“Miller” 5 Amended Wins The Redistricting Derby

By Loudoun Insider

 

miller-5-amended

All I can say to this plan is – ick.  But unfortunately five supervisors (Burton, Kurtz, Burk, McGimsey, Buckley) voted for it.  The LCDC got exactly what it wanted.  Although it initially started as Miller Plan 5, Miller shifted his allegiance to the HOA plan and wanted one of the remaining supporters to put their name on it, which none of them did (why not???).  I think this was an absolutely reasonable request from Miller, especially after his original submital was revised.  The plan linked to above was the orginal Milker 5 but it was amended today.  We’ll need to wait for the final version.  Leesburg Today has a quick article up.

The big winners are Kelly Burk, who gets Leesburg as compact and whole as possible, and Andrea McGimsey, who gets her ridiculous “go west young woman” district made up of almost entirely new consituents.  I believe she also gets the Millers’ home Oak Grove precinct that Delgaudio wanted nothing to do with, but which logically fits in with Sterling.  The McG – ED swap makes sense for both because that precinct is reliably heavy Democratic.  More incumbency protectionism at its worst.  As I said above – ick.

UPDATE:  The LTM finally gets a story up, and Leesburg Today has the most in-depth story yetStevens Miller unloads on his Democratic brethren at his blog.

UPDATE 2:  I’ve replaced the “Miller” 5 map with a “Miller” 5 Amended map sent out by Scott York showing what the final districts will look like.


Comments

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    D-33, the same party was in power 10 years ago in Loudoun: an 8 member VSS/VLF majority.

    However, one of the biggest Democrats on that board opted to do the right thing, and refused to support the ridiculous gerrymanders put up for adoption.

    The districts we ended up with weren’t perfect, but they were the best compromises available at the time.

    And Mark Herring still has a political career.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    E. Other

    Yes. Saw that. So who is “other”?

    Or is that belittling to ask?

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “And Mark Herring still has a political career.”

    Please note that BOS representation entails much more than a calculation of what is best for one’s political career. I will take the committment and principled stances of Jim Burton and Sally Kurtz anyday (even when I disagree with them) to the go with the wind, “what’s best for my political career” calculations of Stevens Miller. Anyday.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, I just had to love those principled stances, with Burton coaching Sally on how to cut up some of the eastern precincts he’s on record as not caring about. She was a good choice to make the motion, in that she is retiring.

    And as her successor will “need the numbers” maybe–not the people or the communities, just “the numbers”.

    So, the new Dem attack on Miller will be because he didn’t take his medicine, broke ranks in print, and now must be put down?

    But that was decided before the vote was taken, for some reason.

    Oh well, thanks for the update Eric. After a day or two you’ll have the newest talking points pretty thoroughly disseminated, just in case whatever email Turner put them in DOESN’T go viral this time! lolol

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    You take Miller, Barb. I’ll take Jim and Sally. We will see who fairs better in life.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Love your joining of the Brambleton forum! “I got redistricted to the Catoctin District so it looks like I will not have the honor to share a district with your community”.

    So, will you start carpetbombing them with “stopped by HT the other day on my way home, and couldn’t help but notice…”

    You’re really there for the defense of the small school model, aren’t you? Not just to campaign for Burton and against Priscilla.

    Those open house brochures headlined “Private School Experience at a Public School Price” were really something, weren’t they?

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “You’re really there for the defense of the small school model, aren’t you?”

    You still refuse to get it, don’t you Barb? A. I can post anywhere I damn well please and I will anytime I damn well please to. B. You hate the idea of anyone counter-arguing your carefully scripted east vs. west screed and presenting some very practical issues to this community. Too bad, we are part of the same county and I will do everything I can to counter your divisions when I see them. This is part of what is implied by the plan that was passed and I see no time like the present to get things started. Next stop South Riding… and C. It is NOT about SMALL schools – it never has been about SMALL schools. It is about COMMUNITY schools and UNDER UTILIZED schools – but thinking of things THAT way does not help your “us vs. them” argument at all either, does it? So you will continue to ignore and continue to spout your poison. Proceed.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, where did I say you COULDN’T post anywhere you damn well please?

    It seems, in your intemperate and projection-filled rantings, that you would like ME not to post anywhere I damn well please, but I understand that there are two sets of rules, and some things are more equal than others, so it’s okay.

    Didn’t you see me say I loved it?

    Please don’t take it out on me that they’ve already responded to your “hi, I live west of Hamilton and I’m in Catoctin now, but here’s what you need to do to vote properly in Brambleton now that you’re in Blue Ridge” with “I don’t care about western issues”.

    By all means, you go wherever you please and say whatever you please.

    I’m sure the reception will only get better and better when the BoS passes CBPO say, 6-3?

    No response on those brochures? Private Perks at Public Prices? Not the message YOU want to acknowledge, I know, but the school did hand them out themselves. Apparently they DO.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    p.s.–still chuckling at you snarling at me that “I DON’T GET IT, because it’s ABOUT COMMUNITY!!!”

    What do you think my objection to this stupid plan is?

    Right, right, that’s DIFFERENT!

    rotfl

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Right Barbara, that’s why you wanted Lovettsville and Middleburg in the same district.

    Because you are all about community.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, you’re right–Middleburg has MUCH more in common with Brambleton.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    umm, and didn’t Lovettsville and Middleburg, through the association of towns, ASK the BoS to be in the same district, along with Hamilton, Purcellville, Hillsboro?

    Seems to me that’s the position they presented at the hearing.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    Indeed Middleburg DOES have much more in common with Brambleton than it does Lovettsville. It is only in your “it all about land use and development density” world that they do not. Route 50 comes to mind

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “…that you would like ME not to post anywhere I damn well please…”

    It has nothing to do with WHERE you are posting, my problem is the poison you spew. But you are free to spew it as much as you like. I intend to challenge you when you do.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “Indeed Middleburg DOES have much more in common with Brambleton than it does Lovettsville.”

    Okay Eric. You know better than either place you don’t live in.

    Let me know when you plan to sell that on the Brambleton forum as their wise neighbor.

    I want to have the popcorn ready.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barbara, I have Lazaro saying Purcellville wanted 10 districts.

    I really can’t find much about this association of towns (I think it’s the Coalition of Loudoun Towns), how they make decisions, etc…

    From what I can tell, the don’t meet too much. I’ll call around and find out about this and their position.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Scott York put up a great map showing the existing districts with the new districts shown as a red-line overlay, complete with precincts and precinct names and polling places:

    http://chairmanyork.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/miller5-red-line-overlay-map.pdf

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, that was their first choice.

    Even though it was not part of the adopted criteria.

    Lazaro said at the public hearing (have you watched it yet? You really probably should, if you are going to post such strong–and occasionally dismissive–opinions on it) that if an eight district scenario was adopted, they would prefer to all (with the exception of Leesburg, because of its size; it was the only town singled out by name in the adopted criteria for division for that reason) be included in the same district.

    Well, we have an eight district (and 10 was removed from consideration by the majority before this was adopted, so please don’t start sighing for it–it’s gone for now).

    How often they meet is immaterial. It is an offiical and recognized body comprised of the incorporated towns, and the BoS pays attention to them…when they feel like it.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barbara, I have strong and occasionally dismissive opinions about your strong and occasionally dismissive opinions.

    I don’t recall having a strong or dismissive (it’s hard to have both, but we are both up to it — lolrotflomg) opinion about the board meeting.

    If by dismissive, you think I believe this will have only a slight effect on elections and most people in this county are worried about 100 other things before they are worried about what district they are in, then yes — dismissive it is.

    I think Burton’s job got a little harder to get reelected (not to mention I think he has some real competition this time), and whoever is running in Catoctin will also have to be well-versed on a variety of issues (the horror!).

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, my impression of some of your strongly-stated opinions is that you lay them down on the authority of whoever you are, without the fundamental support of having looked up, watched, attended or otherwise participated in the event under discussion.

    You’ll make a few calls to see what the position of the towns is? Wow, what an important guy!

    They entered it into the record. Regardless of what you may glean through some old boy conversations (if they may be so described–who knows? No one), the process is a matter of record, testimony by official representatives of a variety of bodies is tendered, motions are made, pass, fail.

    If you haven’t watched the thing, what supports your arguments on position, plan or process?

    You’re a really important anonymous guy who doesn’t follow it to closely or participate, but you’ll make a few calls?

    Yes, I’m pretty dismissive of that.

    Go watch the tapes, and get back to me with an informed opinion.

    Or not.

    As I’ve said to you before, immaterial.

    (oops. dismissive of me!)

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “They entered it into the record.”

    Did the mayor of Lovettsville speak and did she state she wanted to be in the same district as Middleburg?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, sounds like you need to watch the tape too (as maybe you should have before you started firing off in every direction? naaaah, Fire! aim?).

    Lazaro presented the position of the association of towns, and so stated for the record.

    Funny, since you were all fired up about a previous iteration of the HOA plan when it didn’t include Hamilton along with the others.

    And you don’t live in any of them.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Eric, you can view the public comments that Barbara is referencing here: http://loudoun.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=35&clip_id=1719&meta_id=55130

    Lazaro is at 1:21:55. Hardly the plea for one western district. They wanted ten districts (not Burton’s ten). He said something that some could say is open to interpretation (which is why I want to talk to one of the reps of COLT on the phone and see his provided modification): “that at least one of the districts in the west contain the towns”, which was a bit confusing.

    The discussion and the vote can be found here:
    http://loudoun.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=35&clip_id=1730

    Barbara, it’s clear this anonymity thing will always have you troubled. I’m sorry.
    I suspect someone’s “importance” or “authority” roughly equates to how much you agree with them and not how much they may know about a topic.

    Your chiding me for calling to find out more information about an organization (not as you have so oddly characterized it) seems at odds with your complaint that I don’t know anything and don’t bother find out.

    And I watched much of the public comments and the meeting.

    Look, I appreciate anyone’s engagement in discussion — even those I disagree with (like, so often, you). As I’ve said to some on this forum with whom I have sparred with regularly, I am thankful for their engagement – whether here (anonymous or not), at board meetings, party meetings, at HOA meetings and all the rest — whether they are a subject matter expert or not.

    On this forum, there is a lot of heat. But there is also light, and that’s always good. I do sometimes respond to snark with snark. That is a failing to be sure.

    Imperfect I am. Whether I’m “important” or not… well that’s a deeply philosophical question that I will continue to ponder. I’ll do so outside in the cool spring air.

  • Linda B says:

    Here’s a tip for those of you who have read this far and are wondering why – it has helped my time management considerably:

    When you see a post with more than 100 comments, take the following steps:

    1. Enter the post.
    2. Hit CTRL + F
    3. Type in “Ravi Oli”
    4. Hit ENTER
    5. Read Ravi’s comments and enjoy.
    6. Exit the post.

    If nothing comes up, the thread was surely not worth your time to read anyway. Hope you find this helpful!

  • Frylock says:

    Thanks for the map link, LI. Very high resolution picture that clearly shows all streets. I looks even more gerrymandered now!

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, I’m not troubled by your desire for anonymity. Many people maintain that policy on the internet, and I don’t disagree with it.

    I am troubled by your seeming sense of entitlement in wanting it both ways.

    Your opinions, you are certainly entitled to them.

    However, with little or nothing to back them up sometimes (here’s where we get to the lack of reading policy, watching meetings, etc, and then making pronouncements), I see no reason to accept them as necessarily true “light”.

    I was present for Lazaro’s remarks. Yes, 10 was their first choice, as I said.

    However, 10 was never really on the table.

    It was never adopted as part of the criteria for division, and the plans were removed from the table in pretty short order at the last meeting.

    The stated preference was to be in one district together, and I think that becomes clear when he went on to say except for Leesburg, because of its size.

    With the addition of that context, I’d say it doesn’t lend itself to the possible interpretation of “please don’t draw a district line though one of our towns”.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I want to ask him, or another member of COLT what he meant. I would also like to see the drawing that he entered to the record.

    Barbara, I really don’t know if you or I read more or watch more meetings or ask more people questions. It’s never been something that I’ve considered when arguing with someone.

    I admit to a weariness of your “senses of entitlement” and charges of “wanting it both ways”. It just makes no sense and is oddly personal.

    People disagree all the time. Argue the merits and everyone will be better for it. Use snark, expect snark. Demand a resume, authority, or a certificate of importance as the price of admission for discussion, and risk being ignored by those that would find value in your knowledge.

    I’m off for a beer and more basketball.

  • Frylock says:

    “I’m off for a beer and more basketball.”

    Ed – How ’bout them George Mason Patriots! They can beat OSU if they get hot from 3-pt land. With VCU getting 2 big wins so far, maybe the CAA will start getting the respect it deserves.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “People disagree all the time. Argue the merits and everyone will be better for it. Use snark, expect snark. Demand a resume, authority, or a certificate of importance as the price of admission for discussion, and risk being ignored by those that would find value in your knowledge.”

    You DO understand! So, this will be your new policy? I look forward to it.

    Enjoy the basketball game.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I am so done with this comment thread!

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Frylock, my CAA friend. ODU would have beaten Pitt tonight had it not been for a last second oddball tip play on Thursday. I think VCU’s run ends tomorrow, but I am certainly rooting for them (have you seen better D in the tourney? I haven’t). Larranaga won’t be outcoached, and his guards match up. I’m concerned about defending Sullinger… Go Mason!

    Barbara, girl, you are in some kind of upside down universe. But we need folks that walk on the ceiling.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    LI, sorry. I contributed to it’s spiral.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    No problem – don’t let me stop you! I’m just about worn out on redistricting, however, and I’m not a college basketball fan.

  • sally says:

    Good post LI, surprised you are not supporting the 2 rural districts, since you like both Burton and Baldwin.

    Personally I think it is short sighted to include Landsdowne, River Creek, etc in Catoctin, and Brambleton in Blue Ridge. I think it would have been better to have a more purely “western” district, even if it was just one– someone who could, say, stand up for use value assessments and not have half its district opposed. I support use value assessments for farming, and I see even some of the most sophisticated posters on this blog do not understand the ins and outs of that — it is difficult to understand all the rules, if you are not farming or right in there trying to comply.

    With respect to use value assessments, I do think people with easements should not automatically get the deferral but should have to either farm the property or put it to some qualified use. And if an eased property is in open space as a qualified use, then the eased properties must comply with all the open space rules. Right now, eased properties are automatically considered “open space” and do not have to follow any of the open space rules. Eased properties are given huge tax breaks when they do not farm and do not keep the property open as the open space rules for tax deferral require. Mr. Burton should have to file a plan, for example, for his property showing what he is doing to better the environment, to clean up around his stream, etc, to get the deferral. He should not be given an automatic deferral, and allowed to let his property be so poorly maintained. Just my opinion.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Sally, I agree that a purely rural voice with a vote at the table would be better than what is risked with these districts, for both rural and suburban residents.

    I think Burton is going to have a hard time campaigning with the suburbs that were tacked on to him, and if he wins, I think the suburbs are going to have a very hard time with him controlling the 659 corridor, rte 50 to the airport, and a great deal of commercial and mixed use that he would rather die than see built (and start paying taxes), and rather die than see roads improved anywhere near them.

    Not to mention the hospital sites down here.

  • sally says:

    I agree with you Barb. I think the ONLY reason it was done this way was because they don’t want Malcolm Baldwin to run against Burton (may set up for a Clarke win) so they carved out the districts this way hoping one or both (burton and baldwin) would win. Burton is going to have a hard time with Brambleton, bigger than all the western towns combined, and Baldwin will have a very hard time with Raspberry Falls, River Creek, Landsdowne… they could both lose.

    Burton was rumored to be willing to withdraw and let Malcolm run against the R candidate, if there were only one rural district, but I guess that was not true.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I just did a new post on redistricting. This post will soon be off the front page and with so many comments many people have tuned out. I would suggest moving the redistricting conversation there. However, let’s try to keep the new comment thread pretty much on topic. Basketball and land use deferal and easement debates belong elsewhere.

Leave Comment