|
|
||
Council candidates address ARB appeals Date published: 4/25/2008
BY EMILY BATTLE
All five candidates running in the May 6 City Council elections in Fredericksburg were asked last night about an issue that hasn't been on the front burner lately, but will very likely be decided in the next City Council term. It's the question of who has the right, or "standing" as it's known in legalese, to challenge decisions made by the Architectural Review Board, which regulates development in the Historic District. Last night's forum was hosted by the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Inc., which has voiced support for a wider standard for who can challenge these decisions. City ordinance says only people who are "aggrieved" by the board's decisions may appeal them. The Circuit Court upheld the city's definition of aggrieved as meaning someone with a direct, immediate, pecuniary interest that is different from that of the public at large, or even that of residents of the Historic District at large. Mayoral candidates Debby Girvan and Tom Tomzak both gave answers that differed slightly from statements they've made at council meetings about standing. Both have advocated in the past for retaining the current definition of standing. Tomzak said last night that the definition of standing "should be based on objections that were made at the ARB," and "should be extensive." At an October council work session on standing, Tomzak argued that citizens already have the ability to participate in ARB decisions through the public hearings that board holds. "If we've got full public participation in the process, and I as a private citizen disagree with the outcome, why should I have the ability to appoint myself to derail [a project] even more?" he said in October. At that same October meeting, Girvan said opening ARB decisions to more appeals could provide dissenters a tool to slow down development projects. "The victim is going to be the property owner who is trying to make progress," she said at the time. Last night, she said the main issue is that "citizens have a right to be heard by their elected officials when there are controversies or questions." She advocated a compromise that would allow residents to get an "executive review" of an ARB decision shortly after it was made.
Read more stories about Fredericksburg Date published: 4/25/2008
"City e-mails from the time show that Tomzak, not Girvan, asked city staff to postpone the vote on the easement until after the details of the endowment had been clarified."
You mean she LIED? NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!
"If we're borrowing money from the executive office plaza fund to buy needed safety equipment for public works" - "The city used revenues from the gas tax "
"According to city police, Fredericksburg has brought in more money in parking fines"
Does she even read her board packet? Or just LIE?
Ideally, one need for a newspaper is defined in the role of
settling he said, she said political claims. This has been
missing for far too long, and this facts report makes it abundantly clear, and fairly. Girvan has been untruthful,
and we should vote for the truthful candidate, Tomzak, no
matter what "side" we're otherwise on. We will always have
a better option in front of us, regardless of issue, when
dealing with a straight-up elected official. Congrats to the
FLS and Emily Battle. Keep it up!
The ability to research the viracity of campaign statements certainly can hurt the chances of a politician who has continually been exposed of not telling the truth.
So in other words, Girvan is dishonest. Big surprise.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
