in both parties among its active membership and that it has a strict policy of refraining from the endorsement of political parties or candidates, both nationally and locally.
@Observer
Perhaps Candland and Stewart both need to stop speaking to the press about their ambitions. Why should anyone here take a wait and see attitude when warnings are going off all around us.
No one has blamed the LDS Church for anything. Don’t try to hang that one on us. Why would you even bring that up? I see no negative remarks about any church in this blog. Perhaps you have mistaken us for another blog where continual bashing of BRUU goes on?
I’m surprised that Candland and Stewart got reelected with all this opposition. As to the whole thing about pledges–told you so. Pledges should be printed on toilet paper so they have an alternate use. Some people on here are beginning to sound like Grover Norquist.
@Moon-howler
Pardon me, but this is classic passive-aggressive behavior.
I would guess that “Observer” brought the LDS Church issue up because of the references to, and I quote:
Or, perhaps this comment:
Then, we called on it, bloggers feign innocence.
Man up, and if you harbor these religious reservations about the LDS faith, then just defend it for whatever you think justifies such behavior.
But don’t throw the mud and then claim you have clean hands. That just undermines the credibility of the argument made.
Observer,
Here are my thoughts on the morphing of religion and politics, it has been happening for the last three decades. When Kerry was called out to be denied communion because of his stance on abortion, I was disgusted. What happened to the days of JFK when he promised America that his religion (i.e. the Pope)was not going to dictate policy. That era has been forgotten. You see preachers using churches to promote conservative agenda’s all the time, I even here it when I listen to the local Christian radio station.
Bob Marshall wrote a book on how to canvas your churches to get out the vote. It isn’t like this is new news. Does it matter to me what religion a politician espouses, no, as long as they keep religion seperate from government, I could care less.
If Candland had his church turn out for him, there is nothing wrong with that, politicians do it all the time, it just puts those of us without that dependable voter turn out at a disadvantage in my opinion. It isn’t immoral or wrong, it just , well, it just is a fact of life.
Oh, and let me add, we have been very vocal about the Mormon faith being denegrated by other Christians so Moonhowlings has a very clear conscience regarding defending the Mormon Church.
Whoa, G-Ville, its a bit of a stretch to purport that an assertion that the candidate’s church supported him in some manner connotates “religious reservations” or passive-aggressive behavior. I made one of the referenced comments and it is strictly an observation on my part. The refererence to the LDS is simply based on anecdotal evidence I have received pertaining to the turnout of his particular congregation, I couldn’t very well have labeled them them Gainesville Druid Society. Nothing else should be drawn from it, I would make the same statement with regard to Bob Marshall if the same anecdotal evidence were obtained regarding turnout by the local Catholic churches. It would seem that you have a very thin skin with regard to this particular topic.
Gainesville Druid Society-LMAO
Where do they meet? They must not meet in-town, because the in-town area doesn’t seem to exist in the Gainesville District. 👿
GFP2,
You are the first person in all my many years to call me passive aggressive. Agressive, yes. Passive no.
My hands are pretty darn clean. You, on the other hand, appear to have paper-thin skin.
For starters, you might want to try reading one of my threads regarding Mormons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/us/politics/lawmakers-concede-budget-talks-are-close-to-failure.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Let’s move on to Mom’s paragraph. Have Mormons started drinking? Last I heard they weren’t supposed to although I do know some that deny knowing each other in the liquor store. Nothing was said negative.
Moving on to Not Brigham. I fail to see any mention of Mormons specifically and I see nothing negative other than suggested pew packing from one’s church. That’s done all the time. Just is. Perhaps it is human nature.
I assume you want me to censor everyone on here but you and you don’t want anyone mentioning Mormons? Tough. I have nothing to apologize for.
If you are going to come here and start accusing me of crap, you had better make sure you are on terra firma. Don’t try the religious persecution with me. It is pure bull crap and you know it. Finally, its just unbecoming.
For the record, I have many Mormon friends and everything I know about Mormons and their religion I know from them. Unlike Team Candland, I don’t listen to gossip about other people. By the way, did you happen to see the trash job done on Ann Wheeler regarding Bull Run Unitarian Universalist Church on bvbl? I publically asked Peter to renounce doing that. My request feel on deaf ears. I can see respect for others’ religion doesn’t work both ways. I don’t even think Ann attends that church.
I will link it for you. I would like to hear how you feel about that kind of treatment of one’s opponents.
https://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/14/does-peter-candland-support-freedom-of-religion-for-everyone/
They have their secret services quarterly in Flat Branch. They purposely meet in the in-town area as the PWCPD doesn’t recognized it (or many parts west of the bypass) as part of the county and don’t patrol. Fun services though, in keeping with their “roots” they serve gin and peyote buttons.