Since many of our readers may have missed this post from last weekend: Loudon County, Virginia-- one of the most conservative counties in a state red to the core-- has done something quite unusual. County supervisors-- the equivalent of our Miami Dade County Commissioners-- have voted to bar campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before the board.
In light of last night's community council meeting in the Redland (reported on, below, by SunshineUnderground), this good news deserves a closer look.
There is no market for multi-million dollar homes clustered around a lifeless rock pit in South Dade farmland. But that hasn't stopped the wealthiest, most powerful lobbyists in Miami Dade who are own land purchased at speculative values far in excess of current market from trying to do what they have always done: bend county commissioners to their will.
Now, if the developers and their engineers and lobbyists were barred from campaign contributions-- would that make a difference?
Apparently the supervisors of Loudon County have felt the sting of voters furious with the costs of growth imposed by developers whose boom times depended on liar loans, mortgage fraud and worse. It's backlash time, in Loudon County.
Supervisors there have taken a look at the bleak landscape of foreclosures, empty platted subdivisions, and realized that-- by gum!-- the dominance of real estate campaign cash isn't such a good thing after all!
You might want to have a quick look at this entertaining website, chronicling the abuses of the mortgage industry: Implode-O-Meter. Could banks that Pino, Barreto, et al are connected to, someday make this list!
Pino and Barreto are major Republican campaign contributors in Miami-Dade. In Loudon County In 2003, Democrats occupied only 3 of 29 elected county positions. Today, Democrats are running nearly even.
What happened? For one, the building boom overran rural Loudon, just like it did here in Miami-Dade County.
Pino, Barreto et al spread platted subdivisions and its costs like confetti. It couldn't have happened without the blind support of the county commission, charged with zoning and permitting according to "comprehensive land use planning" requirements of the State of Florida.
Then came the crash, and now-- at least in Loudon--comes the backlash by voters. Could it happen here?
Declaring independence from builders' political money: imagine the howls of protest from County Commissioner Javier Souto, Natacha Seijas, Joe Martinez and the rest of the unreformable majority including incumbent African American county commissioners from inner city districts whose most reliable source of campaign cash is-- you guessed it!-- builders seeking zoning changes in distant farmland edging to the Everglades.
What a vote for freedom it would be for Miami-Dade and municipalities like Hialeah and Miami if voters demanded a reasonable limitation: that builders, lobbyists, engineering firms and lawyers who apply for zoning changes and permits are barred from making political contributions!
Anyhow, read more to satisfy yourself this is not an hallucination.
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:
Loudoun Board Bars Use Of Builder Campaign Funds
By Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; Page B01
Loudoun County supervisors voted yesterday to bar themselves from accepting campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before the board as part of a broad effort to restore public confidence in a body that some have viewed as too close to the development community.
Supervisors voted overwhelmingly for the change, with only Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling) dissenting. Delgaudio said such a policy was tantamount to curbing freedom of expression.
But Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said it was a necessary step, even though it will put incumbent supervisors at a disadvantage when running for reelection against challengers without such limitations.
"We are holding ourselves to a higher standard . . . than the people who might challenge us," Waters said. "But I think that it will help build the public trust, not only for the people, but for the applicants, so we're all clear what the rules are."
The change is part of an ethics package proposed in January by Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who has called for greater transparency in the wake of rapid growth in the county -- growth that he and other critics have said was spurred by county leaders who were too friendly with developers.
In recent elections, developers and others in the building community have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to local political campaigns. Some of the county officials who have benefited the most from the donations -- Republicans Stephen J. Snow (Dulles), Bruce E. Tulloch (Potomac), Mick Staton Jr. (Potomac), Jim Clem (Leesburg) and Delgaudio -- were generally supportive of the growth, which they said was a sign of economic strength. All but Delgaudio have been replaced on the board.
In January 2007, the close relationships between developers and some supervisors were detailed in a series in The Washington Post. Shortly after the stories were published, local authorities announced a federal probe into potential public corruption in Loudoun County. To date, authorities have not announced any charges.
Bob Maistros, who worked for Snow's campaign, said Snow and others were unfairly labeled as unethical because of their pro-growth perspective.
"People took the growth issue and implied that anyone who wasn't no-growth was in the pocket of developers. That's unfair and it's inaccurate," he said. "That's what damaged the public trust in the board, the use of the ethics issue as a proxy for the pitched battle over growth versus no growth."
In the end, in the face of intense opposition from residents who blamed the growth for their crowded schools and roads and rising tax bills, past supervisors rejected several high-profile development proposals. Still, it wasn't enough for voters, who ousted pro-growth supervisors (with the exception of Delgaudio) in favor of those who were critical of growth.
The current board has sought to be open in its relations with the community. During every regular board meeting, board members engage in a detailed and sometimes lengthy disclosure period in which they list all the people they have met with since the previous meeting, such as landowners, business owners, community activists and journalists.
John A. Andrews II, a developer and former School Board member, praised the board's decision yesterday to decline campaign contributions from those who have issues pending before the board.
"I just think it makes for cleaner government, so I have no problems with it," he said.
One plan to improve accountability, however, has not come through. Last year, in an effort to improve its reputation and save the county money, the previous board voted to hire an inspector general to conduct internal investigations. But supervisors did not follow through this year because of the tight budget.
9 comments:
Why should any business be allowed to write campaign checks. Think about it. Government is made up of people. Government should be for the people. To exclude one sector of the business community would seem unfair to me, as much as I don't appreciate builders, developers and architects getting into the game too heavily. Also, with the commissioners - why do they need such large budgets? Half of them don't even have challengers, and when they do, the strong armed forces tend to bully them and intimidate them into dropping out of the race.
I am all for this plan Gimleteye:
"...if voters demanded a reasonable limitation: that builders, lobbyists, engineering firms and lawyers who apply for zoning changes and permits are barred from making political contributions!"
Are you thinking Petition drive, I am!
"Red to the core"? Virginia has a Democratic governor and one Democratic senator, and three Democratic representatives.
Loudon isn't the only county in Virginia that is susceptible to influence by developers. The pattern appears to be to make large donations to local charities first to curry favor with supervisors. Sound familiar?
All local governments in Virginia could benefit from having either an Inspector General or an internal audit function. To my knowledge, very few of them do. Blame the Commonwealth for that one.
How about this:
1. Prohibit all business from contributing
2. Require all person's who make a contribution to prove evidence of a voter's registration. After all, if you don't vote, you don't need to make a contribution.
3. Capture employment information on voter's ID and require that businesses disclose hires and fires, which in turn cause an automatic update of the voter's registration. If you are a unemployed or retired, your card would reflect that.
This would help officials to run data base checks to see if multiple employees are sending in contributions from the same employer. The information may not show probable cause, but it would surely be helpful in an investigation of a stacking scam.
This is either a terribly stupid or terribly bright idea. Has anyone ever considered this (nation wide)?
isn't it unconstitutional to tell people who they can give to or not give to?
NO! Bribery is the illegal part.
How about cities that accept thousands of dollars from a devleper in "planning meetings", then put his results into the comp plan, and then just 2 months before the city votes to change the zoning for the developer to bring it in line with the comp plan, they accept 2 acres of land from him as a gift. Is that corruption?
Previous blogger, that is happening in Palmetto Bay. They need to have a soap opera to cover that cities politics. It's a hoot.
Third blogger above this comment, we wouldn't be telling people who they could or couldn't give money to. We would be telling them they need to give as individuals and at a capped amount, thus eliminating some of the edge that private interests have and making it easier to boot out incumbents with lousy voting records. What would be unconstitutional about that? Furthermore, I don't have 10 LLC's to my name, so I could never even try to exert the kind of influence that others do with my meager donation.
Post a Comment