Conflicts? Insider Deals? Hypocritical? Naaahhh, That Can’t Be Me Because I Am SO GREEN!
So I hear she is all in a tizzy about the recent blog attention she is receiving. Well, I must say she definitely enjoyed this type of attention when it was placed on her political opponents! She can dish it out but apparently can’t take it. She is being extremely hypocritical and should not have gone into politics if she was so thin-skinned. As someone pointed out in a previous thread, she must be sad her buddy The Operative vanished from the scene.
She was always demanding answers and documents from the last board, totally along the lines of what I pose below. If she has nothing to hide she should immediately produce the following:
1. A full accounting of her various roles at Global Urban Development and/or Climate Prosperity Project (GUD/CPP) with a timeline of employment.
2. Copies of all of her travel and expense records for county business related to climate change.
3. An itinerary of her travels on behalf of GUD/CPP, along with what materials she presented (LoCo items specifically).
4. Copies of all email and other correspondence between herself and any person pertaining to the Loudoun County Energy Strategy, especially those between her and GUD/CPP principals, funders, and/or consultants.
5. A list of all clients she has done work for or solicited work from either as a private consultant or through GUD/CPP.
She demanded this type of information from the last BOS and if she wants to put this issue to rest she can reply here and now with some answers. The public deserves to know just how much she has been mixing her political and professional interests.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Dec 12th by Loudoun Insider
Excellent list of questions. I hope they are asked at Monday’s meeting.
LI, don’t forget to request all emails from any other than her government account(s) too.
One thing I discovered during the whole flap over Chaloux killing quorum on the CTP last summer is the number of people in county positions who discuss county business through personal accounts (that little recommendation to the GA to fix that should go NOWHERE–it is nothing more than a license for the unscrupulous to get around FOIA).
Lots of communications on the CTP between Chaloux and a county employee who is also an activist, but on their business accounts.
Funny, when I FOIAed the county employee for correspondence relating to the issue on their business account and any other (non government) account they might be using, their response was to copy all agenda packets that they received on their government accounts from the clerk, at a cost of nearly $30 per hour for their time in doing so.
Be sure you ask for accounts other than govt, and whether there is more than one govet account.
One current supervisor gave me good advice about reminding supervisors of their duty to preserve FOIAble documents. I hope that person gives the same advice to this fellow supervisor now.
.
I tried my best to avoid this topic since I have many friends in the local environmental community. I am right there with them on general environmental protection and land use matters. But I was one of the leading voices against conflicts and insider dealing with the last BOS and I cannot sit idly by while any member of this BOS goes down the same path. My personal integity will not allow it. If it costs me personally, so be it.
.
It isn’t up to me to make this situation right, it’s up to Andrea McGimsey. She needs to answer those and other questions just like she demanded of the last board. If the last board had tried to push through a CPAM (which this really should be) after it had been significantly expanded and changed after initial public input, run through another entity by a tangled web of special consultants, given the public about three weeks to review the final product, and scheduled the only public input session a week and half before Christmas, she and her friends would HAVE GONE BALLISTIC! But this is OK because it’s for the right reasons. Bullshit.
.
Just like with the Journey Through Hallowed Ground mess, McGimsey is taking an issue that should have pretty wide support, making it her own special issue, and trying to force it through the BOS outside of regular channels. Personally, I think it’s an ego thing -she must make this hers and hers alone, and damn the process – I’ll get all the credit! It’s painfully obvious she used her elected office to further her professional career. Fellow environmentalists – McGimsey is the one you should be ticked off at for trying to manipulate the process and alienating many people who would normally be for the laudable goal of conserving energy. Not me. Take shots at me if you must, but try to reach down deep to see if you can spot the hypocrisy involved here first.
.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Hear hear, LI.
There aren’t two sets of rules.
In addition, saving money on energy makes good sense, as does NOT polluting, NOT wasting.
Using the average person’s concern about environmental issues (which should be common sense and not the game of fear so often played BECAUSE it gets results based on those natural concerns) to achieve a costly, speculative and UNVETTED end, for what appear to be personal reasons, has ZERO to do with caring for the environment, and everything to do with the kind of bad government McGimsey made a tidy living crying about.
Demand integrity, or else it is only a slogan.
LI, you need to post Ms. Waters’ plan, so the two can be compared and discussed.
Just emailed Sustainable Loudoun, asking that those in favor of saving energy ask Ms. McGimsey LI’s questions. Lo and behold, Ms. McGimsey responded to me, and the whole thread:
“I have no conflict of interest. I am disheartened by the kind of spurious personal attacks that are being used in an attempt to derail cogent discussion of these very important issues. But I guess that is state of American politics nowadays.
Andrea”
If she has nothing to hide, why won’t she answer the questions? More corrupt politician BS.
THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!!! “Spurious personal attacks”? They are all well documented and deserve real answers. She was never disheartened when she was lobbing such charges (mostly justified in my opinion) towards the last board! Let me be perfectly clear – this is not “an attempt to derail cogent discussion”, it is simply pointing out blatant hypocrisy. She is the one attempting to derail discussion of the absolute appearance of huge conflicts in this matter, both from her and Garforth.
Sally, LCCSS was one of McGimsey’s prime political avenues for her activism before her election.
http://deciph.com/pipermail/lccss_deciph.com/2006-October/000560.html
This links to a 2006 thread featuring some of McG’s activism regarding the previous BoS.
It bears reading, because it outlines most LI and others are asking McG to meet as a standard for her project, but directed to the previous BoS over the CPAM.
“This set of public hearings will likely be the last; they will want
> to move fast. That said, any delay on this terrible proposal would
> be good” (McG)
“No to greater county debt and rising taxes” (McG)
“Due to confusion by Supervisor Tulloch’s last minute proposal to
> change the CPAM, we’re not sure what the Board of Supervisors is
> proposing now …
> The Board should hold a public input session where the Board and
> county staff explain what the proposal is now. We don’t have a
> fiscal analysis … We ask
> you to then hold a new set of public hearings so we can give you
> meaningful input.” (McG)
“We need to show the supervisors
> that it is in their best interest to listen to the citizens and do
> the right thing. If hundreds of us show up, that will make them
> think hard about what is in their and the citizens’ best interest” (McG)
There is more, featuring activists who have also pushed various projects for persoanl benefit, but LI is correct on the hypocrisy.
There isn’t one set of rules for “good” people, and another for “bad”.
Let me chime in here as well. I fought alongside of LI and others for accountability in County matters. Andrea, the damning evidence is out there for all to see. You need to personally reflect on this matter, and you’ll arrive at the very same conclusion, if you are honest with yourself. You’re shoving an unvetted product down county resident’s throats, and adding a derogative financial impact on households in a very bad time in an economy that is beyond sour. All while you enjoy an uncomfortably warm relation with the author of a cut n’ paste that cost us $250 LARGE.
Answer the damned questions. Failure to do so is equivalent to the previous BoS members failure to answer a set of questions put before them. No less, no more. When you people tout your ethical superiority, there should be more than a damned slogan there. It should mean something, not be cheapened for political glossing over.
Well Dean, it IS a pleasure to agree with you.
Those quotes are priceless, Barbara! I guess she figures if that course of action was good enough for the last board, it’s good enough for her! Well guess what, Andrea, those tactics did NOT work out so well for the last board and their pet CPAMs – there’s the real lesson you failed to learn. Scummy underhanded rush-job tactics are no good for anyone.
.
This is just the tip of the iceberg – there’s some more good stuff coming on the conflict front. We’ll see who has real moral centers and who is just going to play along for political or personal gain.
More from Jonathan Weintraub and the LCCSS group–he calls Too Conservative “disreptuable” and takes a shot at Lori Waters, and ignores the questions/ethics issues I posed to the group re Ms. McGimsey.
From Mr. Weintraub:
“Hi,
I will testify on Monday but don’t have the bandwidth to do the work of comparing the two plans. I am concerned with Supervisor Water’s motives for creating an alternate plan. If the County plan contains guidelines that can be executed, or better yet, an executable plan, then it would have been beneficial for Supervisor Waters to focus on proposed actions and to explain the portions of the plan that should be executed, and those that should not. That fact that there is noise on two disreputable blogs (tooconservative and novatownhall) indicates that the Waters plan falls somewhere between a hostile effort to stonewall the will of the majority of the County’s citizens (via their elected Supervisors) or a simple political stunt.
Yours,
Jonathan”
THEN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.
Read those quotes from McGimsey above about the last board’s stunts with CPAMs. She is now doing the exact same thing! There was initial public input on a 50 page draft. Then an almost 200 page final report comes out (complete with glowing mentions of the author’s “strategic partners”!) with less than three weeks time for the board and the public to digest it. Then the only planned public input session on the final report is then held a week and a half before Christmas! Pure absolute hypocrisy.
Jonathan Weintraub calls me disreputable. I am not going to lose any sleep over that!
And how in the world does he or anyone else know what the “the will of a majority of Loudoun citizens” is on this? What a crock. The ends obviously justify the means for these people.
This has tea party written all over it…
And, I must say (having been a lurker here since the Steve Snow days), it’s nice to see everyone back on the same page…
I wonder who the majority really is?
Some people seem to think they hold title to the concept, no matter what the topic.
I would venture that the vast majority are the citizens who are too busy to notice this is even going on, but who will all get a bill for it.
Again, if that’s who McG said she was advocating for when she was a lobbyist, then it is glaringly jarring for her to suddenly rush something through when she is paid to actually be accountable to them, instead of using them for a prop.
The attack on Waters is funny, in light of the fact that both McG and Waters were endorsed by VLF.
I don’t think this is political so much as it is procedural and fiscal.
And, as pointed out originally, PRESPOSTEROUSLY HYPOCRITICAL.
Where is Jim Burton on this? He’s always acting like he is the king of exposing conflicts. He better raise hell about this, or will he not do it because the PEC is pushing it? Has anyone filed a formal complaint yet?
Rob — the situation warrants action. Plain and simple. If we were all to sit back and do nothing because these cats were put in place to stop a problem, and then they became the problem, it’s time to remove their asses, too. Looks like the Posse is gonna have to saddle up, minus one of the old guys….and I have just the guy to bring to the Party!
McGimsey needs to answer the questions.
.
I support efforts to become more sustainable and tread more softly on our environment. LI is right when he says those that care about these things should be frustrated with McGimsey for what seems to be, at best, taking shortcuts.
.
Touch all the bases — dot every i and cross every t — or you invite scrutiny. And scrutiny comes in all flavors: fair, unfair, and bat shit insane.
.
BM is 100 percent correct above.
Thanks for coming to my defense a bit, edmund. I am already getting emails saying “please think of the big picture and ignore this stuff”. Baloney, I say.
.
There are five Dem votes on this BOS that would probably pass whatever she put forth. She didn’t have to take that job and intermingle her roles, and the consultant didn’t have to weave in every reference he could to services that he and his “strategic partners” provide.
.
The buck has to stop somehwere, and this has been McGimsey’s baby all along. Don’t blame me for her faults in this. I would be just as much a hypocrite as she is if I ignored this after crucifying the last BOS for this kind of stuff.
LI, perhaps you could ask those who want Ms. McGimsey’s hypocrisy to get a pass if they mean this “big picture”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded
It sure does make it look more important to be as hasty as possible with lots of money.
You know, the quickest way to stop the “spurious personal attacks” coming for this “disreputable blog” is to answer the questions. If there’s nothing to hide, there’s no reason why the whole thing can’t be explained. Is that not the point of FOIA in the first place?
Edmund….DAMN!! Do you realize that this is one of those occasions where all the original illustrious disreputables from ALL WALKS have assembled and found McGinsey wanting?
Supervisor McGimsey is treading on very thin ice here. The more I read about and the more dots get connected this thing really begins to stink. This is however, only one aspect of this story. The other equally or more important is the fact that those advocating for this Energy Plan are divorced from realality with regard to costs. The 2.2 million dollar grant will run out in short order. If the board implements the McGimsey plan they will have added to the cost, size, and scope of county government. The county is currently 160 to 170 million dollars in the red, yet this board is contemplating growing the cost of government by adding a program that even supporters of the plan cannot accurately predict savings if any. The plan itself was a cut and paste job costing taxpayers $250,000. This whole appears to be a boondoggle wraped in a politically correct scam. See you Monday Evening.
Unless I’ve missed something I don’t think anything I or LI have written was “personal” anyway, unless criticizing the actions of an elected official is now considered a personal attack.
We’re not criticizing your hair or the way you dance, Andrea. We are noting public actions by you which seem to invite scrutiny.
(I also happen to think anyone who believes it worthwhile to spend massive amounts of money to mitigate human-caused “climate change” is a few brewskies short of a six-pack; however I think that about millions of people, some of whom I happen to like, so believe me it is not personal.)
The attempt to sidestep this controversy and failure to answer questions indicates there is something untoward going on here – with an added element of blatant hypocrisy.
Joe, everything is personal with McGimsey, that’s her big problem. This is her baby, the one that landed her a job with a fancy title. And don’t you understand, this is for the good of all of us, so it doesn’t matter if we follow standard procedures or not!
.
Ric James chimes in with some excellent thoughts on the energy plan and process:
http://www.hoodathunkblog.com/2009/12/loudoun-energy-strategy-a-call-for-focus-and-avoidance-of-unintended-consequences/
[...] Basically, this shows that Supervisor McGimsey really should consider answering the questions posed by Loudoun Insider. [...]
This is the email I received from Tony Norpel who runs the LCSS email thread:
“Sally
This is just for you and I’m copying Will. You owe Supervisor McGimsey a huge apology for your rude, reprehensible, incoherent and completely erroneous emails. You owe will an apology to Will simply because Will did read the CES and you did not. Or if you did, you didn’t understand it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your email is abhorrent. If conservatives had facts they would argue with facts and not resort to vitriolic personal attacks. They do not have facts nor do they particularly care about facts as your emails effectively illustrate. Thus instead of simply discussing the merits or failings of the CES, you call people names and act rudely and unkindly, making absurd charges without a speck of evidence or verifiable information. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Think of the rather heroic Senator Lindsay Graham who has been vilified by right wing extremists because he has the courage to stand with the science of global warming. Are you going to tell me that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and other right wing extremists share heartfelt desires to do what we can to “save” our planet? I doubt it.
But I hope your emails do encourage the folks who follow the Sustainable Loudoun email list serve come out to support the county energy plan on Monday night. Apparently it will be under ruthless attack and smear by tea baggers.
The county energy plan has been on the county server for months. The county staff and the Energy Efficiency Committee have held many public input sessions. To suggest that: “This new energy plan Ms. McGimsey is pushing is a total travesty. It is not honest, transparent or ethical — and the substance is not even remotely legal ” is absurd. If Supervisor Waters wanted to be transparent, why didn’t she just submit here concerns during the process and participate in that instead of waiting until the last minute to float an alternate plan? What kind of divisive politics is she playing? Now that you raise the issue, I am interested to know what motivates Ms Waters and where she is getting her money, .
Blogs? Sally? Seriously.
“Have you even read the “expert’s” report? I doubt it. So, you are in favor of the County telling people how large of a car to buy? And you think the Board has the legal authority to do this? to tell farmers no more trucks, SUV’s? ”
Sally, instead of reading blogs why not actually read the CES for yourself? Ah, there’s a novel thought, and an honest one.
Will has in fact read the CES. He is one of the few people I know who actually has. You are not on that list.
By the way, I’m attaching my first presentation to the BOS on October 19, 2009. One thing I know fairly well is the science of global warming. I mean specifically the actually science in the peer-reviewed literature. This gives me an edge because I can evaluate the credibility of a person against stark reality in at least one field. Waters has admitted to me on more than one occasion that she does not accept the reality of global warming and she has admitted to me that she does not understand science at all. In other words, her denial of global warming is not simply wrong but is based on nonsense. So it is not like Waters really has any credibility regardless of where she gets her money.
With respect to your fear that the county is going to tell you how wasteful your SUV is allowed to be, here is raw hard physical historical data showing world wide oil production. Note that we’ve hit a plateau. Everything up to the red line is history. Oil geology will determine whether or not you can afford to drive a car not the CES.
If you are so kind as to offer an apology to Andrea and Will, I’ll let it be. If not, I blast you. Fair enough? Please think about it over night.
I’m sorry I have to be harsh with you but on the other hand I will have a great deal of respect for you if this one time you admit you have been wrong. :+)
Even Governor George Wallace did that. And he is one of my personal heros for having the courage to admit he was wrong. It is the hardest thing to do. I’ve been a firefighter and have rushed headlong into burning buildings and faced down walls of flames because there was a potential life hazard. That takes no courage at all compared to simply admitting that you have been wrong. That is true.
Best regards
Tony”
I should have told Tony that the term “tea bagger” is quite offensive, and rude, but I guess he is allowed to be rude, and I am not allowed to ask honest questions?
My reply to Tony:
“Tony,
I did read the report, and it DOES say the County should adopt policies to encourage smaller cars. That and several other broad brush suggestions and proposed mandates to guide us in the next several decades that the County Board has no legal authority to regulate. And if you bothered to listen to the video I sent you, it says that Ms. McGimsey had an MIT student working for Loudoun County write a report to help businesses get started, and she offered that for FREE to people at the meeting– prospective clients? Loudoun is paying for her to prepare work product to expand her business?
And we don’t regulate coal in this County or have anything to do with coal subsidies, so I am not sure how it was rude to point out to Will that his request that I call my congressman to ask that oil subsidies be stopped has nothing to do with the challenge to Ms. McGimsey to follow the ethics resolution she voted on, to disclose her relationships, business, income, clients, etc.
If it is offensive to ask an elected official to publicly disclose their employment, their clients, their travel expenses paid for by the government (to benefit them financially? for their outside employment?), and the other things that have been asked of Ms. McGimsey, then I am not sure that this is America anymore. I can see how it might be rude to ask a King or Queen, but not an elected official, as to the source of income, and if the proposed vote would benefit the elected official personally.
Those are REASONABLE questions, and REASONABLE expectations. Call me rude all you want, and kick me off the forum because I dared to require of Ms. McGimsey what she has demanded of everyone else… and I say that is typical left behaviour–when challenged on any basic fact (like following the ethics resolution the Board adopted) pivot and smear your opposition and shut them down so their voice cannot be heard. Honest in America is listening to all sides, not shutting out data, facts, opinions that don’t comply with a predetermined outcome.
I think you owe me an apology.
And we will see how tolerant you are of people who disagree with you–because if you kick me off the forum–as you have suggested you will unless I recant and apologize for asking Ms. McGimsey hard ethical questions, then you will be no better than the scientific conspiracy worldwide to ignore hard conflicting data and shut down dissent. I want to live in a free world, not one where I am told what to think, to only pay attention to certain facts, ignore others. If you think your forum readers cannot handle reading different opinions/seeing different perspectives, then you do not have a lot of faith in your own positions.
Sally”
Don’t forget Sup. McGimsey’s the other “environmental” issue that she’s taken on: Limestone Overlay District. Her support for this resurrected mess shows that she doesn’t care about the science or the facts, just if it has some stamp of being pro-environment whatever the cost to the citizens.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/
Nuff said. Man, I’ve never seen a more concentrated effort against capitalism and free will by McGimsey and her cronies.
If you want to stop the coal dependency, get behind John Andrews’ project and promote that kind of dependable , renewable and revenue-generating power.
That’s an example of free markets and competitive capitalism.
Tony Norpel …..what a f####n’ tool…er…jewel. Anybody else see the self-propelled flatulation in that letter.
This is insane during a budget crisis to spend more money on something that can wait until the economy gets better. I would like to know what McG’s ideas are to reduce spending not increase it. Wait she needs her ego drug and this is it. Further she probably doesn’t want to wait because she will not get re-elected so it is do or die NOW. I hope the BOS see’s thru this BS and get back to decreasing spending to solve the budget. Approve green and leed projects like Kincora so we can INCREASE tax revenue and get some roads built. As well as as other green and leed commercial. The last thing on my mind in this economy is global warming. It can wait a few years, while the economy can’t.
They look to be following the East Anglia playbook – smear your opponents as uneducated Neanderthals and ban them from open forums. How American.
.
Let me repeat my thoughts on energy one more time. Energy conservation is absolutely needed, for our financial, strategic, and environmental health. No one has a problem with enegry conservation that I know of. I have no doubt that man is having an impact on the environment and even the climate. But we do not have agreement on what extent.
.
This plan was cobbled together by a close-knit group of special interests, and pushed through the county process by someone with clear-cut conflicts. If the energy plan supporters are so blinded that they can’t see that, then they are too far gone to help back to reality.
In the Peter Garforth International report, below, look at pages 14-15 to see “Owens Corning in a Nutshell,” international supplier of roofing, insulation and siding, and other building supplies:
http://www.aceee.org/conf/05ss/05ssgarforth.pdf
Are they going to tell us we cannot sell our home, or buy a home unless we replace the roof? add more insulation? new siding? don’t you think we should be able to make those decisions ourselves, instead of having Loudoun County mandate these things? What next? fines?
By the way, I saw somewhere that Peter Garforth was VP of MARKETING for Owens Corning in the past. He’s certainly marketing himself and his “strategic partners” well in the official Loudoun County Energy Satrategy!
Further if McG is so concerned about Global warming (and I know I have beat this to death) what about the energy gobbling Data and Industrial???? She say the new ones are leed certified. ha ha ha ha ha ha I laugh at that one.
Reality check!!!1 The big concrete bunker is. Which is easy, campared to other types of buildings. Butttt what about the actual operation. That is where the big lie is. The actual operation not the building is energy gobbling and is not leed certified. They are fooling the public.
Re Mr. Noerpel, isn’t he the one who told the BoS at an input meeting that he supported population control as being the most effective way to save the planet?
http://deciph.com/pipermail/lccss_deciph.com/2009-September/003542.html
Interesting read.
So, we have wise goodness and altruism on one side, and “tea baggers” on the other? I guess that explains why questions are an attack.
Some people DO think disagreement is an attack. Some people think truth is an attack: in October 05 I attended a BoS meeting, and entered into record the now-publicly available nonprofit tax forms that showed what Ms. McGimsey was paid in 2004 to be a “concerned citizen”, as she near-uniformly identified herself.
When walking back up the aisle to my seat after my two minutes, she leaned out toward the aisle and hissed at me, something including the word “obsessed”.
Yes, I am a bit obsessed when it comes to paid liars, and she has quite a track record as a lobbyist here.
But she’s a public official now, which is supposed to hold a higher standard.
Sally, I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the choir kicks you out. There’s a bit of a bunker mentality in the politics (yes, it appears to be primarily a political group, which has changed it’s name now four times in about 13 years: Loudoun Sustainable, Sustainable Loudoun, Loudoun County Committee for a Sustainable Society, and now back to Sustainable Loudoun–about concurrent with the last…election! lol) of the usual suspects there:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-06-bird-flu-prepare_x.htm
Preparedness is a good thing. Paranoia is another.
I have to back track we do have a true leed certified data center on shellhorn including the operation. Although it still gobbles a lot of energy.
Although Barbara population control in this county would help the budget, as far as the school system goes
Lee, we’ve gone down a hell of a path as a planet if some people can preach a wealth transfer as “climate justice”, and advocate (primarily third world) population control as a means of extending regulation to the atmosphere.
What will (DOES) that cost?
Here is the consultant’s plan and technical information re-written by Ms. Waters (we did not have to pay her to rewrite it to apply specifically to our County, with its HOA’s, proffers, the Dillon Rule, etc.) Ms. Waters document clearly shows she does “understand science” and common sense, too;
http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=c821ea90cc75460180a163b0152226a9&optimize=100&tabid=312&fmpath=%2fPress+Releases%2fSupervisor+Waters%2fPress+Releases
To address the complaint by Ms. McG that Ms. Waters did not give credit in her rewritten report to the consultant, it does appear that there is an acknowledgement page on the rewritten report, where the consultant is given credit.
And why can’t a County Supervisor use information that the County has paid for anyway? Are we supposed to pay twice to use information when it is rewritten?
Also, apparently the BoS just found out that 37 County employees worked on the consultant’s draft report (but no attribution to their effort-and the whole $250,000 went to the consultant?) and that a total of 1,290 hours of county staff time was spent on the “consultant’s draft report.” Perhaps the consultant and Ms. McGimsey are a little too concerned with getting all the credit? Why were not the county employees who worked on the draft report listed as part of the CES Team in the consultant’s draft?
sally it’s McG’s ego drug, she must have it all the time.
Ah, it’s good see the old crew is back on TC. How can anyone watch the McGim video and think there isn’t a problem here? She specifically discussed this grant. She needs to answer LI’s questions.
As to the substance of the bloated consultant report, why would Loudoun County start using money and staff time on cap and trade when it’s not the law of the land? Hasn’t even passed in Congress, and I doubt it will anytime soon considering e-mail-gate. Is money for cap and trade program development more important than sheriff’s deputies?
Why would Loudoun County want to reduce parking spaces? We already hear complaints all the time about lack of parking around townhouses and apartments, which are DENSE neighborhoods. Do we really want more of that problem? This is suburbia – people drive cars. Accept it.
Is it really cost effective to create this new program for energy performance stickers on buildings when it’s supposedly voluntary? Who is going to administer that program AND pay for it after the grant runs out? This is a pure set up for a mandate. I found the Sept. consultant draft, which was only about 50 pages, and the list of mandates in that thing is unbelievable! You can see what he really wanted to do and what the real motivation and ultimate plan is: regulate, tax, and regulate.
http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=8338454643f04da49dd8ca23fb29497e&optimize=100&tabid=312&fmpath=%2fBoard+Standing+Committees
Furthermore, check this out. Andrea presented the consultant’s Sept. power point slide at a Virginia Tech event. http://www.research.vt.edu/energy/presentations/va%20tech.ppt
Love how there is a Garforth copyright symbol on the slides. How can Garforth claim ownership?
Wow, there are just some many reasons NOT to endorse that consultant report. The BOS should go with the Waters version to only address the grant, not lock Loudoun into a 30 yr web of regulating every person, business, car, and building.
Thank you for posting the link Sally.
On first glance, it seems a much better approach in that it is narrowly focused onto specific projects.
It does recognize the time constraint on the grant funding, and leaves the door open to develop a comprehensive county policy through proper adopted procedure (and a CPAM if necessary) if we choose to go down that road (and spend the money).
The time constraint raises a question of its own: one of the problems with the McGimsey/LCCSS approach was timing–”we are running out of time to get this money–so just do what we say”.
While I can see the benefit, if the fed is printing money, to trying to get a piece of the pie, it pretty much blows any credibility any BoS member who votes for the McG/CES broadbrush speculation will have at budget time–we are spending money to get funny money to plan how to spend a LOT MORE MONEY.
Just because it has a green cover doesn’t make it a perfect solution.
I need to reread the two side by side, because the questions for me now are this:
*If Ms. Waters proposal (which would need to be reviewed by the public too!) is a condensation of the McG/CES draft, reduced to specific applications to specific ALREADY APPROVED COUNTY PROJECTS, then there is a chance that it could be adopted before the deadline. PERSONALLY, I’d much rather see a few specifics than a whole new Chapter of the Comp Plan adopted in promissory form.
*Like the GA in refusing the extension of unemployment etc, is it a crime if we miss the deadline? Whatever is adopted (if anything) must be subject to review and open process. At this point, we’ve expended $250K in grant money (and Lord knows what in staff time etc) to get more grant money. Given that the current proposal is an outline to spend a LOT more money over years, through some questionable regulation and huge growth of government, is it better to cut our losses now and just say no thanks?
Regardless of where the funny money is coming from in terms of who does the paperwork, it’s still our money.
Given we will be hearing (and saying) a lot about the budget in the next few months, maybe it’s time to let it go.
If a majority think the grant is that crucial, then by all means let’s adopt an approach like Mrs. Waters.
If a majority think we need to grow the government through a “backdoor CPAM”, as one of Ms. McG’s former colleagues liked to call plan amendments, then we have no business getting hot and bothered at budget time.
I think we should give all the money to Habitat for Humanity, so they can renovate homes for real people who are in real need. I would like to see the money go to something concrete, actual construction, not new positions, education, etc.
Although I do think developing commuter parking is a good idea as recommended.
I think we should leave the “education” of consumers as to the advantages of better roofs, more insulation, better more efficient cars/appliances– to the manufacturers who wish to sell those things–if they are good products, they will sell, and I don’t understand why the government has to “educate” the public about them…or why the county needs new staff to tell people if they buy better windows or install solar panels, their electric bills will go down…
Well said Barbara. You are correct in this dire economy we don’t need to spend money to get more money to spend more money on projects that will be made up just to spend the money and cost the county. Barbara again you are correct in the fact Waters is looking at already approved projects. McG is just trying to make a job for herself at counties expense at many fantasy projects she will make up to justify her so called being a want to be greeny.
The proponents of this plan keep saying it is “only a guide”, but isn’t that the same language applied to the Comp Plan? If so, then this “guide” will carry a lot of weight.
The money this QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR PLAN … proposes to spend is for a lot more studies that will go to friends of McG, and maybe McG herself. Who knows – no one knows who her consulting clients are. And she’s the one telling people at conferences under the guise of her day job (and using Loudoun County studies as props) that they can all make a lot of money doing this. Disgusting.
“Although Barbara population control in this county would help the budget, as far as the school system goes ”
Wow…CO2 = mouthbreathers.
Eliminate more mouthbreathers (you and me) for the win!!
Scary how they come that conclusion, huh?
The Garforth agenda to bring a mandate on every business and home in the county:
http://www.csemag.com/blog/Give_and_Take/17288-European_energy_snobs_vs_ugly_Americans_Pt_2.php
“Later, in a one-on-one interview, I asked Garforth why he felt the Europe was ahead of the U.S. He said that Europe hit its perfect storm 30 years earlier than the U.S., so they have a three-decade head start. I also asked him what the U.S. could do to make a giant leap in the right direction, and he said that the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) provides an outstanding framework for making buildings more efficient. (http://www.diag.org.uk/media/18832/epd_final.pdf). In the EPBD is a requirement for the measurement and reporting (labeling) of building energy use, which, Garforth believes, would be the most impactful step for the U.S. to make.”
As pointed out in the Leesburg Today column by Supervisor Waters: When did Loudoun County residents decide that we wanted to be like the European Union?
I think one of my “favorite” provisions in the EU label program is Article 9, which requires the inspection of all air conditioners. Exactly how many staff would Loudoun County have to hire to inspect every air conditioner in the county? Let’s see, do we want deputies, firefighters and teachers, or should we replace them all with air conditioner inspectors? You may not be safe and your kids would be dumb, but at least you would know the CO2 emissions and rating for your air conditioner.
And since humans exhale CO2, what sticker rating is appropriate for McGimsey?
Funny Prof!
.
Joe B. has edited down that McGimsey video, with some real jaw droppers in it. She actually says she got hooked up with her Climate Prosperity job through Climate Communities, which she had Loudoun County join WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS!
.
http://novatownhall.com/2009/12/13/andrea-mcgimsey-presentation-on-behalf-of-climate-prosperity-project/
.
Let’s see – Loudoun joins Climate Communities with taxpayer payment. McGimsey travels around on the county dime to conferences and such. McGimsey lands Executive Director job with Climate Prosperity Project. She then uses county prepare and paid for materials in her presentation for CPP and solicits clients..
.
But there’s no conflicts according to herand her blinded fans.
Wow, the prof’s first post must have been in moderation when I posted last.
VT, presenting a Loudoun report, with a Garforth copyright.
O-k-a-a-a-a-a-y.
Sorry, all questions answered (in writing, wth documentation) before any more voting on money for Ms. M.
(when were these disclosed?–and if they were disclosed, when were they approved? Is the presentations some consent agenda item?)
Anything with more than one link goes right to moderation.
.
Here’s the BOS action item submitted by McGimsey for Loudoun County to spend $12,000 of our money to join Climate Communities, where she (according to her own words captured in video posted at NVTH) made her connections to land her job with the Climate Prosperity Project.
http://inter4.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=83516bf7869d4ad08f934d82fde45722&optimize=100&tabid=312&fmpath=%2FSpecial+Board+Committees%2FAd+Hoc+Committee+on+Energy+Efficiency%2F05-28-08+Meeting
Oh, but she has noooooooooooo conflicts here whatsoever. I don’t buy it.
Joe B’s video is well worth watching more than once. You guys are doing this community a real service. Thank you to LI, Joe B. and Ric.Smart people asking the right questions.
This Energy Plan is a process out of control. There are so many questions there is no way this board can proceed. The plan and everything that went into making it must be examined in detail before any further action.
What I don’t understand is how Supervisor Burton, a world-class whistleblower (See: The Pentagon Wars) and vigilant protestor of anything that even smells of a conflict could have missed this clear conflict of interest on the part of Ms. McGimsey.
This one is not even close.
Wow. One would think that Mr. Burton would be backing away from this CES, because he certainly recognized “junk and bunk” at one point in his life.
Wonder if anyone on the Board knows that Ms. McGimsey agreed to this letter on behalf of Loudoun County, asking for federal climate change legislation:
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/aV5bVlhf20090922154459.pdf
Who put McGimsey in charge? was there a vote?
Also, here Ms. McGimsey, on behalf of Loudoun County, attended a conference as a moderator, where Van Jones spoke…
http://www.localclimateleadershipsummit.org/agenda.html
I just looked through the list of projects recommended by the consultant study, and almost all of it is other studies! Only a couple on the ground energy saving projects. Making more work for the strategic partners it seems to me.
Looks to be that she thought she’d found a way to funnel Loudoun bucks into the bankaccounts of a few good pals with a common direction.
I hope you all here and those that speak tomorrow evening can get the attention of the news outlets, so more of the general public can see what is going on here. These blogs are nice but, only a fraction of the public knows anything about them or reads them.
Don’t you think this whole schedule was planned out this way, Lee? After all, she learned from the best manipulators of the system around – the last BOS. Have a few early input meetings. Bring back a significantly expanded and revised document, give the public less than three weeks to digest it, then schedule the only hearing on it a week and a half before Christmas. Not enough people have time right now to pay attention to this, and the MSM is playing right along since it fits their broader agenda. Still nothing, whereas Snow and Tulloch got front page treatment.
I just have to repeat this earlier comment of Barbara’s, which lays out just how McGimsey felt about this type of process before she was the one manipulating it:
.
Sally, LCCSS was one of McGimsey’s prime political avenues for her activism before her election.
http://deciph.com/pipermail/lccss_deciph.com/2006-October/000560.html
This links to a 2006 thread featuring some of McG’s activism regarding the previous BoS.
It bears reading, because it outlines most LI and others are asking McG to meet as a standard for her project, but directed to the previous BoS over the CPAM.
“This set of public hearings will likely be the last; they will want
> to move fast. That said, any delay on this terrible proposal would
> be good” (McG)
“No to greater county debt and rising taxes” (McG)
“Due to confusion by Supervisor Tulloch’s last minute proposal to
> change the CPAM, we’re not sure what the Board of Supervisors is
> proposing now …
> The Board should hold a public input session where the Board and
> county staff explain what the proposal is now. We don’t have a
> fiscal analysis … We ask
> you to then hold a new set of public hearings so we can give you
> meaningful input.” (McG)
“We need to show the supervisors
> that it is in their best interest to listen to the citizens and do
> the right thing. If hundreds of us show up, that will make them
> think hard about what is in their and the citizens’ best interest” (McG)
There is more, featuring activists who have also pushed various projects for persoanl benefit, but LI is correct on the hypocrisy.
There isn’t one set of rules for “good” people, and another for “bad”.
Barbara Munsey
on December 12th, 2009
Someone emailed me that Green McG photo – it just had to go up with a caption!
She looks like Fiona from Shrek – yikes!
She looks like the Wicked Witch of the East! Green never was her color.
Can one really get paid to be a “citizen activist”? Where do I sign up?
I do not want to hear ONE word about how the schools need money, and taxes must be raised, until the questions posed here are answered.
Sally, your emails are spot on.
A big thank you to all of you for staying on top of this and not letting them get away with it.
“I’ll get you , my pretty. You and your little dog, too”
I saw someone say somehwere that nearly 1300 staff hours went into this plan from the county side. So where did that $250,000 go to with the consultant? And for what?
.
The power point presentation she gave during that video taped presentation posted at NVTH for the Climate Prosperity Project:
.
http://www.co.new-castle.de.us/countycouncil/home/fileuploads/images/keynote%20climate%20prosperity%20delaware.pdf
.
Is quite similar to one she gave with a county employee in 2008, that I presume was developed and paid for by county staff using county resources:
.
http://www.lccss.org/sles/McGimseyandSalehi2008.pdf
.
What other county bought and paid for resources is she utilizing for her other job???
Another good one I heard – when a supervisor tried to get a copy of the report they were told by a staff person that they couldn’t get it because it was proprietary information of the consultant!!! WE JUST PAID A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT! Any taxpaying citizen who wants it should be able to get a goddammed copy!
Sally, re your question on McG voting at COG, remember last year when Waters was still the rep to COG, and she had counseled caution on recommending an expenditure relating to climate change, and the Op fired up with much grief on how she had to go, because progressive Green majority like the Loudoun BoS shouldn’t have a rep to COG who was such a (insert Christian right wing pejorative variant here) that she didn’t even believe in global warming?
Well this year McG became the COG rep, and she can probably vote however she pleases.
That was the point, I suppose.
Lovettsville lady, back in 04 when McG appeared at every BoS meeting to demand the kinds of things she’s refusing now, several supervisors thought, and asked, if she was paid to be there.
Much histrionic wounded bleating ensued, because it was just another example of how these corrupt people that wouldn’t even delay a hearing or give more info to the PEOPLE would ATTACK a concerned citizen grassroots activist.
The month after the PEC filed its 990s in 2005 for the 2004 tax year, she appeared on their website under staff and started identifying herself as such.
What those 990s for 04 revealed was that she was one of their top five highest paid employees that year, and had received $60K and change salary plus $4K and change in other compensation.
Her staff bio on the website said she “developed their sidewalks and cyberspace strategy” for them through the Campaign for Loudoun’s Future, which is the only mention I have ever seen anywhere of her supposed internet company’s name.
This thing with the energy plan is right up there with her forte–she is apparently just doing it with government dollars now instead of nonprofit ones.
You can join Guidestar for free online, and pull up the tax documents as filed with the IRS.
Dean, given the pounding she’s taking now that shoes are dropping right and left, maybe it should be “It’s not easy being Greeeeeen……”
More from the lccss and energy@lists.loudounvoice.org folks, and Don Eaves:
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: [Energy] Urgent: Support needed to pass the full CES plan on
Monday at 7:30
Action: Your support is needed this Monday to urge adoption of the full County Energy Strategy.
As many may know, right wing blogs are mounting political pressure against the County Energy Strategy. As has been mentioned, just this Friday Lori Waters submitted her own substitute Energy Plan. She created this “substitute” by literally cutting-and-pasting elements of the full plan that is being recommended by the staff.
It is likely that opponents will show up and oppose the plan and throw their support behind Lori’s plagiarized version. Given that her plan was submitted just this Friday, there is clearly insufficient time to review it and hence it seems to be little more than a political maneuver to the derail process.
This Monday’s meeting will be an important meeting to attend and urge the support the full County Energy Strategy which is being recommended by staff, without delay.
Public input is Monday evening at 7:30pm at the County Government Center in Leesburg.
You can sign up in advance Monday morning until 12 noon by calling 703-777-0200.
Talking points:
? Ms Water’s substitute plan represents agreement with significant elements of the full plan, items that she voted against during BOS sessions, and hence the full plan should be passed.
? Having an energy plan helps the County proactively face the energy challenges facing the country in this century.
? This energy plan allows the County to get federal funding to jump-start projects that will reduce energy consumption in Loudoun.
? A proactive approach to energy planning will make the County attractive for business investments and high value energy market partnerships.
? The Plan recognizes the immediate value of a strategy which prioritizes efficiency?whether in homes and buildings, transportation or combined heat and power.
? Energy efficiency is the cleanest, least expensive way to meet demands for energy today and in the future.
? The Plan is an integrated approach to energy efficiency?in use and distribution?utilizing conventional andalternative energy sources.
? The Plan helps the County to minimize load increases to the electric transmission grid.
? The Plan explores the use of combined heat and power as well as economically viable renewable energy sources.
? The Plan has a 30-year vision with clear targets, short to medium term strategies with measurable results.
What follows is the talk I gave last monday as a reference.
Good Evening Members of the Board,
I am speaking in support of the County Energy Strategy, because it will generate huge savings in taxpayer revenue. It will allow the county to get nearly $2 million in federal funding to jump-start projects that reduce wasteful energy policies, which in-turn will save millions of dollars a year. This type of smart economic policy, based on leveraged investment of taxpayer dollars, is critical in these tough economic times.
Some worthy goals that the BOS would set with approval are:
* ?Provide for the total energy needs of the 271,000 existing residents and the anticipated 186,000 new residents with 21 percent less energy than today.?
* ?By generating a significant percentage of its electricity and heat locally, the County can greatly reduce the peak demands on the electric grid and the fuel waste inherent in distant electricity generation.?
* ?The second recommendation is to install about 25 Megawatts of Solar electricity by 2016, rising to 100 Megawatts by 2040, aimed primarily at reducing the summer cooling peaks, and reducing the need for increased transmission capacity. The combination of efficiency and the selective deployment of solar electricity would reduce the summer electricity peaks by as much as 35% compared to business-as usual.?
Further, this proactive approach to energy planning will make the County attractive for business investments and high value energy market partnerships.
Don
http://eventful.com/leesburg_va/events/energy-and-environment-meeting-lcfo-/E0-001-020954827-8
Interesting–If Loudoun County For Obama/LCCSS does it, it is a very good thing.
Anything other than the talking point gospel is a “right wing” “plagiarized” attempt “to the derail process (sic)”.
Now, don’t forget those talking points!
http://deciph.com/pipermail/lccss_deciph.com/2009-March/002861.html
oops, there’s more
LI,
37 staff members and 1300 staff hours went into the report–at $50 per staff hour this is a cost of approximately $65,000 that we have spent on this report in addition to the $250,000 we gave to the consultant. This is just the beginning…
Loudoun Interfaith Relief could have fed a lot of people with that money, is all I can think–our priorities are totally messed up. So many people who are suffering for the basics, and here we go just blowing money right and left, so people like Ms. McG can hob nob and funnel money her way…
Plaigarized??? Are they kidding? Is this McGimsey’s response to these legitimate questions – try to start a flame war with Lori Waters? What a cry baby.
The Loudoun taxpayers bought and paid for that report. Any supervisor or any staff person can modify it as they see fit as an alternative.
Wow. I don’t think anyone has called us a “right wing blog” in a long time. Usually we get crap for not being right wing enough. Go figure.
.
When did the communist party get a foothold in Loudoun?
When Organizing for America decided to start adjusting our Comp Plan.
Brian,
They snuck in, pretending to be something they are not: “ethical” “caring” “honest” “for the people” demanding accountability, demanding full vetting of things like CPAMS, demanding fiscal analyses, scrutinizing every aspect of every vote, every relationship, every penny of an elected official’s income– Holier than Thou!
then turn around and pull stunts like this…
Ms. McGimsey’s consultant’s “strategy” or “plan” that she is pushing so hard to be adopted right here before Christmas, before it is widely understood by the public, without the standard process for other major changes in planning, etc… is akin to the nuclear option in the Senate–adopt an incredibly broad policy plan to try to bind us many decades into the future, do it under a guise of something else (just getting a grant,) and just get it done quickly so no one has time to complain…or understand all the consequences…of future mandates, extreme probably illegal policies.
Ms. McG is obviously not planning on staying in this job for long, and is looking ahead at her economic future… planning on redistributing our tax money straight into her pockets. Google her and you will see who she has been hanging out with, the likes of Van Jones, and other extreme radicals, and you will see why she is not long for Loudoun.
Sign up in advance closes soon (noon), and I was number 34 at 10 a.m.
Number to do so is 703-771-5072, or 703-777-0200.
Proprietary? Plagarism? Ridiculous. TAXPAYERS through the county paid the consultant for this report. He can’t claim ownership. I hope the county isn’t letting him get away with that argument. That document belongs to the county plain and simple, and it hasn’t been adopted as an official document. Any Supervisor or member of the public can suggest amendment to it. Waters amends it down to be grant focused. She doesn’t even put her name on the front page – love how NVRC’s name was on EVERY page in the consultant draft. The consultant report also fails to acknowledge those 37 county staff who spent 1,290 hours working on this report. But I guess they just aren’t as important as Owens Corning.
Looks like Ms. McGimsey has some questions to answer indeed. But it would be fun to defend her on this blog if just to see Barb, Sally, and Monk go into apoplexy.
Barbara, I just called and got my speak slot – so hopefully I will introduce myself tonight.
That would be lovely! I look forward to it.
Here is a link to a European blog about conflicts of interest in the AGW/climate change world:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/all-roads-lead-to-pachauri.html
Andrea’s a piker compared to this guy, but hey, you have to start somewhere!
Eric, ….apoplexy? I worked hard to get rid of this kind of nefarious crap …and those that benefitted from that effort are now beginning to employ the same tactics??
I’m fighting mad over this. How dare they squander the hard work and selfless push of individuals across this county. I believe you are in that number, man. You probably feel as hood-winked as I do.
This is typical Andrea McGimsey behavior. I’m sure she will cry publicly over this. No one on the board respects her except for her drinking buddy Kelly Burk. Even her compatriots in the environmental community think she is out of it. She is destroying their agenda before their very eyes.
It is my hope that I get to meet all of you who will be in attendance this evening.
“37 staff members and 1300 staff hours went into the report–at $50 per staff hour this is a cost of approximately $65,000 that we have spent on this report in addition to the $250,000 we gave to the consultant.”
Sally, in light of your remakes above, you will be interested in my planned comments for this evening. We are very much on the same page here.
You all go get McG tonight. I wish I could be there but I have to go watch my sons dress rehearsal play at college tonight that he is directing.
It would be one thing if McG was not being paid one way or another from these climate people. But this is as close to a conflict of interest as it gets. And possibly worse.
LI thanks for exposing this and thanks to the rest of you all for all coming together for the common good of the public in Loudoun.
Perhaps the FBI should investigate ha ha ha ha ha
You guys need to report the staff report on-line.
http://www.loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/resources/RenderContent.aspx?data=4fe77d853e614276bec9a97e4d041257&optimize=100&tabid=312&fmpath=%2fBusiness+Meeting+Packets
They are attempting to downplay the importance of this document. Yet, this thing is clearly going to be the stated position of this Board. Andrea is going to march down to Richmond and DC with her climate change groups and use this document as evidenced support to lobby for cap and trade, mandatory energy sticker program, and who knows what else is buried in those nearly 200 pages. The staff report even admits, “[The CES] will require active engagement by the County in the coming years to see and support favorable legisation; support upcoming changes in building codes; and participate in regional efforts . . . The County may also choose to participate in discussions underway on a national level regarding energy performance labeling.”
Finally also a recognition that this thing is going to cost the Loudoun local tax dollars, p. 4 of the staff report: “The CES long-term vision will require continued support by all stakeholders over the next several decades which will include dedicating staff resources beyond the term of the EECBG.”
More fiscal impact . . . county staff would need training in new technologies . . .
And of course, they will certainly want more lobbying dollars to Andrea’s buddies at Climate Communities.
What is the background on Moorefield Station? I know that it was rushed through by Mark Herring and others on the last day of his term as a Supervisor–who will benefit by the use of this money by Moorefield Station? Who owns Moorefield Station?
The other projects in the staff report, other than the education and outreach, seem pretty straight forward, the youth shelter, the commuter parking lot, etc. Just wondering why the priority for Moorefield Station.
http://www.claudemoorefoundation.org/about.html
A little history for you sally.
Although is much much more. That is how it all started.
Moorefield is a high priorty because of the metro.
Lee J is correct. Don’t just bitch about McGreensey on this blog; go out there tonight and tell the SUpervisors what a bad idea this is and hand out LI’s front-page expose to the media present and ask them to report on her potential conflict of interest!
Or if can’t go in person, e-mail the board of supervisors ASAP: bos@loudoun.gov
Speaking of media – where is Mike Laris and the Washington Post?!
Interesting that staff is recommending to spend grant money on . . . drum roll please, more staff. So instead of actually implementing actucal energy saving measures, over half the money on the county staff’s list of priorities goes to planning, staff, and education. So much for the energy audit work on county facilities that will actually save tax dollars. Instead, let’s go educate the public and tell them how bad they are by putting a rating sticker on their houses. Evil HVAC systems. No more TV for you. Hot water, who needs it.
Perhaps the BOS should help reduce vehicle emissions and parking by eliminating the BOS parking spaces for all Supervisors who vote for the consultant report and tell them they can only walk or bike ride for the remainder of the term, in the name of being green of course.
Maybe we should get the certain members of the BOS to take a mandatory economics class from The Professor.
I will be at the Hamilton Town Council meeting to support a neighbor tonight, who has been struggling to get hooked up to public sewer, after having had their septic system on an older 12,000 square foot lot fail in 2006. They have water issues, too, with contamination by petroleum products by a neighboring property.
Again, there are very real and very serious problems in our County, with many people struggling for a life with clean water and other public health and safety issues.
Our government has too long ignored the plight of people like the ones I am going to support tonight in Hamilton, and it is very sad for me to see the likes of Andrea McGimsey so out of touch with what government needs to do–just one free for all after the next, one big grant after the next, no matter if the money is well spent, it is “free” right?
Haha… Eric, I thought the same thing when Barbara and Sally started calling people communists.
.
Brian, that is why some begin to refer to this site as a right-wing blog — when the nutty right starts to steer the bus around here.
.
Professor, do you really think this plan means no hot water or TV? No, you don’t. But it feels good to write it, and I’m sure someone will say it tonight — maybe even you.
.
McGimsey deserves some hard questions and every taxpayer deserves answers. But the truth — if there is one — will be lost as both the left and the right will see an opportunity to throw their favorite rhetorical bullshit around.
.
…and the wheels go round and round.
Edmund, I don’t recall calling anyone a communist.
I DO recall saying that a lot of it was crap.
Ed –
So are you promising that I will get an “A” energy performance rating sticker even if I have 2 air conditioners, 4 televisions (plus some various hook ups like x-box and tivo), 2 computers, a gas water heater, 2 gas fireplaces, a washer and dryer, 3 ipod stations, a Christmas tree with no less than 600 lights, no less than 100 light bulbs in my house, and the biggest santa and reindeer lit up Christmas display you have ever seen on my front lawn?
Who will determine if I get an A? Andrea or Al Gore? Based on what criteria will I be judged? Will I be judged in winter, summer, or spring because my energy use changes with the seasons? Will the stickers be green or scarlet red? The point is there are no details. I can only imagine how much it would cost to set up and administer. $$$$ Another tax coming to you soon Loudoun.
Good turnout tonight from both sides. We’ll see where it goes tommorrow. Personally I don’t think it’s going anywhere anytime too soon. Too many unanswered questions, especially in fiscal terms.
Hear hear, prof.
I had the pleasure this evening to follow a director of the PEC at the podium, who, when we simultaneously pulled into our parking spaces in the garage, glared at me in response to my smile and greeting of “Good evening.”
She stressed that the BoS shouldn’t “be confused” by two plans, but pass the original (snort!) one as a road map to the future, and to be aware that it would be necessary to hire staff to begin to implement it or it was worthless.
I would receommend sending emails until action is taken, because two minutes isn’t nearly enough to express what is wrong with this.
I got home in time to watch a bit of this. Barbara and Dean and Stone all gave excellent speeches. But I have to give Stone a AA for his. He did a beautiful job of hitting all the points hard and concise and very very effective. I also liked the guy who said if the previous broad brought up something like this you all would be ticked and he also very effectively brought why is there a ad on the back of a tax payer paid government document for corning and some other company in some kind of circles. ha ha all all the team here was very effective. And McG had mostly the greeny weenies and not very effectively and no big time anything to make her case. Not going to pass tomorrow at least not McG’s overpriced version. Excellent job to all of you that spoke.
I just got back in time to see the last few speakers. Folks speaking against the CES did a great job. Thanks to all who did it.
McGimsey left the county building huddled with Garforth and his entourage, probably trying to figure out how to save their baby.
I left the meeting last night wondering if Weintraub was calling for a sin tax on soda, or if he was going to pull off his “red shirt” to reveal a hemp woven t-shirt tyed green by organic tea leaves?
Professor, if you want to fill your lawn with shit from China and have a bonfire every night — I suppose it’s your right to do so. Unless you live next to Sally or Barbara, then you might get asked to cool it on the bonfires and tacky lawn stuff — some crap about asthma and not being able to sleep for the blinking lights.
.
What do you say when they ask you to stop with the bonfires and blinking lights all night?
edmund, Sally lives in a very different planning area than I do.
Had the dark sky ordinance passed under the 99 BoS, she may or may not have been in one of the subareas regulating/banning lights in order to protect the “historic intrinsic darkness” of the area (I’m serious–look it up).
I live in an HOA that actually has a competition on who has the best Christmas displays, and residents vote on best single family traditional, best townhouse children’s theme, and so on.
Whole streets get together and plan coordinated themes sometimes–my daughter and I have a favorite this year–one cul de sac has taken every tree and wrapped the trunks in red, and the canopy in green. They may take best block, but others are definitely in the running.
Those little LEDs not only have a wide variety of colors to work with, but last a long time, and use less energy.
As for China, going green will transfer even more of our money in the long run, won’t it, since we are an evil greedy developed nation, and they are a developing one in need of some affirmative climate action, aren’t they?
Maybe we can just cede them a few million acres of federal land, and call it even?
No? Well, at any rate, I hope you get everything you want for Christmas.
On second thought, I hope you DON’T, because if you did, then you’d have nothing to b!tch about, and that wouldn’t be any fun at all, would it?
Bah humbug?
lol
Going green, whatever that means, will transfer wealth to China? Have another cup of coffee, Barbara. It does sound like your community is busy transferring wealth to China.
.
You see Brian, it’s not about properly identifying, defining, and solving a problem, it’s about WEALTH TRANSFER!
.
I think the environmental “movement” — especially the climate change crowd — tends to be shrill and ham-handed. But they’ve got nothing on the it’s-my-right-to-muck-up-the-environment crowd.
.
Now go out and transfer more wealth to China, it’s the deal. You buy lights, they invest, they lend, you borrow, you buy more lights…
Ed, Who on here belongs to the “its my right to much up the environment crowd”? I didn’t hear any comments last night that warned the BOS that they’d smoke, throw trash in creeks and pollute the water at will. As a matter of fact, several that were against the McGimsey plan are ardent conservationists, and many of us agree with them.
*
Did you run out of things to complain about and are now merely starting to make them up to entertain yourself?
Edmund, I’m using the same lights I have for years.
And something interesting about the borrowing, apparently the local government units in China have been borrowing back from us.
It’s quite a mess.
Yes, looks like bah humbug is the right greeting!
Interesting, but when we’re all packed closer together to save the earth (and do you think people on smaller large lots will be allowed to stay there, once the objectives have been acheived? Dream on.), it will be that much more important for people to tolerate (ah! That word!) things like light, and noise, and movement, whether they have asthma, or proximity avoidance, or whatever new conditions have yet to be quantified and added to the lexicon.
Will we all just sit together quietly in the dark, and thereby keep warm? Too funny, but not really.
Interesting that you raise the one-dimensional riposte that anyone who doesn’t “care about the environment” by following the shrill party line thinks they have every right to “muck it up”.
No middle ground there, “burkenator”.
(Is it time yet to post a link to the South Park episode on The Smug? What would it cost, I wonder, to distribute empty glasses to people who speak on a rising inflection about higher and more aware things, with their eyes shut? lol)
So, are you angriest with me for reiterating that McGimsey was a paid lobbyist concealing that fact when she created the credentials that got her elected, or for pointing out that this is basically an Organizing For America project to get a capillary-level Copenhagen adopted in Loudoun, and not only create more credentials for the right people, but “create” more tax-funded jobs for them while we’re at it?
Sally,
How did your Hamilton friend fare? Inquiring minds (well mine anyway) want to know…
I’m not angry. Just observant.
.
I’ve stated on this thread that there are many that are concerned about the environment that should be frustrated with McGimsey, LL. I think we are in agreement here. If you are not one of the “it’s-my-right-to-muck-it-up” folks, then good. I’m happy. They’re out there though, aren’t they…
.
Barbara, you seem to me to be the one that has trouble with the middle ground. Was it not you who started with the “Organizing for America/communist” snark? The wealth transfer talking point?
.
Look, I applaud anyone who holds public officials to a high bar for the betterment of policy (LI gets the golf clap). When you’re using that bar as a weapon for political purposes, that’s when I turn into a Scrooge.
“Evil HVAC systems. No more TV for you. Hot water, who needs it.”
I am no energy angel but I did put in a ground coupled heat pump years ago and a solar hot water heater. FWIW, I find both very reliable and user friendly. THe ground coupled heat pump was fairly expensive to install but the solar hot water heater was not. Given that hot water representa about 20% of most home’s energy use followed by heating and air conditioning it is a very good way to VOLUNTARILY knock those two beasts down (if you can do it – Barb’s HOA may have a problem, I don’t know). I used Ancon to install and maintain the geothermmal unit (they really do a great job) and if there is interest, I will dig up the solar hot water unit I have.
To me, any County energy policy should include tax benefits to individuals who choose to install such units (since mine is already in I can’t benfit tax-wise but it would be a useful incentive for others.) Incentives to tighten up energy losses is good as well. The most efficient green energy is that captured from loss.
Another South Park reference by Barb. Indeed there is hope for you yet.
And replacing perfectly good things with higher efficiency is not always what it seems to be. One, there was a cost to manufacturer the original equipment and yes a cost to the environment. When you replace it there is still a cost to the environment. And all the new equipment cost way more then the older. The pay back both to the environment and actual cost is far greater then people think when replacing perfectly good equipment.
Indeed, Lee, this may be true but in my case, the existing heat pump was old and very inefficient. Also, I did not scrap my old hot water heater, I simply added an extra solar HWH and am pre-heating my water which just has to be kept at temperature in the old unit (a low energy use process – also adds to the life expectency of my old unit). Added benefit, I doubled the quantity of hot water in my house – with three teenagers, this is worth the cost alone.
So I guess the question is what do you mean by “perfectly good”? Older equipment tend to be the low efficiency stuff. The new stuff tends to be higher efficiency anyway. I usually try for a 4 year payback for any energy upgrades. But if we are just going to distill everything down to “will I save money?” we will never reduce energy usage in this country. Maybe many here are fine with that, I would prefer a change in that mind set.
Eric, it’s not that we oppose the very things you’ve installed in your house. We oppose the government telling us we must do these things or face a fine. That’s not far from “big brother” proportions often associated with communistic direction.
I’m actually in favor of renewable energy and alternative power options. The government doling out a punative system to force their use is quite another matter.
I favor private (or investor-backed) options that show the competitive free market edge of these technologies. Local efforts in that direction don’t cost ME or YOU anything. The implementation arrives in the form of a commodity and can be traded on the free market by it’s worth. If it excels, others will want to imitate it’s success. When their is heavy competition in that segment of the market, it could actually turn into a race of technologies to develop new products to capture the segment. THAT is the American way.
Hi Eric,
More delay for the family in question.
The Town Attorney was not happy to accept the Minutes from previous Town Council meetings, Minutes officially adopted by the Town Council, and wants to go back and listen to the tapes of the meetings in question, and the specific words, because she is not sure that the official and adopted Minutes (that she agreed to at the time) showing the Town took certain official actions are correct. The Minutes are the official actions, adopted by the Town, but she is not happy with what happened before.
She seems to want to make this simple problem as difficult (and churn her bill) as possible and is not someone who looks for resolution, but someone who likes to create problems and delay (and bigger bills) in my opinion.
A few years ago, there was a town council resolution to offer the family a sewer hook up at the then price of $6500, and the Town resolved in an official meeting, with official minutes, to give them the hook up and to loan them the money. According to the official minutes and official resolution (that the Town Attorney now questions) the Town Attorney was supposed to prepare the loan documents, and says she did, but there is no record of them anywhere, not even the attorney can find any copies, and the family never received them. I looked at the bills from the town attorney –amazing such a small town spends so much on an attorney– and she had billed nothing for any such documents in the time frame she said she did this work. (Question, the Town’s Ordinance seems to say that they should have been sent certified mail, but no certified mail receipts either.) Nevertheless, the Town Attorney reminded the Town Council that she is an “officer of the court” and under an ethical obligation to tell the truth, and she insisted she prepared and sent these documents that could not be found, and that the family was somehow at fault.
Soon after the family was offered the tap by resolution at a Town meeting, recorded in official town minutes, at the $6500 price, the town raised the fee to $25,000– and for this family even the $6500 was quite a hardship. Question: Did the Town Attorney and Mayor want to lend them the money? did they try to undermine the Town Council? for some extra dollars that they thought they could get from –more free money– grants.
Emails in the town file indicate that the Town thought there was grant money to pay for the increased tap fee, and they could just “sit back and wait for the grant money”–but it was not that easy. At the time of the original offer, the family had a contractor who had volunteered to do the sewer extension for them for free (they have to pay to have the line extended to their property, had to arrange with neighbors for easements, had to buy the grinder pump, pay for all costs) but with the economy the contractor could not do it, when the Town upped the price and things stalled for so long. There was grant money to pay for the sewer extension ($15,000) but they needed that to pay for the construction they are required to do– the Town pays zero–has no costs, is only looking to add a customer.
Last night, the family went with an attorney and told the town that there is nothing in the town’s ordinance that says it can revoke a tap that has been agreed to for a certain price, that the previous resolution should stand as a matter of law and according to the words of their Ordinances, the one in effect at the time — and the one just readopted this past summer.
The Town attorney said that giving the family the former fee was a “waiver,” and she said she had talked to the town’s bond counsel about their sewer loan, and the bond counsel said the town cannot waive fees under its loan agreement (something I am sure they can do under limited circumstances, like this mandatory hook up, and hardship, but the Town attorney has a predetermined outcome in mind, in my opinion.)
The Town Council said to her, the family is not asking for a waiver, just that the resolution offering them the $6500 be honored under the Ordinance as it is written– and when the Town attorney objected to this, the Town Council directed her to write a letter to the bond counsel to ask if the bond counsel had any problem with the Town honoring the agreement/resolution the Town made before the fees were raised, according to the wording of the Town Ordinances. The Town Council told her they had no problem honoring the $6500 as long as it was ok with their lender under the sewer bond.
The Town attorney said she would write a letter, but not sure when she can get to it. In my opinion, all she has done is to delay this, in a very unfair effort to get this family to agree to all the outrageous terms she has demanded. The $15,000 grant money expires if the work is not underway by the end of the year. The Town Council offered to have a special meeting, if the Town Attorney could get an answer back from the Bond counsel, but she seems intent to delay this, to punish this family again, putting them again between a rock and a hard place, refusing to facilitate, even though there has been a mandatory hook up from the County for several years now.. always some problem with going forward, never any resolution… the family has been to the last 3 town council meetings, and has been in many many times over the last years to try to resolve this…
The Town Attorney is nothing but trouble, in my opinion, and only cares about billing the Town huge bills, making everything as complicated as possible–and doing no real substantive work. And what has the Town paid for? a pretty messed up Sewer Ordinance that was just readopted this past summer that does not say what she says it says, or wants it to say.
Hamilton needs a new attorney, in my opinion, one who is more careful with the Town’s contracts and ordinances, and one who is more interested in the public good. She is supposed to be a municipal expert, but the Town’s ordinances don’t even comply with basic state law– the Town does not have certified copies of official ordinances, and old “official” ordinances, never certified, have hand written amendments and marks all over them– amendments have not been adopted properly as required by the State Code, records are not kept properly, the Clerk to the Council has not been instructed how to record the resolutions adopting the Ordinances or amendments as required by the State Code… it is really a little bit ridiculous–the Town is paying so much, and not getting even the basics…in my opinion.
Lots of problems in Hamilton, and ok, if the Town Council wants to keep her on, and suffer fine–they are making a conscious decision to suffer, but I have a real problem with the needless suffering that is being inflicted on this family in need of public sewer due to what I feel is the the unethical, and completely inept conduct of the Town Attorney.
Edmund, I do say wealth transfer frequently, because in case you haven’t been following Copenhagen, that’s all they seem to be talking about.
I responded to Brian’s (satiric?) question on communists getting a hold in Loudoun by saying it was Organizing for America.
If you choose to think OFA is a socialist group, that’s your construct. As their stated mission has been to help get the President’s policies enacted on the local level, forgive me if that’s what our CES looks like, particularly if Loudoun for Obama has been networking on the policy with the same folks who have been expressing support for it.
I doubt you know what ground I occupy, and that’s fine. As stated before to others, I don’t lose sleep over what anonymous bloggers think of me.
Now, in the spirit of the season, here’s a nice musical interlude that I hope everyone can enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI
Peace!
“Eric, it’s not that we oppose the very things you’ve installed in your house. We oppose the government telling us we must do these things or face a fine. That’s not far from “big brother” proportions often associated with communistic direction.”
Monk, this is hyperbolic rhetoric. The government tells us to do many things or face a fine. Many for the public good. Hook up to public sewer or use an adequately designed drainfield is an example. Although the wasting of energy is not as tangible a public health issue as sewage is, energy generation does create pollution issues and there are irrefutable national security issues at play here at a minimum. The government can only do so much to “clean up” the energy at the generation side but if the consumer is simply throwing the stuff out the window in the end, it is a BIG waste and a harmful one at that. I would LOVE for energy saving technologies to be a 100% cost competitive alternative but they are not always cheaper at the time of purchase (Lee pointed that out). It will take government involvement to move us away from fossil fuels and to more self-sufficeint and cleaner energy usage. Before you start jumping all over me, I am not advocating energy inspectors/police sort of involvement, I much prefer tax policies and the like to push your free market to the preferred end.
I’m glad you don’t lose sleep Barbara, whether from blinking Christmas lights or anonymous commentators on blogs.
.
The only ground that I know you occupy is the ground you lay out here, and that should be the boundaries of the discussion.
Eric, where do you think policies end up?
Gee, we pass something that sounds and feels so good, and then it becomes law.
And if people don’t submit to the necessary inspection to quantify the tax mandate, or fail to pay, then gee, maybe it does end up with inspectors calling in enforcement, which golly I guess maybe could end up with police.
But if it’s all for the Greater Good, it’s okay.
Now that the door is open, years hence we may have a sin tax on breathing, who knows?
Edmund, that would be nice.
So, I take it that means you will no longer be making assumptions beyond what I specifically state here?
I won’t hold my breath (it isn’t taxed yet–lol!)
The government is involved in maintaining the coal and oil industry. Why doesn’t the right have an issue with that? I’ve never understood this.
Barbara, when have I gone beyond your statements made here? I’ve not commented on, or made assumptions on something you’ve stated elsewhere.
.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don’t keep track of whatever you say outside of this forum — even outside of this thread.
.
You are anonymous to me too.
My opening statement last night was this Government can not implement this program in the face of a 157 million dollar deficit. I was wrong ! ( this never happens so please make a note of the date and time ) As of this AM the LCBOS has just revised the deficit to 190 MILLION ! Now that is one hell of a rounding error.
If we could not afford to do this at 157 million we sure as hell can not afford it at 190 million. Folks these dots must be connected. This is getting very ugly, this deficit is growing as we speak, yet some in Leesburg disregard reality and march down the path of continued spending. Long term spending to boot.
Sorry, maybe I read too much into your post to the prof above, where you stated “if you want to fill your lawn with shit from China and have a bonfire every night — I suppose it’s your right to do so. Unless you live next to Sally or Barbara, then you might get asked to cool it on the bonfires and tacky lawn stuff — some crap about asthma and not being able to sleep for the blinking lights.
.
What do you say when they ask you to stop with the bonfires and blinking lights all night?”
No boatload of assumptions there.
I am actually NOT anonymous, but I’m glad to see you getting closer to saying you know nothing about me beyond blogposts.
GStone, right before the break, Miller made great note of the fact that policy is not law–it has to get into the ordinance to be law.
Well, when you revise the Comp Plan (and that is apparently what this “strategy” seeks to do), revising the ordinance is a given because the two must be in conformance.
If it passes in its current form, I repeat: the BoS as a body has surrendered all credibility on the budget.
“Gee, we pass something that sounds and feels so good, and then it becomes law. And if people don’t submit to the necessary inspection to quantify the tax mandate, or fail to pay, then gee, maybe it does end up with inspectors calling in enforcement, which golly I guess maybe could end up with police. But if it’s all for the Greater Good, it’s okay.”
Barb, that logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that there should be no governmental policies or laws. Never took you for an anarchist. Do you feel the same about HOAs?
Eric, it no more leads to your assumed conclusion that I want NO government policy or law than your naive “I think we should incentivize saving the planet by taxing” DOESN’T lead to inspection and enforcement.
Give it a rest.
This is just a different version of the “why do you think it is a good idea to so stringently regulate the ability of people to put a deck or porch on their house that you want to make it a special exception?”/”SO, you WANT CHILDREN to DIE from drinking POISONED WATER?!!!!” dialogue.
Or non-dialogue, I guess I should say.
Barb,
A. building tax incentives does not mean “incentivizing saving the planet by taxing” usually quite the opposite. B. All government policies do not lead to inspection, enforcement, and police – I can name quite a few that do not. C. I have got no idea what you are ranting about poisoned water. D. How DO you feel about HOAs since we are on the topic of inspection, enforcement, and sometime even police for the good of the many (or at least the developer’s property value)?
I live in an HOA, and the rules were spelled out for me before we moved in–we had the choice whether or not to enter into the community and its agreements.
Changes in those agreements are a matter of voting by our corporate board, and any resident is allowed to petition them and provide input advocacy.
In addition, on some of the larger policy decisions, the HOA has held polling/voting before board action.
We have been under resident control for a while now, so the developer only gets to use the votes that go with the as yet unbuilt lots, and their commercial property.
Toll has had a history of NOT using their vote bloc, and even abstaning on some board votes before resident transfer on controversial issues, probably to avoid precisely the kind of insinuation you are making about being potentially concerned about their property value more than residents.
The only thing I’m not particularly thrilled with right now are our computer-chipped recycle bins that track how much we do (for coupon rewards!).
It pretty much closes the circle that began when stores started scanning everything we buy, now expanded through value cards, that allows the register to print out coupons just for us based on our buying patterns.
The idea that someone is logging how much I recycle (of what I buy) is a bit big brotherish.
Re your rearrangement of words saying that what you said is not what you’re saying, we’re back to me being supposed to agree to be the wall while you as Forrest Gump practice your ping pong.
No thanks.
Run, Forrest!
Barbara doesn’t like/understand hypotheticals. Noted.
Edmund, you’re assuming again.
Eric seems to only believe in one-way hypotheticals (his way), with which he reserves the right to make as malleable as necessary in order to keep making gross generalizations about the hypotheticals of others, and avoiding any flaws pointed out in his own constructs in the process.
Ping.
Pong!
I was referring to my bonfire and Christmas light hypothetical.
.
It seems you and Eric have a history. I’ve found him to be someone that doesn’t need much help in a debate…
Sorry edmund. If you wish to reimage it as a hypothetical, that’s fine.
Well, with the webcast down, I finally found the public access that allowed me to see the monstrosity pass, followed by Mr. York noting that Ms. Watres’ disclaimers, although seconded, were out of order, followed by York’s notation that although the PEC had only asked for $20K to mail their version of energy recommendations to every house in the county, he thought $30K would be better to do that with.
Kiss the budget goodbye.
We can surely do without public services, when there are so many instances of h0r$e$h!t that desperately need funding.
lololol
It is over 5-4.
Just as Leona Helmsley once advised us that “only the little people pay taxes”, Supervisor McGimsey and the Loudoun Board of Supervisors have basically told us that only certain people are required to follow the Board’s own ethics policies.
And you can guess who the exempted “favored ones” are.
Today is a very sad day for applied ethics in Loudoun County. Hypocracy such as this makes people lose their respect for government.
Can we please just get a BOS that isn’t bought and paid for by either the developers or the horsey set? This is soooo hypocritical the way this has been handled. I am as disgusted as I was with the last board.
“Changes in those agreements are a matter of voting by our corporate board, and any resident is allowed to petition them and provide input advocacy.”
Sounds like a representative government to me. Tell me do you rant at the HOA meetings about their ultimate implementation of a police state for the greater good?
Eric, another asinine assumption–sorry, “hypothetical”.
The last time I provided input to our HOA board was when they solicited resident feedback on whether to enter into a new bulk deal when our original cable contract expired, which was a few years ago.
You are correct, it is the next micro-layer of government, and of course we do have those who attempt to manipulate, or credential. It is a useful place to do so, since it is a corporate board under the same rules as almost every other.
It is convenient for the larger government to mandate its formation in any new community, because then residents who choose the form receive snow removal, waste and recycling pickup, and various rec amenities for a hyperlocal tax within the association.
You sound peevish, Eric. I’m sorry; hope you have a Merry Christmas or many happy returns of your chosen holiday.