VRE Vote In January?

There was an agreement that the extra money
that Spotsylvania got to keep from the 2% gas
tax – would be used to accelerate the paving of
the unpaved roads in Livingston and Berkeley?

oh what the heck.. let’s throw in the 3 acre
subdivision rule…

would THAT be enough to get Waddy and
Marshall to vote in favor?

Yes.. I know .. I’m saying something so
blasphemous that it borders on inciting rioting!

Seriously – it took a brokered compromise for the
Dogwood/Chancellorsville decision…

why not.. at the least.. EXPLORE possible
compromises?

there may also be some “inside baseball” going
on here… out of the view of the public….

yeah.. I know.. that kind of stuff NEVER happens
…right?

yup.. you’re probably right.

I know some folks that ride VRE .. and it’s got
problems… operational and fiscal.. and in the
end ..it may not matter what Spotsylvania does
anyhow.

all the arguments pro and con on the Spotsy/VRE issue. It was even “on the ballot” as part of the “transportation” bond referendum and passed implicitly. However, VRE still remains a very “hot button” issue to many of our neighbors. As such, I really have a hard time seeing VRE getting a thumbs up from the BOS.

I came to this area in 1961. I was in the military stationed at Fort Belvoir. Back then there were two bus loads of civilians that commuted from the Fredericksburg area to FT B. I knew a number of those folks and they were not “come heres.” They were generational folks that needed a job. Over the subsequent years, prior to the time when folks started migrating south to live, that bus service grew from 2 to several in number and served the Pentagon and other NOVA locations. It was operated by a fellow named Lewis Howard. BTW those folks nor Lewis were subsidized from the public cash register.

we have many folks – deputies, teachers,
medical technologists, plumbers, a HOST of
people who work hard 40 hours a week to make
a living – locally – without commuting – and they
earn less …and they have trouble finding
affordable housing …because the price of
housing has been driven up by demand from
those who commute for higher salaries.

At the same time – we have some of those same
folks .. advocating.. limiting rural residential –
which is where a lot of local workers have to go
look for affordable housing.. since they cannot
afford to live in the subdivisions that commuters
can afford.

What I am saying.. is to look at both sides of
the issue .. understand both sides.. and see if a
compromise is possible.

the current process does not lead to an amicable
resolution IMHO.

I agree but I also think at the least that a fair
attempt at a compromise is worthwhile.

Folks can vote it down.. and then afterwards.. we
all know that we tried .. and people rejected it.

Don’t you think it a bit ironic.. that it is the folks
who constitute the new growth that now want to
restrict growth – and do it in such a way that it
actually causes harm to the folks who either live
and work local.. or.. as you said earlier ..took a
bus.. but paid a non-subsidized fare and did not
expect the folks that did not ride the bus to pay
their fares?

That’s what I mean when I saw – seek a “fair”
compromise.

When your essential bargain is to tax a deputy
to pay for a commuter to a job..making 3 times
as much money – at the same time the deputy
goes home on an unpaved road…. it’s a no go.

I also do not understand the “harm,” to those that live and work locally, issue. I presume you are talking about VRE; the fact that the locals will see an added tax on their gasoline costs. Am I mistaken that the county as a whole will reap new revenue from part of that tax money returned to the Spotsy coffers? That money could be used to pave the deputy’s road. Sounds like a “win–win” to me. Don’t forget that the commuter will also pay that tax increase, as will all those interstate travelers.