At 08:14 AM 4/22/00 EDT, Paul Burke wrote:
...
>     Hunt Field density is higher than allowed in single family section
>H: This section has 100 acres, minus 38 acres of open space, and it has
>300 units. Therefore it averages 9,002 square feet available per unit for
>residential lots (62ac x 43,560sf/ac ÷ 300units = 9002sf/unit, and roads
>still have to be subtracted from that!). The Zoning Ordinance section
>5.4b1 requires 10,000 sf minimum area in each lot. Zoning Administrator
>Raco says that is a typographical error, and the rule is 6,000sf. However
>he also says the final word is the copy in the records of the County
>Clerk, and all the Clerk's records say 10,000sf.

At most, this could require a technical amendment to the ordinance, because
the table Paul quotes uis internally contradictory.  You cannot have an
Area per Dwelling Unit (ADU) that is smaller than the Minimum Lot Area
(MLA); ADU includes other areas beyond lots, including some kinds of open
space.  Yet in my copy of the ordinance BOTH an ADU of 6,000 square feet
and an MLA of 10,000 square feet are specified for one type of dwelling --
single family detached with public water and sewer.  This can't be, so I'm
inclined to buy Paul Raco's explanation that it's a typo.

This does highlight, however, one of the bigger frustrations of my tenure
as a Planning Commission member.  Too much of the ordinance language in
existence today is poorly, ambiguously or even incorrectly drafted.  It
would be good if this was a legacy of the distant past, but I saw more
fuzzy language enacted as recently as last summer, when I tried in vain to
get the Planning Commission actually to consider and vote on amendment
language, rather than the staff's summary.  The Commission abdicated its
responsibility, and the amendment language that went forward to the County
Commission, drafted by Paul Raco, was rife with ambiguity and
inadequately-developed language.  That's one reason why the zoning
ordinance now permits adult education facilities in certain zones by right,
while precluding identical facilities for children without a variance!

The current review of the Comprehensive Plan explicitly (and properly)
incorporates a review of the implementing ordinances.  We should press the
Planning Commission and the County Commission to include in the process a
thorough, professional review of both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
by an impartial, outside party.  That reviewer should be an attorney with a
strong background in land use law, so that the policy decisions embodied in
the Plan also find expression in a clear, organized, enforceable,
defensible set of ordinances.

Pete Smith

If you didn't follow the link that Paul Burke provided (and Fred Blackmer
corrected), you might have concluded on the strength of Paul's description
that the former transgressions were willful and relevant to the CIS
discussion.  I did follow the link, however, and found the article far more
revealing of management failings and mistakes than malevolent intent.  To
quote:

"While it is obvious that Greenvest's applications have been plagued with
mistakes, Assistant City Attorney Ignacio B. Pessoa said, there is no
evidence that they deliberately failed to give proper notice.

"No sane person would purposely set out to do this because the downside is
too horrific,"Pessoa said. "There are too many financial disincentives for
a developer to willingly fail to give proper notice." Homeowners could sue,
and banks could back out of investments and mortgages.

Pessoa said in other cases the city has been able to go back and approve
projects after the fact.

"I would guess that that would be what would occur here," Pessoa said.

But the consequences still could be dramatic. The Planning Commission and
City Council could deny the after-the-fact approval, which would mean the
buildings would have to come down."

What did, in fact, happen?  Has anyone else already done the research.

Pete Smith


73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Groups,
      In the for what it is worth department, the actual web address of the
news article related to "Greenvest ordinance violations"  described on
"Listener" is.
http://199.244.139.109/dcwww?-show:client/journal/ALX/j1999/q1/m01/t28/pa/s001
/001_001_001.dcs

Fred Blackmer

Groups, (22 April 11 AM)
With reference to a question, there was a typing error in my presentation of
Harris's remarks. It should read "No tolerance image" I took that to mean a
strict enforcement policy with no exceptions. Thanks for bringing it to my
attention. Spell check can't correct all my errors.

Fred Blackmer

(12:15AM 22 Apr)
      Back to Forum (part 2). The second half of Wednesday's forum consisted
of presentations by the 3 Democratic candidates for the new judgeship in the
23rd circuit. The primary will be the election. There is no Republican
candidate running for the office.
      In order as they will appear on the ballot, Gray Silver III, David
Camilletti, and Patrick Henry. From my hearing of their opening remarks these
were the observations;

Gray Silver III discussed his educational background (as did the others). He
also spent some time telling of experience with an impressive number of cases
before the WV Supreme Court.

David Camilletti stressed the diversity of his law practice experience. These
include Civil, real estate, domestic, and criminal cases. He is a resident of
Shepherdstown and would presumably have a feeling for the community.

Patrick Henry talked of his experience as a judge in addition to his private
practice. He stated that there had only been one ruling overturned of the
cases he had presided over. That statement was qualified with an explanation.

      Under questioning, all said that to date their major accomplishments to
date are family. There were some additional variations on that theme. The
second question in that series asked if they expected their peers to support
them. All replied in various ways that they had done the best jobs they could
and could see no reason that they would not get support.
      A question was asked about the Martinsburg Journal endorsement (Gray
Silver III). Surprisingly to me, there were 3 good answers.
     Gray Silver III explained his interview as being detailed with questions
of character as well as qualifications. He assumed that the decision was made
from all the information gathered.
     David Camilletti commented that the Journal endorsement in general was an
opinion. It should be viewed in that light. He asked the audience to form
their own opinion and vote accordingly.
     Patrick Henry addressed the endorsement issue by recounting a case he was
involved in with the Journal. It had to do with a ruling he made regarding a
reporter being required to testify as to the accuracy of published
information. Henry did not dwell on the incident but did say he did not
expect to get the paper's endorsement.

Finally the 55th District Delegates. Bob Tabb and John Doyle
      Bob Tabb. His remarks included being a life long resident of the county.
He gave an impressive list of organizations and activities that he has been
involved with. The pride he has of his family was evident. DUI was
highlighted as an issue that involved the safety of the community. Closing
times and enforcement were two comments. Regressive business regulation,
taxes, and worker's comp were also addressed as hurting the county's economic
development. Agricultural issues included ag/crop prices and residential
growth. "I don't own stocks and bonds. My stock is in the ground of Jefferson
County". He also mentioned getting a "fair share" of funds returned to the
county from the state.
       John Doyle. He focused his presentation on accomplishments and
experience. He specifically mentioned the "developer's relief act" and his
delaying of it's passage until this year. The attempt at clarifying the Local
powers act to eliminate inspection of existing buildings as a requirement for
implementation of the L.P.A. Being vice Chair of the House Finance committee
and the potential advantage to the county was mentioned. He asked all
residents to write the Governor to request that a Jefferson County resident
be appointed to the School Building Authority. Finally was the position of
getting legislators into "offices of power" and keeping them there.

I'm sure I have probably missed a couple of comments. I have done the best I
could to report the event as fairly as possible. Any and all who were
involved or in attendance are encouraged to make corrections or additions.

Fred Blackmer

Groups, (20 Apr 9:34 AM)
      Wednesday night's forum at the Shepherdstown Men's Club played to a full
house. This is a difficult meeting to report due to the opinion nature of
each person's presentation. I will briefly mention that candidates for the
56th Delegate District were not invited or allowed to participate in the
event. There was also an exception in procedure and participation made for
Sheriffs candidate Alden. On to the meeting.
      Magistrate. The 5 democratic candidates were invited to attend and give
their presentations. This will be a difficult choice in the democratic
primary. All performed well. Due to the nature of the office, all could only
promise to work diligently and fairly. The 3 incumbents also were able to
include their history in the office. There were no questions from the
audience. (In order as they will be on the ballot) Gail Boober, Bill
Senseney, Mary Rissler, Stacey McDonald, Kathrine Santucci. Again, not
participating were republicans George Stebbins and Steve Groh.
      Sheriff. This group of 4 is a little more diverse than the magistrates.
I will attempt to give the specific "one liners" from each. (In the order
they spoke).
      Jerry Rouss. Emphasized more contact with the public. The quote
"…sheriff's department has been stagnant for 30 years"
      Ed Boober. Emphasized educating the public on what the Sheriff can do
and the law. Also stated "… will respond in some way to every call"
      John Jeffries. Emphasized increased efforts regarding drugs and DUI.
      Marshall Harris. Major topics were placing substations in the county and
instilling a "on tolerance image" for enforcement.
      Questions from the audience were brief. The one that I took note of was
that all professed to have little knowledge of the Tax and Treasurer duties
of the office. All did say they would be able to handle the financial
aspects.

Judges and  55th delegate district will be in the next report. (I've got to
get to the County Commission meeting)

Fred Blackmer
Your next representative for the
      56th Delegate District

OJ group, (submitted 18 Apr, 9:15AM)
      Now my observations of last night's "growth" forum. The meeting was well
run and well attended.
      The first of the 2 speakers (I didn't write down the name) gave a slide
presentation prepared by the Virginia chapter of the Sierra club. It made
some comparisons relating to population growth between 2 Virginia counties.
One was Stafford County which by the photos seems to be located at the
intersection of I-95 and Route 17 in Fredericksburg. The other was Clarke
County which is our southern neighbor. In my hearing of the presentation, the
residents of Stafford chose a more aggressive growth rate than Clarke.
      The second speaker (Chuck Johnson) is the planning director for Clarke
County. His presentation had more meaning for me. It provided the "these are
our rules, this is how they came about, and this is where we are headed." It
probably also helped that I was familiar with the area he was speaking about
and could keep his comments and views in perspective.
      Finally, the question and answer session for the final hour was
excellent. The questions from the general public were thoughtful and the
replies from Mr. Johnson well done and informative.
       From me. I came away from the meeting with the following general points
which must be included in our "plan" and Ordinances.
      A. Adequate facilities inventory requirement in Sub Division Ordinance
      B. Some type of "Development rights" system that can direct and
concentrate residential
          and commercial growth in pre-designated areas.
      C. Right to Farm provisions that protect Farmers from harassment and
lawsuits.
      D. Buildout from existing population and public services
      E. Growth "zones" that are small enough to encourage the capacity use of
existing
          commercial areas.

      I plan to do a more detailed "editorial" under a separate subject line.
I'll attempt to answer any specific questions anyone might have publicly or
privately. I'm available.

Fred Blackmer
Your next representative for the
      56th Delegate District

Subscribe matt.ward@...

Matt Ward
Attorney
Spiegel & McDiarmid
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 879-4093
(h) (304) 728-7805
fax (202) 393-2866
matt.ward@...
www.spiegelmcd.com

I just had a very interesting (some might say mind-blowing) conversation
with Paul Raco of the Jefferson County Planning Commission staff, who knows
that I intend to post the following (though he has not seen it).

Please note that I am not posting it to the "listener" mailing list despite
its larger audience, at least for the moment -- I've felt the hand of
censorship there once too often.  But please feel free to share this with
your friends and anyone else who is interested in dealing with the facts of
the development issue in Jefferson County.

Also, if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted anything, please tell me
about it.  It's important that the right info gets out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul called me in response to my letter regarding Hunt Field and the
general issue of when a developer can expect not to have the rules change,
with respect to impact fees and similar adverse changes in the county's
legal framework for development.

His key points, as I understood them:

o  He has announced at Commission meetings dealing with Federal Hills and
Hunt Field that approval of a Community Impact Statement does not
constitute acquisition by the developer of a vested interest in a
subdivision.  That's the stage at which they can assert it would be unfair
to change the rules, and he says vesting occurs later, at the stage of
preliminary plat approval, which will be done section by section, not for
the development as a whole.  Mr. Raco says that the developers have stated
their explicit understanding and agreement with this interpretation.

o  This is cold comfort, however, because he says it is his reading of WV
case law that even if the Planning Commission were to vote 11-0 next week
against accepting the CIS for Hunt Field, the developer could choose to
pursue the development anyway!  Moreover, the next stage, preliminary plat
approval, is a staff function, and according to Paul the staff has only
limited "ministerial" authority.  He says that if the subdivision meets the
standards of the subdivision ordinance with respect to things like setbacks
and waste water management, the staff is *obligated* to approve it.  And at
that point, the developer has a vested interest, and has at least some
legal protection, just by virtue of making it that far in the process.

o  That leads us to the next surreal detail -- the final plat public
hearing.  Hypothetically, that is the next meaningful stage for public
comment, but in fact, it appears that it is basically too late to close the
barn door by then.  Is this really how it should work?

o  However, it wasn't all negative news.  Right after passage of the Local
Powers Act, Paul says that the county was advised by its consultants that
if its impact fee ordinance was written to impose the fees at the time of
building permit issuance (one of the options permitted by the Local Powers
Act), these fees MUST be imposed on all covered structures, regardless of
whether or not the lots were platted at the time that impact fees are
adopted.  In other words, any covered construction would be treated
equally, whether it was on a lot platted in 1970 or one approved just the
week before.  There could be a kind of inverse grandfathering at work in
the case of impact fees, which I certainly think is good news.

I've encouraged Mr. Raco to consider getting a fresh, written legal opinion
from the County Prosecutor to back up his understanding of these points,
particularly the one on impact fees.  I said that considering the number of
homes potentially involved, it would give a useful measure of reassurance
to the public.  I also said that I felt that had this been done earlier, a
lot of the polarization and anxiety over the poroposed moratorium could
have been avoided.

At the same time, it is clear that one of the things that ought to happen
during the upcoming plan review is a fundamental rethinking of the approval
process for subdivisions.  It makes no sense to set up your process so that
the developer is vested by decision of the Planning Commission staff, based
solely on ordinance details, before the appointed commission has the chance
to make a binding decision on a subdivision's acceptability.

Pete Smith

Subscribe to OpenJefferson (oj@egroups.com),
the uncensored source for all points of view
on the future of Jefferson County.

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Well, I guess you're being obvious about it now, huh?  Imagine
short-circuiting my message and Fred's just so you couuld delete any
reference to OpenJefferson!  Worried?

I guess I won't post anything more to listener.

Pete Smith


73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Groups,

Be aware that Senate Bill 209 as posted may not include all of the final
amendments.  The final farmland statute will reside at Chapter 8 Article 24
Sections 72-84.  I understand that it is not online yet and that process
usually takes months.

Lavonne

At 09:22 PM 4/16/00 -0400, Alice Van Tol wrote:
>Pete,
>
>Additionally, as the Commissioners receive  an amended CIS from developers,
>the public should be allowed to comment on the amendments - this is where I
>see the process failing.  For instance, Raco made it clear that the April
>25 meeting for Huntfield was for PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT ONLY.  I take
>this to mean the public is precluded from further comment.

Yes, this has been standard procedure, and I agree it is not appropriate
where there have been significant changes brought about as a result of the
previous public hearing.  Three suggestions -- first, get a comment to this
effect delivered to the Commission today (the deadline).  Second, contact
planning commissioners and see if you can scare up one or more who will
make it an issue at the next meeting.  Third, make use of the public
comment provision of the open meetings act to raise the subject at the
April 25 meeting if they stick by it.  You may not be able to comment in a
formal public hearing, but at least you can get your views out.

I think there is an underlying problem here -- the staff should not be
dictating to the commission on these things.  It goes to my comment about
the rubber-stamp quality of so much that the commission does.  The staff
should have RECOMMENDED to the Commission that it only hold the single
public hearing, and the Commission should have decided whether to accept
it, once it knew how significant the additional information would be.
>
>It also means that we will not know who did the additional soil sampling
>for pesticides,how it was done, who else observed, etc,etc.   - and yet we
>all know and have been told that there is plenty of DDT on the premises, it
>was just too costly  for the complainers to test for it. It means that the
>new traffic report will not be allowed to be commented on publicly.
>
>The letters that Raco was to solicit from Charles Town sewer, DEP, PSD.PSC
>will
>apparently be received, but the public will not be able to have any comment
>on this - at least not until the preliminary plat has progressed.  Not a
>good idea.

Well, at least the public is entitled to see any of this at the offices,
and to have copies, either at the county's ridiculous $1/page or from the
other agencies, hopefully at a more realistic figure.  And we are entitled
to make a stink if we feel it has been improperly done.

Frankly, though, I doubt that Greenvest or anyone else with a brain and a
lot to lose would knowingly allow building or common use on land that is
contaminated beyond existing legal standards -- it's such obvious lawsuit
bait in this day and age.

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Pete,

Additionally, as the Commissioners receive  an amended CIS from developers,
the public should be allowed to comment on the amendments - this is where I
see the process failing.  For instance, Raco made it clear that the April
25 meeting for Huntfield was for PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT ONLY.  I take
this to mean the public is precluded from further comment.

It also means that we will not know who did the additional soil sampling
for pesticides,how it was done, who else observed, etc,etc.   - and yet we
all know and have been told that there is plenty of DDT on the premises, it
was just too costly  for the complainers to test for it. It means that the
new traffic report will not be allowed to be commented on publicly.

The letters that Raco was to solicit from Charles Town sewer, DEP, PSD.PSC
will
apparently be received, but the public will not be able to have any comment
on this - at least not until the preliminary plat has progressed.  Not a
good idea.




At 08:08 PM 4/16/00 +0000, you wrote:
>At 09:29 AM 4/16/00 EDT, Paul Burke wrote:
>>
>>a GREAT COLORFUL Zoning Map is under the "Products" & "Maps" buttons at
>>www.exploremaps.com
>
>Neat thanks for the lead!
>...
>
>>PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
>>
>>People may be interested that Planning Commissioners don't always get
>>copies of public comments or even the developer's submissions. The policy
>>is that they are available for review in the office, and most can be
>>copied if requested. Large maps cannot be copied at all, and colored
>>pages are copied in black & white. Comments on Colonial Hills were
>>distributed to planning commissioners, and comments on Hunt Field will
>>be. However the Planning office does not distribute traffic, historical &
>>environmental studies to commissioners. The developer and members of the
>>public may send materials directly to individual commissioners, and the
>>developer is sometimes told to do this.
>
>In almost 2 years on the Planning Commission, I was never aware of actually
>failing to receive a public comment from the staff.  Actually, a more
>significant failing was the practice of (often) requiring the developer to
>revise or augment a CIS, but not providing the revision to Commissioners
>until the evening of the meeting.  The same is true of public comments that
>are not received by the Planning staff at least a week before the meeting
>-- if they miss the assembly of the commissioners' advance packets,
>commissioners will see them only the night of the meeting.  The effect is
>to heighten the perception that the Commission's decisions are either
>ill-considered or simply a rubber stamp for what has already been
>negotiated between the staff and the developers.  Neither should be the case.
>
>I believe that the Commission ought to consider revising its rules so that
>if a CIS revision is called for during the staff review, it must be
>received in time to be put in the commissioners' advance packets, or else
>the scheduled consideration is automatically slipped to the next meeting.
>
>Pete Smith
>
>For prompt, uncensored discussion of Jefferson County civic issues,
>subscribe to OpenJefferson (OJ@egroups.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets
>you see and manage all of your finances all in one place.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/3012/0/_/432298/_/955915729/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>OJ-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

At 09:29 AM 4/16/00 EDT, Paul Burke wrote:
>
>a GREAT COLORFUL Zoning Map is under the "Products" & "Maps" buttons at
>www.exploremaps.com

Neat thanks for the lead!
...

>PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
>
>People may be interested that Planning Commissioners don't always get
>copies of public comments or even the developer's submissions. The policy
>is that they are available for review in the office, and most can be
>copied if requested. Large maps cannot be copied at all, and colored
>pages are copied in black & white. Comments on Colonial Hills were
>distributed to planning commissioners, and comments on Hunt Field will
>be. However the Planning office does not distribute traffic, historical &
>environmental studies to commissioners. The developer and members of the
>public may send materials directly to individual commissioners, and the
>developer is sometimes told to do this.

In almost 2 years on the Planning Commission, I was never aware of actually
failing to receive a public comment from the staff.  Actually, a more
significant failing was the practice of (often) requiring the developer to
revise or augment a CIS, but not providing the revision to Commissioners
until the evening of the meeting.  The same is true of public comments that
are not received by the Planning staff at least a week before the meeting
-- if they miss the assembly of the commissioners' advance packets,
commissioners will see them only the night of the meeting.  The effect is
to heighten the perception that the Commission's decisions are either
ill-considered or simply a rubber stamp for what has already been
negotiated between the staff and the developers.  Neither should be the case.

I believe that the Commission ought to consider revising its rules so that
if a CIS revision is called for during the staff review, it must be
received in time to be put in the commissioners' advance packets, or else
the scheduled consideration is automatically slipped to the next meeting.

Pete Smith

For prompt, uncensored discussion of Jefferson County civic issues,
subscribe to OpenJefferson (OJ@egroups.com)

Groups,
This is another way to read the final Farm Land Preservation Act (SB209)

http://129.71.161.247/scripts/as_web.exe?sbills2000+D+2717383

Just copy and paste to browser. This is the official WV Legislative site. For
any information on WV Legislative Bills or actions, go to
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/

Fred Blackmer
Your next Representative for the
       56th Delegate District

Hi Nancy -- Thanks for the nice note, and you're subscribed to OpenJefferson.

I appreciate your comments about my past input to "listener."  I hope that
everyone will make use of "OJ" as a prompt, civil but unmoderated forum for
unfiltered discussion of civic events by all comers, regardless of their
point of view -- what we had hoped that "listener" would be.

Pete

At 07:39 PM 4/13/00 EDT, Dennis Parsons wrote:

>I am Dennis Parsons. I have joined primarily to stay tuned in to what is
>happening in Jefferson County at the grass roots level. If I have a vested
>interest it is this: that I live across the Opequon Creek from the
>Spectratech facility (formerly 3M plant) and have have a somewhat increased
>concern regarding any affect their operations may have on the area's ground
>water.

Well, THAT's not hard to understand.  Welcome.  For whatever it's worth, I
recall a couple of years ago I discovered an EPA web site that gave
detailed information about discharge permits and performance for the
Imation (then) plant.  I don't recall the URL, except that it was something
to do with EPA's Right to Know (RTK) program.

We're fairly near neighbors -- I'm a couple of miles up Turkey Run from the
plant, so their emissions don't directly affect me, but we are ground water
dependent, which suggests that it'll all matter, sooner or later.

Pete Smith

I am Dennis Parsons. I have joined primarily to stay tuned in to what is
happening in Jefferson County at the grass roots level. If I have a vested
interest it is this: that I live across the Opequon Creek from the
Spectratech facility (formerly 3M plant) and have have a somewhat increased
concern regarding any affect their operations may have on the area's ground
water.

At 01:44 PM 3/17/00 EST, Scot Faulkner wrote:
>The following is appearing in local newspapers:
>
>
>IMPROVING OUR PUBLIC PROCESSES...

I would add one more proposal, with due credit to Paul Rosa -- the county
should adopt a "permit but disclose" rule for all ex parte communications
with elected and appointed officials on particular matters before them.
Such a regime, properly structured, would put most of the burden on the
non-governmental party to the communication, but permit a cross-check
through mandatory reporting of the fact of such contacts by the public
officials involved.

Pete Smith

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Budge

Dear friends:

Last Sunday I sent the following to the listener mailing list.  Since 3
days have passed, it seems clear that it has been rejected for posting
there.  That doesn't surprise me, but it does underline the need for an
open, uncensored forum for citizens' views about civic affairs in Jefferson
County.

I have set up such a mailing list.  To subscribe to OpenJefferson
(OJ@egroups.com), go to http://www.egroups.com and subscribe to "OJ."
Anyone can post, and all messages are directly distributed without delay or
the possibility of censorship.  Please join me, and make this forum a
valuable contributor to the free flow of information in Jefferson County.

If you're not in Jefferson County, or not interested, I apologize for
taking your time.  I compiled this address list manually, and errors do
inevitably creep in.  This is the last time I'll be doing this.  Thanks for
your patience.

Begin quote:

"Dear listener readers:

By now, most of you have presumably seen my message entitled
"moderation=censorship", which appeared over the weekend, and some have
replied with specific accounts of messages blocked from publication.  This
confirmation that a problem exists, combined with the messages of support
that I have received, has caused me to take the next step.

This message is to announce the establishment of OpenJefferson
(OJ@egroups.com).  Following is the 'official' description of the new
mailing list:


    OpenJefferson (OJ@egroups.com) has been established to
    provide an unbiased, uncensored forum for information and
    opinion about local affairs in Jefferson County, West Virginia.

    Messages posted here are never delayed, blocked, edited or
    combined with other messages by the same or different
    authors.  The only requirement is that posters use their real,
    full names, to promote accountability and a basic level of
    civility. In the near future, we hope to provide an on-line
    newsletter giving full, unbiased, professional quality
    reporting on all major civic meetings in the county.

Although I am listed as moderator, I expect this to be a non-job, since I
will not be seeing messages before they are posted.  I hope everyone will
agree that peer pressure is the best way to enforce basic levels of
civility, while preserving truly open discourse.  I hope you will join the
new list, so you can be sure you're seeing every opinion, and I encourage
everyone to post to both, to give your message the widest possible audience.

Please note -- for anyone who is worried about the volume of messages,
check your options as a list member on egroups.com.  You can choose to
receive all of the messages from a particular mailing list, a daily digest
containing all inputs in a single message, or none at all (reading only at
the web site).

To elaborate a bit on the newsletter -- we (a loose group of supporters of
the idea) are seeking grant funding and reporters.  Unlike individual
messages to the list, the newsletter will be edited, in accordance with
professional journalistic standards, in an effort to ensure that reportage
on civic events is as full, balanced and objective as possible.  Newsletter
postings will be clearly identified as such.

A note to Paul Burke:  Paul, I'm sorry it has come to this, but I feel very
strongly about censorship, however benignly presented.  If you decide to
change your mind about controlling the posting of messages to listener, I
would be happy to close OpenJefferson and return to the single forum model.

Pete Smith"

End quote



73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

Hey Lori!

I'm sure that the committee meeting is open to the public.  The kick-off
was announced in the Journal last week.  The next meeting is First Wed
in May (3rd) at 9 AM in the Bardane Conference Room unless modified.

For all:  The Journal runs a meetings column on most Mondays that list
the Jefferson County Meetings for the week.  Sometimes it's hard to find
but it's usually somewhere there.

In Re your candidacy:  I would be pleased to find out more about the
School Board's finances.  Where money comes from, where it goes, what
building is planned, what renovations are planned, the general fiscal
health of the County Schools, etc.  I presume that you know all about
that stuff since you are running for a slot.  I believe that others
would like to have a concise picture of where most of our taxes go.


Regards,
Charlie Hall
728-4777

Lori Stilley wrote:
>
> Mr. Hall,
>
> My name is Lori Stilley and I am currently a candidate for the Board of
> Education in the Kabletown district.  I would be very interested in
> attending the next Ad Hoc county meeting.  I was not aware of the date of
> yesterday's meeting or I would have attended that meeting as well.  Is the
> 9:00 morning or evening?  Thank you for the information.
>
> Lori
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Hall <crhall@...>
> To: Open Jefferson <oj@egroups.com>; listener@egroups.com
> <listener@egroups.com>
> Cc: Ed Smith <jeffcoaa@...>; Steve McKinney
> <mckinney@...>; Robert Jones <rjones99@...>; Mike Alveraz
> <arsenioa@...>; Steve(h) McKinney <rmcki99634@...>; Matt Perks
> <prbmdp@...>; Pete Kelley <wvkelley@...>
> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 10:11 AM
> Subject: [listener] Ad Hoc Coordination Meeting
>
> >I attended the kick-off meeting of Al Hooper's Ad Hoc County
> >Coordination Meeting.  I estimate that about 30 people were there.  Al
> >asked all to say who they represented and what they hoped might come of
> >this effort.  Most said that they came to listen but a few expressed
> >some thoughts about what might be accomplished.  Those that spoke on
> >that topic generally seemed to be interested in closing the gaps in the
> >County and supporting free and open debate on issues.  There was little
> >accomplished other than to figure out the best time and place for future
> >meetings.  The next one will be on the first Wednesday in May at 0900 at
> >the Bardane Conference room.  Al will have a volunteer facilitator
> >present to help us work out a mission statement and organize to work on
> >some issues.
> >
> >Since this was a kick-off meeting, that was about all that might be
> >expected.  There might not be anything to come out of this effort but it
> >seems to me that it is important to make a start at bringing the various
> >elements of the County into the same room on a regular basis so that
> >issues might be approached without the usual polarizing process driving
> >the debates.
> >
> >As the Chairman said,"The longest journey begins with a single step!"
> >
> >Regards,
> >Charlie Hall
> >728-4777
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Enter to WIN one of 10 NEW Kenmore Ranges!
> >Only at sears.com
> >http://click.egroups.com/1/2677/2/_/48192/_/955462298/
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Please FORWARD this to your friends. TO SUBSCRIBE to info about
> >
> >Jefferson County, send a message to listener-owner@Egroups.com
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send message to listener-Unsubscribe@Egroups.com
> >
> >OLD MESSAGES: www.Egroups.com/group/listener
> >
> >Send to the whole list: listener@Egroups.com
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avoid the lines and visit avis.com for quick and easy online
> reservations. Enjoy a compact car nationwide for only $29 a day!
> Click here for more details.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3011/0/_/432298/_/955471693/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> OJ-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Mr. Hall,

My name is Lori Stilley and I am currently a candidate for the Board of
Education in the Kabletown district.  I would be very interested in
attending the next Ad Hoc county meeting.  I was not aware of the date of
yesterday's meeting or I would have attended that meeting as well.  Is the
9:00 morning or evening?  Thank you for the information.

Lori
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Hall <crhall@...>
To: Open Jefferson <oj@egroups.com>; listener@egroups.com
<listener@egroups.com>
Cc: Ed Smith <jeffcoaa@...>; Steve McKinney
<mckinney@...>; Robert Jones <rjones99@...>; Mike Alveraz
<arsenioa@...>; Steve(h) McKinney <rmcki99634@...>; Matt Perks
<prbmdp@...>; Pete Kelley <wvkelley@...>
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 10:11 AM
Subject: [listener] Ad Hoc Coordination Meeting


>I attended the kick-off meeting of Al Hooper's Ad Hoc County
>Coordination Meeting.  I estimate that about 30 people were there.  Al
>asked all to say who they represented and what they hoped might come of
>this effort.  Most said that they came to listen but a few expressed
>some thoughts about what might be accomplished.  Those that spoke on
>that topic generally seemed to be interested in closing the gaps in the
>County and supporting free and open debate on issues.  There was little
>accomplished other than to figure out the best time and place for future
>meetings.  The next one will be on the first Wednesday in May at 0900 at
>the Bardane Conference room.  Al will have a volunteer facilitator
>present to help us work out a mission statement and organize to work on
>some issues.
>
>Since this was a kick-off meeting, that was about all that might be
>expected.  There might not be anything to come out of this effort but it
>seems to me that it is important to make a start at bringing the various
>elements of the County into the same room on a regular basis so that
>issues might be approached without the usual polarizing process driving
>the debates.
>
>As the Chairman said,"The longest journey begins with a single step!"
>
>Regards,
>Charlie Hall
>728-4777
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Enter to WIN one of 10 NEW Kenmore Ranges!
>Only at sears.com
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2677/2/_/48192/_/955462298/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Please FORWARD this to your friends. TO SUBSCRIBE to info about
>
>Jefferson County, send a message to listener-owner@Egroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send message to listener-Unsubscribe@Egroups.com
>
>OLD MESSAGES: www.Egroups.com/group/listener
>
>Send to the whole list: listener@Egroups.com
>
>

At 07:20 PM 4/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I attended the kick-off meeting of Al Hooper's Ad Hoc County
>Coordination Meeting. ...

Hi Charlie -- did you also send this to Listener?  The lion's share of the
audience is still there, of course, though I wonder whether Paul Burke will
approve  any of our messages these days...

Pete Smith

73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm

This was submitted to listener, but as yet has not been posted.
Group
     Is this new "forum" on 17 Apr designed to produce input for, support of,
or opposition to the current County wide information gathering process? The
County Commission and Planning Commission are officially gathering any and
all comments and suggestions regarding growth, regulation, and cost controls.
They are being diligent in making the process accessible and to generate
input from as many citizens and groups as possible. The current official
review process demanded by county residents will determine the direction
regulation and growth should proceed in Jefferson County. All should be
encouraged to participate in that process.
      All available information is important. It needs to be evaluated when
decisions have to be made. Great care however needs to be taken that insures
information provided out of context or irrelevant due to current law or
practices is weighed in that light. Delays in decisions that need to be made
caused by inaccurate information or side trips down dead end roads will have
serious negative consequences for Jefferson County.

Fred Blackmer
Your next Representative for the
       56th Delegate District

It is my hope that this "group" becomes the open exchange of ideas and fact
we had hoped for in "listener". Please consider this as my request for
membership in the "OJ" group. Thanks.

Fred Blackmer
Your next representative for the
      56th Delegate District

I attended the kick-off meeting of Al Hooper's Ad Hoc County
Coordination Meeting.  I estimate that about 30 people were there.  Al
asked all to say who they represented and what they hoped might come of
this effort.  Most said that they came to listen but a few expressed
some thoughts about what might be accomplished.  Those that spoke on
that topic generally seemed to be interested in closing the gaps in the
County and supporting free and open debate on issues.  There was little
accomplished other than to figure out the best time and place for future
meetings.  The next one will be on the first Wednesday in May at 0900 at
the Bardane Conference room.  Al will have a volunteer facilitator
present to help us work out a mission statement and organize to work on
some issues.

Since this was a kick-off meeting, that was about all that might be
expected.  There might not be anything to come out of this effort but it
seems to me that it is important to make a start at bringing the various
elements of the County into the same room on a regular basis so that
issues might be approached without the usual polarizing process driving
the debates.

As the Chairman said,"The longest journey begins with a single step!"

Regards,
Charlie Hall
728-4777

State Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglass will speak at the Clarion at a
lunch on August 19, sponsoreed by the West Virginia International Trade
Development Council.  Could be a great time to ask about the prospects for
state funding to help with implementing the Voluntary Farmland Preservation
Act in Jefferson County.

Here's the text of the press release:

The West Virginia International Trade Development Council


Press Release

For further information, contact: April 10, 2000 - For Immediate Release

Pete Smith
Chairman, Speakers Committee
WVITDC
304/728-8454

Bill Bissett, Public Relations
West Virginia Department of Agriculture
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25305-0173
304/558-3708   fax 304/558-3131



Agriculture Commissioner's Speech to Council Rescheduled to April 19

West Virginia State Agriculture Commissioner Gus R. Douglass will be the
guest of honor and speaker at the Council's first luncheon of the year
2000, to be held at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center in
Shepherdstown on Wednesday, April 19.  Commissioner Douglass will speak on
"Agriculture:  Growing West Virginia's Future in a Global Economy."  The
speech was originally planned for January 26, but a snowstorm forced
cancellation at that time.

The luncheon meeting will begin at 12:00 noon, and a hot buffet lunch will
be served at 12:15.  Tickets are for sale for $13.00, including tax and
gratuity.  Those interested in attending are asked to send a check for the
number of seats wanted to P.O. Box 2448, Martinsburg, WV 25402. To ensure a
place at the luncheon, checks must be received by Friday, April 14.

Commissioner Douglass is the fourth in the Council's series of
distinguished luncheon speakers, joining (in order of appearance): Former
U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, and
Congressman Bob Wise.

The Commissioner was elected to his eighth term as Commissioner of
Agriculture in November 1996, a tenure in office that began in 1964.  In
addition to his position as Agriculture Commissioner, Douglass and his son
Tom operate a 400-acre farm specializing in beef cattle, hay and grain
production.

Douglass serves on the West Virginia Rural Development Council, of which he
is past chairman, and also chairs the State Soil Conservation Committee.
He was reappointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to the Advisory
Committee on International Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases,
representing state departments of agriculture. In addition, he serves on
three NASDA committees, including International Marketing and Trade, Food
Regulation and Nutrition, and  is chair of the Animal and Plant Industries
Committee. In June 1998, USDA Assistant Secretary Mike Dunn recognized the
Commissioner's efforts to keep the State disease-free by presenting him
with the Pseudorabies-Free Award.  He was also elected for the second time
to serve as president of the Southern Association of State Departments of
Agriculture.  In February of 1997, the International Environmental
Management Control Committee presented Douglass with the 1996 Environmental
Technology Advancement Award. In addition to receiving this award, he gave
the keynote speech at the International Environmental Conference at Exeter
University in England. In 1990, he was enshrined in the Agriculture and
Forestry Hall of Fame.

Douglass served two years as president of the Southern United States Trade
Association, and has been frequently called upon to give testimony before
Congressional committees on national agricultural policy. Douglass has
served on more than 25 boards, commissions and committees.


-- END  -

Dear listener readers:

By now, most of you have presumably seen my message entitled
"moderation=censorship", which appeared over the weekend, and some have
replied with specific accounts of messages blocked from publication.  This
confirmation that a problem exists, combined with the messages of support
that I have received, has caused me to take the next step.

This message is to announce the establishment of OpenJefferson
(OJ@egroups.com).  Following is the 'official' description of the new
mailing list:


    OpenJefferson (OJ@egroups.com) has been established to
    provide an unbiased, uncensored forum for information and
    opinion about local affairs in Jefferson County, West Virginia.

    Messages posted here are never delayed, blocked, edited or
    combined with other messages by the same or different
    authors.  The only requirement is that posters use their real,
    full names, to promote accountability and a basic level of
    civility. In the near future, we hope to provide an on-line
    newsletter giving full, unbiased, professional quality
    reporting on all major civic meetings in the county.

Although I am listed as moderator, I expect this to be a non-job, since I
will not be seeing messages before they are posted.  I hope everyone will
agree that peer pressure is the best way to enforce basic levels of
civility, while preserving truly open discourse.  I hope you will join the
new list, so you can be sure you're seeing every opinion, and I encourage
everyone to post to both, to give your message the widest possible audience.

Please note -- for anyone who is worried about the volume of messages,
check your options as a list member on egroups.com.  You can choose to
receive all of the messages from a particular mailing list, a daily digest
containing all inputs in a single message, or none at all (reading only at
the web site).

To elaborate a bit on the newsletter -- we (a loose group of supporters of
the idea) are seeking grant funding and reporters.  Unlike individual
messages to the list, the newsletter will be edited, in accordance with
professional journalistic standards, in an effort to ensure that reportage
on civic events is as full, balanced and objective as possible.  Newsletter
postings will be clearly identified as such.

A note to Paul Burke:  Paul, I'm sorry it has come to this, but I feel very
strongly about censorship, however benignly presented.  If you decide to
change your mind about controlling the posting of messages to listener, I
would be happy to close OpenJefferson and return to the single forum model.

Pete Smith


73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@...

Don't forget to update your entry on the World Contest Station Database,
now at http://www.contesting.com/stationdatabase.htm