January 2006 Archives
January 31, 2006
George Biles of 108 Oak Street Comments (0)
George Biles of 108 Oak Street in Vienna wrote to the Vienna Planning Commission in a letter dated January 25, 2006 regarding the recent petition by a property owner to have their property removed from the Windover Heights Historic District:
"My attention was recently brought to a website at the address of www.historicvienna.com. I was able to gather from what I read that property owners in the Windover Heights Historic District (WHHD) wish to remove themselves from the WHHD covenants. From the material on the website, it seems that standards and definitions for homes within WHHD are lacking, weak and/or inconsistently applied. I then reviewed Council meeting minutes from past years and it seems issues regarding WHHD have been long simmering. I would implore the Council to appoint a blue-ribbon panel to identify and summarize issues as they exist today, and provide recommendations for the Town Council within a very short timeframe. The citizens of WHHD deserve no less."
There are no covenants Mr. Biles. We are dealing with an unconstitutional law regularly and intentionally applied in a different fashion to different citizens. This web site documents the facts from A to Z. Biles continues in his letter:
"However, a larger issue was evident in my perusal of this website. I was shocked at the harsh words and treatment of members of the Town Government, and citizens who volunteer for its boards. Some of the content was so personal in nature, that it left me saddened for those serving ALL of the citizens of Vienna, and a wary eye for the intent of the publisher(s) of the website. Having said that, I would suggest the blue-ribbon panel also ascertain the intentions of those pursuing removal of their properties from the WHHD. My suspicions are that their underlying intentions are self serving and/or self enriching -- and NOT for the consistent application of WHHD covenants...I implore the website owners to tone down their rhetoric against fellow citizens."
Biles then concludes:
"I would cast my vote to oppose the petition [for removal from the District]."
Mr. Biles should be commended for his 'rhetoric'. Unfortunately, Biles has an agenda as evidenced by his "vote". Let's address his points:
- George Biles clearly implies that our "underlying intentions" are suspicious, "self serving" and "self enriching." We wonder if Mr. Biles ever entertained the thought that, maybe, just maybe, the petitioners merely want to have the same unencumbered property rights that he has, i. e., the same rights that all of the Town Council Members and substantially all "volunteers" on boards, commissions, etc. have? As to Mr. Biles being "shocked at the harsh words and treatment" of Town officials and the like, perhaps he might be more forgiving of this website's wording (much of which are quotes and the like by Town officials), if he and his property rights were given the WHHD/Town treatments complained of.
- As to the petitioners' property, which resides between a large industrial property, namely the Vienna Post Office and a private club that meets in an ex-church, it has no historical attributes.
- Citizens volunteering to be on Board and Commissions is a good thing. However, citizens who volunteer should not be allowed to lie and or manipulate facts and circumstances to the detriment of other citizens' property rights. Just because you "volunteer" doesn't entitle you to act in any manner you see fit. And since these Boards and Commissions are the primary feeder lines for the next grouping of Town Council members, volunteer or not, many are obvious politicians pushing agendas that harm basic property rights.
- Without the existence of this website, the citizens of Vienna would have never known this type of behavior was taking place. Biles blames the messenger (this website) for reporting the personal attacks of Vienna Board members, but conveniently ignores their behavior in his letter.
- Biles' letter speaks to "underlying intentions" and uses the phrases "self serving" and "self enriching" to describe citizens who have broached legitimate issues regarding the WHHD. Biles complains about so-called personal attacks then, without knowing any of the citizens involved in defending their basic property rights, launches his own attack.
- What do you think the "intentions" were of the Vienna Town Council when they proposed to ban the videotaping of meetings against State law? This very website that you slam was/is instrumental in exposing the video evidence at the very heart of the disaster that is the Windover Heights Historic District.
What really puzzles us about George Biles' letter: How can he not be concerned about the "intentions" and actions of a government that can abuse their citizens and destroy property rights without a second thought?
January 29, 2006
George Creed Opines Comments (0)
George Creed at the January 25, 2006 Planning Commision public hearing declared in the following video clip that everything about the Windover Heights Board of Review was "clear" to him:
George Creed, Town of Vienna Planning Commission Member
How can Creed say this when there are no rules, standards or guidelines?
January 24, 2006
Resignations Pile Up Comments (0)
Since Spring 2003 the (5) member Windover Heights Board of Review has been a revolving door. Laine Hyde resigned under odd circumstances in 2003. Then Connie Stuntz resigned shortly after falsely claiming she owned property in Vienna. Then long time Chairman Tom Kamstra resigned shortly after lawsuits were filed seeking to have the District declared unconstitutional. John Scheib and Ed Umbrell also left the Board.
Now the current Chairman Steve Bukont has officially resigned via a letter to the Mayor. Bukont publicly declared his resignation (then rescinded it) on December 6, 2005 during his infamous f-bomb outburst. We expect our current investigation into conflicts of interest forced his "second" resignation dated January 13, 2006 - confirmed only today. This resignation appears to be permanent.
These resignations should raise alarming questions for Town leaders. How much taxpayer money will Maud Robinson blow to defend the fraud that is the Windover Heights Historic District? How many Historic Review Board members will be sacrificed in Robinson's feeble attempt to prop up a District about "nothing"? Leaders worth their salt solve problems. Real leaders do not bury their head in the sand and pretend its 1950.
January 20, 2006
Government Run Amok Comments (0)
Chairman of the Windover Heights Board of Review Steve Bukont was questioned on December 6, 2005 about his conflicts of interest. Watch the video for a refresher:
That video prompted this letter from Vienna citizens.
Upon reflection, the video and the letter made us wonder about the exact scope of Steve Bukont's building efforts in the Town of Vienna. The simple request was made to acquire copies of all building permit applications filed by Steve Bukont or his companies. This request was made under the State of Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Simply put, if you the citizen know a document exists, the government must give it to you. We knew Steve Bukont had submitted an undetermined number of applications, so we asked for all of them knowing there would be charges for Town Staff time to assemble the documents. There can be no more straightforward request under State law. The Town of Vienna Public Information Officer responded:
"This is in response to your e-mail of January 17, 2006, requesting 'a copy of every building permit applied for by Steve Bukont or Doug D'Alexander or any of his/their companies.' Again, building permits are filed by property address, so to compile copies of every Bukont permit would require the Planning & Zoning staff to search all building permit records. As stated before, the Town will not compile such a listing. Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Section 2.2-3704D, 'No public body shall be required to create a new record if the record does not already exist.'"
We told the Town that we were not asking for a "listing". We told them we were not asking for documents not in existence. We wanted documents that we knew existed. Our request was clear:
1. Via State FOIA we demand a copy of all 'Building Permit Application' documents where under the subject heading 'Contractor Information' it lists the 'Company Name' as Steve Bukont, Doug D'Alexander, Ayr Hill Homes, Wedderburn Homes or BFR Construction.
2. Via State FOIA we demand a copy of all 'Town of Vienna, Virginia - Application for Certificate of Occupancy' documents where the signature field is signed by Steve Bukont or Doug D'Alexander. This is the signature field on said document that certifies, "It is understood that Section 18-221 of the Code of Vienna requires the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy before any new or altered structure can be occupied."
The Town of Vienna Public Information Officer responded again to the above clarified and clear request:
"In response to item #2 of your e-mail of January 17, requesting 'a copy of all 'Town of Vienna, Virginia - Application for Certificate of Occupancy' documents where the signature field is signed by Steve Bukont or Doug D'Alexander,' occupancy permits, like building permits, are filed according to the address of the property for which they are issued. The Town will not compile a record of occupancy documents for Bukont/D'Alexander. Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Section 2.2-3704D, 'No public body shall be required to create a new record if the record does not already exist.'"
The Town of Vienna Public Information Officer response (which was cc:ed to the Town Attorney) shows where a simple freedom of information request reveals a government run amok. Why? The Town Attorney Steve Briglia by allowing these inane responses was attempting to make new State law. How? Vienna's position is that the act of locating or searching for these applications was creating a new "list" or "record". However, our request was not for new records. It was for building permit applications known to be in existence.
Interestingly, the Town of Vienna, after dogmatically refusing on numerous occasions to turn over the Bukont related building permit applications, contacted the State of Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council via email on January 19, 2006. Here is the email the Town of Vienna Public Information Officer sent the FOIA Council:
"A citizen has requested copies of all building permits issued to a certain builder. Our permits are filed according to the address for which they were issued, not according to the builder's name. We believe that to search the building permit files in order to find permits issued to a particular builder would amount to creating a new record, which we are not required to do under FOIA. Do you think this decision is correct? Thank you for your opinion."
Isn't that cute? The Town legal position is that the "search" itself creates a new record, but behind the scenes they are not so sure. The opinion from the State of Virginia? Vienna must produce the documents. The Town of Vienna Public Information Officer then wrote us back with "spin" after learning their legal position was ridiculous:
"I have just spoken with [staff attorney] of the FOIA Council. His opinion is that since you are now requesting 'copies' of Bukont building permits rather than a 'listing' of the permits as originally requested, the Town must provide the copies. He said he had already spoken to you and said you told him that you are willing to pay for the search and copying time. I had earlier asked the Planning & Zoning Department for an estimate of the charges and will let you know as soon as I receive the estimate."
This is not an accurate portrayal of the events and the Town knows it.
There are multiple emails (see above) stating the Town would not provide copies of either the building permit applications or certificate of occupancy applications. Forget "listings", the Town clearly was denying the Virginia State right for copies of documents. Also, from the beginning an estimate of any charges was requested. Any implication that this is a "new fact" learned from the State is a flat out lie.
Finally, after deciding they were in violation of State law by denying the records, the Town of Vienna Public Information Officer finally responded with their estimate for producing the documents:
"The Director of Planning & Zoning estimates it will require 48 hours of staff time to locate and copy building permits issued to Steve Bukont, Doug D'Alexander, Ayr Hill Homes, Wedderburn Homes or BFR Construction, and certificates of occupancy signed by Steve Bukont or Doug D'Alexander. The estimated charge is $1,000. Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act Section 2.2-3704H, the Town may require the requester to agree to payment of a deposit not to exceed the amount of the estimate. The deposit will be credited toward the final cost of supplying the requested records. As soon as the Town receives payment for the estimated charges, staff will begin working to supply the records you request."
This sorry chain of events has a first, middle and last name: abuse of power. All citizens of Vienna should be thankful that a State watchdog group like the FOIA Council exists to stamp out abuse of State law. Now, back to the original question regarding Steve Bukont and conflicts of interest...
January 19, 2006
Paul Layer & Laine Hyde: Time to Go Comments (0)
Paul Layer and Laine Hyde are known supporters of the Windover Heights Historic District's Review Board (Hyde has served on that board and both live in the historic district). Currently, they serve together on the Vienna Commercial Architectural Review Board. These two boards have much in common. There are no specific rules. Neither of these review boards have objective standards or guidelines.
If you appear before these review boards you are at the mercy (or whims) of whatever a board member feels like requiring (or denying) for that particular night. If you are part of the club, it's smooth sailing. If not, you get delayed or denied. Unfortunately, these boards have become playgrounds for people who like to 'bully'. The video of Laine Hyde and Paul Layer shot tonight is sad. It will be posted soon.
Paul Layer:
Architectural Review Board Member and Historic District Supporter
January 15, 2006
Historic Structures and Guidelines Comments (0)
December 6, 2005 Chairman Steve Bukont on "historic structures":
January 9, 2006 Mayor Jane Seeman states on "historic structures":
December 6, 2005 Chairman Steve Bukont on "guidelines":
January 9, 2006 Mayor Jane Seeman states on "guidelines":
Is there any rational reason that Steve Bukont is in a position of power within the Vienna government?
January 14, 2006
Intimidation: Yes or No? Comments (0)
Video clip 1 from December 2005:
Video clip 2 from January 2006:
Make sense?
January 10, 2006
The Video Ban Rationale Comments (0)
For consideration:
"The laws and customs that anchor open government...are most at risk when insecure times such as these breed the illusion that if only information and ideas could be rationed to the few and withheld from the many, then our people would be made stronger by their ignorance, more alert by their blinkered vision, more united by their isolation."
Editorial, Editor & Publisher, 2003
As a follow-up to this article posted December 24, 2005, the Mayor of Vienna changed her tune on January 9, 2006 and now says that there was NO record of video tape intimidating citizens. Once again, why the proposed ban of taping meetings?
Additional thought provoking quotations:
"It is important to be mindful of the fact that what makes our nation great is not how well we can make and keep secrets. Rather it is our legacy of an open government--a defining factor of our democracy--a mark that sets us apart from most other nations in the world."
J. William Leonard Director
Information Security Oversight Office
National Archives and Records Administration, 2002
"Here [in the United States], we are, on the whole, doing well, and giving an example of a free system, which I trust will be more of a pilot to a good port, than a Beacon, warning from a bad one...A Government like ours has so many safety valves, ...that it carries within itself a relief against the infirmities from which the best of human Institutions can not be exempt."
James Madison
"The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government."
Code of Virginia Policy Statement of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy..."
James Madison
January 09, 2006
Paul W. Edmondson: National Trust View Comments (0)
Paul W. Edmondson, Associate General Counsel for The National Trust for Historic Preservation, sent a letter to Mayor Robinson dated March 15th, 1991 stating:
"In the opinion of The National Trust, 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."
What did the Town of Vienna do following this letter:
1. They demolished the only house in Vienna on the National Trust in 2003: Moorefield.
2. They let 3 properties "opt out" of the Historic District in 1991.
3. They let 1 property "opt in" to the Historic District in 1998.
Paul, your words came true didn't they?
January 07, 2006
Six Reasons to Say No to Historic Districts Comments (2)
Six Reasons to Say No to Historic Districts
By L.M. Schwartz
1. More Regulation!
Despite the opinions of all the “experts”, Historic Districts are simply another scheme for government control of private property, and despite all the slick reassurances and arguments to the contrary, Historic Districts are another layer of bureaucracy. Property owners are told the Architectural Review Board or the Historic District Commission procedures, guidelines and ordinances are “fair, expeditious and predictable.” The facts do not support such statements.
Continue reading "Six Reasons to Say No to Historic Districts" »
January 04, 2006
The Proposed Taping Ban Continued Comments (0)
The Vienna Town Council recently proposed banning the video taping of meetings due to this web site. Questioned about the proposed ban Jane Seeman said:
What did the article say that Seeman mentions in the video? Via the Virginia State Freedom of Information Act we forced the Town to turn over a copy of the article:
Why would the Town of Vienna be looking to newspaper articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer about narrow court cases in the State of New Jersey? After reading the article does it really seem plausible, as Jane Seeman says, that she was not looking to ban 'anything'? Does it seem plausible after reading the article that the Town was looking to ban video simply due to citizens feeling 'intimidated'?
Here is the governing Virginia State Law regarding freedom of information. Here is the exact code section. State code clearly says:
"Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open."
Sorry Mayor, you are not in Jersey. This is the State of Virginia.
Shirley Damon: Telling the Truth? No. Comments (0)
The Windover Heights Board of Review held a meeting last night January 3, 2006. The Mayor was there. Maud Robinson was there. Vienna Police also attended a review board meeting for the first time.
At this meeting Windover Heights Board of Review member Shirley Damon had an application before her that was filed under protest. Damon was asked point blank if she had read the two lawsuits pending regarding the Historic District. Watch her response:
Damon is not telling the truth when she says she is not aware of any lawsuits. We have the proof. Listen to this audio from Spring 2005 that has Damon in the middle of a discussion about lawsuits. The first voice you hear is Steve Bukont's. The second voice is Shirley Damon's. Jan 06 Damon says she doesn't know anything about lawsuits, but in Spring 05 she was in the middle of a conversation about lawsuits.
Shirley Damon: Problem with the Truth
January 03, 2006
Mike Gelb on Fairness Comments (0)
Mike Gelb, who lives in the Historic District, offered this 2004 statement before the Vienna Town Council regarding the proposed construction at 315 Windover Avenue. Watch Gelb's public testimony:
Guess the "Historic" House? Comments (2)
This house was in the Windover Heights Historic District when it was created in 1979. It was torn down and a new house was built in its place. Here are (2) pictures of the structure that was demolished:
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Why is there no mention of this house in Vienna's history?
Let's take the guessing game a step further. Here are two groups of houses.
Group 1: House 1, House 2, House 3, House 4, House 5, House 6, House 7, House 8
Group 2: House 1, House 2, House 3, House 4, House 5, House 6, House 7, House 8
Can you guess which group is in the historic district? Group 1 houses are NOT in the Historic District. All houses in Group 2 are in the Windover Heights Historic District.
Talking Loud; Saying Nothing Comments (0)
Joan Lillis: Spin, Spin and More Spin
Joan Lillis is typical of the supporters of the Windover Heights Historic District. They say much without saying anything. For example, watch the video from when Joan Lillis attempted to stop her immediate neighbor from building his new house in 2004-2005:
On the surface, perhaps to some, Lillis' presentation sounds remotely plausible. However, consider:
1. This District has nothing to do with preserving architectural history.
2. Lillis speaks of standards. There are none. None. Nada. They don't exist.
3. What is "responsible architecture"? Where is this defined?
Joan Lillis is talking loud and saying absolutely nothing.
January 02, 2006
Fast and Loose with People's Lives Comments (0)
Before the 2004 abuse of property rights here, the same abuse of property rights was seen in 1999 when the Windover Heights Board of Review, led by historic hypocrite Laine Hyde, denied a proposed new house. What did the house Laine Hyde and Frank Lillis work to deny look like?
Here are some excerpts from that now infamous (and still very relevant) 1999 meeting:
