C’ville Tomorrow Interviews BoS Candidates

Charlottesville Tomorrow has interviewed all of the Board of Supervisors candidates, with a focus on the topics of interest to the organization: growth and related issues. The interviews are 20-50 minutes each, and may be listened to right on Charlottesville Tomorrow’s website. Those interviews can be listened to individually (listed in order of publication): Marcia Joseph, David Wyant, Denny King, Ken Boyd, Ann Mallek, Kevin Fletcher, and Lindsay Dorrier.

13 Responses to “C’ville Tomorrow Interviews BoS Candidates”


  • Just to totally “shift-gears” a little bit…speaking of the City “interviewing” people…what’s going to be the deal with a new Asst. City Manager? I haven’t heard anything about that since Rochelle left. There used to be two (2). BTW, God bless Linda Peacock. Gary can’t keep doing it all, right? I guess we’ll just have to “wait and see”.

  • I doubt Biscuit Run will affect the race very much. The planning commission and supervisors voted for it unanimously. Sally Thomas voted for it and I think it is safe to say no one thinks of her as pro growth.

    If anything it might make some antigrowth voters throw up their hands and not vote at all. (probably not)

  • The issue of Hollymead and Biscuit Run doesn’t have anything to do with Sally Thomas, who if you look at the record over the past four years, has voted For just about everyone of the developments to come down the pipeline.
    The issue for growth area residents is you have a board now composed of 5 members who live in the rural area and Mr. Slutzsky, who could give a rats ass about the growth area residents quality of life and approving more development then the residents can pay for. If you look at today’s paper and the review of the candidate forum held what you see is one excuse after another from the current members of the board why it’s not their fault that there’s a wide divide between amount of development they approved and the ability to pay for the infrastructure. From Mr. Boyd complaining about federal bureaucratic red tape interfering with getting water to Mr. Dorrier and not getting enough money from Richmond for transportation. The entire board knew very well there was not enough money for roads and in fact funding was going to be decreased. They knew very well there was no quick answer to getting the water supply increased in the near future, yet they continued to vote for one development after another and didn’t bother to get adequate proffers to boot.
    So when it comes to the supervisors race I hope every growth area resident on the way to the polls, who drives out their driveway past their brown lawn because there’s not enough water and passes their kids school with all the trailers and thinks about their tax bill and water bill up by double digits asks them self “am I better off today then four years ago”, will come up with the answer NO and vote accordingly.

  • The two $100k positions of assistant city manager have been replaced by the position of deputy city manager currently filled by Mr. Watts. Mr. Taliaferro campaigned to decrease the staff in the city manager’s office so it may be a long time before there is any interest in re-creating those positions. Especially since the city is paying people $6000 at a pop to install rain barrels.
    My question for those who live in the county’s growth area, what you feel is a reasonable amount of growth in a growth area and how do you measure? People/acre, people/gallon, bedrooms per square mile? How can the county tell developers what is an appropriate phasing for future development? Is seems to me that it is time for county residents to step up and instruct the supervisors on how to reduce or eliminate growth. Simply re-wording the problem for the supervisors obviously is not providing them with a solution.

  • When you ask about what we in the growth areas see as a reasonable amount of growth, the answer can be found in the master plans for each growth areas. If you want numbers however, the first consultants that were hired to work on the Neighborhood Model came up with population numbers for each growth area giving low, high and ideal. For Crozet the ideal maximum growth was 12,198, so for us there never was a question of reducing or eliminating growth. In fact under our master plan Crozet would grow from about 3,000 to 12,000 and one can hardly call quadrupling the population as anti growth. That said, I’m surprised that those in the 29 North corridor and in Pantops have not questioned the population numbers proposed under their Master Plans. As you may know the County has now told us in Crozet that there was a mistake and we can grow to over 24,000, something they have never been able to prove.
    As for phasing growth, in Crozet we asked the master plan consultants to come up a list of infrastructure projects to support the expected growth and to come up with a time line. The thought was to set up a time line based on “trigger points” tied to either a period of time or a certain population when funding would be allocated, something the County has never agreed to. While the consultants came up a proposed price tag for the infrastructure, the one question we never asked was “will the new growth pay for itself and if not, how much will it cost us”. A mistake I’m sure will come back to haunt us.

  • Cville Eye–where can I find more info on the downsizing at City Hall? 2 $100K positions replaced by 1 positions with a salary of ?? With a steadily declining enrollment in Charlottesville schools, we are going to have to make a similar move in Central Office, IMHO. Harrisonburg, with 400 more students has only one Assistant Superintendent; we have two. (Sorry for straying off topic.)

  • The best source would probably be a city councilor or Gary O’Connell. I have not seen a formal policy in writing nor in the minutes.
    CrozetResident, have the Master Plan(s) been adopted? If so, which ever plan was adopted should legally hold. Thus, if the 12,000 people plan has been approved, then there are legal grounds against increasing that number significantly without a vote and a court can issue an injunction until certain conditions are met.
    If the county is still in the process of adopting some plan, then a grassroots campaign to “inform” the candidates should be in order. Candidates should always be put on the hot seat publicly BEFORE they are elected (I’m sure you’ve noticed that they do not remember your name or issue afterwards). Perhaps the residents of Crozet (I know there are so many new ones) are not fully aware of the status of the process and their options. 12,000 people on Rt. 240/250 heading east is formidable; 24,000 is impossible. Imagine football and graduation weekends.
    One way we in the city figure out who is pressuring Council to make irrational decisions is to use the web to see who are the land owners. Usually there is some fat cat who stays behind the scenes that negates the will of those who do venture to the microphone.

  • FYI- Mr. Watts had his position prior to the resignation and unfortunate death of the previous assistant City Managers. WE are currently down two positions or up one position total if there was no Economic Development person prior to Mr. Watt’s arrival. No one has been appointed to replace the former assistant managers.

  • Cville Eye
    The master plan was adopted by the board and there is plenty of evidence to support the 12,000 population total at the time of the adoption. It wasn’t till the Old Trail development that we found out there was trouble. The consultants published a table which showed each neighborhood and within each neighborhood the number of homes and commercial space allocated. We were floored when the staff came up with a number of homes and commercial space that was twice that found in the published table. We were told later that the table was removed from the master plan, but never told why and the community was never consulted about the removal. The board quickly followed by approving two more developments in Crozet. It was at that time that a group of us started to count homes built and approved only to find that if we used the county multipliers for calculating population Crozet was already quite close to or at 12,000 population ceiling. We posed this dilemma to the County and it wasn’t more then 2 weeks later the County came up with their 24,000 calculation. I have to tell you that tonight at a community meeting dealing with the Down Town Plan the consultant who developed the original Master Plan admitted the plan was built around a population of 12,000. Unfortunately, we have come to the point where the County staff is lying and the board of supervisors is swearing to it. In Crozet, when it comes to reelecting Wyant it’s a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

  • Jennifer –
    These two jobs are currently posted on the city’s website. There are no postings for the position of assistant city manager.
    Economic Development Specialist Apply now!

    Department: Office of the City Manager
    Closing Date: 09/14/2007
    Compensation: Hiring salary range $49,899-$62,150 per yar
    40 hours per week. The Economic Development Specialist works as a key member of a team dedicated to enhancing the long-term economic vitality of Charlottesville. Key responsibilities will include d
    AND
    Economic Development Intern Apply now!

    Department: Office of the City Manager
    Closing Date: Open Until Filled
    Compensation: Hiring salary range $11-$13 per hour
    Flexible hours approximately 16-20 hours per week. The Office of Economic Development is seeking an Intern to work as part of a team dedicated to enhancing the long-term economic vitality of Charlo
    Mr. Watts came here on a consulting basis over three years ago to provide the city with an assessment of the city’s potential re-deployment of vacant or under-utilized land for the purposes of economic development. That study was expanded from six months to last over a year. He was then hired to head the Economic Development office which was previously headed up by William Harvey. Harvey became his subordinate. About three years ago, while the city still had two assistant managers, Mr. Watts was promoted over the managers and became the deputy city manager, only answerable to Gary O’Connell. The two assistants were answerable to him, along with every department head who had previously reported to one of the assistants. Linda Peacock’s duties were pretty much limited to the outside agency evaluation committee for budget recommendations and a few other odds and ends assignments. Small-Toney was limited to Jefferson School project and later a summer youth employment eight-week program. Neither’s duties would normally command a $100k salary.
    Whether those two positions have dissolved, are put on hold, or to be filled in the future, I have no idea. Since the city has recently said that economic development will swing around increased housing and small retail I wouldn’t be surprised if those two advertised positions will be viewed as sufficient for that function for the near future. However, this is Charlottesville and rhyme does not often have reason and comics do not have to have an understandable point and rain barrels should costs $6000 a piece.

  • “We were told later that the table was removed from the master plan, but never told why and the community was never consulted about the removal.””Unfortunately, we have come to the point where the County staff is lying and the board of supervisors is swearing to it.”
    CrozetResident,
    This tells me (1) the county staff is serving the supervisors and not the public and (2)the supervisors are serving the developers and do not feel they are answerable to the public enough to explain their actions and the rationale behind them. This is quite common in the city with the developers, council and staff. Those three entities have often had behind-the-scenes contact for up to a year before the public is made aware of the proposals. After they have come to preliminary consensus, the public is often treated dismissively or even with hostility when attempting to provide input. The city’s Planning Commission has recently said individual members will constrict their private meetings with developers to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I have noticed that most, if not all, of the candidates are saying pretty much the same thing about growth in the county, so, truly, “…it’s a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” is a reasonable reaction. I believe politicians should be judged more by their actions and results and less by their prepared speeches. I rarely vote for incumbents these days. Particularly if they have violated the public trust by giving tax money to party members at $6,000 per rain barrel or $11,000 per “study” to conclude no population increase. I really wish I could help you.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog