Rooker Running for BOS Reelection

Board of Supervisors Chair Dennis Rooker, elected in the Jack Jouett district, has announced that he will run for re-election in this November’s election, hoping for a second four-year term. Rooker cites his desire to complete the work that he’s started, including the rural areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan, solving the water shortage, and instituting a mountaintop protection ordinance. Julie Stavitski has the story in today’s Progress.

11 Responses to “Rooker Running for BOS Reelection”


  • how does one run for the BOS? Maybe I can?

  • It ain’t hard. You need to file some simple paperwork, name a treasurer, open a bank account and get cracking.

    Also, living in the county and being a registered voter is helpful.

  • I like the moves on a Pantops Mountain Plan but it doen`t go far enough. For example there is no provision to raze the eyesore of a shopping center the County allowed to flourish.It`s a mess. Looks as though someone built a 7-11 twenty times.

    A few more dollars invested in beautification of 250 East wouldn`t hurt. That may or may not be a State responsibility but whoever needs to do something.

    That eyesore drug store won`t help that intersection either.

  • Do you really want a government that will sieze private property and raze it because someone doesn’t like the way it looks? Do you think Dennis Rooker will give you that kind of government?

  • Madman spoke thusly:"Do you really want a government that will sieze private property and raze it because someone doesn’t like the way it looks?"

    Well, after very serious and prolonged thought, spurred by your profound query, I guess not. The thrust of my obviously facetious comment, although apparently not sufficiently obvious, was more to the point of not allowing it in the first place.

    Do you think Dennis Rooker will give you that kind of government?

    I doubt if "good ole Dennis" will give me any kind of government. What he will do, one would hope, is to be responsive to the voting population and I, as part of that population, posted an opinion.

  • "there is no provision to raze the eyesore of a shopping center the County allowed to flourish.It`s a mess."

    Are you sure? Wouldn’t a referendum be sufficient? Maybe not in Albemarle. But generally, eyesore = blight. Yeah, I think there’s plenty of precedent to raze whatever is determined to be ugly, certainly in American cities.

  • I’m sorry, I did not understand that you were speaking facetiously. I often have trouble understanding sarcasm and other forms of humor in written statements because of the lack of inflection. Unfortunately there are people who do believe that our government should have the authority to raze buildings solely because they’re considered to be ugly. I am not well enough acquainted with you to know that you wouldn’t be so inclined. Aesthetic standards are routinely applied to new construction and remodeling so it’s not really a stretch to imagine the demolition of existing structures only because they pollute the viewshed. In fact such demolition does occur and has occurrred in Charlottesville, but the reason given is often "urban renewal".

  • " I often have trouble understanding sarcasm and other forms of humor in written statements because of the lack of inflection"

    Fair enough.

    I am still of the mind better planning and foresight should have been used during the development of that area.

    The County (perhaps that is changing) seems to have always shortchanged the 250 East entrance corridor, both in planning and asthetics. I think they are improving but the eyesores they allowed to fester and grow in that area is a disgrace.

    Twenty years or so ago, if one approached the County about asthetic changes to that stretch of road the answer was invariably "we are maintaining the rural character – if you want amenities , move to the City. "

    Seems the city has moved here and the asthetics are very far behind unless you count the eight (?) new traffic signals between say, Glenmore (I liked it better when it was Clay Camp`s Farm) and Free Bridge. Now if one accepts the development and then queries the county about extending the water lines, for instance,they are back on the theme of "preserving the rural character" which appears to be a "hogwash" statement if ever one existed. They can`t have it both ways – but wait – yes they obviously can.

    They scream about water shortage but if a developer wanders in with a bankroll and a plan to put 500 houses on postage stamp lots and pipe in "county water" then that`s Okay.

    I repeat, the planning for that area has been disgraceful and I`m not convinced it is on track.

    I am sure I got off track but politicians, generally" rank right up there with the oldest profession" when it comes to saying "no" to developers. Yes means dollars.

  • You unfairly damn politicians and libel them with your comparison to prostitutes. Most people involved in local government are honest and hard working people. I am not real fond of some of them but they are not corrupt thieves who are on the developers payroll. You would probably be pleased to know that many local politicians would just as soon stop all development for whatever reason they think would pass legal muster but they can’t because their authority is limited by state and federal law.

    I am tired of hearing that all developers are greedy monsters. Most are decent people. They develop land into businesses that provide jobs and homes for the expanding population.

    I’m no fan of Glenmore but you can be certain that the county receives more in tax revenue from the residents and the property out there than the county spends on services to them. Money management is important to the BOS but you seem to imply that the supervisors themselves are the direct beneficiaries of development. The expensive McMansions dotting Albemarle may not appeal to you but without them taxes would be much higher or services would suffer significantly.

    The land on top of Pantops Mountain was zoned for commercial development for many years in acknowledgement of the reality of growth. The value created by that zoning cannot just suddenly be taken away without compensation and only for a very good reason. I haven’t heard any reason from you other than your objection to the appearance of the place.

  • Love the guy’s hair. I want to look like that!

  • Well, let`s see here. I libeled no one. I did compare, what is in my view, and remains so, the penchant for politicians to mimic a prostitute trait of never saying no, except in this case it was “no” to a tax dollar brought about by business and residential development. I stand on that and it certainly was not an” unfair” observation.

    >>>>>>“You would probably be pleased to know that many local politicians would just as soon stop all development<<<<<<<<

    I will be more pleased to know whereby you have come into this revelation about politicians. As far as politicians being “Greedy Monsters”. Those are your words not mine. You must have heard it a lot by your reaction. Now as far as politicians in general are concerned, one must only stay abreast of events, local, national, and world, to understand they are people with all the human failings and are not, as you seem to naively think, in someway sainted and cannot err.

    You also mentioned the phrase "corrupt thieves". These again are your words not mine. Why you would use these words in reference to politicians I don`t know

    >>>>>>>>I’m no fan of Glenmore but you can be certain that the county receives more in tax revenue from the residents and the property out there than the county spends on services to them<<<<<<<<

    I can`t be certain of any such thing.That string hasn`t played out. There are yet Condos to be built there and surprise, surprise, they will have children going to school and another surprise they will need larger schools and more teachers, more traffic but no better roads if history rules – all of which I am pleased to see the County provide – BUT you seem to be under the false impression this is all at no cost. It takes little acumen to recognize this is definitely not the case. Those costs multiply. That is one of my primary reasons to complain about certain developments as I think the politicians (planners if you prefer) make no allowance for costs “down the road”

    Back to the eyesore at Pantops. Did it ever occur to you, during your justification for that monstrosity that someone had to approve the planning? Poorly planned and poor execution of that plan is at the root of today`s appearance. I suggest the tax dollar was at the root of the approval of such a mess.

    My comments stand.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog