April 2006 Archives
April 30, 2006
Laurie Cole: "Show Me the Money!" Comments (5)
Laurie Cole Says, "Show Me the Money!" We say, "Resign now."
Let's Play Jeopardy! Answer: $625,000. Question: How much was Laurie Cole paid by Steve Bukont in 2005 for her home?
We all knew that Steve Bukont built Laurie Cole's new house in 2002, but we did not know until today that Laurie Cole was also Bukont's immediate contiguous neighbor prior to moving in 2002. Now we can reveal that Bukont paid Cole's husband $625,000 for her old house in 2005 when the County assessment was only $394,000! No agent was involved in the deal. The appearance of a $200,000+ premium paid to Cole and a complete lack of public disclosure is troubling. Why wait three years to sell the old house to millionaire developer Bukont with no agent? Good question. How much more money has Cole made on other "connections" in Town government? The investigation of this is just starting and it stinks to high heaven.
We mince no words: Laurie Cole should immediately step aside from Vienna politics. If Cole wins reelection in 2006, an immediate investigation will proceed. If Cole wins reelection, her profiteering from her Bukont association will be a daily issue. Cole has lost all credibility. Has she padded her pockets while bringing into question every one of her votes?
A quick refresher on Cole events of the last few years:
1. Steve Bukont built Laurie Cole's new house in 2002. How much did he charge Cole?
2. Roy J. Baldwin, a close associate of Cole, has tried to spread rumors that this site is out to profit in some manner. The reality? Baldwin's buddy Cole was getting rich in the incestuous world of Vienna government.
3. Review Board Chairman Steve Bukont called citizens f**king morons in 2005 forcing his resignation. Cole later defended foul-mouth Bukont:
"It is with great sadness that I see Mr. Bukont's resignation before us. Mr. Bukont and his wife are active, engaged members of our community. They have given generously of their time and talents to enhance the quality of life in our Town. The barrage of insinuation and innuendo recently directed toward Mr. Bukont is reprehensible. I am very sorry that he and his family have been subjected to it. There is always room for civil discourse concerning differing views in public affairs. But insidious, unfounded attacks on a person's integrity are beyond the pale of civil debate. Such conduct places a chill over the public forum. Citizens are understandably reluctant to undertake public service when their professional and personal lives may become the targets of such despicable attacks. Vienna is fortunate to count among its residents many, many talented individuals willing to contribute their time and abilities to the greater good of all of us. It would be a tremendous loss to our community if the threat of unwarranted vilification were to discourage such contribution. So I am speaking tonight in support and gratitude for those of our citizens, like Mr. Bukont, who give their time and skills in serving on Town Boards and Commissions. I believe it is important to speak out on this matter, mindful of these words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' I hope the other members of Council join me in my support of our citizen Boards and Commissions."
Laurie Cole (Verbatim Town Council Minutes 1/06)
Nice speech Mrs. Cole, but you failed to mention that you were paid $625,000 by Steve Bukont less than a year before. Were your words and actions bought and paid for? NO ONE would have taken Cole serious if she had under full disclosure revealed how much cash Bukont paid her. How many votes has Cole cast for Bukont while serving roles on the Planning Commission and Town Council? Sit tight, we will find out.
More evidence? Here is an audio clip (MP3) from Fall 2003 where Cole says she has "no continuing business transactions" with Bukont at the Council meeting where Bukont got approval to build his new Church Street building. Does selling your house to Bukont for $625,000 count as a 'business transaction'? Bukont makes money. Cole makes money. Who else is padding their pockets in this circus?
Lastly, if you are a Laurie Cole supporter, this site is not necessarily against you. There is no way you could have known she was making such large amounts of money sitting in the catbird seat of Vienna government.
April 29, 2006
Walk on the 'Fantasy Island' Hill Comments (0)
Mr. Roark, Tattoo, Laine Hyde and Maud Welcome You to Fantasy Island!
Ladies and gentleman, start your engines! It's that time of the year again when Laine Hyde and Maud Robinson team up for the ever enchanting "Walk on the Hill". Sadly, this entire taxpayer funded event is propaganda designed to artificially create 'history'. A good example of the ruse can be seen here:
1. Walk on the Hill Brochure - Early Brochure
2. Walk on the Hill Brochure - New Brochure Reflecting Houses Demolished
Notice the changes between brochures? #3, #19. See how easy 'history' changes on Fantasy Island?
April 28, 2006
Dressing Like Jerry Springer Guests Comments (5)
Here is feedback we suspect direct from a sitting Council member:
"Posting unflattering photos of your political opponents on an anonymous website?"
Are you really serious? Let us get this straight. Some Town Council Members, and it surely is not all, show up to Council meetings in sweat pants, jogging suits or essentially pajamas and we are supposed to ignore their complete lack of respect for the office they hold? If ANY Vienna Town Council member shows up to a public meeting dressed inappropriately or looking disheveled - their picture will be right here every time. It's an embarrassment and it should stop. This is the kind of nonsense that happens when there are no cameras to film public servants in action. Vienna Town Council meetings should not leave people feeling like they just witnessed a Jerry Springer episode. Vienna is not a trailer park.
Just in, looks like we were wrong on the authorship of the above comment. Feedback on comments above that came in today:
"No, I'm not a sitting Council member, nor have I ever had any involvement in Vienna politics, the historic district, or anything like that. I'm a longtime resident of SW Vienna (and a lifelong resident of the DC area) who has no use for people who are willing to drag Vienna's good name through the mud for their personal financial gain. As my original comments to you said, I am utterly turned off by your actions. If you think that my previous comments revealed insider knowledge of your antics, you're wrong. It didn't take much effort to use the internet to read the minutes of the meetings you've described on your web page. It didn't take much more work to read the online news articles about your activities and use the Fairfax County real estate assessment web page to locate the real estate holdings you're trying to cash in on (not very cleverly hidden behind "name withheld by request" entries). I would never vote to further empower you by putting one of your number on the Town Council. Judging from your behavior, you would turn our Town government into a circus, to the detriment of everyone but yourselves."
Anonymous
Apparently, you are drinking the Vienna Times Kool-Aid too. This is all about money, that is your view? Let us get this straight: It's alright to have corrupt government and unfair laws as long as you are fighting the cause of stopping some random person who may or may not be profiting from real estate? Do you have any concept of logic? You say this with a straight face as Vienna is being torn down every day to build new everywhere? Since by your rumor filled logic this is all about money, can you forward along to us the development plans that must surely exist that shows how all of this money will be made by all of these greedy people out to hurt Vienna? Or is this just more of the whisper campaign by you and your cronies who may or may not be happy with their lot in life?
You have NO respect for the United States Constitution or basic property rights and your ethical and moral foundations are deeply flawed. You and some of your Council buddies are using unbridled power to settle scores and play games. Class warfare was a game for a different time. Class warfare doesn't work in a community where people are making on average $85,000 a year. A community like Vienna, a community filled with smart people, cares more about fairness and equality. You are only going to find so many people interested in your brand of scare politics. Good luck!
April 27, 2006
Dirty Trickster George Creed Slimes Election Comments (0)
Political Dirty Trickster George Creed Slimes Vienna Election
Well, you had to expect that dirty tricks would really heat up and they have as the 2006 Election winds down. The infamous George Creed, a Vienna Planning Commission Member, is now actively floating a rumor that a Town Council challenger is not legally on the ballot. Even after Creed was told by the Board of Elections that he was mistaken, he is still out there looking for ANY angle to keep his incumbent buddy Laurie Cole on Council. Does the Town of Vienna really need a guy like this on the Planning Commission?
April 25, 2006
Roy J. Baldwin Should Stick to Divorce Court Comments (8)
Roy Baldwin (left); Laurie Cole's Son with Camera (right)
Roy J. Baldwin is a local attorney specializing in family law and he hates this site something fierce as evidenced by his emails. He also doesn't seem to think much of the intelligence of Vienna citizens (sound familiar?). At tonight's candidate debate Baldwin handed out copies of a lawsuit in an attempt to scare people. We don't doubt that tactic may work for Roy in the short term, but he is going to be looking for cover when that lawsuit exposes his buddies on Town Council. And lastly, since Roy is involved in the Vienna Chamber of Commerce in a leadership capacity, does the Chamber of Commerce endorse his brand of smear politics? Does the Chamber endorse the politics in general of Baldwin?
Note: The video camera to the right was operated by a representative of Laurie Cole. Interesting. Why is Cole taping candidate debates, but keeping Town Council meetings off cable?
April 24, 2006
The Vienna Times Responds Comments (5)
Recently we wrote about a conversation with The Vienna Times about the historic district. That post brought forward this feedback from the reporter in question:
"Your assertion that I had a "light bulb moment" based on our conversation following the Vienna Town Council meeting is self-serving at best. What I had was your side of an issue. How could you possibly know whether I see your side of an issue as solely "a matter of principle?" As I told you, if I write about the controversy surrounding Windover Heights Historic District, I will do so only after I talk to parties on all sides of the issues involved. I'm not in the business of writing about my "light bulb" moments--real or imagined by others--but only in presenting a fair and balanced summary of the facts."
Jerry Schanke
Vienna Times
A fair and balanced summary of the facts? Your opening question that night was about how much money was going to be made by the homeowner. After you had just listened to testimony outlining why the Windover Heights Historic District was unconstitutional, all you could do was accuse the homeowner of attempting to profit? Your interest level in property rights was non-existent. However, your entire tone and understanding of the event changed after the facts were laid out to you. The story you seemed to want to write for that week's paper never happened. Interestingly, as a Reston resident you had another light bulb moment when you realized, that unlike Reston, Vienna has NO written rules for their review board.
We are not sure how there are two sides to the story of an unconstitutional law and government corruption, but we sure wait to see that story. Lastly, to your personal accusation that our reporting was "self-serving", this site was simply reporting on the events and players in the Vienna historic controversy as accurately as possible. The take away? Why is the Vienna Times worried about what this site is saying to begin with?
The No Spin Zone: Vienna 22180 Style Comments (0)
Love Him or Hate Him, He Does Limit Spin
We have had an ongoing conversation with Larry B. who lives outside the Vienna Town limits. Larry has expressed an assortment of views about this site and how he views the world. Larry provides us a great opportunity to address this site's style and method along with the use of "spin". Some of his comments and our feedback:
If I am reading something in the local newspaper I have a general belief that it is an unbiased report and will give equal time to both sides of an issue. Is this blog setup for that type of discussion?
Our response: We do not have the general belief that the press is unbiased. That belief seems naive. For example, the Vienna Town Council proposed banning the video taping of public meetings. The reporter who was there to hear the proposal to this day refuses to acknowledge which specific Council member proposed the ban. Seem unbiased to you? That is but one small example of the "unbiased press core". This site is not setup to act as a bulletin board. The site has a clear point of view just like every other newspaper or TV program. You have now been given the opportunity to say your peace, but just like Bill O'Reilly's show we are not going to post "spin" for you.
What I don't believe in is asking me and others to take at face value the views being presented without sharing in an exchange to have an understanding of all sides of an issue. ANY issue can be presented to try and persuade a view. I'm sure those following Hitler thought it was a good idea at the time.
Our response: For example, what is the other side of the issue of the historic district controversy? Can you be specific? Just saying that there is a lawsuit pending, sorry no comment, is a copout. There are 150 pages of specifics on this site comprising audio, video, letters, memos and commentary. The best you can offer is a Hitler comparison?
I have yet to see an outline here of the key issues, the incumbents stance and what the new candidates propose instead. So let's have an open discussion on these issues. Show me alternatives. Besides saying what the existing council members have not done, tell me what could have been done differently. What alternatives were at their disposal that they elected to not leverage?
Our response: Election issues have been outlined here. Ignore the specifics? That is your choice.
How do I or any other reader know that the person(s) running this web site do not have a personal "ax to grind" with one or more of the incumbent candidates?
Our response: There is definitely a political ax to grind by most contributors to this site. However, the accusation that this site offers personal attacks is baseless. It is a "tactic" to say this site is "nasty" or "personal". People spinning that mantra refuse to acknowledge the content on this site. They don't like what this site exposes.
I don't need the mudslinging & fighting. I just need to know the issues so I can form an opinion on which candidate will best represent my views on the issues. So why not 'lay it all on the table' and let the voters & other interested parties see the facts. Not the emotions, not the personal ambiguities. Just the facts.
Our response: Enough rhetoric. Enough spin. Enough of your no details approach. Can you specifically address what the "mudslinging" and "fighting" is exactly? Is pointing out how Laurie Cole votes against new homes, but gets her own new big home, is that "mudslinging"? In terms of "facts", this site exposes more facts than any Vienna resident has ever seen before in the public arena.
April 23, 2006
Feedback from Area Citizen Comments (2)
The truth makes some people very angry. Case in point? We received feedback tonight from a citizen living outside the Town limits posted to this blog entry. Here is the feedback with a response:
So let me get this straight...
1) This is a "blog" for Vienna discussion but it's censored? "Comments need to be approved before they will appear. Until then, they won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting." Who is this governing body that must approve the comments? How do we, the readers know, if both sides of an issue are being represented if the discussion is censored?
2) With all of the "holier than though" rants I've read so far you still find it acceptable to steal music and distribute it illegally? The link "Mrs. Robinson" is to a MP3 file that can be downloaded by anyone. So you are promoting the theft of music.
Larry B.
Larry your "uncensored" contribution is live. Now would you perhaps offer something of a substantive rebuttal to the content on this site...instead of a whine? We are all ears. What's the other side you want to promote? In terms of the 12 second sample of 'Mrs. Robinson', it adds levity which can be useful in telling a story.
Feedback was posted in the "comments" link for this post by a Town resident. We repeat it here:
"LarryB - Public discourse can be messy... personalities differ, the meaning of words vary, intentions can be confused, emotion intervenes intellect, etc., etc., etc.... this all gets worse with asynchronous, blind postings on a blog. But don't let these pitfalls dissuade you from participating, expressing yourself, making a contribution, raising a concern, reading between the lines, and staying above the fray. If you have something to say, say it and be heard within the bounds of what is acceptable to this community as maintained by its host. And know that if the host abuses this privilege, this community will eventually move on to another more equitable outlet, but it will not go away. This blog has already had a positive affect on Vienna Town government... I sense it! Democracy is a good thing and it is not just about one vote per person and then accepting the spin and obfuscation of politics. The representation you are afforded here on this blog already exceeds that which you get from traditional politics. Don't be so quick to overlook its value to you just because it may be imperfect. At the very least, the new candidates for Town Council are to be commended for their advocacy for frank communication between Town government and its residents."
Larry B. responded (personal issues removed):
"If the only people responding or allowed to post are those that agree totally with the content, are we really seeing an open & frank discussion on an issue? I certainly welcome open & frank discussions. But I have yet to see an outline here of the key issues, the incumbents stance and what the new candidates propose instead. What I have seen is attacks on specific issues that seem to stem around a "historic district" that appears to be driven by home/land owners within that area seeking a change. It would appear that this has been before the council multiple times and they have consistently voted against these home/land owners. As for some topics that have been mentioned on the site: The “Windover Heights Historic District” – Since all other avenues have been tried, challenging the situation in court seems like the prudent stance. So if I understand the threads correctly there is a lawsuit pending on the matter. Then that is the forum for reconciliation. Asking a sitting council member to discuss something that is under litigation is inappropriate. There are rules governing our legal system and one of the tenants of the rules is that a matter that is under litigation should not be “tried in public” by the parties involved. We see this all the time on TV. Once something is being litigated the prudent response is to let the courts do their job. Not try to debate a point in a public forum. The time for that is past. Traffic – wouldn’t it be nice if Vienna had a magic bullet to reduce the traffic on Hwy 123. I don’t see how that can be done without forcing the traffic to go someplace else. Traffic is a serious issue for the entire region, it’s not unique to Vienna. Please point me to any reputable study that shows how Vienna can reduce the traffic on Hwy 123. “Modernizing” the business corridor (Hwy 123) – I would love to see the buildings that are aging replaced with more modern structures. I would also love to see truly historic buildings preserved. I would like to see that this could be done without increasing the traffic on Hwy 123. I saw the examples from the Market Commons in Clarendon, VA. I didn’t see a summary of their traffic before the renovations & after. Logic would say that such renovations would increase traffic. Help me understand how building new businesses on Hwy 123 will decrease the traffic problem. “McMansions” – that’s the name the national press has given to the current trend of buying older homes, leveling them and building huge new structures. What are the controls in Vienna for this? I’m seeing these “McMansions” spring up all over the place. How do you balance a desire to maintain the “look & feel” of a community and allow the homeowners the flexibility to use their land to their best use? I don’t have the answer but I’d sure be willing to listen to any options that are presented. So let’s have an open discussion on these issues. Show me alternatives. Besides saying what the existing council members have not done, tell me what could have been done differently. What alternatives were at their disposal that they elected to not leverage?"
Larry B.
Our feedback to Larry B.:
1. Your entire philosophy appears to revolve around "keeping everything the same" and "keeping incumbents". There is a certain "trust the government" attitude to your writings.
2. Solutions for Maple Avenue are here and here. Please outline a specific rebuttal, not just rhetoric.
3. You want historic buildings preserved. What does that mean? Which ones are they?
4. In terms of the historic district, if a government abdicates their legislative responsibility they don't get a free pass to hide behind the courts. You may want to read up more on the issue if you want to debate it.
5. By your traffic logic we should leave people in office, who have already been there for years upon years, because there is no possible solution. We don't buy that. If the current crop has failed for decades, time for new blood.
April 22, 2006
Punch to the Historic Gut Comments (0)
A Verbal Punch to the Historic Gut
Watch video from December 6, 2005 Windover Heights Board of Review meeting:
Almost looks like someone was caught in a lie...
Even if you have not had a chance to wade through the extensive documentation on this site, the body language, facial expressions and deep sighs by the then Chairman of the Historic Review Board Steve Bukont speaks volumes. He knew he was in trouble. He knew he had messed up. He did not want to see and hear his own words played for him in a public forum. Do all the players in the historic district saga understand that there is a penalty for not telling the truth while under deposition?
What was the setup to that video?
1. On the clip above Chairman Bukont is asked bluntly what section of the code does he follow to make decisions. He states one answer, but then a tape of him is played that shows him saying something completely different.
2. The three videos here came after the clip above.
3. The video played in the above clip is here.
The take away from all of this has nothing to do with the historic district or the pending litigation. The take away, the reason why every Vienna citizen should be concerned, is that this behavior is normal for the Vienna Town government. This is standard operating procedure. Their frame of mind, their way of dealing with people and their concepts of right and wrong are that of playground bullies. Bullies usually have problems, however, when the light of day shines on them.
April 21, 2006
The Whisper Campaign Comments (1)
The Whisper Campaign Is Underway
How will the elections turn out? That's the big question. Fortunately, Vienna has, for the first time in a long time, a choice this year. The new candidates should be saluted for their dedication of time and energy. However, challenging LONG time incumbents with all the power and control brings out the "whispers". As you go to the polls this year, put aside the innuendo and ponder how well current Council members have done on the issues of 1.) Traffic reduction, 2.) A Maple Avenue revitalization and 3.) Making Vienna a more walker friendly community. Where is the current Council on these issues? Are they behind or ahead of the curve?
We are proud that Vienna was named #4 community in the country recently. However, to say Council members such as Laurie Cole are responsible for such is a stretch. Vienna, and we are glad about this, was at the middle of the perfect storm to achieve that ranking (starting with luckily being dead in the middle of one of the most prosperous counties in the world!). And keep in mind, that ranking far exceeded the borders of Vienna proper. Our point here? Yes, it's great we are #4, but let's keep it all in perspective. Let's not let that ranking be used as an excuse for incumbents to avoid doing the hard thing. We need leaders, not cheerleaders.
April 20, 2006
The Laurie Cole Sympathy Play Comments (1)
From today's Washington Post:
"The tone of the debate has been toughest in the council race. A Web site [historicvienna.com]...has sharply criticized Cole for her cool reception to a revitalization plan for Maple Avenue. "It's certainly something I haven't experienced in the past two elections," Cole said of the criticism. "It's hard. If someone wants to attack me on my record, that's fine, but to attack me personally, I don't understand it."
The Washington Post says our criticism is about Maple Avenue and Cole responds by saying that criticism is a personal attack?!
From a political strategy standpoint, this is a good move on Cole's part. Don't address the disagreements over policy; just whine that you are being attacked when you know your policy is indefensible. Shoot, for an incumbent, it might be the best strategy to use and will probably work. To thinking people, to those not drinking the Kool-Aid, this site lays out clear policy attacks against Laurie Cole. If she takes those policy attacks personally, well, that is her right. Bottom line: the sympathy play is not believable from Cole the career politician and attorney.
Laurie Cole Wants Your Sympathy for Her Bad Policy
Atrophying of Principles Comments (0)
Mr. Jefferson Would Cringe
at the Lack of Principles
The real Vienna Town Council problem is about the atrophying of its principles. As their years in power have stretched on, long-time Town Council members have become more passionate about retaining power than in using that power to change or improve government. Gathering votes for serious policy is difficult and tends to divide a majority. Re-election unites them, however, so they have gradually settled for doing nothing to sustain their incumbency. This strategy has maintained a majority, but at the cost of doing anything substantial. This Town Council has achieved little in the last decade that will outlast into the future and they have ignored the serious issues of traffic and a commercial corridor decline. Meanwhile, the most talented members of our community have continued to avoid Council service to seek other opportunities. The current leaders who remain have become ever more preoccupied with process, money and incumbency. Ideas are an afterthought, when they aren't an inconvenience. Our sense is the long-time Vienna Council members don't yet appreciate the trouble they're in. Confident of small Town machine politics, they think the voters will never turn Vienna over to younger people with fresh ideas and unlimited energy. Eventually, voters will grow more disgusted with the current Council members who care only about re-election.
Note: If this sounds familiar, it was adapted directly from here.
April 19, 2006
The Big Lie: Lie Big and Stick to It Comments (0)
The big lie that Maud Robinson sticks to is that the Windover Heights Historic District is about "preservation". This is a lie. Yes, the only word to use is lie. Consider video from April 17, 2006 Town Council public hearing:
Still shots of Maud Robinson at the meeting in question:
None of this is funny. It is sad.
April 18, 2006
Conversation with Vienna Times Comments (0)
Light Bulb Moments Often Happen Unexpectedly
Last night after the public hearing to determine whether yet another property should be let out of the historic district, a long conversation with Vienna Times reporter Jerry Schanke took place. Schanke was convinced that the property in question must have some secret development plan in mind. He was convinced that the debate was all about money. After 30 minutes of explanation he finally had a light bulb moment. He understood that the Vienna historic district was all about the stealing of property rights and corrupt governmental actions. He finally saw the debate as one of principle.
Sadly, many on Vienna Town Council do not have principles. Many, like Laurie Cole, work under the assumption that the electorate is not intelligent enough to understand the behind the scenes machinations and manipulations. However, there will come a day when those on the Council causing these problems will have to raise their right hands under deposition. At that moment everyone in Vienna will know how extensively they wasted our time and money. Under deposition, they will not be able to parse, spin or outright lie without facing perjury charges.
April 17, 2006
Green Hedges School in Vienna: Fines Issued Comments (1)
This web site has been harshly critical of Green Hedges School. That criticism has focused on their proposed expansion and their violation of their conditional use permit. We have also been harsh of the Town for their handling of the matter. However, it appears the Town has now stepped up to address the matter in a sternly worded letter sent to the school (PDF). What does this mean exactly in the real world? If Green Hedges pays a few bucks and still gets all of their staff, at the end of the day the letter will mean zilch.
It is worth noting that George Lovelace is the big supporter of Green Hedges School. How long did he know about these violations? Why did he not step up and do something about it?
April 14, 2006
Green Hedges School in Vienna: Money Talks! Comments (1)
We have been covering the Green Hedges School's lobbying effort to expand their school. A wise Vienna resident wrote in with the following comment:
"[Green Hedges School] would not consider expansion or go to the expense of preparing a case for construction unless they had some assurance from someone that they might get approval in spite of what I read was the previous agreement with the Town."
Good point. Very good point. Here is an outline of exchanges from the last two weeks with the Town Zoning Director:
Question 1: The conditional use permit issued to Green Hedges School stipulates 33 staff members. Their web site lists 42. Are they in violation now? How does enforcement work? What does the Town do in the case of violations of conditional use permits?
Greg Hembree, Zoning Director: We'll ask them about these issues and decide on the next course of action based upon their answers. As you know, any proposed expansion will also require an amendment to the existing conditional use permit which will certainly deal with students, employees, building size, site plan arrangement, etc.
Question 2: Thanks. I do understand a whole new review process will get underway soon, but they should not be allowed to violate their current conditional use permits just because a new review process is coming.
Greg Hembree, Zoning Director: Did Not Respond.
Question 3: How long does it take to determine 42 staff members is in violation of their conditional use permit? Has any step been taken? Letter sent? Call made?
Greg Hembree, Zoning Director: Both an inquiry and a telephone call have been made to Green Hedges staff. Green Hedges students and staff were on spring break the last two weeks. Mr. Williams, the headmaster, has requested a few days to locate his copy of the 1997 conditional use permit which I consider to be reasonable. Once he has it in his possession, then he will call me ASAP. We will then discuss remediation of the problem, which includes the option of immediately applying for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit.
Question 4: Immediately applying for amendment? Why? What is the fine for a violation? Simply changing the original permit to be in compliance with the violation?
Greg Hembree, Zoning Director: Did Not Respond.
April 13, 2006
Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio? Comments (2)
Sitting on a sofa
On a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at this you lose [Mrs. Robinson].
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Ooo ooo ooo.
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
Joltin' Joe has left and gone away,
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
April 12, 2006
Laurie Cole Thinks You Are Stupid Comments (3)
Laurie Cole thinks you are stupid. Huh? That sure sounds inflammatory! No, it's not inflammatory. Let us explain. Cole is a smart woman. She has a law degree. She appeared on the TV show Jeopardy. She obviously has enough brainpower to know right from wrong. Unfortunately, Laurie Cole's arrogance blinds her to doing the right thing.
Laurie Cole at Recent Council Work Session
How do we justify these statements about Cole? Watch how she "finesses" a simple question with lawyeresque dodges and half-truths in this video:
As we said yesterday, this video shows a clear leadership distinction between Cole and Council challenger Blair Jenkins. But, let's break down Cole's words from the video. She was asked a REAL simple question:
QUESTION: The historic district has more houses which are not historic than which are historic. Why not just designate the individual houses as historic instead of a whole neighborhood? You allowed the old firehouse [on Church Street] to be torn down which was historic. Comments?
1. Cole states in the video that since a lawsuit is pending against the District she can have no comment. She says it's not for her to say anything.
Our comment: What does a lawsuit pending have to do with anything? Mrs. Cole you make the laws in Vienna. You are the legislator. Don't you have the ability to stand up and solve problems or is your solution to let the courts do your job for you?
2. Cole states in the video that the District was adopted to recognize one of the original residential neighborhoods in Vienna. She says it is a neighborhood district and is not directed toward particular houses.
Our comment: This is a flat out lie. Mrs. Cole has voted against two new houses in the District since 2004. She voted no twice without any objective rationale. So while Cole says the code itself does not direct toward individual houses, Laurie Cole clearly directs her votes against individual houses. Who will Cole punish next?
3. Cole states in the video that the District is "meant to preserve OR protect OR reflect OR recognize a part of Vienna's history and so it is a neighborhood based ordinance"
Our comment: Here is where Cole's arrogance really shines. Here is where she really thinks everyone is stupid. Under Cole's logic the District is to preserve OR protect OR reflect OR recognize. Which is it Mrs. Cole? Do you pick the one you feel good about that day? Does the Historic District law just blow in the wind? In terms of so-called 'preservation', reflect on Cole's prior words here.
4. Cole states in the video, "It [the District] is valid under the State of Virginia laws until proven otherwise."
Our Comment: Leaders should lead. Leaders should not "hint" that there might be a problem with a law - they should fix it. These kinds of "pass the buck" answers make Vienna look bad. Did anyone on the current Council offer any insight regarding the Historic District? Unlike Cole, Edythe Kelleher did give an answer:
We would like to see Kelleher expand more, but at least she did not nonsensically plead the fifth like Laurie Cole.
April 11, 2006
Vienna's Head in the Sand Comments (0)
There is all kinds of talk in Vienna these days about how to fix our business district. The Maple Avenue Vision Committee. 'Form-based zoning' as a solution. However, this all sounds academic and very governmental. To confuse matters, we have long-time Council Member and Mayoral candidate George Lovelace constantly saying that our Maple Avenue business corridor is "vibrant" and that our current zoning needs no change. Lovelace maintains our current zoning is sufficient for the future. Well, if you want Maple Avenue to look as it does now forever, then George is right.
A synopsis:
1. By any definition Maple Avenue in Vienna is not vibrant. Except for 1 or 2 buildings, the downtown has not changed in 25 years. Many buildings are going downhill and many tenants are less than optimal (how many more fast food restaurants, gas stations and nail salons do we need?).
2. Why does Maple Avenue not change? Why do we not have a nice low-rise Hilton Hotel that we can be proud to have family and friends stay at? Why do we not have a Barnes and Noble or movie theater? Almost 80% of all buildings on Maple Avenue are non-conforming. What does this mean? It means the buildings, if rebuilt today, would not fit into our current zoning code. The end result? Property owners on Maple Avenue are actually incentivized by Vienna's current laws to keep everything the same!
3. Form-based zoning is an idea that would help Vienna. This means Vienna could control how the Maple Avenue business corridor will look in the future, but more importantly we could actually incentivize our business owners to redevelop and move toward new pedestrian friendly buildings and stores. But if we don't make the change to our laws, we are stuck with Maple Avenue as is for perpetuity.
4. If we allow our business district to catch up to our residential district, business owners would begin to produce more revenue and hence more taxes. This can help lower our residential taxes.
Other communities know this type of change is mandatory. Consider this report from nearby Montgomery County (PDF). They are moving forward facing today's realities head on. Here are some excerpts:
As Montgomery County makes the transition from auto-oriented suburbs to pedestrian-oriented, transit-friendly, more-urbanized areas, the challenge will be to balance car use, which typically accounts for about 90% of daily trips, with alternative modes of travel such as walking, biking, and the use of transit. Within centers, this could mean:
1. Encouraging mixed-use, mid-density development so that everyday destinations within centers are located closer together and intense enough to stimulate transit use so that improvements in service are justified.
2. Creating more street connections from surrounding neighborhoods, so that people don't use the major arterials and highways for local trips, and more trips are made by bicycle and on foot.
3. Providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities such as bike racks and lockers, special pavement and lighting so that non-motorized people know they are welcome.
4. Ensuring that new buildings are interesting at a pedestrian scale, with facades near the sidewalk and interesting enough to be attractive at walking speed.
5. Encouraging shared parking.
Between centers, this could mean:
1. Redesigning some roads into attractive multi-modal boulevards, with bus lanes, bicycle paths, landscaping, medians and wider sidewalks.
2. Adding transit and road capacity between centers to divert through-traffic off secondary roads and streets and expanding interconnectivity between transit and road networks.
3. Investing in more comfortable and informative bus stops.
4. Connecting the street grid to give local traffic alternatives to the major highway.
5. Implementing traffic calming measures to slow down traffic at critical points, especially at pedestrian crossings.
6. Returning segments of major roads to their traditional design with wide landscaped sidewalks, and local/parking/bicycle/transit lanes separated from through lanes by landscaped medians.
Moorefield: Dirty Underbelly of Historic Vienna, Inc. Comments (2)
Maud and Laine, You Can't Keep Pulling Wool Over Eyes
Over 20 years the Town of Vienna and its tax-payer funded club Historic Vienna, Inc. spent significant money on studies of historic Moorefield. Moorefield was the only Vienna house ever placed on a national historical register. What happened? Under Maud Robinson and Laine Hyde's leadership it was destroyed. Here are two detailed studies that were buried in file cabinets:
- Moorefield Preservation Plan Study. Completed by Praful Shah and Associates. 42 pages. 1983. Part 1 (PDF) and Part 2 (PDF)
- Moorefield Historic Structure Report. Completed by Nathaniel Palmer Neblett, AIA. 71 pages. 1991. Part 1 (PDF) and Part 2 (PDF)
Reflect on the irony here for a moment. There can be no greater supporters of the fraudulent Windover Heights Historic District than Robinson and Hyde. But these two historic pretenders had the two studies above in their hands and STILL voted to demolish the single most important historical landmark in Vienna. How can these people not be seen as hypocrites of the highest order? Are there documents like that for the Windover Heights Historic District? You must be kidding!
Where are the remnants of Moorefield now? While we have pictures of the demolition here, that doesn't stop the historic spin lobby from pretending Moorefield still exists. Read their brochure (PDF). The vast majority of that building in those pictures is in a landfill! More spin can be seen on the Jeremiah Moore web site.
We received feedback on this post so far:
Q1: The Moorefield PDFs and the Moorefield site both make claims that the house has been dismantled, tagged and parts of it are being stored for re-use. Yet you state that the house in the picture is now in a landfill. How do you know that the house components were taken to a landfill? Is it untrue that parts have been tagged and are in storage for possible future reassembly?
A1: This Town will say almost anything when comes to keeping up their historic ruse. However, consider pictures: 1, 2 and 3. We are sure some bricks and some planks exist somewhere in some crate. Where is that crate full of Moorefield? Who knows. Will they be able to reassemble the building as described in their two studies? No.
Q2: The way in which the house is being taken down is consistent with a 'deconstruction' process. Support beams have been left standing, and actually ARE marked with what looks like to me to be green paint in some spots. Bricks are stacked, piled and shrink wrapped, which would indicate to me that they are destined for storage, rather than a landfill. One of the brick piles is labeled 'WEST', which may be a locator for future rebuilding. There is a trim rack visible in one photo, and some wood is stacked there. Wood would be stacked there in order to protect it, not to prepare it to go to a dump. The staircase in all photos appears to have been preserved. It looks as if the walls themselves (other than the brick) were some type of plaster over lathe, and I would not expect those to have held up well enough to have had any integrity for restoration. Likely they could not be saved at all. Deconstruction can look even worse than demolition. With demolition, the house comes down in an hour or two, the debris is trucked away, and the ground is immediately smoothed and prepped for the new foundation. Deconstruction can take months and months. It looks awful. Usually, there are big blue tarps and time passes, and the rains come, debris piles up, grass grows. The whole thing just looks like there is no hope in sight. So, I hear you loud and clear, but I can't agree from your post about what happened to Moorefield. The pictures indicate to me that is was, in fact dismantled, at least in so far as was reasonable and practical to do so. But I don't know, I wasn't there. I do wonder if they did save enough of it to hope to 'rebuild' it, and if anyone will ever do so?
A2: This structure had no upkeep and no care for 25 years. It was allowed to rot and it did. Pulling some scraps together from a structure that was disintegrating from outright neglect is after the fact "spin" to make it look like these people were on the ball. Nothing can be further from the truth. If the Town thought there was any value to the venerable Moorefield pile...why not maintain ownership? Why not put it next to Freeman store? No, it was too far gone, so one last salvo of historic spin was fired with the so-called tagging and preservation effort. All of this was done to make it seem like they were not all incompetent. They were. Where is Moorefield today? Where are plans that show how to put the table scraps back together again? Does anyone care?
April 10, 2006
Historical Politics and Race in Vienna Comments (1)
Why were the boundaries of the Windover Heights Historic District drawn in 1979 to exclude properties owned by long time African-American families? The evidence is clear of this exclusion:
1. Historic District boundary on Orchard Street drawn on white/African-American lines.
2. Historic District boundary on West Street drawn on white/African-America lines.
3. Original African-American school Louise Archer in NW left out of District.
4. New Union Baptist Church on Pleasant Street left out of District.
5. First Baptist Church on Orchard Street left out of District.
6. African-American West End Cemetery in NW left out of historic District.
7. African-American Sons & Daughters Cemetery in NW left out of historic District.
8. All deep-rooted African-American properties in NW Vienna on West Street, Orchard Street, Nutley Street, Malcolm Road, Highland Street and Lincoln Street were left out of the historic District.
9. West family home (on West Street) was destroyed in the 1980s with no preservation effort from Laine Hyde or Historic Vienna, Inc. The property was turned into multiple single-family homes. Below is a picture of the West family home:
West Family Home
Below is yet again a clear example of a border drawn on racial lines. The small brick house to the left (built in 1959) was white owned. The green house, African-American owned, to the right (built in 1900) was excluded from the District:
Orchard Street Historic District Boundary
Given that these two houses are contiguous to each other, what was the rationale for the creation of the historic district boundary?
April 09, 2006
Correlation Is Not Causation Comments (0)
What is Maud Robinson's favorite technique to justify the Windover Heights Historic District? Robinson loves to point out the expensive, new homes built in the District. In her world of political spin, the new homes are the direct result of the District. Robinson knows this is BS. She knows correlation is not causation.
There are no more new million-dollar homes in the historic district than other areas of Vienna. In fact, there are many run down homes in need of demolition in the District that would have otherwise already been torn down in other areas of Vienna. After what Robinson, Lovelace and Cole did to this homeowner, people are afraid of becoming the next historic lamb. This all comes down to Maud Robinson's censorship of our choices:
"The economic arguments for historic preservation rules-that they foster community benefits like urban renewal, local business growth, and rising property values-falsely presume that a political elite knows better how to manage property than do the individuals who actually own the properties. And supplanting the aesthetic choices of the property owner with the edicts of the historical commission isn't just bad economics; it's censorship. The government has no more business imposing aesthetic controls on our buildings than it does on our clothes or our cars."
Unfortunately Vienna is one big step worse than so-called "aesthetic controls". Vienna has no specific controls. Vienna's rules are made up on the fly and are different at every meeting.
April 08, 2006
Historic Noses Keep Getting Longer Comments (1)
Historic District Pinocchios
This post, critical of Vienna's historic register sham, brought forward this feedback from a Vienna 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!
April 07, 2006
Carbon Monoxide Park Comments (1)
"Jack Herrity told the Town of Vienna its plan for a 'town green' on Maple Avenue would more likely resemble 'carbon monoxide park' on the town's main thoroughfare."
Vienna Times
The recent post about the mulch pile "lawyering up" brought in feedback tied to the Town's new park to be located on Maple Avenue across from Whole Foods:
Town Owned Commercial Building to be Demolished for New Park
Feedback from Mother #1:
"This site on Maple Avenue may be better used for a parking garage for the myriad of 1960s strip malls in our "walking" Town! The answer is simple - don't listen to the citizens and don't engage in productive communication with what the people want. Let's not mention that mothers will be bringing their babies in strollers to inhale exhaust fumes. How will they get across Route 123 safely? This is all nutso."
Feedback from Mother #2:
"What mother would bring young children to a park on Maple Avenue near that traffic & danger - especially DIRECTLY across Mill Street from the site of a tragic bicyclist death last year? And, there is nothing planned at the park for young kids. What is the risk that a young child is hit on Maple Avenue?"
The "moms" make one point. We, however, worry more about the idea of using scarce commercial space in Town for pet projects. Would this location have not made an even better spot for Vienna's first public parking garage? Building VERY expensive monuments (don't forget this land is worth millions) to satisfy big egos should not be the role of Council members. Vienna needs a comprehensive plan for its commercial corridor. It does not need piece meal projects stuck together devoid of any long-range vision.
April 06, 2006
Pedestrian Friendly Town Wanted Comments (0)
Vienna is not pedestrian friendly. Town leaders have simply dropped the ball. What is a really good example of a pedestrian friendly development? Sugar Land, Texas recently completed a new project, which is best described in their words:
"The Main Street Concept: A place where you walk everywhere and find anything. An inviting mix of Main Street activity that attracts people early in the morning until late at night. Where working, shopping, living, and playing combine to make each more rewarding. A city center that blends the lives of businesses, families, neighbors and guests in a way that makes life simply better."
Does this mean we should put the exact same thing in Vienna? No. Does it mean we should expect our leaders to move beyond pedestrian unfriendly 1960s strip malls? Yes. Who on Vienna Town Council doesn't want anything like this? Maud Robinson, George Lovelace and Laurie Cole are in clear opposition to any Maple Avenue revitalization. Read more here.
Pictures from Sugar Land, Texas:
April 05, 2006
The Historic Register Scam Comments (1)
What would you do if you were Maud Robinson? She wants the Windover Heights Historic District REAL bad, but she has a problem. She knows that it is a joke. She knows that it will be declared unconstitutional. She knows that she is wasting tax dollars to defend multiple lawsuits. She also knows that there is a long history of deception with all that is so-called "historic" in the Town of Vienna.
What do we mean? At one point in the history of the Vienna historic district charade the Town created a "historic register". This was to put a "historic marker" on so-called historic structures and places. Sounds plausible right? One big problem. There are no rules. There are no guidelines to get on the Vienna historic register. And last, but not least, it is 100% voluntary.
Here are the three pages that constitute the register: (1), (2), (3).
Any real historic preservation professional at the National Trust for Historic Preservation or at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources would laugh at this ordinance. What's the bottom line? If you want a historical marker for your house you can get one and join the club. The Town doesn't turn down anyone and there is no rationale to deny anyone a marker. What's the big problem with this? In the abstract, not much. A few busy bodies want to pretend they are "historic" and the Town recognizes them with a special plaque. But here is where it gets fun. Watch what Maud Robinson does with a voluntary and meaningless "register".
Every five years the Town of Vienna issues a Comprehensive Plan. It is a tightly worded document designed to lay out a Vienna vision in terms of planning and zoning for the next 5 years. In the Town's zeal to make it seem like they are "historic" they have added the voluntary register that accepts everyone to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. They have positioned this register as meaningful and documented. It is neither.
Here is the excerpt from the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (PDF)
We asked Maud about this register in the context of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Watch her response:
Maud confirms the voluntary nature of the register:
We repeat: Maud Robinson will do anything to make it seem there is some grand historicity in Vienna. The register is one big scam to prop up the notion that the Town of Vienna is all things historic. Remember when Vienna actually did have a structure on a National Historic Register? Moorefield was on the register with the National Trust, but Maud engineered its demise and destruction. Little commentary is needed from us. Maud and her wanna be historic cronies sink themselves with their words and deeds. This site simply keeps tab on the ruse.
Oh, we almost forgot. Guess who plays a role in the historic register process? That would be the infamous Laine Hyde who once complained through her attorney that this site was damaging her "social standing" in the Town. Imagine that. You work like hell behind the scenes to mess with people's lives, you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and people then look at you funny causing a decline in "social standing". Try not to chuckle at all of this.
April 04, 2006
Mulch Video Missing Comments (0)
The Town of Vienna is the only locality in Fairfax County that we are aware of that does not videotape or broadcast meetings. Vienna is also the only Virginia locality that we know of to propose the banning of videotaping by citizens. However, a sign is at the entrance to the infamous Vienna mulch pile that states:
"ATTENTION: These premises are under constant TV Surveillance. Continuous recording in progress!"
We wanted to see this video so we made a Freedom of Information request and the Town responded:
"Concerning your request for copies of recordings from the surveillance cameras at the Town mulch site on Beulah Road, there are no recordings to date."
We then asked if there were actually cameras at the site and the Town responded:
"Further response beyond that required under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) would not be appropriate since the issue involves the security of Town facilities."
It did not stop there. The Town Attorney Steve Briglia took a combative and arrogant position last night when questioned at the Town Council meeting about this issue. He once again asserted the security issue of the mulch pile (think about saying that with a straight face).
Mulch Pile Reenactment
What's the overall point here? If the Town is willing to post a sign that is an outright lie, what else will they lie about? Think about it. Someone in Vienna Town government sat down and proposed placing a fake sign up about non-existent videotaping. Who thinks this is appropriate? Who thinks this smells right? If people lie about the small things, they lie about the big things.
April 03, 2006
Green Hedges School Rich Kids Make & Break the Rules Comments (0)
The ultra-exclusive Green Hedges School, located in the middle of the Windover Heights residential neighborhood, is set to expand again. They are proposing a massive new complex that will overwhelm neighbors (existing elevations and proposed elevations). Interestingly, Green Hedges expands quite regularly. In 1997 they received a special conditional use permit to expand. They agreed to limit themselves to 33 staff members (PDF), but if you go to the Green Hedges web site (PDF saved from today) they freely advertise 42 staff members. Now they want more "breaks" from the Town while not abiding by the original limits? Will the Town enforce the law or will it allow the "rich kids" school to do whatever it wants?
How rich is rich? Here are the fees to attend Green Hedges:
1. Three and Four Year Olds: $9,905.00 per year
2. Grades 1-5: $17,095.00 per year
3. Grades 6-8: $17,380.00 per year
If your kid goes there for grades 1-8 that's $136,000 dollars! By comparison George Mason University is $11,000 per year for tuition. Money must be talking REAL loud in Vienna Town Hall these days.
