"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!
Rishell Files With SBE
By Greg L | 6 April 2007 | Jeanette Rishell, 50th HOD District | 56 Comments
I’ve received word that Jeanette Rishell, erstwhile fringe lefty, unitarian “social justice” promoter, gay marriage advocate and illegal alien apologist has filed her paperwork with the State Board of Elections to run in the 50th House District against Delegate Jackson Miller.
Looks like we get to have fun again this year. Roemmelt and Rishell both running is more than a conservative blogger should be able to hope for.
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.
56 Comments
Views: 1551
Loading ...
Do you think Jackson is already working on his victory speech? Jackson was very successful in the GA this past session, which can only help him in the election this fall.
What has Jeannette done in the same time period to make her any more electable then she was last fall?
“Jackson was very successful in the GA this past session”
???
Go to http://legis.state.va.us/
Click to Jackson Miller
The record speaks for itself
Jackson was patron of 19 bills. (8 of those referenced immigration issues.) Of the 19, 6 were summarily left in committee or stricken from the docket (2 of those were immigration). 9 more were incorporated into the bills of other members (5 of those were immigration). Of those 9, 5 passed the House, but were then left in a Senate committee (4 immigration). Of the 2 remaining immigration bills, 1 that was incorporated was left in a House committee. And, the other (HB2937) was passed by the House, but left in a Senate committee. So, of the 8 immigrations bills introduced by Jackson, none passed. It is unknown if Gov. Kaine would have signed any of them.
He has another bill which passed the House, but was defeated in a Senate committee.
On the success side, Jackson had 1 bill that was incorporated into another member’s bill and passed by House and Senate and signed by Gov. dealing with housing assistance to employees of Albemarle and Prince William.
Also of highlighted note, Jackson had 2 bills that fully were his that were passed by the House and Senate and signed by Gov. Kaine. They required vehicle safety inspection stickers for parked cars and allowed local governing bodies to list private roads in developments with 100+ units for law enforcement.
So, of the 19 bills, 3 became law : Stickers, Private Roads and Govt employee housing assistance. (No immigration bills) Very successful?
He also introduced 6 House Resolutions (2 commendations, 2 celebrations, 1 that was left in committee and 1 to study the effects of overcrowding)
That’s our great guy in Richmond. Let’s hurry and send him back.
Anon 1107, (actually probaby Rishell or one of her social justice loons) your sarcasim is very evident. However, for a freshman delegate coming in on a short session that actually is a very successfull session.
Anon,
Yes, I think that is a remarkable record of success for the most junior member of the legislature. Miller has already emerged as a leading immigration expert in the legislature and has been looked to by his far more senior colleagues for his insights into law enforcement. So his bills didn’t pass. Big surprise. Freshmen don’t get to pass legislation. But in Miller’s case two small but good bills did pass. More importantly, he has played a leading role in getting the legislature to start confronting the problem of illegal immigration.
Show me a more successful first-term (actually, only half a term) legislator in Richmond.
More than his legislative record, I was impressed with how seriously Miller took the commitments he made during last year’s campaign. He focused on the issues he said he was going to focus on, took the positions he said he was going to take and supported legislation he said he was going to support.
That’s a record any legislator would be proud of.
Good lord, if he is now considered an “immigration expert” we are all in big trouble. I hope no one in the General Assembly turns to this rube for advice on immigration issues. Thankfully the anti-immigration tide is now turning and it’s becoming less and less of a potent wedge issue now that calmer and more reasoned minds are starting to prevail on this subject. If you don’t believe me, just wait and see how poorly Tancredo does in his run for the White House. Immigration is his only issue and he’s going to tank big-time. After that, the only ones who are really going to be active on this are angry bigots and xenophobes who are increasingly seen as shrill and way outside the mainstream.
I am amused to see how much slack those who comment have given Jack on how “much” he got passed during the last session. At no point in last year’s campaign did Jack ever indicate he would not be able to get legislation passed because he was a freshman delegate. In fact, he did the opposite promising that he get immigration reform passed.
But then he also promised he would not vote for a tax increase; instead he painted his opponent as one who would do that.
Given his vote on the recent Transportation Package, that is exactly what he has done. He just tried to remove his fingerprints by placing it on the backs of local councils and supervisors by giving them the decision-making power as to whether to form this area taxing authority.
At least Rishell was willing to take personal responsibility by indicating that taxes may have to be increased; Jack doesn’t do that just as he did when on the Manassas Council. Tax rates may have gone down, but assessments went up so bottom line, like the Transporation Package he supported, property owners in Manassas paid more in taxes when he was on Council.
The interesting news is now Jack has a record of raising taxes; maybe indirectly, but he still has that record. Given the number of mailings I received from him telling me that if Rissell was elected, my taxes would go up, I now know that he lied.
Parse it as you want, my taxes will go up in 2007. He promised in 2006 he would not suport any tax increases. He is a member of the majority party of the General Assembly which passed legislation which set the chincary in place that will increase my taxes. He voted for the specific legislation which will allow my taxes to increase. Therefore, he broke his 2006 General Assembly campaign promise.
Knowing Jack as I did when he was on Council, he never did anything about the drug dealing, the over crowding or attention to basic services like getting regular trash pick up and replacement of city street lights in my neighborhood. So this double talk about being againist increased taxes to get elected and then doing something different is not a surprise.
However, it will be the issue that will take him down. Manassas voters don’t support liars.
Boy, the Rishell people are really out in force, huh? Spin it while ya can, folks.
Con Vallian- I guess you don’t know what compromise means. And your effort to belittle Jackson by calling him Jack is insulting.
Anonymous- You must be Rischell.
Nice try Con Vallian. You must be one of the Rishell people from Arlington, because you obviously dont know Millers record. He actually refused to take the anti-tax pledge promise when he ran for City Council and when he ran for delegate. It actually got him into some trouble with his base.
As for Immigration. He — IS — the reason Manassas and Prince William are now moving forward with I.C.E. training for their respective police Departments. If he hadent started pushing for the training while he was on City Council it never would have happened.
I agree with most of what the pro Jackson Miller people say, but I do want to point out that he was the Council Member behind the City’s push to change the definition of family which is now being investigated by the Justice Department. Now he is not part of Council and he just gets to walk away while every one else gets to take the heat for such an ill concieved idea. And a quick note, I am all for stronger immigration enforcement, just needs to be done in a smart manner and I also plan to join the HSM group.
I don’t understand how Rishell did so well last time around.
The above is an example of what happens when special interests get the opportunity to dominate the public debate and then try to craft the story of what happens.
The Manassas City Council essentially modified the housing ordinances so they would mirror what the current standard is for defining eligible dependents for military housing benefits for the Department of Defense. Of course actually requiring that a single family residence should house a single family threw the illegal alien apologists and their ACLU friends into a tizzy, and they managed to mobilize the local Zapatista community to show up in force at Council and sufficiently frighten some of those who might not have such conviction in their beliefs as Jackson Miller to cave.
Several taxpayer-funded charities who make a substantial portion of their revenues by shaking down municipalities and businesses through legal threats then descended on Manassas seeing an opportunity to fill their coffers even more by trying to get Manassas to settle with them out of court. The council this time stood firm, and the issue then got handed off to HUD, which couldn’t find sufficient basis for enforcement action and bungled negotiations, which then have turned this over to DOJ where it is being neglected because there is no basis for them to take action on this either. Since then the city and Prince William County has agreed to participate in the Section 287(g) program, and is continuing to explore responsible solutions to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the area. Rather than be cowed, Jackson Miller has been promoted and is now taking this fight to the General Assembly.
Now the illegal alien apologists and enablers are touting this as some sort of major victory for illegal aliens, when all they have done is demonstrate to the local electorate that they need to fight for their city. Now they are, in rapidly growing numbers, and determined never again to allow local agents of the EZLN and their “Unity In The Community” enablers to try to cower the city council.
The EZLN is on the run, and their rhetoric is becoming increasingly desperate.
Note: EZLN = Zapatista Army Of National Liberation, which is engaging in an armed insurgency in portions of Mexico, supports Reconquista of the United States, promotes Marxist social and economic policies, and is fronted locally be the Woodbridge Workers Committee and “Mexicans Without Borders”. “Unity In The Community” and the Bull Run Unitarian Church have provided moral, material, and financial support for this EZLN front group and coordinated with them on public policy activism.
Greg,
You seem a little touchy! As you can read, I am on your side, but I disagree with the definition the City used, but not the effort. In the City’s world, I could not have my sister come live with me and my family with my neices and nephews should her husband die for some strange reason even if my house was large enough to house that many persons under a national standard that is used by the City to determine residential occupant load. Now, I must agree, that 4th cousins twice rmoved do not equal family in my opinion, but my opinion does not matter, only the United States Supreme Court’s opinion matters, and they say 4th cousins twice rmoved are family. I just think the definition went to far and obviously the City did too, once the complaints came rolling in. I applaud the City for doing something, just want them to be smart about it because now they are under the microscope and everything they do they are accussed of being racist, which I do not believe in any way. And while I plan to vote Miller unless some saviour shows up on the ballot, I think he was wrong on this account, but not everyone is right all the time, not even all the bloggers on your site, including you.
Is Jack Miller related to Harris Miller?
Who is Jack Miller?
citizen sam, the standard was first-relation family, plus two other unrelated persons. In your example, if your sister was the head of household, there would not have been a violation.
The ordinance might have needed a tweak or two to deal with unusual circumstances, but instead of offering improvements to the ordinance, detractors demanded that the whole idea be thrown out. Knowing some of the people on the council who were involved, I am certain that they would have been open to suggestions for improvements. No, instead of working to help find a solution to a very real problem, they brought in the ACLU, ERC and others to do everything they could to protect the ability of some to play games with what was before, and is now the law. That gaming of the system continues to endanger the citizens and degrade the quality of our community.
If any of the detractors had been working in good faith, instead of demanding the city council throw the whole thing out, they would have joined with the council to propose alternatives that would have helped satisfy everyone’s concerns. That never happened. This was all about trying to flex some muscle, do whatever possible to allow the area to continue to become a ghetto for illegal aliens, and encourage citizens to walk away and leave everything they have built so others could come in and take it over at a discount.
Yeah, I’m touchy. This was an outrage.
Anon 11:07,
As I said what has Jeannette done since last fall? Anyone, anyone? That is what I thought. Come anon, you should be able to come up with one thing Jeannette has done since last fall. Well, she did show up at the HSM meetng this past week. Did she sign up as a member? Nope. I guess all that talk about cracking down on illegals during the campaign was just BS on her part.
At least Jackson was honest on the campaign trail, and did exactly what he said he was going to do while in Richmond. He cannot help the fact, the Senate is full of Rino’s and left wing nuts.
COM: She actually did something since the election: she lobbied the Prince William County Board of Supervisors along with other members of “Unity In The Community” against participating in the Section 287(g) Program in the regional adult detention center.
Her presence at the HSM meeting was nothing other than to gather opposition research. I think she came away disappointed, since she didn’t stay the whole meeting, spoke with no one, and apparently hasn’t publicly commented on what happened.
Jeanette was there for the whole meeting, she walked out just ahead of me. What was her reasoning for her opposing ICE?
“What was her reasoning for her opposing ICE?”
She opposes the 287g program, because it would deport felons. These felons came to the US illegally, because they are just looking for a better life, and a better opportunity. Why rape and steal in their home country? The people down there have nothing. At least in the US, where the standard of living is much better, these criminals would get a better haul.
Those who criticize Jackson Miller do so out of fear. They know that Jackson will continue to push his agenda, will gain support, and will begin to log victories. It is only a matter of time before Virginia becomes a bad place for illegals to reside.
Greg,
Of course she was there spying. The fact that she has at almost every turn fought against doing anything about illegals is proof enough that she was lying during the campaign.
Oh, but she wants to start a new court…. no, what she wants to do is tax and spend. She realizes that a new court means new State or local employees, and who would pay for them? Us, of course.
She will not have transportation as an issue this fall. She can’t possible talk tough on illegals. Can anyone of her supporters tell us what her campaign issue will be?
citizenofmanassas, havent you already figured that one out from Con Vallians post? this is gonna be a nasty one. Her campaign and her supporters only have one thing left to do. Destroy Jackson Miller. LIE LIE LIE. They will distort every truth and make stuff up out of thin air along the way.
After this year Jackson Miller will wish he never even thought about politics. Unfortunate, but true.
The Rishell campaign should be reluctant to try that sort of a campaign, because she has a lot more negatives than Miller does. Once she fires off the first smear, the gloves can come off, and Rishell will be the one who is sorry. Miller is an incumbant now, in a strongly Republican district. Anyone who doubts the leanings of the 50th take a look at the last election results. Allen, Wolf and Miller all won the 50th, inspite of the so-called anti GOP feelings among the voters. In addition to the incumbant advantage, Miller enjoys the full support of a well-organized, aggressive local party unit. Rishell has little to no support from the State Party, who don’t see this race as competative, and will be more worried about keeping their own incumbants safe, rather than waste resources on her campaign. The Dem party in Manassas is a joke, no party exists in Manassas Park, and the County Dems are in such total confusion due to their leadership shake-up. No help there. Lastly, I doubt that Colgan, Ebert, or any other elected Dem will donate money or endorse her candidacy, for fear of aligning themselves with an uber-liberal, while running for re-election themselves.
On the issue of illegal immigration, Miller will slaughter her. Her advocacy for illegals will be pointed out to the voters, as it was during the last election. Her scheme to increase taxes and opposition to using general-fund money for transportation is rendered moot, as the Governor actually increased the amount of general fund money to be spent on transportation.
Rishell will lose by an even bigger margin this time around. Sure, she’ll get the freak-vote, and a little freak-money, but that’s about it.
Batson,
So true. I love the one comment by Anon, as if the entire anti-illegal issue rests on one person. If anything, illegal immigration is growing as an issue around the Nation.
Of course it does show just how poor Jeannette positions are, when her supporters attempt to down play an issue. So, illegal immigration, and transportation are off the table. What else does she have? I am still waiting to hear from all of the “Anons” that have posted in favor of Jeannette to reply. If you can’t do it here, without having to provide your name, where else can you do it?
“Thankfully the anti-immigration tide is now turning and it’s becoming less and less of a potent wedge issue now that calmer and more reasoned minds are starting to prevail on this subject.”
It is still very much a wedge issue, especially in the 50th. Unfortunately, the wedge that Rishell gets is like that tiny little slice of Pizza that is the last to be eaten. Her base, the wacko-liberal gay&lesbian-illegal alien-marxist crowd will only get more shrill in their opposition to any efforts by our legislators to deal with the issue. This shrillness is because the light they see at the end of the tunnel is a freght-train called HSM. They know that Miller will keep putting in these bills, and eventually, they will be passed. Jeanette Rishel, Dexter Fox and the Fuzzy-faced Frauen, Nancy Layall, and the rest of the kook-fringe lefties can see that now that the citizens have their backs up, it is only a matter of time.
I can almost hear the wailing at the BRUU!
Greg,
You are wrong, wrong, wrong about the situation I proposed. My neices and nephews under the City ordinance that was adopted are not my family. They are the third step of consanquinity (hope I spelled that right). This I am absolutely positive about. The third step of consanquinity was considered unrelated in the ordinance and if my sister had two children then both of them could not move in as you are only allowed one unrelated person, assuming I am the head of household, and if I put my sister as head of household, then my sisters neices and nephews (my children) are unrelated to her. You can try to spin it any way you want, but this was wrong, wrong, wrong any way you cut it. I don’t want big brother coming in and telling me which family members can live with me and if you do, then you need to move to China. I hate to say this, but I thought you might really consider diferent points of view but I see that you want things your way and anybody elses views are wrong.
OK, if consanguinity plus a couple of unrelated others is a bad deal, just how are we to define what legally constitutes the group of persons who can legally inhabit a single family residence? Should there be no limitation at all? Or is there some workable middle ground here? I am open to hearing alternatives.
What I am not open to is that we should ignore those that prey on our assumption that folks will want to do the right thing. Down the street we had twelve unrelated single men in a three bedroom house. Both of us will agree that is intolerable, I’m sure. How do we craft an ordinance that allows for possible, but generally farfetched scenarios like yours which we’re not dealing with, and protect us from the real scenarios like the one I mentioned that are happening on a regular basis?
Shot, I forgot about one other issue that Jeanette can no longer talk about on the campaign, gay marriage. Since the voters of the Commonwealth rejected gay marriage last fall, Jeannette can no longer use that issue to drum up support.
Seriously, can anyone of her supporters provide an issue she can run on?
Greg, I am all for compromise, as soon as the law of our land is for compromise (The Supreme Court), otherwise we end up in the situation the City is in now. I really think we are thinking alike, we just want to go about it in different ways. The problem Greg is the City was dealing with scenarious I described and that doesn’t leave any wiggle room for the inspector. He has to enforce the law the way it was written. That puts legal family members out of the residence, which I am not for. And yes, I do not think 12 unrelated men should be able to live in a house together, I do not even think anymore than three unrelated people should be able to live in a house together.
CS, so what is the responsible approach? Consanguinity with an opportunity to obtain a waiver, so we can catch those instances where the situation is not what the council intended to prevent? Or something else?
Greg, I am as empty on ideas about this as you are, but i do know that I do not want to spend time fight the federal governement trying to defend ourselves on whether the City is racist or not. I honestly believe the City did the right thing in going back to the definition that fits the Supreme Courts guidelines and trying to fight in other ways. I believe it is working as we are starting to see real things happening in the fight against illegal aliens. They are small steps, but at least they are steps.
I’m not at all empty on ideas here. I think the proposed ordinance was a good one, and if there’s real reason to provide some sort of escape hatch for extenuating circumstances, that can be done. The Supreme Court has never ruled that what Manassas tried to do was unconstitutional, there’s no indication that the ordinance would have failed to pass legal muster. As soon as this little circus, now relocated to DOJ, is done I’m pretty sure there will be another stab at this.
What we have returned to doesn’t appear to be adequate to resolving the problem, and can only be characterized as “one step forward, one step back”. If that’s satisfactory, that can only be so to those who aren’t interested in achieving progress.
Greg, Yes they did rule that what Manassas did was unconstitutional. You need to read Moore v. City of East Cleveland. This case specifically dealt with this issue and they ruled that municipalities can not limit the family living together. They also used the Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas which defined family as anyone related by blood, marriage, or adoption, which is the definition most localities use in their zoning ordinance. And yes, several legal scholars advised Manassas that it would not pass legal muster, and said so after being interviewed on telvision and several newspapers. I do remember one lawyer saying Manassas may have a chance and gave a reason why, but I don’t remember the reason. But every other lawyer stated that Manassas would lose this battle, thus the reason for being smart and backing down. I am fairly sure Manassas will not take a “stab” at fighting overcrowding this way. It is so amazing that so many people on this site are down on the MCPD for the Tony’s event and no one says a thing about the City going after legal citizens who are family living legally in their homes. That is what this ordinance did, it went after many legal families living legally in their home.
Actually, there’s a lot of dispute about whether that case is even relevant to the situation in Manassas. Of course attorney-activists for the illegal aliens all crowed about how the Moore case definitely applied, but I haven’t seen anyone outside of this crowd make such a statement. Limiting those eligible to reside in a residence according to the zoning authority that municipalities have always had is clearly legal, and this specific method has been in use by the Department of Defense for decades. Prince William County has a consanguinity rule, and no one has ever claimed that was unconstitutional. If what Manassas has tried to do is widely viewed as unconstitutional, why is it that a very similar provision exists within Part 100 of the Zoning text of Prince William County?
Besides, there has never been a court decision that specifically addressed the overcrowding ordinance that was briefly adopted in Manassas. All we’ve seen is speculation, and much of that speculation is clearly biased.
Prince William does not use a consanquinity definition in their family definition and their definition nearly mirrors the current definition of Manassas, not sure what you are talking about. What in the world are you talking about saying that it is clearly legal for municipalities to limit family who may reside in a family. I just gave you the court case the Supreme Court ruled on and they specifically said municipalites can limit the number of unrelated people who may reside in a residence but may not interfere with family living together. I think you are trying so hard to defend yourself that you are now really getting ridiculous. I guess you are an expert in law and the people the City hired to defend them in this know nothing. I sure am glad you are not the City’s attorney, otherwise we would be broke by now. If you are going to make statements as fact then you need to check them. To recount: 1) P W County has no consanquinity regulation in its definition of family, 2) the courts have ruled in two cases about the municipalites rights on limiting unrelated and family rights to live together 3) Several of the attorneys who commented on the Manassas were not linked to any group, they were corospondents for various news agencies. Please get your facts straight so that we may really take you serious.
Article 1, Part 100, Definitions, Prince William County Zoning Ordinances at http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/004277.pdf
Family:
1, One (1) person; or
2, Two (2) or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, together with any number of offspring, foster, step or adopted children; or
3, A group of three (3) unrelated persons living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or guardianship, provided that the limitation on the number of unrelated persons shall not apply to residents in a housekeeping unit by persons having handicaps within the meaning of section 3602(f) of the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601, et. seq., as amended); or
4, Those groups identified in Section 15.2-2291, Va. Code Ann., or like groups licensed by the Virginia Department of Social Services which otherwise meet the criteria of section 15.2-2291, Va Code Ann.
Number two is clearly definition of the family by cosanguinity. Next time you transcribe PDF documents, because I’ve too many other things to do than spend my time correcting you.
No it is NOT. That says that anyone realted by blood marriage or adoption, which includes your 4th cousin twice removed. That has nothing to do with cosanquinity and it is almost the same ordinance Manassas has, so if you like that ordinance then you should like the current Manassas ordinance
Consanquinity has to do with the degree someone is related to you. That definition does not limit how far off some can b before thay can or can’t live with you. The Manassas limited family to the second degree of consanquinity which left out the family members as close as neices, nephews, uncles, aunts, and first cousins to the head of household. You can argue it anyway but you are wrong. Try to explain how the PWC ordinance has anything to do with consanquinity.
Go back far enough and everyone on earth is related by blood.
“That definition does not limit how far off some can b before thay can or can’t live with you.”
Therefore it is unenforceable.
Maybe you are right, but that is a pretty weak defense. Just admit defeat on this subject and move on.
OK, so we’re talking about the degree of cosanguinity here, not cosanguinity itself. It would be helpful if you had been more specific about your issues with the ordinance.
The thirty year old Moore decision was predicated on the idea that the ordinance did not narrowly combat the problems the city was trying to solve. In the intervening time, and given how different the circumstances are, I believe that the Manassas ordinance did narrowly deal with overcrowding and illegal immigration in the most effective way possible, and supported a public interest that cannot be denied. The circumstances and intent of the Moore decision vary enormously from the circumstances in Manassas, and the intent of the ordinance is much more clear than that was evident in East Cleveland back then.
I shouldn’t have to be specific. You are the one spouting off all these facts that are incorrect. I wrote facts and backed them up. You wrote inaccuracies and then backed them up with more inaccuracies. I don’t care if the decision was 1,000,000 years ago, it is still the law of the land. Greg, if you are going to run this site and be the president of HSM, then you need to be more accurate and know what you are writing. the bottom line is you were incorrect on several counts and you need to be a man and admit your mistake. By the way, while more jurisdictions use the definition that Manassas does, I did learn from doing research before I wite, that Herndon has a form of consanquinity. I am sure when the Feds get done with us they will be next.
citizen sam, you are somewhat correct, but the Manassas ordinance was also based off the “head of household”. If you were the head of the household then yes you would have problems with your sister and several of her children living at the house.
However, if your mother or father lived in the house you could declare one of them as “head of the household” and you could have as many of your kids, siblings, siblings spouses, nieces, and nephews as the fire code will allow.
I know Im splitting hairs, as your situation may not have your parents involved but Im just giving you an example where your sister and her kids (and her husband for that matter) could live with you under the Manassas ordinance.
citizen sam, I also agree with you that the supreme courts decision in Moore v E. Cleveland does make it the law of the land - for now.
However I would have loved it if Manassas had decided to challenge the law suits rather than cave in. Some of my reasoning on why Manassas (possibly) could have won.
1. East Cleveland’s ordinance was even more restrictive than Manassas’s.
2. That decision was made in the early 1970’s - an almost 100% change of justices from our current Supreme Court. This simply means we have a different set of minds on the court.
3. Since the 1970’s it is very arguable that the Court’s of our lands have become more and more flexible with allowing local and state governments more latitude in zoning and land use decisions. Look at Kelo for goodness sake.
Im not disagreeing with you based of what the legal scholars are saying about the existing precident. Im just making the case that a new decision could have been reached based off entirely new circumstances.
Additionally, there are these reasons to believe that Moore would not have applied:
1. E. Cleveland did not demonstrate that their restrictions were the least intrusive solution available. Manassas can.
2. E. Cleveland’s efforts were not aimed at combating the presence of illegal aliens, which is a more compelling interest than generic overcrowding.
3. There was no serious overcrowding problem in E. Cleveland at the time of the Moore case, so the approach they took couldn’t be strongly linked to an actual problem. Manassas would have no problem demonstrating an actual and serious problem.
The Moore case is not a good precedent for Manassas, because the circumstances are not consistent between East Cleveland and Manassas. Although they both deal with overcrowding ordinances, there is little else that seems to make the situation addressed in that case analagous to this one.
Greg, you can not base decisions on illegal aliens because this ordinance was not aimed at illegal aliens, it was aimed at ALL citizens. Manassasinsider, your situation would be great if your mother and father wer living with you, but that ain’t always the case. Greg, why isn’t the Moore case a good precedent for Manassas, it is exactly what Manassas did, it specifically deals with what Manassas did. I wish you would explain why Moore does not apply to the Manassas case, because I do not see how in any way it couldn’t, however, I am not an attorney. Although, I consider mydelf very educated and have done extensive research on this issue since it came around. How can Manassas demonstrate that this is the least intrusive solution? If they could, then they would have and they haven’t. The Manassas ordinance did not combat illegal aliens in fact the Council was specifically told not to combine the two by their attorney. How do you know their was no serious overcrowding problem in East Cleveland? This ordinance does not deal with overcrowding in the first place. Both cities were putting people out of homes that were not overcrowded. You need to check your facts. Zoning laws in the Commonwealth do not deal with the number of people that can live in a house, only the Virginia Uniform Statewide Bulding Code Part III, Property Maintenance can do that. Zoning only deals with how you use the property and a single family home must be used by a single family. You are confusing the two items. It is a FACT that Manassas had people move out of homes that were not overcrowded because the occupants were not a single family. I have no issue with that ordinance, I have an issue when you start making family members leave an uncrowded residence. Greg, I think you are associating my views as a bleeding heart liberal, of which I am not. I am all for immigration reform and making ALL illegal aliens leav until they apply and ar allowed to come here legally. I am also for, though I know it will never happen, any child born here of illegal immigrants not being considered a legal citizen. I hope that you can see that I am probably for the same thing you are for. I also apologiz for the comments I wrote earlier which you removed. it was completely inappropriate and it will never happen again. All I ask is that if you are going to make statements of fact, them out first because you have made several inaccurate statements and with the position that you are in now, we do not need people on the far left having the ability to discredit you because you made an inaccurate statement.
Greg, my last commnt should have said if you are going to make statements of fact, then check them out first … I have never been a very good typist.
The purpose of the ordinance was to combat the presence of illegal aliens, which was clearly stated in the meeting minutes, and I believe stated in the preamble of the resolution that enacted it. Although it applies to everyone, as does any law or ordinance, the purpose was demonstrably to combat the presence of illegal aliens.
The Moore decision goes on at length to argue that in East Cleveland the ordinance was a heavy-handed attempt to control generic overcrowding which could have been effectively dealt with in other ways. The supreme court didn’t say that the city couldn’t do something like this, it said that there was no compelling interest to do it in this manner. Because there were other available approaches to mitigating potential problems — such as controlling on-street parking — that the city never pursued, the city failed to demonstrate that this was the least intrusive means of controlling overcrowding.
East Cleveland wasn’t subjected to large numbers of illegal aliens who were stuffing multiple families, or large groups of unrelated persons into single family residences on a constant basis. Manassas has over time enacted various methods of controlling overcrowding, including residential parking restrictions, and reasonably had exhausted every alternative zoning ordinance opportunity. That considerably changes the equation, and makes the Moore decision as it was decided inapplicable to Manassas from my perspective.
I’m not a lawyer either, but this is my read of the legal landscape.
When HSM starts wading into the city ordinance discussions, I think we’ll have support from the Immigration Reform Law Institute to help wade through all these decisions and help us steer clear of getting sidetracked by arguments such as this one. While I believe that what Manassas did was in compliance with the law, there are probably other areas where progress could be made more rapidly. At some point we will inevitably revisit this specific means of controlling overcrowding, and hopefully by then there will be some more specific and applicable guidance from the courts.
You are 100% wrong. That ordinance was not intended to combat illegal immigration and if it was (which I am 100% sure it wasn’t) then it went horribly wrong. It was never about illegal immigration and were told by attorneys not to link the two, this I am sure about. However, I whole heartedly support you and your effort. We will just have to agree to disagree on the legalitys of this ordinance. But I want to say again, I am 100% sure the council was told to stay clear of linking this ordinance to illegal immigation and I believe in the future this will be revealed. Good luck with te effort and I hope to join soon as I find out the legalitys and reprocussions(sp?) of my membership to HSM would be do to certain conditions of my life, employment and other factors would be.
I hope you’ll soon be able to join, as I can see you playing an important quality control role in the crafting of the legislative agenda.
Thank you and I will definately introduce myself to you as citizen sam when we meet.
citizen sam
“Zoning only deals with how you use the property and a single family home must be used by a single family”
This is what has citizens in a uproar in the Greater Manassas area. A lot of the overcrowding that is occurring here, isn’t by single families. Most of us do not define large groups of men as family. Nor do we define three different “family units”, mother, father and children, living in the same house as a single family. Three units would be three families not a single family.
On top of all of that, why then do a large portion of these overcrowded houses have 4 or 5 $30,000- $40,000 SUV’s parked in front of them. Most Americans don’t live above their means. They rent, scrape and save for years to buy a home.
I’m glad you clarified yourself and want to help in the effort of illegal aliens and overcrowding in the area.
HSM can accomplish great things and we need good people to help in the effort.
BTW-
the back and forth between Greg and citizen sam was interesting.
“On top of all of that, why then do a large portion of these overcrowded houses have 4 or 5 $30,000- $40,000 SUV’s parked in front of them. Most Americans don’t live above their means. They rent, scrape and save for years to buy a home.”
I wonder how this sits with the liberal kooks at the BRUU. Our Mother Gia, Earth, the Big Blue Marble, is sweltering under the .5 degree rise in temps. Polarbears are drowning, lesbian Penguins seperating, and we have illegal aliens…ooops…I mean undocumented oppressed immigrants are driving big SUV’s which are generating greenhouse gases.
I am sure that Jeanette Rishell will also express the plight of the undocumented opressed immigrants who are losing their homes, due to the rising interest rates on the sub-prime ARM’s that these people used to buy their homes. Of course they need to overcrowd them. It is caused by the systematic exploitation of these uneducated unskilled immigrants, by predatory lendors.
Never mind that they should be here to begin with. That is something that she will never admit.
Blogs are obviously a great place to vent, but
can easily become just echo chambers for a certain
viewpoint - conservative or liberal. It is
a pleasure then to see some thoughtful give and take
occasionally pop-up. ( By the way, I like insight Greg
far more than incite Greg).
FYI - Unity in the Community in conjunction with the
GMU Institute For Conflict Resolution will sponsor
a seminar on “Immigration: Building Community
through Dialogue” on April 21st 9AM-2PM at
the GMU Manassas Campus (Bull Run Hall, Room 131).
If attending, you are requested to register with
lshaw2@gmu.edu by April 16th.
Perhaps a joint meeting with HSM in the future?
That would be interesting.