In the News Archives | Return to Home Page
June 10, 2008
Daphne and Chuck Sloan: Historic Nuts Comments (9)
One of the Historic Vienna, Inc. Board of Directors (along with Crazy Maud and Laine Hyde) is Daphne Sloan. At the recent Town Council meeting where a historic review board decision was reversed Sloan of course stood up and railed against property rights (she seems to have a socialist bent). Not to be out done her husband, a long time historic district gadfly, wrote a letter to Town Council in which he argued (this is not made up!):
"There are a number of published stories about the property including one about ghosts in the house and reports that the house was used as part of an underground railroad."
When it comes to abusing property rights in Vienna just about any tactic is appropriate to that end for some people.
September 09, 2007
Gerrymandering the Historic District: A Primer Comments (32)
Most people who read here understand the Vienna historic district is corrupt as written and enforced. Others don't care about that, they just care that they can keep their little club. Some of those people you will see comment on this site with lines like:
"And what is up with the lawsuit, anyway?"
There is yet a third group in Vienna, who hear about the controversy, but don't know the details. And for those people, we ask a question: would it surprise you that there exists a single property in the Town of Vienna NOT in the historic district, but surrounded on all sides (5 sides to be exact) by properties ALL in the historic district? We call it Mad Maud's donut hole. Think about how crazy it is that one property is in the middle of the historic district, but not in the historic district. It's the donut hole. That fact alone, even if you know nothing else about historic districts in Vienna, tells you that Jane and Maud are far from sweet little old ladies. They are just a pair of conniving and power hungry politicians who could care less about fairness or ethics. They use their political power to settle personal scores. Next time you see Jane or Maud, ask them if they can explain why this property is not in the historic district, but the others surrounding it are. Ask them the question and you will see old ladies stutter and lie.
Note: All properties in blue are in the historic district. Only the properties with a red dot are as is since the district was created in 1979. All other properties, green dots, have either seen the home razed or substantially rebuilt. The donut hole is in yellow: Helluva preservation effort Maudasaurus!
May 18, 2006
Jealous and Illogical Is A Weird Combination Comments (2)
A comment from a Maud Machine member on 'owners' of property in the historic district:
"I would vote for someone who represented and served the interests of the majority as opposed to (what seems to be) a minority in regard to the historic district complaints. I live on the border of the district and agree that the "rules" make no sense. Regardless, I think there's a common desire to preserve the district and by preserve I mean no more ofc. bldgs, no town homes, no hotels, or McMansions, etc. If it was a true historic district with defined standards and code, would there be any more complaints? By the way, why would someone buy property or multiple properties in the district knowing that these problems existed? Were they blind going into it?"
Your so-called 'common desire' is not common by any available evidence OR LAW. The Windover Heights Historic District does not regulate zoning and it doesn't stop McMansions or office buildings (drive around for example). It has no rules, standards or historical structures. The entire neighborhood has been torn down and rebuilt. It is a District for two groups of people: 1.) those in Government who relish the ability to harass and bully people with vague laws for their jollies 2.) and Yuppies who live in brand new houses who want to pretend they are in a real historic district.
To your mindless logic on the purchasing of private property: private citizens who buy private property do not need to ask the government for their inherent property rights. Property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. People buy property for many reasons, none of which give you the right to violate their rights. The great thing about the United States Constitution is that it protects the rights of minorities. By your wayward logic, you would have had no problem marching in 1930s Germany since as you say, "majority rules and they must be right".
To your "blind comment": everyone who lives in the Windover Heights Historic District was blind to this. Most of this historic district nonsense has accelerated to its current zenith since 2004. No one could have known, for example, what would take place at the infamous Sagatov work session in the summer of 2004.
And one final note: why in blazes is this small crowd of powers that be in Vienna so interested in the supposed economic gains of other citizens? At some point their silly arguments sound like some weird form of jealousy.
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?
March 20, 2006
Historic Tract Homes - Wall Street Journal Article Comments (2)
At tonight's Vienna Town Council meeting Council Member Edythe F. Kelleher pointed out a recent article (PDF) about historic districts. Kelleher seemed to genuinely be offering information. An excerpt from the article:
"As the real-estate market begins to cool, a growing number of homeowners are seeking to boost their property values by getting their neighborhoods designated as historic districts. Local historic districts, which can trigger regulations on everything from window repair to demolitions, are proliferating across the United States. But the desire for historic designation has some communities touting characteristics with questionable preservation value. Homeowners in Denver say their neighborhood deserves historic designation because it is an early example of large front lawns. A Phoenix subdivision is seeking historic status because it says its ranch homes were the first in the city with central air conditioning."
After Kelleher noted the article (PDF) Maud Robinson chimed in for emphasis to say that historic districts are being created to make properties "more valuable". That's the reason du jour now for having a District? Let us get this straight. It's no longer about "Vienna's history", it's now about Maud Robinson helping members of Vienna's historic district to become millionaires? We should all just sit back and let Robinson continue to push a District with no rules and nothing historic in it all so we can become rich?
Mrs. Robinson, the jig is up. The citizens of Vienna all know you voted against one of the nicest and most expensive homes ever built in Vienna.
March 18, 2006
Old Makes Way for the New Comments (2)
A recent email came in from a Vienna citizen who thought we were criticizing the Vienna Presbyterian Church (VPC). While we have absolutely no gripe with the church, he was offended that we would even question "historical" aspects of VPC's new church. He wrote us to say how the church had:
"...painstakingly preserved [their chapel]."
It should be noted that in order for VPC to expand to its current size, the "historic" structure in the yellow circle in the picture below was bought by VPC then demolished. This picture shows the Freeman Store in the foreground and to the left of the yellow circle is the original VPC Chapel out of the picture:
Click to Increase Size
(Inside Yellow Circle is "Historic" Building Torn Down)
So while VPC did work to maintain their original chapel without the help of the government, they did also demolish another old time Vienna building to make way for their new church. Plainly, history in Vienna comes and goes. The consistency of how so-called "historic preservation" in Vienna takes place is a joke.
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 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" »
December 29, 2005
Video Ban 'Spin' Continues; Brian Trompeter of the Sun Gazette Hides the Truth Comments (0)
From this week's Sun Gazette newspaper reporter Brian Trompeter writes:
"[Vienna Town] Council members earlier this month had mulled a ban on videotaping at public meetings, but were told by Town Attorney Steven Briglia that such a restriction would violate Virginia's open-meeting laws. 'It's a part of free speech in Virginia, and we're on board with that,' Vienna Mayor M. Jane Seeman said."
The only reason the Mayor is "on board" with not banning video is because it is against Virginia State law! She makes it sound like she never wanted to ban video when in actuality she was told she would be violating State law if she did so. The larger question looms: why would Vienna Town Council members seek to ban video at all? Who exactly proposed this ban?
Brian Trompeter was there. Trompeter has refused to report the truth and the Town records are silent as to who made the proposal. That is cr*p.
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."
It appears certain members of Vienna Town Council clearly intended to violate State law. Is it believable that after all these years the Town Council did not understand or know about State law? If you know who proposed the videotape ban please email us. Anonymous tips are welcomed.
As a side note, the Virginia Coalition for Open Government may be a useful resource. Their web site includes this useful guide. Also consider:
"If you feel you've been wrongfully denied a public record, if the government doesn't respond to your request for records, if you think the notice for a meeting or the topic of it was improper, there are a few things you can do. For starters, you can try to work out a mutually satisfactory agreement with the public body directly. You can ask the Freedom of Information Advisory Council to issue an oral or written opinion. The council's opinions are persuasive and its answers are generally respected by citizens and government alike. There is no charge for the council's help."
November 23, 2005
Historic District Debate Comments (0)
A good article outlining the severe problems with the Vienna Historic District.
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.
