Category: Local

99th House of Delegates Mass Meeting: Video: Rob Wittman (R-1st) takes the money and runs…

NOTE: I just noticed that the audio on the video is out of sync. I’m working on figuring out why. It’s fine on my original that I uploaded but YouTube apparently did something that caused it to be out of sync. It’s fixed now I think.

To paraphrase the Steve Miller Band.

Sorry about the poor quality of the recording but it’s a Sony Handycam with no tripod so you get what you pay for:

Anyone else think he didn’t want to be in that room any longer than he had to be? I don’t blame him of course, I felt like I was going to throw up by the end of the meeting. A relative of mine and I managed to be the first people out the door thankfully.

And here’s the full speech if anyone wants to watch it:

I don’t have video of the comments made by Terry Beatley but I’ll still go over those in a later post.

Catherine Crabill (Republican candidate in the 99th): Bush lied, Iraqis died; McCain a “smirking, angry, bully”; Ron Paul “a seriously credentialed constitutional scholar”.

From a letter to the editor that appeared in the Rappahannock Record in their April 3, 2008 edition:

These last five years the American public and the poor Iraqis have anguished over this horrific war made worse by the fact that the decision to engage this battle was based on lies by the Bush administration.

[…]

Then there’s John McCain, the smirking, angry, bully that has ridden his P.O.W. fame all the way to this year’s Republican Party nomination.

[…]

Meanwhile, the likes of Ron Paul, a seriously credentialed constitutional scholar with the track record, intellect, and character to match, is minimized and ignored to the dust bin of history.

H/t: James Cupp in the comments section of a previous post.

ROFLMAO: Catherine Crabill’s OKC Trutherism makes The Free Lance–Star.

First time I’ve liked something that Frank Delano has written:

Crabill also told the convention that she had been “beaten, humiliated and ridiculed” by bloggers who discovered a 1995 newspaper article in which she blamed the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing on the federal government. At the time, Crabill lived in New Mexico.

The Washington Times quoted her as saying:

“‘If any militia group is truly responsible for the murderous bombing in Oklahoma City, then I say, ‘Hangin’s too good for ’em,'” said Catherine Crabill of Aragon, N.M., who belongs to a group called New Mexico Citizens Action Association.

“But Mrs. Crabill said it’s her belief ‘this heinous act of violence was the work of our government,’ which will ‘use it as an excuse to aggressively attack the growing militia movement across the country.'”

Crabill denied making the 1995 statement, but, in a recent posting on her Web site, catherinecrabill.com, she said: “I did and do believe that our government was culpable in the [Oklahoma City] bombing. I am not ashamed of standing with my friends and neighbors in New Mexico from the domestic terrorists known as our own government.”

How long until all these delegates that voted for her start screaming they knew nothing like typical political cowards?

For the record, I did not “beat” anyone. “[H]umiliated and ridiculed”? Sure, that was me.

Live-twittering the Republican mass meeting for the 99th House of Delegates District.

Follow it on Twitter starting around 10:30 a.m. The meeting is at the A.T. Johnson Human Services Building in Montross for those that are curious.

Hopefully no one there throws a punch (or takes a shot) at me.

UPDATE: For those that weren’t following my updates on Twitter, Catherine Crabill secured the Republican nomination today. I’ll be writing up a post with some thoughts later.

An addendum to my post about the proposed open burning ordinance.

When I wrote my post yesterday about the proposed open burning ordinance I was not aware that it was an adaptation of the Air Pollution Control Board’s model ordinance. According to Mike Finchum, Director of Planning and Community Development, the Control Board told county staff that they were not allowed to change certain provisions of the ordinance that would result in more lax restrictions than were in the model ordinance. As I recall, the only provision that was changed from the model ordinance was that citizens should notify Caroline County Communications before they burn anything. As such, the stated purpose and writing of the ordinance was not the responsibility of the Board or county staff as a whole.

Last night, the Board decided to hold off adopting the ordinance due to concerns that they had, as well as a couple points that I made during the public hearing.

Guess they don’t have anything better to do: Caroline County Board of Supervisors considering seven pages of open burning regulations.

Addendum: When I wrote this post yesterday about the proposed open burning ordinance I was not aware that it was an adaptation of the Air Pollution Control Board’s model ordinance. According to Mike Finchum, Director of Planning and Community Development, the Control Board told county staff that they were not allowed to change certain provisions of the ordinance that would result in more lax restrictions than were in the model ordinance. As I recall, the only provision that was changed from the model ordinance was that citizens should notify Caroline County Communications before they burn anything. As such, the stated purpose and writing of the ordinance was not the responsibility of the Board or county staff as a whole.

Last night (2009-05-12), the Board decided to hold off adopting the ordinance due to concerns that they had, as well as a couple points that I made during the public hearing.

And these go much farther than the regular statewide regulations (PDF).

And consider this: According to the Virginia Department of Forestry, only two other jurisdictions in the state have local burning regulations in place: Roanoke County and Isle of Wight County.

The public hearing for the proposed ordinance is today at 7:30 p.m.

Thoughts (broken done by section):

§ 72-2. Purpose:

The purpose of this article is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating open burning within Caroline County to achieve and maintain, to the greatest extent practicable, a level of air quality that will provide comfort and convenience while promoting economic and social development.

If the county was so concerned about the health and welfare of its citizens when it comes to the air quality in the county, they should be sending letters to the folks at Fort A.P. Hill every day or filing a lawsuit for violation of the Clean Air Act. It seems to me that Fort A.P. Hill likes to burn stuff every other day this year. Do you know how annoying that gets when you go outside and you have to smell the smoke and have to put up with the haze that is created by it?

And the hilarious thing was that Fort A.P. Hill was burning stuff during the day when everyone else in the state couldn’t because of the statewide fire burn. Remember back in the ’90s when they lost control of one of their “control burns” and they had to shut down Route 301 because it was burning across and by the road? Even this year, visibility was close to zero driving up Route 301 towards Port Royal at night due to the smoke.

And the folks on the Board of Supervisors or in the county government think the pressing concern is Jim Bob burning some stuff in his yard?

Portion of § 72-3. Definitions:

“Built-up area” means any area with a substantial portion covered by industrial, commercial or residential buildings.

The term “built-up area” is used to determine whether someone should be approved or denied for a permit to burn and other stuff (more on that later). However, what exactly does the word “substantial” mean in that definition? It doesn’t provide a minimum population distribution, building distribution, or square footage distribution, per square mile. What someone from Wyoming considers “substantial” development is going to be a lot different than what someone from New York City considers “substantial” development.

Also note the following two definitions for later reference:

“Garbage” means readily putrescible discarded materials composed of animal, vegetable or other organic matter.

[…]

“Household waste” means any waste material, including garbage, trash and refuse derived from households. For purposes of this regulation, households include single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day-use recreation areas. Household wastes do not include sanitary waste in septic tanks (septage) which is regulated by state agencies.

Onward to a portion of § 72-5. Exemptions:

The following activities are exempted to the extent covered by the State Air Pollution Control Board’s Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution:

B. Open burning for camp fires or other fires that are used solely for recreational purposes, for ceremonial occasions, for outdoor noncommercial preparation of food, and for warming of outdoor workers;

So, a regular citizen can still hold a barbecue, but if he hires someone to do the barbecuing for him (say for a party), the person hired would be required to get approval from the Director of Fire and Rescue (no offense to the person currently in that position on an interim basis, Mark Garnett, of course), since it’s being done for a commercial purpose.

And what if a business wants to hold a barbecue as part of an open house or some such? Since that would be for commercial purposes as well, they would also have to get approval from the Director.

It’s also a damn good thing that the barbecue place in Port Royal went out of business otherwise this ordinance could have put them out of business.

Now to § 72-6. Permissible open burning:

B. Open burning is permitted on-site for the destruction of household waste by homeowners or tenants, provided that the following conditions are met:

[…]

3. Garbage is not burned; (and)

Remember those definitions that I pointed out above? The term “garbage” (defined as “readily putrescible discarded materials composed of animal, vegetable or other organic matter”) is included in the definition of “household waste”. So, they say you can burn “household waste” (which includes “garbage”) but then say you can’t burn “garbage”. So, insistently, you couldn’t burn any organic waste that is generated by your household under this section.

From the same section:

C. Open burning is permitted on-site for destruction of debris waste [defined as “wastes resulting from land clearing operations. Debris wastes include but are not limited to stumps, wood, brush, leaves, soil and road spoils” in § 72-3] resulting from property maintenance, from the development or modification of roads and highways, parking areas, railroad tracks, pipelines, power and communication lines, buildings or building areas, sanitary landfills, or from any other clearing operations that may be approved by Director, provided the following conditions are met:

1. All reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount of material burned, with the number and size of the debris piles approved by Director;

2. The material to be burned shall consist of brush, stumps and similar debris waste and shall not include demolition material;

3. The burning shall be at least 500 feet from any occupied building unless the occupants have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is conducted;

4. The burning shall be conducted at the greatest distance practicable from highways and air fields,

5. The burning shall be attended at all times and conducted to ensure the best possible combustion with a minimum of smoke being produced;

6. The burning shall not be allowed to smolder beyond the minimum period of time necessary for the destruction of the materials; and

7. The burning shall be conducted only when the prevailing winds are away from any city, town or built-up area.

In short, this subsection requires you to request a permit from the Director (see § 72-7), get permission on how much and what you can burn, and figured out which way the “prevailing winds” are so the smoke doesn’t blow towards any “city, town or built-up area” (and remember how vague the term “built-up area” is) before you can simply burn a stump or other “debris waste”.

§ 72-7. Permits.

This lengthy section deals with the process for approving permits by the Director.

Here’s the important part: A “permit may be issued for each occasion of burning or for a specific period of time deemed appropriate by the Director.” What exactly is “a specific period of time deemed appropriate by the Director”? Does that mean the Director can arbitrary cancel or revoke someone’s permit on a whim if he deems it “appropriate”?

And the worst part about that section is if the Director denies you a permit, there’s no appeals process. You can’t go to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors looking for a permit if the Director refuses to issue one. Again, no offense to Mark Garnett, but that doesn’t cut it for me.

§ 72-8. Penalties for violation:

A. Any violation of this ordinance is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor, in accordance with § 15.2-1429 of the Code of Virginia.

B. Each separate incident may be considered a new violation.

For those unaware, a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a fine not more than $2,500. So, have fun when you get arrested for not getting a permit to burn a stump on your property or when you’re barbecuing for commercial purposes.

And who will be responsible for enforcing this act? The Sheriff’s Office who is forcing employees to take week-long unpaid furloughs?

Or the Department of Fire and Rescue? Are they that hard-pressed for work? If so, they need to lay some people off over there…

Some General Thoughts

Am I the only person that thinks that this act would be in direct conflict with the “rural preservation” and “agricultural preservation” areas of the county? After all, those areas were created supposedly to preserve the rural and agricultural nature of portions of the county. But now, we have the government coming in telling property owners if they want to burn a stump, they have to get a permit from the government among other asinine requirements. Something that people have been doing in this county for centuries going down the drain because of those geniuses on the Board of Supervisors.

Lawrence Gaudenzi pleads guilty, gets 25 years in prison.

He also refused to say where the body was (The Free Lance–Star, Ellen Biltz’s Twitter page), which I found a little weird.

Couple of possibilities there: The prosecution knew that the body was disposed of in such a way that nothing could be recovered and didn’t want Gaudenzi to be able to get a lighter sentence because he disclosed what happened to the body. I was also wondering if he would come forward during sentencing and voluntarily disclose where the body was in an attempt to get the judge to reduce the sentence by a couple years, but that isn’t the case since he was just sentenced and no mention of the actual disclosure of the body was made in Ellen Biltz’s tweets.

I’m also ignoring the most obvious one: The guy’s an evil piece of s— and enjoys hurting people, even if it’s the victim’s family.

Let’s review Rob Wittman’s previous comments and actions regarding earmarks.

On February 7, 2008, Rob Wittman voted for a moratorium on the submission of earmark requests in the House of Representatives; the moratorium, however, failed to pass. The same day, he issued a press release condemning Speaker Nancy Pelosi for opposing the moratorium.

By the end of April 2008, Wittman had submitted $132,500,000 in earmark requests. Included in that amount were three earmark requests totaling $3,125,000 designated to the organization of a major campaign contributor.

By February 2009, several of those earmarks had survived the committee process and had become part of H.R. 1105 (the Omnibus Spending Bill). By the time it came up for an up-or-down vote on H.R. 1105, there were 15 earmarks with Wittman’s name on them totaling $37,661,500, including one for $95,000 for the organization of that campaign contributor. In the end, Wittman voted against the appropriates bill. Here’s a press release that Wittman posted on his website regarding H.R. 1105:

Today, Congressman Rob Wittman voted against H.R. 1105: the Consolidated Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2009 or “omnibus” spending bill. To date, only three of the twelve bills funding the government have been approved. Consequently, all domestic functions of the government are being funded through a continuing resolution that expires on March 6, 2009. Wittman has advocated maintaining vital programs included in the bill by freezing current spending rates at Fiscal Year 2008 levels. The spending increases in the bill would grow the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009, and the bill is project to result in a deficit of $8.7 trillion in ten years.

“At a time when American families are tightening their belts, the government should be doing the same. We shouldn’t be irresponsibly placing more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren,” said Wittman.

[…]

“There has been no oversight of the over 8,000 earmarks the bill funds and no opportunity to offer amendments to cut spending. The committee process has been circumvented allowing no review by elected Members of Congress and certainly no transparency for American citizens who want to know where their hard earned dollars are going to,” added Wittman.

[…]

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 ultimately passed the House by a vote of 245-178.

He even posted a video on his YouTube channel complaining about the earmarks:

And now he’s requested another $94,676,000 in earmarks.

Can someone explain to me if Wittman thinks the system for earmarks is so broken, why is he so willing to submit and have his name on earmarks that will be approved through that process? Is it because his earmarks are so great and everyone else’s are so bad?

Isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?