November 2005 Archives
November 30, 2005
Historic Designations: Slight of Hand Comments (0)
Here is an excerpt from the proposed Town 2006 Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Vienna on this link states:
Vienna's Historic Properties:
1. Money and King Funeral Home: 171 Maple Avenue, West
2. Private Residence: 331 Lewis Street, NW
3. Private Residence: 223 Walnut Lane, NW
4. Moorefield House: 900 Tapawingo Road, SW
5. West End Cemetery: Lewis Street, NW
6. Freeman House: 131 Church Street, NE
7. Salsbury Spring
8. Original Vienna Library: Mill Street, NE
9. Moorefield Cemetery: Tapawingo Road, SW
10. Broadwater Cemetery
11. Bowman House: 211 Center Street, South
12. Private Residence: 211 Walnut Lane, NW
13. Private Residence: 309 Windover Avenue, NW
14. Private Residence: 720 Center Street, South
15. Lynn Street Cemetery and Hunter Cemetery
16. Vienna Railroad Station: 231 Dominion Road, NE
17. Private Residence: 200 Walnut Lane, NW
18. Private Residence: 308 East Street, NE
19. Knights of Columbus: 214 Lawyers Road, NW
20. Sons & Daughters Cemetery: Orchard Street, NW
21. Joseph Berry House: 200 Church Street, NE
22. Private Residence: 403 Creek Crossing Road, NE
Sounds great doesn't it? Historical structures in the Town! The reality? First Moorefield house was torn down. Second, the Town Council minutes of November 7, 1988 offer:
"Mayor Robinson stated an additional proposed amendment had been drafted and incorporated to alleviate fears which had been expressed during the prior meeting that the proposed ordinance might by implication constitute an official designation under the zoning code and thereby trigger the establishment of an historic district around the property. He state the additional language was added to Section 25-2, Intent, relative to this issue. Mayor Robinson stated that he proposed to add additional language to the last paragraph of Section 25-2 as a last sentence, to read: "Listing of any historic structure, site or place in the Register as provided for in this Chapter shall not constitute official designation as defined and used in Article 26 of Chapter 18, of the Code of Vienna."
Minutes from that time also reflect the following excerpt:
"Mr. Gionfriddo, Town Attorney, stated the proposed ordinance was an invitation on the part of the Town for people to voluntarily submit their names and addresses of their property if they choose; there is no compulsion of the part of the Town and no specific authority is required to invite citizens to voluntarily submit their names."
Apparently, for these people "voluntary" is well enough. Why not make any and all participation in so-called historic anything voluntary? What are the "rules" to be placed on the Register of Vienna Historic Structures, Sites and Places? Do you just get on because you want to be on? Please don't tell us that Laine Hyde and Historic Vienna, Inc. determine who gets on the "register"!
November 29, 2005
Laurie Cole Bored Comments (0)
This is a telling piece of 2005 video. The video is from an appeal before Town Council. Carey Sienicki (green tank top) and George Lovelace debate while Laurie Cole watches bored. Beyond the comedy of it all, why is this important? Sienicki sits on Windover Heights Board of Review. None of what Sienicki says to Lovelace is ground in law. She makes up rules.
Maud Robinson Questions Existence of the District Comments (0)
This web site is not the only voice declaring that it is time to go for the so-called historic district in Vienna. Maud Robinson (2004 video 10MG) discusses the possibility of disbanding the Windover Heights Historic District with Steve Bukont.
Maud Robinson
Chuck Anderson of Capital Trade: Inconsistent Comments (0)
Charles Anderson of Capital Trade lobbied hard in 2004 for this house not to be built. Fortunately, he was stopped in his tracks and the rest of Vienna now benefits. But what is the real story with Chuck Anderson?
In 1997 he bought this little white house on the outside of the Windover Heights Historic District's boundary. He ripped this house down and built this new one in its place. Anderson's new house was then added to the historic district for no reason in 1998. His house was never reviewed - it was just added.
Now back to 2004 and watch this video of Anderson right after his public speech to keep 315 Windover from being built in the Windover Heights Historic District. Just so we are all clear: Anderson wanted to make sure 315 Windover was denied even though he never had to deal with an approval process for his new house.
Frank Lillis and Chuck Anderson
discuss how to keep 315 Windover
from building a new house.
The video also shows clear manipulation of the facts by Maud Robinson.
November 28, 2005
Subjective v. Objective Comments (0)
Frank Lillis in a sermon before the Windover Heights Board of Review stated "the criteria is very subjective and that's why you have a board."
Watch the 2004 video of Lillis in action.
What does Lillis mean? The code is subjective so that's why you have a Board of Review? Well, what rules does the Board follow Frank? We promise you that he doesn't have an answer for that simple question.
By comparison another resident was recently denied by the Windover Heights Board of Review forcing him to appeal to the Town Council. During his appeal, unlike Lillis and his ramblings of subjectivity, this resident laid out the clear need for objectivity.
Robinson, Cole & Lovelace Vote to Lower Property Values; Is Your Home's Value at Risk from Them? Comments (5)
We recently wrote about Frank and Joan Lillis attempting to lower property values.
Unfortunately, they had backing from the Vienna Town Council in the form of Maud Robinson, George Lovelace and Laurie Cole. These members of Vienna Town Council voted in 2004 against the now completed $1.8 million dollar house. Here is the gorgeous new house:
Click to Enlarge
What sane person would vote against this house? Cole, Robinson and Lovelace did. They should be ashamed. They had no legal reason to vote against it. Here is the house torn down before the new one.
Next time you think about voting for Laurie Cole, Maud Robinson or George Lovelace don't forget their vote to lower property values. These three if left to their own devices would make your house worth less money. How can George Lovelace expect to get elected Mayor in 2006 campaigning to lower property values?
Here is the type of house Lovelace, Cole and Robinson would prefer at 313 Windover Avenue. Does any of this make sense?
Boundary Changes in the District Comments (0)
Boundary from 1979 to 1992
Boundary from 1992 to 1998
Boundary from 1998 to Current
There have been multiple boundary changes in the Windover Heights Historic District.
Maud Says Time to Fish or Cut Bait Comments (0)
Watch the 2004 video of Maud Robinson proposing to "fix" the Windover Heights Historic District. She said this one year after two lawsuits were filed.
Interestingly, listen to what Steve Bukont says in 2005 (MP3). Does this make sense? Robinson says in 2004 it is time to fix it. Bukont says in 2005 it doesn't need fixing. We say this entire District is a sham.
Laurie Cole, Maud Robinson and
Historic District supporters Frank Lillis
and Paul Layer
Lovelace Video on Lowering Property Values Comments (0)
Earlier we mentioned George Lovelace's desire to lower property values. Now watch the 2004 video. This video of Lovelace is not unlike a Seinfeld episode - he says nothing.
George Lovelace
Making It Up As They Go Comments (0)
While it is clear that the Town makes up the laws as they go regarding the Windover Heights Historic District, we are not only the ones to say that. Watch the 2004 video of Chairman Steve Bukont saying exactly the same thing as he worries about lawsuits.
Watch more video of Bukont worrying about the legality of the Windover Heights Historic District.
In this video clip Bukont stresses the need for specifics.
Steve Bukont of Ayr Hill Homes
These clips are from 2004. Unfortunately, now in 2005 Bukont seems to have backed away from earlier statements.
Carte Blanche to Act? Comments (0)
Maud Robinson declared in 2005 that the Windover Heights Historic District gives carte blanche to act. Watch the video. If you have carte blanche, what is the point of a review board? If you have carte blanche why are some citizens turned down by the review board and council? Keep in mind that the word "Victorian" doesn't exist in Vienna law. Robinson appears to also have carte blanche in making up the law as she goes.
Carey Sienicki v. Maud Robinson Comments (0)
Carey Sienicki, who appears to have Town Council aspirations and residing at 427 Center Street, offered this 2005 statement on "color" in the Windover Heights Historic District:
Later on in 2005 Maud Robinson offered this statement on "color":
Make sense? We repeat: the Windover Heights Historic District is a 100% abuse of property rights.
Seeman and Robinson Fight Over District Comments (0)
Watch the 2005 video of Mayor Jane Seeman and Council Member Maud Robinson fight over the historic district. George Lovelace loves to say that the District has stood the test of time for 25 years. If that is so, why do these two women have such widely differing views of the law?
The Law Is Flexible in Vienna Comments (0)
The Town of Vienna created an enabling code that established the ground rules for enacting historic districts. The enabling code was used to establish the Windover Heights Historic District ordinance. Both of these documents are extremely vague and make little objective sense. Nonetheless, for now they are the "law". Interestingly, in 2004 (a year after two lawsuits were filed) the Windover Heights Board of Review was still confused about these laws. The people ruling over our property rights have no clue what the laws are. Watch the video of Steve Bukont and Shirley Damon as they search for legal answers.
A year later Bukont said this. How honest does this appear?
November 27, 2005
Laine Hyde: One of the Most Dishonest Citizens Ever in the Town of Vienna Comments (0)
Laine Hyde and Maud Robinson run Vienna's only political action committee 'Historic Vienna, Inc.' Don't let the little old lady, garden club spin fool you, utilizing this Town funded organization Hyde (230 Lovers Lane, NW) and Robinson have spent years carefully crafting a 'history' to buttress the existence of the Windover Heights Historic District. Why do this? This gives them the power to give their friends free rides along the approval process, but with people they don't like it gives them the power to harass.
Vienna Council Member Maud Robinson
Historic Vienna Inc., under Hyde's and Robinson's stewardship, puts on a walking tour within the Windover Heights Historic District every year. It is called the 'Walk on the Hill'. During the tour they hand out a brochure that purports to show the historical significance for each and every house in the District.
They do all this to convince people that the area comprising the Windover Heights Historic District is the same now as it was in 1850 (or whatever year they make up). The brochure and the Walk on the Hill are also designed to push their agenda that 'historical preservation' is taking place.
Unfortunately, there is clear evidence that 'history' for Hyde and Robinson changes every time they vote to demolish a house.
Example #1:
Inside the Walk on the Hill brochure from a few years back this entry was logged:
308 West. The original part of this residence is an 18th century log and brick cabin. The beams are still visible inside the house. The shaded, naturalized property is most appropriate to the old cabin.
Then under Hyde's leadership on the Windover Heights Board of Review, the house was razed on her vote. One day it's the 'historic cabin'; the next day it's two new houses. The brochure has since been edited by Hyde and Robinson to read:
308 West and 201 Windover. These two homes were built in 2000 and replace a single structure.
Isn't it amazing how the original story of the cabin just goes 'poof'? We propose the brochure to read:
308 West and 201 Windover. These two homes were built in 2000 and replace the so-called 'historic' cabin Laine Hyde voted to demolish.
Example #2:
Inside that same Walk on the Hill brochure this entry was logged:
316 Windover, known as 'Windover'. Built @1898 and enlarged @1909 by Mr. Whipple for his widowed daughter-in-law, who liked to entertain. There is still the huge tin tank in the attic that was used to gravity feed water to the rest of the house. During the Civil War a round log house was said to house officers.
Then under Hyde's leadership (and her vote) on the Windover Heights Board of Review, the house was demolished to any recognizable extent and expanded to 15,000 square feet. One day it's the 'historic tin tank', the next day it's the largest house ever built in Vienna...and no more tin tank!
The brochure has since been edited by Hyde and Robinson to read:
316 Windover, known as 'Windover'. Built @1898 and enlarged @1909 by Mr. Whipple for his widowed daughter-in-law, who liked to entertain. During the Civil War a round log house was said to house officers. Extensive renovations of the house and gardens in 2003-4.
Extensive renovations? Give us a break! Anyone with a heartbeat living in Vienna saw what happened. They built a brand new house. Gardens? There were no gardens.
Mrs. Robinson the next time you wave this brochure in the air at a Council meeting declaring it the inventory for the Windover Heights Historic District, well at least now the citizens of Vienna will more fully understand your manipulations, spins and half-truths.
Old Doesn't Mean Historic Comments (0)
As you ponder this website keep in mind the very relevant words of the respected former Town Attorney:
"I have always maintained that if Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated at the local Giant, that structure would be historic. One the other hand, the Mayor's [former Mayor Robinson] antique chicken house is very old, but in my mind has no historic value."
The current Town Attorney Steve Briglia (Briglia & Hundley, P.C.) would be well advised to heed this wisdom.
Steve Briglia Vienna Town Attorney
November 26, 2005
How Do the Rules Work? Comments (0)
Recently Laurie Cole was asked at a Town Council meeting:
"Mrs. Cole, you brought up the idea of natural wood...As you're sitting up here tonight — all seven of you — how do you determine whether or not natural wood is more appropriate versus painted green or painted red? How do you determine one is better than the other, one is more appropriate, one is more historic? How is that determined?"
Town Council members were instructed not to answer by the Town Attorney. Why did he do this? Three cheers for open and honest government! Does it make any sense that this Town Council can't legislatively fix their laws? Why do they need to waste tax dollars to defend lawsuits on laws they already know are broken? Why not just fix the problem?
Time to Resign Comments (0)
One of the applicants at the May 4, 2004 Windover Heights Board of Review meeting was required to pay a special $15000 bond -- a first for the Windover Heights Historic District (WHHD). He was forced to do this since he was appearing for approval for a project already completed. The bond was the Town's "insurance" in case the Board did not approve the construction already completed. While that part of the story is interesting, the real story of the night was once again Board Chairman Steve Bukont.
This particular application caused an energetic debate between the Chair Steve Bukont and another Town citizen. This debate extended for nearly 30 minutes. During the debate, Mr. Bukont was the only member of the Board to speak.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bukont was less that forthright during the evening. After he vigorously defended both the District and this particular application, he then abstained during the vote citing a conflict. If Mr. Bukont had a conflict he should have recused himself from the beginning just as it is done at other Town meetings. Instead he led the discussion and influenced the vote only to back out when it was his turn to vote. This was flat out wrong.
Mr. Bukont said his conflict was due to a business relationship with both the builder and engineer of the applicant's project. Interestingly, it was later determined that Mr. Bukont had voted affirmatively for 5 past applications in the WHHD district where this same builder and engineer were involved. He did not recuse himself then. What changed now? We seriously doubt the three new Board members were aware of these 5 other votes.
Having a builder Chair a political body like the WHBR is wrong. Especially a builder with such close economic ties to Town Council members and Town staff. The Town would be well advised to do the right thing and ask for Mr. Bukont's resignation. It's one thing to be a builder, but his purely political actions of that night were a gross conflict of interest and present an image of back room dealing and an un-even playing field.
Watch this video to see the conflict in action.
November 25, 2005
Joan Lillis: Not a Good Neighbor Comments (1)
Maud Robinson and
Historic District Activist Joan Lillis (Click for House)
Joan Lillis of 313 Windover Avenue had plenty to say in arguing against the new house at 315 Windover in 2004:
"Joan Lillis...stated that she is against the proposed application. Ms. Lillis said that the proposed house is a “mass” which she believes to be inharmonious and incongruous to the existing homes in that area. Ms. Lillis said that the ramblers are not such a bad thing and thinks there is a renaissance resurgence noting that ramblers are based on Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie house. Ms. Lillis said that she thinks it is unfortunate to have these personal attacks here about her and Mr. Lillis as well as other neighbors."
Let's set the record straight for Mrs. Lillis:
- Mass is size. Size is not regulated by the Windover Heights Historic District. Lillis knows this.
- Lillis never provided any proof that the new house at 315 Windover Avenue was "inharmonious and incongruous to the existing homes." Where is the proof?
- Lillis may think ramblers are not such a bad thing and she is entitled to her opinion. The reality? The house she opposed in the summer of 2004 is now complete. The house that was there in the so-called Historic District was sold for $575,000. It was then demolished. The brand new house built in its place is gorgeous and recently sold for $1.8 million. That is good for all citizens of Vienna!
- Up until the day the new $1.8 million dollar house went to settlement in November 05, Lillis was working hard to stop the closing and prevent occupancy.
Her husband Frank Lillis at the same meeting argued:
"Lillis said that if the Board continues to approve the kinds of house that are before the Board this evening, than pretty soon anything that comes in is going to be compatible; the area will become a high priced neighborhood and not a historic district."
Is Frank Lillis calling for the devaluation of real estate? He clearly is. He is not on same page with the vast majority of Americans who actually desire to see their home increase in value! If you live in the Windover Heights Historic District be aware of Lillis' behind the scenes actions to lower property values.
Keep in mind though, Frank Lillis as a member of the Vienna Board of Zoning Appeals voted for 316 Windover's brand new house (across the street from Lillis). That house happens to be 15,000 square feet and worth $8 million dollars now. Lillis wants "tear down rambler type houses" next door to him, but apparently in some locations approved by Frank Lillis multi-million dollar houses are acceptable. Frank Lillis is a hypocrite of the highest order.
Here is the house at 315 Windover BEFORE.
Here is the house at 315 Windover AFTER.
A good article from the local paper outlining the nonsense Lillis engineered.
Color Confusion Comments (0)
The Windover Heights Board of Review voted unanimously to deny a new fence on April 1, 2003. The Board determined that while NO mention of color or landscaping is in the Windover Heights Historic District ordinance, they could still ask the property owner for such information. The property owner refused and the Board voted against the application. The Council upheld their review board's decision and now the case is pending in court.
If the property owner had given a color and had received approval he could have changed the fence color the next day WITHOUT Board approval. While the Board was very opinionated about their right to ask for color for the new fence, they REFUSED comment when asked if the owner could paint the fence a new color the next day without approval.
Interestingly, as far back as 1981, color was not an issue:
“I would like to clarify what is meant by the requirement that you consult regarding colors. The Board has no real authority to disapprove your color choices…”
Charles Sloan, 1981
The Town Zoning Administrator offers a different tune in 2003:
"It may not make sense to have a house with purple polka dots and a chartreuse base."
Vienna Director of Planning and Zoning, 2003
If this statement was true, then why legally was this house in the Historic District painted chartreuse in 2005?
Click to See Large Image
To top it all off consider this Spring 2005 gem from Maud Robinson:
"…we might consider what Mr. Haight could have done and no one could have stopped him. If he had on a whim or flight of whimsy decided to paint that house in red and orange stripes, he could have done it and there is nothing in the code that says he could not have done it."
Does any of this make any sense? None of it makes any sense. It is illegal.
Mayor George Lovelace Comments (0)
George Lovelace, who intends to run for Mayor in 2006, might have problems with his statements from 2003:
"The issue for me comes down to the applicants' seeing the historic district as preserving the structures as they were in the 1800s, [vs.] the historic district created by the Town Council [as being] a living, viable community that reflects the associations of persons and events from Vienna's past. It is a neighborhood with diverse homes, architecture and styles. This is a major distinction in my mind, and accounts for much of motivation to opt out of historic district. Finally, I believe the area has a distinctive quality and has retained its character and charm. The historic district represents the vision of our citizens and the Council to ensure that future generations will have the benefit of a community that reflects its past as well as the present. The historic district has survived for close to 25 years, and through the hard work of dedicated citizens. Any actions to alter the historic district such as that requested by the applicants to opt out of the district should be resisted."
Vienna Council Member George Lovelace in Action
It's not unusual for politicians to say nothing when they talk, but this takes the cake. Lovelace knows there are problems with the Historic District and he refuses to do anything. Now he and the Vienna Town Council must defend multiple lawsuits.
Here are some questions we would like to see George attempt to answer:
- Who are these persons and events from Vienna's past?
- What exactly is distinctive about 313 Windover Avenue?
- What exactly is the character and charm you speak of?
- How has the so-called District helped to retain the so-called charm?
Maud Robinson: Preservationist? Comments (0)
Maud Robinson: Preservationist? Not even close:
"The home at 316 Windover contains a tin tank in the attic, which once provided the water supply for the house."
Maud Robinson's 1991 Press Kit Highlighting Vienna's Historic District
While Robinson once spoke highly of the old-time plumbing system for 316 Windover in a PR campaign to make the Windover Heights Historic District appear legitimate, her lack of actual preservation now leaves the tin tank sitting outside: view the tin tank.
Robinson added in PR campaign:
"Part of the structure at 308 West Street is log and chink, which dates back to the 1700's."
The house Robinson refers to was torn down in the late 1999. Does anyone remember Robinson standing up to save the "log and chink"? Two brand new houses stand there now. Nice job of preservation Maud!
Another Review Board Denial Comments (0)
Recently in 2005 the Windover Heights Historic District's Board of Review denied another citizen's request to build. The citizen who was denied by the review board then appealed to the Vienna Town Council. At the appeal he stated:
"I guess I was really unable to find any kind of objective criteria here. I am sure the Council will agree with me that the ordinance does need to have some specificity…. Suffice it to say I thought it was pretty vague for me at least."
Don't take his words lightly. He just happens to be a zoning attorney. The Council ruled against their review board creating yet another inconsistency in the ongoing disaster that is the Windover Heights Historic District.
Mayor Jane Seeman Voted Against the Appeal
More from Seeman from 2004:
"Referring to questions of possible vagueness of the historic district ordinance, Seeman said, "If we need to appoint a committee to look at the guidelines, then that's what we should do."
315 Windover Avenue & Frank Lillis Comments (0)
Joanna Franco authored this piece for The Connection on August 18, 2004:
"If any consensus was reached Monday night, it was that the ordinance for the Windover Heights Historic District should undergo a review of its own. The Vienna Town Council upheld Monday evening the decision by the Windover Heights Board of Review, to grant a certificate of appropriateness to Sagatov Associates to build a 4,800-square-foot home in the Windover Heights Historic District, at 315 Windover Ave., N.W. Yet the approval wasn't unanimous, with the vote being 4 to 3 in favor of granting the certificate. Council members Edythe Kelleher, Mike Polychrones, Sydney Verinder and Vienna mayor Jane Seeman voted to uphold the ruling by the Windover Heights Board of Review, while Council members Laurie Cole, George Lovelace and Maud Robinson voted against it. The tally mirrored an earlier, July 26 vote on the issue, with the exception of Verinder, who had been absent from that meeting. "The house is in compliance with everything," said Polychrones, one of the members voting in favor of the applicant. Lovelace disagreed, arguing that the current proposed design of having a large garage and house on the same visual plane created the appearance of house incongruous with the scale of its smaller lot. "If [the house] was properly modified, it would be compatible," Lovelace said as he cast a dissenting vote. THE PROJECT submitted by Lou Sagatov's Arlington-based firm came before the Council because of an appeal by the Lillises, who live next door to the proposed house. Because the project was in the Windover Heights Historic District, it needed to be in compliance with the stricter guidelines for the historic district in regards to scale, congruence with immediate surroundings, and preservation of the historic character of the northwest neighborhood. The Lillises had appealed the decision by the Windover Heights Board of Review, which provided permission for the project to proceed, because they had said they thought the project wasn't in scale with its surroundings. Particularly of concern to them was that the proposed house wasn't in scale with the two ramblers located on either side of 315 Windover Ave. The Lillises occupy one of the ramblers. But at the July 26 meeting, the Council voted 3 to 3 on the appeal, disagreeing on whether the application was indeed incongruous with the neighborhood. "I think something that is troubling here, there is no sense of openness," said Councilwoman Maud Robinson at the July meeting, who had voted in favor of the Lillises' appeal and against the applicant. The same concerns came up again as the Council addressed the issue on Aug. 16, as some Council members felt the applicant had met all the requirements of the ordinance for the historic district, while others thought the application was not complying with the requirement for appropriate scale to its surroundings. Although the Council had met with the Windover Heights Board of Review during a work session prior to that evening's meeting to gain insight on the Board's decision, the Council remained split on the proposed project as well as how the ordinance for the historic district should be interpreted. "My decision is, the house is out of scale to its own lot," Robinson said. Of the ordinance, Councilman Sydney Verinder said: "I do believe if there are inefficiencies ... the burden is on the town and not the applicant." While a consensus couldn't be reached, both sides agreed that the ordinance for the historic district needed to be addressed at a future work session, particularly examining whether the ordinance is vague and needs modification. "If we care about the historic district, let's ... move something" forward, said Robinson on the work session, adding that the input of Vienna residents needed to be included. That discussion on the relevance of the historic district has been discussed for over a year, as several residents had approached the town to remove their five properties from the historic district. Although both the town Planning Commission and the Town Council voted unanimously for the properties to stay within the district, the town is currently in a lawsuit with the applicants on the decision."
The Missing Laine Hyde Tape Comments (2)
Laine Hyde appeared before the Windover Heights Board of Review in 1995. Steve Bukont was Hyde's builder and appeared with Hyde. The Town tapes all meetings. Interestingly, the verbatim tape of this meeting is the ONLY tape missing in the historical record.
Why is this important?
During the meeting, Syd Verinder, then Windover Review Board member and now Council member, asks what the guidelines are for the Historic District. He is told there are none by Town planner. Here is an excerpt of the extremely edited minutes the Town saves in written form:
"Mr. Verinder asked Ms. Steingasser if she could give him a brief overview of what the Town’s appropriate standards are. Ms. Steintgasser explained that the Town really does not have a set standard, but rather looks at what will blend in with the surroundings at any particular location."
The Town has a bad habit of severely altering the tone and detail in their so-called "official minutes". We can only guess why this one verbatim tape is missing. Was this tape destroyed by Town officials to obstruct justice?
Here is the picture of Hyde's house before it was torn down:
Click to See Large Image
Since Hyde's house was essentially leveled, no one will ever know if there actually was any "historical significance" to the dwelling.
November 23, 2005
Historic Vienna, Inc: Political Action Committee Comments (0)
Moorefield Ruins: Laine Hyde's Leadership in Action
Below is a graphic example of so-called preservation work with the Moorefield House. They should have listened to former Council member Al Boudreau and sold the property for $500,000. The history of Moorefield will go down as a colossal waste of time (30 years of useless studies and commissions!) and taxpayers' money.
"You can only go so far in saving something like that," said Mayor M. Jane Seeman, noting that the last restoration estimate, which was done last October, came in at almost $700,000. "There's a lot of people who don't even know it's there."..."The town just doesn't have the money to put into it," said Seeman, the mayor: "That's all there is to it."
Mayor of Vienna, Washington Post
While to any ordinary thinking man these pictures appear to be the demolition of a dump, this is actually being passed off as historic restoration by The Vienna Town Council and Historic Vienna, Inc. View the last picture carefully.
Moorefield Picture 1
Moorefield Picture 2
Moorefield Picture 3
Moorefield Picture 4
Moorefield Picture 5
Moorefield Picture 6
Moorefield Picture 7
Moorefield Picture 8
Moorefield Picture 9
Moorefield Picture 10
Moorefield Picture 11
Moorefield Picture 12
Moorefield Picture 14
Moorefield Picture 15
Moorefield Picture 16
Moorefield Picture 17
Moorefield Picture 18
Moorefield Picture 19
There was no preservation!
HVI Board of Directors:
Laine Hyde, President, HVI
Paul Snodgrass (Past President, HVI)
Maud Robinson Town Council
Sarah Jane Brady
Jill Decker
Frank Lancaster
Shirley McCoy
Mildred Monahan
Cathy Salgado (Town Employee - Parks and Recreation Director)
D.H. Scarborough
Daphne Sloan
Who pays for this nonsense?
First and foremost, our entire operation is centered in and around the Town owned Freeman House property. We could not begin to provide even the current level of programs and activities, including the operation of the store, were it not for the financial commitment of the Town and the maintenance, support and services provided by Town employees, particularly those in Parks and Recreation.
Laine Hyde
Letter to Jane Seeman, Jan. 14, 2003
This group takes political positions while funded with tax dollars. They should reveal the entire membership immediately.
Historic District Debate Comments (0)
A good article outlining the severe problems with the Vienna Historic District.
Charles Sloan is Wrong Comments (0)
In 1999 while lobbying to have a house denied in front of the Windover Heights Board of Review, Chuck Sloan stated:
"This board approved the Anderson application I guess it was last year. Look at the Anderson house. Look at the characteristics that it picks up. If you look at that house closely you can see a lot of features that are repeated throughout the neighborhood. Turrets, the shingles, but look at this house that you are looking at tonight. It is totally unique as Mr. Lillis says - that much mass in the roof - there is not style to that house. It is a hodge podge design. It is southern living and we don't have southern living here. We have a lot of eclectic houses that give a lot of vibrancy to this neighborhood, but we don't have massive houses that look like this that pick up nothing of anything around that neighborhood. Any house you consider must have scale with the other houses in the neighborhood. Like the Anderson house this particular location is critical to the District because it is a very prominent corner. It is a very, very important piece of property. The scale of this house is wrong. Its overpowering. Its massive. Its hodge podge"
Mr. Sloan was dead wrong. The Anderson house never received any review. Unfortunately for the man Sloan was lobbying against, he never got his house. Sloan used fraudulent information to sway the vote.
Some people ask, "why would anyone want to leave the historic district?" The real question to ask: "Who would ever want to subject their property rights to such childish nonsense?"
Emil Attanasi former Chairman of Planning Commission Comments (0)
As far back as 1991, there were known problems with the Vienna Historic District by Town Officials. Emil Attanasi, Chairman Planning Commission, stated in 1991:
"The Review Board should have standards by which it can make judgements so that personalities are not an issue and homeowners know what to expect."
In 1992 Attanasi, while Chair of the Planning Commission writes to the Vienna Town Council:
"While the minutes of the Commission reflect issues discussed and positions taken by individual Commissioners, there was a general consensus that the new Board must either be given standards or develop a formal set of features of new construction or modifications are appropriate for the District. Homeowners in the District still have not been given guidelines that indicate either the historical period or nature of architecture that is to be preserved in the District. One Commissioner suggested that the Council charge the new board with the development of such standards as its first order of business."
Guess what? None of this was ever done.
7 years later, Fred Skaer serving on the Windover Heights Board of Review denied a man the ability to build his dream home by stating:
"One of the challenges in harmonizing with the neighborhood is there are a number of properties that post date the period of historical significance, but predate the ordinance. So you do get a variety of colonial styles or belong on a plantation down south somewhere and others that are very much what was in vogue in the 1960's. So it is tough to say what harmonizes and what doesn't. I feel like other styles would fit much better with the neighborhood, but where we as a Board should draw the line I am having a tough time with that. Tonight's discussion has helped a little, but not a whole lot."
To this day, we have no idea what Skaer was talking about, but he surely ignored Attanasi's wisdom.
Planning Commission 2003 Comments (0)
During 2003 the Planning Commission responded to petitions to have properties removed from the Windover Heights Historic District:
- Planning Commission member Fred Skaer states he has doubts about operation of law under the State Historic Preservation authority given to communities because the Town's ordinance seems to be more of an architectural ordinance rather than historic preservation in that the Town is looking for architecture that is sympathetic to historical time rather than authentic.
- Planning Commission member George Creed states inequities must be corrected.
- John Scheib states: "The applicants have presented us more of a case for why a court might strike down the ordinance. Our job is to apply the ordinance until the Town Council changes it or until a court strikes it down."
Fairfax County Architectural Review Comments (0)
Fairfax County tackles head on the problems with subjective tastes:
"The ARB review process does not rely on individual member's "taste." Rather, the underlying principle is to protect and enhance those properties and neighborhoods that have been designated as Historic Overlay Districts by the Board of Supervisors. To do this in an objective way, the ARB has adopted guidelines that they follow to determine the appropriateness of new construction or other changes that they are asked to consider."
Vienna on the other hand does no such thing. Frank Lillis has stated clearly that Vienna's ordinance is "very subjective".
Lyn W. Beer Needs a Legal Education Comments (0)
Lyn W. Beer doesn't understand the concept of property rights. Her letter is alarming to all thinking people who value the rule of law. How does this letter connect with the inconsistencies in the Windover Heights Historic District?
We suggest, just like Chuck Anderson, that you petition the Town Council to be added to the District. As you probably recall, the Town Council allowed property to be added to the District in 1998. Your house is very similar to many of the homes in the District located on West and Windover. There is no reason why you would not be admitted to the District. We welcome you to join the District with no standards, no guidelines, no incentives, arbitrary enforcement and run by residents that ignore the very laws they push on everyone else.
Charles Brewer: Online Manipulation Comments (0)
Charles Brewer, residing at 300 Jade Ct NW, Vienna, VA 22180, runs the Malcolm Windover Heights Civic Association's web site. Charles also happens to serve on the Vienna Board of Zoning Appeals. In our opinion he is not an honest politician.
Charles Brewer
Charles, either on his own or via another's direction, purposefully uses the association's web site to further his own "historic" agenda. For example, Brewer on the civic association's web site states:
- Petitioners...cited instances of their dissatisfaction with what, in their view, was inconsistent and capricious application of the Windover Heights Historic District ordinance.
- Petitioners...cited their skepticism as to what was truly historic about the district, especially considering the major construction at 316 Windover.
- Many residents indicated their support for maintaining the Historic District for it’s charm and special mixture of houses/lots of all sizes.
- A motion to express the opposition of the MWHCA membership to the withdrawal of these five properties was amended to include a recommendation that the Town examine ways to improve the ordinance to exclude future perceptions of inconsistent application of rules.
Does Charles Brewer really believe his nonsensical points justify a corrupt District that robs citizens of property rights? Brewer's writings are propaganda for a District clearly dying on the vine. Maybe Brewer can team up with Steve Bukont.
Borders Come and Then They Go Comments (0)
Here is a map of the ever changing borders of the Windover Heights Historic District.
Here is the office building that was in the Historic District for over 10 years - then removed by the Vienna Town Council for reasons still unknown:
The Japanese Tea House and Frank Lillis Comments (0)
Here is an interchange between Frank Lillis and Windover Heights Board member Fred Skaer from 1999 when a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new house was denied:
Skaer: Do you have institutional knowledge on 326 West Street. It’s a modern house.Lillis: Its almost buried.
Skaer: Its almost a Japanese tea house.
Lillis: That's exactly right.
Skaer: That went in after this ordinance passed?
Lillis: That went in after the ordinance passed. There was no discussion on that, because it was a very, very modern house, however the way it was situated back off the road, low level, it did fit in with the neighborhood. It was not something that stood out like a sore thumb.
A house that best resembles a Japanese tea house built after the district was formed is deemed "historical" by Frank Lillis? Wow. Interestingly, Frank Lillis led the 2005 charge to have the new house just completed at 315 Windover stopped. Why did Lillis do this? Because he lived next door! Lillis was fortunately stopped and the Town now has one of the most attractive homes ever built.
Steve Briglia: Conflict of Interest? Comments (0)
Jane Seeman and Al Boudreau voted to allow the Historic District boundaries to be changed in 1998. They both voted against the Planning Commission's recommendation. Also joining them in that vote was then Council member Steve Briglia (Briglia & Hundley, P.C.).
Steve Briglia
We are sure Seeman will be forced to explain her vote in litigation, but what about Steve Briglia? Should he be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because he is now Town Attorney? This was one of the most infamous votes in the history of the Town of Vienna. Briglia should make public his reasons for allowing 125 Pleasant Street into the District forcing yet another boundary change.
Moreover, should Briglia even be advising the Town in this matter today? How can he be objective? Will he always be defending his 1998 vote? Briglia's involvement should be questioned.
Two news articles about Steve Briglia and conflicts:
Historic Preservation Goes Awry Comments (0)
Historic Preservation Goes Awry By Catesby Leigh
When Congress passed a historic preservation law for the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C., it was explicitly intended to protect handsome buildings erected in the city's "early years"-meaning the late 1700s and early 1800s. That's not quite how it has worked out. Today, a 1930s trash incinerator and its towering smokestack are being "historically preserved" as the centerpiece of a hotel, residential, shopping, and entertainment project budgeted at $160 million and counting. The boxy brick incinerator is located near Georgetown's Potomac River waterfront. Beautiful it ain't. Yet the city's historic preservation board has categorized the incinerator and its smokestack as a "contributing element" of Georgetown's historic character. So the developers have gone to enormous lengths to protect these useless industrial relics from the blasting and excavation needed to build underground parking and a 14-screen multiplex theater.
Maud Robinson Makes Up the Rules Comments (0)
One of the problems with Vienna's so-called Historic District is that there are NO rules. Here is what Maud Robinson says:
"You have carte blanche. To do a very basic analogy it’s sort of like making a pot if you are a potter. In a certain form. Ok. We have the Queen Anne form. Then after you get the pot made you can put any kind of decoration on it that you want. I can find nothing that absolutely forbids what Mr. Haight did…we might consider what Mr. Haight could have done and no one could have stopped him. If he had on a whim or flight of whimsy decided to paint that house in red and orange stripes, he could have done it and there is nothing in the code that says he could not have done it. I have respect for the Board, I believe the board is an essential component of keeping the historic district intact, but I sincerely feel in this case they went a little overboard. I feel they are applying contemporary standards or interpretations to Victorian when we are talking about a period from 1837-1901."
Maud Robinson
If a resident has carte blanche (which is a falsehood since Robinson has voted against applications) what is the point of a review board? Where did this period 1837-1901 come from? The largest most expensive home ever built in Vienna is in the District. It was built in 2003.
This is all nonsense.
Maud Robinson Sounds Off Comments (0)
Maud Robinson's recent words:
"We have talked about this a lot, but we have never done anything. The time has come to fish or cut bait. If we care about the historic district, if we think the ordinance is deficient let’s move ahead and do something. I would move that this matter, that a work session be held at the earliest possible date on the Windover board of review ordinance to examine it closely to see if it has any deficiencies and I would further invite members of the historic district who live up there, interested, concerned individuals to feel free to submit to the council any suggestions they have as to how to rectify any deficiencies the ordinance may have."
Interestingly, not long after Robinson said that, the Chairman of the Historic Review Board Steve Bukont said this:
"I have been advised by the Town Attorney to um…given that there is pending litigation that involves this board to wait for the resolution of that litigation so that the Town can advise us which direction they would like us to go. But they saw no need at this time to do that. They felt the ordinance was quite adequate as drafted and um we are welcome to make recommendations on our own but as far as the Town was concerned, that being the Town Attorney’s office, the ordinance stands and is quite adequate as it exists."
Why the contradiction between Robinson and Bukont?
It makes you wonder if Steve Bukont has now changed his tune to protect his multi-million dollar business...a business that depends on Maud Robinson's vote.
Made Up History Comments (0)
During the Windover Heights Board of Review meeting of October 5, 2005 and specifically during the hearing for 322 West St. NW, and (Docket No. WHBR-08-05), the Chairman of the Windover Heights Board of Review Steve Bukont declared:
"there are surviving historic homes in this neighborhood."
Is this true? No. Consider from the Town information officer in 2003:
"The Town of Vienna has not "officially designated" as historic any landmarks, buildings or structures. The Moorefield House is on the National Register and I believe there are several other sites in town that are on county and/or state registers. We do not have a list of these."
Moorefield was destroyed under the leadership of Maud Robinson and Laine Hyde and is no longer on any registers. The Town of Vienna has never completed an inventory of any homes in within the boundary of the Windover Heights Historic District. No 'historic resource survey' has ever been completed within the boundaries of this District (You could not even do one now as most of the neighborhood have been leveled in the last 20 years). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources produces a 126-page guide titled 'Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource Survey in Virginia'. Have any members of this Council reviewed it? Steve Bukont and this Council have purposefully deceived Town residents into thinking there are surviving historic homes. There is no evidence of such. There is no list. No proof.
Laurie Cole, Vienna Town Council
Taking into account Mr. Bukont's words about 'surviving homes', consider a question Laurie Cole asked the Town Zoning Administrator at a BZA hearing:
"The Town's designation of the Windover Heights area as an historic area, does that impose any strictures [restrictions] on subdividing land, tearing down houses, protecting houses. Its not a preservation district is it?"
The Town Zoning Administrator responded:
"No. It's not. A good example is 308 West Street which was removed perhaps 2 years ago and there are two new homes in its place."
Laurie Cole clearly knows this is not about historic preservation. So does the Town Zoning Administrator. Why are others confused? Recall the former Town Attorney's memo from 1998:
"The act of including or not including the property in the historic District is not a zoning or rezoning action and therefore, cannot be spot zoning. The age of the structure has no bearing on whether or not it should be included in the district. Your attention is invited to Section 18-280.2 of the Town's zoning ordinance concerning the boundaries of the Windover Heights Historic district. You will note that it is a historic district created by boundary and makes no reference to the age or character of the structures within the boundary. I have always maintained that if Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated at the local Giant, that structure would be historic. One the other hand, the mayor's antique chicken house is very old, but in my mind has no historic value."
There you have it: a district about nothing. Please don't forget why this memo was written. It was the justification to allow 125 Pleasant Street to be added to the District without Review Board approval.
Laine Hyde, President of Historic Vienna, Inc. Comments (0)
Historic Vienna Inc. & President Laine Hyde publicly oppose boundary changes:
"The Board of Directors of Historic Vienna, Inc. have requested that I express to you their great concern over the petition by several individuals to withdraw their properties from the Windover Heights Historic District. The Board feels that removing any property from within the existing boundaries would set a precedent which could invalidate the historic district ordinance and have an adverse impact upon preserving the integrity of the District...We urge the Planning Commission and the Town Council to maintain the integrity of the Windover Heights Historic District and deny the application for withdrawal."
Laine Hyde, President Historic Vienna, Inc.
Questions about Hyde letter:
1. Does Hyde believe the removal of properties in 1991 set a precedent?
2. Does Hyde believe the addition of a property in 1998 set a precedent?
3. Hyde believes any further changes to boundaries would set a precedent different from 1991 and 1998? If so, please explain the new type of precedent referred to.
4. Hyde lobbied for the 1998 boundary change?
"In a letter to town officials, Historic Vienna Inc. president Laine Hyde said allowing the properties to opt out would set a precedent that could invalidate the district."
Sun Gazette Newspaper
The 1990 Petitions Comments (0)
In 1990 nearly half the property owners in the District petitioned to be removed from the District due to inconsistent application of law. Before the Council vote on the removal petition the following statements were issued specifically regarding the Windover Heights Historic District:
"There are 3000 historic districts in the U.S. None have ever been repealed. I am only aware of one property that was ever removed from a historic district. That was in Chicago. It was removed by court order because the property had been damaged to the point where it had no historical character left and could not contribute to the district. What reasons have the petitioners given for removal? None, except wanting out. If you grant this, you will get applications for exemption from the height ordinance and every other ordinance which people perceive affects them adversely. You should also be aware that the removal of any property from the District, effectively repeals it. The Ordinance encompassed an old venerable neighborhood in Vienna called the "Hill". It is a geographical entity. All of the Hill must be included or none. This logic was accepted by the Council in 1979 and is just as valid in 1990."
Charles Sloan
January 16, 1990
More was added to the subject:
"Permitting individual property owners to "opt out" of the historic district simply because they would prefer not to be regulated would undercut not only the effectiveness of the historic district ordinance as a whole, but also the perception that the ordinance is fairly and rationally applied."
Paul Edmondson
National Trust for Historic Preservation
March 15, 1991
In 1991 the Vienna Town Council voted to remove 3 properties (243 Church Street, 125 Pleasant Street and 129 Pleasant Street) from the District. The Council randomly decided to let some owners out, but not others. However, by the logic of Sloan and others above ANYONE should be able to get out of the District if they so desire.
A Man of Reason in Windover Heights Comments (0)
"My desire to be removed from the historic district is very simple: I am not in an historic district in any meaningful sense, since all the houses which surround me were constructed in the past 15 years. I am bounded on one side by Lawyers Road, and on the other sides by relatively new houses. Furthermore, my own home can hardly be described as old, since more than half of it was constructed in 1957. The normal zoning and engineering review processes of the Town are more than adequate to protect the existing, non-historic neighborhood in which I live, quite apart from the fact that I am hardly likely to want to destroy my own property values by some outlandish action. It seems totally unnecessary that I should have to face an additional level of review to those already in place. In other localities, where historic preservation is being promoted, there have been advantages to the preservers, such as special tax breaks for rehabilitation of older buildings, In the case of Vienna, we seem to have all the negatives without any of the incentives."
William C. Ide
February 15, 1990
November 22, 2005
Carey Sienicki: Knows There Are Problems Comments (1)
Shirley Damon and Carey Sienicki
Carey Sienicki, who is a member of the Windover Heights Board of Review and residing at 427 Center Street in Vienna, recently declared:
"There should be an inventory of the area of what exactly...what treasures are there..."
In response Mayor Seeman declared:
"That's a good idea."
Mrs. Sienicki went on to say:
"...there is no guideline...its more subjective than objective."
These statements were made in the summer of 2004. Nothing was done. But then again what could you do when the neighborhood has been systematically torn down over 20 years?
BFR Construction and Ayr Hill Homes Comments (1)
Listen to Bukont avoid the hard questions.
Steve Bukont is the owner of BFR Construction and Ayr Hill Homes. Bukont is also the Chairman of the Windover Heights Historic District. While Bukont the home builder has made millions off of a cozy relationship with the Vienna Town Council (he has built many of their homes too), many question his clear conflict of interest in serving as Chairman of the Historic Review Board.
Does it make sense that Chairman Bukont, through his arbitrary review board decisions, actively works to deny other citizens the right to build? Would he ever tolerate the lack of rules he forces on his neighbors? Watch this video to see the conflict in action.
Consider the 'evolving' opinions of Mr. Bukont:
August 16, 2004:
"Board chairman Steve Bukont said town officials should clarify building design and size rules for the district, or possibly face property-rights suits in court. "A right regulated is a right denied," he said. "We'd better have our ducks in a row [for lawsuits]."
October 19, 2005:
Steve Bukont, chairman of the Windover Heights Board of Review, got up and defended the district, saying that when he moved to Vienna 17 years ago, he was "amazed that there was this one part of town that was radically different." Bukont said much of the neighborhood is as it was 100 years ago, and he pointed out that, although residents have to go through an "additional step" to modify their houses, they also have the benefit of protection to the value of their homes.
Why the shift in Bukont in one year?
Bukont knows full well that the Windover Heights Historic District prevents "value" in many cases. Many of the homes today, viewed by any measure as teardowns, are steering clear of redevelopment to avoid going before Bukont's review board. How does that protect value? Why does Mr. Bukont's neighborhood which has no review board look better than the so-called District?
George Lovelace Wants No Standards Comments (1)
George Lovelace and Shirley Damon know the Windover Heights Historic District is on life support.
George Lovelace, Vienna Town Council and Shirley Damon of Damon Galleries Ltd.
With Shirley Damon by his side Councilman George Lovelace, in a now infamous Town work session, utters:
"There are some things that don't have to be on a standard...I am little bit worried about having to redo this and put a bunch of numbers and things that we have to follow...I am not ready for that."
George Lovelace
Mayor Seeman responds:
"Right I agree. Well you start getting into trouble when you [pause] as we know [pause] you don't want to get into numbers guys. You want to keep it a little 'loosey' here."
Jane Seeman
This dialogue from Lovelace and Seeman shows why multiple lawsuits are pending against the Vienna Town Council. These people think it is perfectly appropriate to make citizens appear before review boards where there are no rules. Worse yet, as the above dialogue shows, they don't want any rules!
November 19, 2005
Laine Hyde: At the Epicenter Comments (1)
Laine Hyde (230 Lovers Lane, NW) Has Been at the Forefront of Historic District Controversy
Laine Hyde, Historic Vienna, Inc. and Council Member Maud F. Robinson
Laine Hyde and Maud Robinson will go down in Vienna history as the two responsible for the destruction of Moorefield. Moorefield, unlike the Windover Heights Historic District, was actually something "historic". It was on the register at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. However, Hyde and Robinson led the charge to have the house demolished resulting in its removal from the National Trust.
Hyde and Robinson have both tried to spin that Moorefield was actually preserved. We have the pictures. There was no preservation.
Earlier when Laine Hyde (Laine Hyde is the current President of Historic Vienna, Inc.) sat on the Windover Heights Board of Review and approved 316 Windover Avenue's second application what guidelines did she and others use? What guidelines did she use to deny a new house at 201 Windover? What's the point? There are no rules. If you are a resident forced to go before this review board you go before people like Laine Hyde who make up the rules on the fly. And regardless of how many lawsuits Hyde threatens over this web site -- the truth is our defense.
Listen to the public record of Laine Hyde denying 201 Windover in the Vienna Historic District:
"My concern is only the appropriateness for the neighborhood. As Mr. Sloan says I don't think any feature, any, any single feature is any way reminiscent or evocative of the historic district or feels of a historic district. I don't have a problem with the size of the house. It is the mass of the house. I make a distinction between those two things."
Nothing Hyde says is ground in any law. She is simply foisting her personal beliefs upon another citizen. This man was forced to not build his dream home due to Laine Hyde and others.
November 07, 2005
Historic District Lawsuits Comments (0)
This site was originally started to document the abuse and inconsistencies within the Windover Heights Historic District. A quick synopsis of Vienna "historic" politics:
- Nothing Historic; No Preservation
The Historic District is not about 'preservation'. Guess the "historic" houses now? - No Objective Standards Exist
There are no rules, guidelines or standards. The rules are made up on the fly. - Color Insanity
Read these three links (1, 2, 3). Understand the rules on "color" now? - No Inventory or Structure Survey
The Town conducted no structure inventory when the District was created. - Manipulation and Fraud
Historic Vienna, Inc. changes brochures to manipulate. - Special Treatment Given to Some
A new house was added for no cogent reason and without Board approval. - Changing Borders Create Inequalities
Borders have been modified to let properties in and out of the District. - Past Attempts to Fix Have Failed
The Town suspended the Historic District during 1991-92. - Lower Property Values
The District is used to cause economic harm. It's a game of 'favorites'. - Intentional Acts; Purposeful Ignorance
Town officials know their Historic District is unconstitutional. The Council would rather waste tax dollars and let the courts strike a bad law down.
Feedback from Town resident:
The Windover Heights Historic District appears to be not about historic preservation, but all about neighborhood preservation. A group of individuals operating within the Town government under the guise of historic preservation are self-empowered to judge what a property owner can and cannot do with their property within this district according to their own subjective opinion of what they like and don't like. They have aborted any legitimacy of this district allegedly formed for historic preservation by their unprofessional, capricious, and self-serving decisions to allow or not allow development within the district. Take a 'Walk on the Hill' and you will see an exclusive westward hilltop neighborhood in Vienna that has a lot of pretty houses and much new development. The historic district is not about history; it is about select property owners being allowed to control what gets built next door. The Town can not win any lawsuits over this charade and should stop wasting our tax dollars defending this unfounded "historic district". It is not unreasonable to want to control development in a cutesy section of Town, but it is unacceptable to attempt to do so under a false and arbitrary pretense of historic preservation and with no legal basis. I wonder why the Town newsletter doesn't mention that the Town is being sued? It's all rather embarassing, I suspect!
November 01, 2005
Ground Rules, Site Philosophy & Mission Comments (3)
We found the following Mark Tapscott editorial in The Examiner. He sums up the mission of this web site: get rid of careerists in Vienna politics:
Neither Democrats versus Republicans nor liberals versus conservatives will define 21st-century politics. Citizen legislators versus career politicians will. The citizen legislators will win by embracing the Internet and the wisdom of crowds. Politicians in both major parties who repeatedly seek re-election to keep "bringing home the bacon" while feathering their own nests are careerists. Candidates in both parties who bring the real world to Washington to clean it up - and who can't wait to return home - are citizen legislators. Careerists thrive on the power, perks and prestige that come with being insiders. Until now, their power stemmed from a monopoly on information, which they selectively shared with the rest of us. Theirs is the world of old media, big impersonal institutions and spinning "experts." By contrast, citizen legislators thrive on the power of principle and the liberating independence that comes with being outsiders. Their power stems from their cultivation of information to the widest possible audience and the accountability that comes with such transparency. Theirs is the world of Internet-based new media and the collaborative networking that thrives there. As long as the careerists remain in power, they will continue aggrandizing themselves, while making government bigger, more costly and less able to deal with emergencies...
Seeman, Robinson try as you might, neither of you are citizen legislators.
This site serves as a counterweight to the Vienna government. The Vienna government, including the Town Council has free reign at Town meetings, always gets the last word at public hearings, controls the Town newsletter and places stories in the local press. This site they don't control or censor.
What are the site rules?
1. If you are a member of Town Council or sit on a Town Board of Commission, you are not just an average Vienna citizen. You know you are in the firing line, so don't write here whining.
2. Say something smart. Respond to an issue. Add value.
3. Don't "spin".
