"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Manassas Caves In
By Greg L | 13 February 2007 | Manassas City | 21 Comments
A rather poor decision by Manassas City Councilmember Steven Smith opened the door yesterday for attorneys representing Howard Daniel to pretty much force the Howard Daniel Special Use Permit decision back on to the council’s agenda, which then had an opening to hide from a tough decision, the Manassas Journal-Messenger reports. It’s now open season in Manassas for anyone to apply for anything as long as they’re willing to make charges of racism, bigotry, homophobia or whatever else the smear of the month may be.
Steve Smith did not support Howard Daniel’s request when it was voted down in October, joining then-councilman Jackson Miller, Mayor Doug Waldron and councilman Marc Aveni in the majority. The attorneys for Howard Daniel then learned that Steve Smith had advised Howard Daniel on matters actually related to his Special Use Permit, and had a pretty solid basis to demand reconsideration of the request. Yesterday Smith recused himself, which pretty much confirmed his earlier and undisclosed conflict of interest. On a side note, can you imagine Howard Daniel’s surprise when one of his attorneys who helped him prepare the application votes against you as a councilman when the request is considered? At any rate, with Johnathan Way replacing Jackson Miller on the council and voting in favor of Daniel’s request, and mayor Waldron only voting when there’s a tie, Marc Aveni stood alone. I get a bad feeling that’s going to happen fairly frequently until the next municipal elections.
Now the precedent is set. If you don’t like a decision by the Manassas City Council, start making up stories about discriminatory treatment and you can get whatever you want. Steve Smith made it easy to set this precedent, and the rest of the city council demonstrated that if you heap enough press coverage on, you can easily get them to buckle. It doesn’t matter how many actual residents want the council to vote, or what the long-term policy considerations of the decision happen to be. Pile on a few ACLU attorneys and get some television cameras rolling, and the majority of the council will look for somewhere to hide. I’m probably not the only one to notice how quickly this issue came up and how little advance warning there was for citizens to weigh in.
In the not too distant future, we’re going to have another opportunity to play this game when the housing discrimination issue being pushed by government-financed “private enforcement” sharks moves out of the Department of Justice. This time it’s about special use permits for home-based businesses, which has an impact but not necessarily an overwhelming one. Next time it’s about zoning enforcement and controlling overcrowding, which have tremendous impacts on the city. If the city council hasn’t the backbone to stand up and protect the interests of Manassas City residents, the citizens are going to have to step up and lend them one. It sure looks like they’re going to need it, if yesterday’s action is any indication.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
21 Comments
Views: 1726
Loading ...
The City Council made the issue when they back peddled and turned a routine hearing into a comedy act. Political bickering on both sides led to this problem. No sense in pointing fingers in the name calling at this time….no one can seem to remember who started it….we all just “heard” from someone else who “knows” what happened. Face it…the City Council and the Mayor fumbled this one…BIG TIME! Last I heard, they were transfering funds to prepare a huge court battle. I would love to hear what made them change their mind?
If Steve Smith advised Howard Daniel on a legal issue regarding this special use permit he should resign from council. That is being irresponsible at best. As an attorney he should know the ramifications of his actions.
Shouldn’t a new public hearing be scheduled or don’t the rest of the citizens of Manassas matter anymore? This is a joke and one I don’t like!
Nobody changed their mind. Harrover, Parrish and Randolph voted for it - as they did last time. Aveni voted against it - as he did last time. Miller, who voted against it last time was not there. He was replaced by Way who voted for it. Mayor Waldron voted against it last time because it was tied could not vote this time because it was not a tie. The difference was Smith, who voted aginst it last time, did not vote because of the conflict. The vote was 4-1.
Greg,
I usually agree with most things that you speak to in this blog…exception this time. If Steve Smith had recused himself the first time this came up…The CITY would NEVER have been in this situation. I wonder how many other times he’s given bad advice either as a City Councilman or Attorney? Does he really know his client base? How many other people might be able to come back on the City for a conflict of interest call?
Humor:
Do you know the difference between an “A” and a “D”?
They’re still an attorney.
Yes, but had this been approved in a close vote before I doubt the demonstration of how you can force the council to cave would have been provided as it has. I would have supported a decision either way, but having the council seemingly react to pressure like this makes it a target for everyone who doesn’t like a decision to bring the circus to town.
I have to agree with the comment regarding Smith’s failure to abstain earlier. If anyone screwed up, then it was him. It seems that everyone else voted the same as they had before, if they voted before. I am against any business based in a residential area, where customers come to the home. I don’t care if it is an accountant, lawyer, Palm-reader, Chiropractor, Massage Therapist or call-girl. Residential areas are just that. I am disappointed that Mr. Way voted the way he did, and it will influence any potential support I may render, should he decide to run for re-election. Speaking of re-election, I hope that Smith thinks long and hard about this. He ran as a fiscal conservative, which was two lies for the price of one, and the voters will be reminded of it.
You guys should get your facts straight before you castigate a fellow Republican. Steve Smith recused himself because a member of his firm did some work on this man’s case. Smith may have not been aware of the conflict at the time of the first vote, and he has not been accused of being aware, but it is still a conflict.
How do we allow Kim Hossen who is a paid full time employee of Prince William Conservation Alliance to consistantly vote againt items that are in the Comp Plan, while spewing the liberal diatribe of her organization. Obviously a conflict of interest.
I thought that Steve Smith was an Independent, not a Republican?
Thats Steve Randolph.
Of course…what was I thinking? Thank you, Had to Say. But I believe my confusion may be as a result of the two comments prior to mine…correct me if I’m wrong, but the only “Steve” on City Council is Steve Randolph, right?
At least Smith voted correctly the first time and I think we should assume that he was unaware of the conflict. It apparently took research by the lawyers currently representing Howard Daniel to find the conflict. I too am opposed to locating in residential neighborhoods any businesses that bring in customers or clients. I made my views known to the City Council and am disappointed with those that voted to allow such a business in a residential neighborhood. I am particularly disappointed with Mr. Way’s vote and think that it is a very legitimate issue when it comes time to nominate party candidates. Republican party voters have shown in the past that they are not willing to renominate incumbents who ignore the will of the citizens of Manassas as expressed in public meetings. Certainly caving to the ACLU is not the way to impress the electorate. Mr. Smith, Mr. Aveni and Mr. Waldron have at least demonstrated that they listen to the citizens of Manassas.
Just went to the City Council website…I had no idea that Steve Smith was on the City Council. I should stick to my own area, I guess. Everyone has been very gracious about my gaff. Thank you.
It’s all well and good that several of you are opposed to businesses in residential areas. Perhaps you should work on making that the law. In the meantime, I certainly hope people like you don’t make it on to council. The fact is that it IS legal, and not liking it doesn’t make it so. When one of these permits gets turned down, there should be one whale of a good reason, and there better not be any businesses with similar circumstances that HAVE been approved.
These businesses in residential areas require an exception to the general law that they are not permitted. The City Council could simply just adopt a policy that it will no longer issue special permits. The Council would then not need a “whale” of a good reason to deny the special treatment being requested.
If it was the Planning Commission that recommended that the Council start approving these special use permits, they have failed the City horribly. The City has no effective means to enforce any limits on the special uses that they grant, such as number of clients or number of cars parked in the neighborhood, or for that matter even the hours that the business is permitted to operate. Thus, when a special use permission is granted, we are essentially giving the business a blank check to operate in a residential neighborhood without limitations.
Here’s the conundrum I face - while I believe everyone has a right to use their property within reason I object to the potential loss in revenue they cause. I also object when quality of life issues are generated (traffic, noise, parking, etc.) This massage parlor, or other home based business (like the 4 or 5 on my Street that didn’t even bother to apply for a license), result in a loss of demand for commercial property. The loss in demand in commercial property causes less commercial properety to be built which in turns causes my taxes to have to go up. Hmmm, seems their annual license fee should be equal at least to the additional real estate taxes that would be paid for a suitable commercial establishment.
If a home business operates according to the law specified or guidelines set (as in Mr. Daniel 1 client at a time with 1/2 hr between appointments and other points) then there really shouldn’t be an issue. The hope, I would assume, is Mr. Daniel’s bussiness (or any other home business)will get to the point where he has no other choice but to move to commercial property to continue to grow.
It’s very hard to start a “small business” without capital to start out in a commercial space. I don’t see commercial space owners giving space away or discounting it because a small business wants to occupy space. Nor do I see the “government” asking the commercial world for “affordable commercial space” as they ask developers for “afforable housing”.
It is an American dream to be a business owner. Those who abide by the law and do it properly should not be discouraged as the root of large business is the small business. I don’t know about you, but I can’t always find what I’m looking for at the mall or wal-mart.
I believe the City Council was given plenty of notice of what was coming before them in regards to Mr. Daniel. How hard would it have been for Mr. Smith to run a check (since he is an attorney) to see if he had any business dealings with Mr. Daniel. I know that if I walked into an attorney’s office with a legal action to be taken against another party, that attorney would in fact check to ensure he would not have a conflict.
Since Mr. Smith is an attorney it is his obligation to check on these types of situations. If he feels that would be too cumbersome, then he needs to decide if he wants to continue on City Council or as an attorney.
The best revenege is not to get mad…but to win. Mr. Daniels knew he had not been treated fairly and went about to make sure the City of Manassas followed its own rules. Kudos to him.
Maybe those of you so upset will vote out these city councilors. This is what a one-party system leads to.
Greg,
This suprise rehearing should come as no suprise to the citizens of Manassas. Some months ago, the owner of 9324 Main Street, Manassas (commercially zoned) had the owners of Things I Love, a small store located at 9406 Battle Street, Manassas, enquire about renting 9322 Main Street (contiguous to 9324 Main) for the purposes of expanding their business (Things I Love). Off street parking would have been no problem (at least 15 spaces at 9322 Main as well as plenty of spill over at 9324 Main). Well the neighborhood went nuts petitions were circulated and the Planning Authorities recommended against the Special Use Permit or rezoning of the contiguous residential property at 9322 Main. Seeing the writing on the wall, the owner of 9324 Main and the owners of The Things I love abandoned their effort to use 9322 Main for commercial purposes. This left the City with one less commercially valued piece of property and forced The Things I Love owners to relocate to 9425 West Street an already commercially zoned and assessed piece of property. At that time members of the neighborhood were promised that there would be no further encroachment of commercial property into the Old Town Residential area.
Fast forward to the last half of 2006. The City Museum was bequeathed the Carper House located at 9320 Battle Street. Now since the proposed use of the Carper House would be for “Museum” purposes it is my understanding that no Special Use Permit or rezoning was needed. The City Council merely had to accept the gift which would take the property off the assement rolls and present some liability to the city for renovation, even though Mrs. Carper left some money to fix the place up. The City Council appointed a public Commitee to study the proposal which promptly met without publishing the where and when of each meeting, as required by Virginia’s Sunshine Law and returned a recommendation that the Carper House be accepted as a gift to the City. The STAR CHAMBER COMMITEE packed the City Council with supporters on the night of the public hearing. One of the citizens to stand in support for the Carper House was Holmes Smith, who is reputed to be one of the largest SLUM LORDS in Manassas. But the point of all this is that there are plans to use part of the Carper House at 9320 Battle Street as “OFFICE SPACE” for the City Museum and that the Carper House has been “defacto” rezoned in the middle of an Old Town Residential area. There is no off street parking and it isn’t even contigious to commercial property. What happened to all the promises of NO ENCROACHMENT INTO RESIDENTIAL areas?
It is rumored that Councilman Steve Smith drafted the Carper Will and documents for the bequeathal. If true, how much money did he make? Did he get any extra when the the City Council accepted the property? Did he abstain on any of the City Council votes pertaining to the Carper House?
So who’s suprised that Mr. Daniel gets his way with Steve Smith as his counsel?
How do you find out for sure about this? Again, if true, Smith has no business being on the council.
I have never written one of these blog things before, so if I break some protocol please overlook it.
I read that a couple of writers didn’t like my vote on Howard Daniels home business permit. I would like to explain the reasons underlying my vote.
1. The Manassas Zoning Code allows home businesses under certain conditions.
2. Public officials take an oath to uphold all the laws of the land, not just those with which they personally agree.
3. All citizens and legal businesses are entitled to equal treatment
4. Mr. Daniels application met all the conditions, which were essentially the same as imposed earlier on various other home businesses.
5. There were no credible negative effects of his application.
It is quite possible the zoning code may change in the future. The Council and the Land Use Committee are having a public work session on February 21 at 17.30 on this very subject. But until the law is changed, we are required to equitably administer the law we have. End of story.
Wow a city councilmember who goes by the rules! Who’d thought it! Keeping you in my prayers Mr. Way…of course if you ask Mr. Smith, the law states, “that the council MAY not Will”…just telling you what he said in the council chambers during the vote.