|
|
||
|
SUPERVISORS OK VRE MEMBERSHIP Spotsy supervisors vote to join VRE Date published: 8/19/2009
BY DAN TELVOCK
At 10:02 last night, the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors agreed to accept membership into Virginia Railway Express. But it won't become effective until Feb. 15--after this November's election. That date in the motion that Supervisor Jerry Logan requested is important because two people who do not support VRE will challenge two VRE-supporting supervisors in November. And if they win, they could reverse any decision to join. The original date was Jan. 1, before any possible new members would officially take office. The motion angered Supervisors Benjamin Pitts and Gary Skinner, who face two anti-VRE opponents. "The voters of the Battlefield District voted for me in November 2007 with over 50 percent of the votes in a three-way race. I am entitled to make a vote on behalf of the Battlefield residents on VRE until I am no longer in office," Pitts said. The decision to wait until Feb. 15 basically provides the residents of the Battlefield and Lee Hill districts a referendum on VRE. In the end, Pitts and Skinner supported the motion because it was the only option left to vote on. They joined Supervisors Hap Connors and Logan. Supervisors Emmitt Marshall, T.C. Waddy and Gary Jackson voted against the motion. Jackson wanted to postpone the vote until Del. Mark Cole introduced legislation that would allow the county to hold advisory referendums to put the issue to a vote. That motion died 5-2. About 100 people attended last night's public hearing. Based on people who signed up to speak, VRE supporters outnumbered the opposition by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
my two cents in on this great debate. However, the last post by larryg (8:27 AM) seems contradictory. If 2/3 of citizens are happy with a result, do not the remainder have to be satisfied knowing they did their best to sway things their way? It seems to me that that's how we decide issues. I understand that larryg would like for all issues to be satisfied in a way that all parties "win," but seldom are political issues going to end that way.
any proposal to increase taxes for transportation locally
without referenda to gain citizens approval is going to be
DOA.
and if you want citizens to agree to higher taxes for
transportation - you have to present a vision that a majority
of citizens will agree to.
When we make the argument that VRE is regional but what
Spotsy does is up to Spotsy - and the net result is at least
1/3 of citizens not happy with the VRE process...
are we writing those folks off in future trans funding votes?
We receives a formula funds for transit. Additional funds could be available for expansion but funding for transportation continues to be cut. Needs exceed money. Because of the Dillon Rule our ability to act is limited. In regards to VRE Richmond has made the rules and the gas tax is part of it. These funds have to be spent on VRE and other transportation projects. It will be a local funding source for roads, transist, or maybe van subsidies. How Spotsy spends these funds is up to you.
but I would counsel that if you want robust support of
citizens on future funding issues for FAMPO and multi-
modal transportation that you want to get as many people
as you can behind you and not whack off large segments of
the population.
this is why you need a more fair proposal - because if you
want a more healthy, publically-supported multi-modal
transportation system - it's going to cost money and you'll
not get it from those who felt like they were screwed over.
that's why I say we need a win-win ..
Larry—Back to cost and outcomes. We agree we must look at a multi-modal approach to transportation. With limited money available. Before investing we look at such things as, people moved, equipment costs, maintenance, and reliability. Transit options have advantages and disadvantages --vans are affected by traffic, and the need to get people to start up services. Trains have high capital costs as do buses. Taking all this into consideration we make choices. Fairness is not at the top of the list.
|
|
||||||||||||||||
