Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Manassas Plays Possum

By Greg L | 21 September 2008 | Manassas City | 77 Comments

Well, just have a look at this item that quietly showed up on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the Manassas City Council:

ACTION ITEM:  Consideration of Resolution #R-2009-38 as Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Release of the Equal Rights Center, Et Al. v. City of Manassas and City of Manassas Public Schools and City of Manassas School Board, Case No. 07 CV 1037 – TSE/TRJ before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  (Staff:  Lawrence D. Hughes, City Manager.)

The city is going to pay these race-baiting hucksters off with taxpayer dollars so the “Equal Rights Center” can do the same thing they did to us to some other city.  Nice move.
The “Equal Rights Center” is funded primarily through the money it receives by bullying localities and businesses, and some supplemental grant money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The ERC decided to file a lawsuit against the city in regards to a short-lived overcrowding ordinance, and has deliberately dragged out the negotiations with the city for about three years now, hoping to wear it down and get it to fork over a bunch of money that it can then use to harass some other locality.  The Manassas City Council, fresh out of bending over backwards to accommodate another race-baiting huckster of racist billboard fame, has borrowed the backbone of some unfortunate invertebrate, and has chosen to buy these folks off.  Leadership?  Not quite.

You can bet other litigation-oriented tribalists are smelling the blood in the water right now, and are looking for any opportunity they can to frighten the city council with the prospect of a lawsuit in order to extract public dollars that will finance their cause.  While the council’s apparent attempt to secure the short-term may seem responsible, in the long-term such easy surrender only emboldens those with the worst of motives.  Manassas City dons a big target for other litigous pests, and other localities end up defending themselves by these miscreants in an effort that ends up being financed by Manassas City taxpayers.

Give in to extortion, and you encourage it.

City residents may want to start contacting their council members now, taking as much advantage of the pitifully short advance notice given as possible.  You’d think that if the city really believed this was the right thing to do, they wouldn’t surprise residents like this. This will be considered during Monday’s council meeting which starts at 5:30 at Manassas City Council Chambers, and residents may want to be there.

They could lend the city council some of their spine.  Lord knows, they could use it.



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.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

77 Comments

  1. A City Resident said on 21 Sep 2008 at 5:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Well, just have a look at this item that quietly showed up on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the Manassas City Council:”

    Agenda statements are prepared by the City Clerk well before the City Council meets. In the past they were sent to anyone who requested copies prior to the meetings. Now they are on the web and are there for any interested party to review. This agenda has been out for several days. I hardly think they tried to sneak one over. I am sick to death of you trying to always make something out of nothing. The Council is not hiding anything as you infer by your statement above. As I see it you have helped make a big enough mess in Pr Wm County. Do not try to do the same in The City of Manassas.

    Did you even read the Resolution? I applaud the City Council for not allowing this issue to continue to be in litigation ad-infinitum. There were grave errors made with the alleged overcrowding issues and the Definition of Family Resolution of 4 years ago. This has been too costly as is and I am glad that it will finally end. In these hard economic times we can not continue to pay for litigation that could go on for years. I am glad it will finally be laid to rest.

  2. Anonymous said on 21 Sep 2008 at 5:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    The door was opened when they didn’t go after the owners of 9500 Liberty. How many people were adversely affected by the short-lived overcrowding ordinance? I doubt a single indvidual was. This has a ring of a brother “JESSE” con job (threaten them with a lawsuit or a demonstration and they fork the money over.) For the MCC to cave in, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

  3. park ave mommy said on 21 Sep 2008 at 6:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, the amount of money they are forking over will be announced Monday night, is that what the statement means? I would have fought this one with everything I had personally . . . how will the votes go you think?

  4. DiversityGal said on 21 Sep 2008 at 6:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with A City Resident. I am confident that the City Council will make a well-thought out decision that is best for us. This thing could end up being more costly if it is dragged out.

  5. A City Resident said on 21 Sep 2008 at 6:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    There were overcrowding ordinances on the books. They needed to be enforced. If they had been enforced there would have been no issue of litigation. The door was not opened when they did not go after the owners of 9500 Liberty St. That issue took place well after the Definition of Family Resolution that was passed by City Council and then rescinded. Unfortuately it was rescinded after the damage had been done.

    If you are not aware HUD did an investigation into unfair housing practices in the City of Manassas. The investigation was turned over to the Dept of Justice. That suit was dropped 5 or 6 months ago, if I remember correctly. This is another part of that same issue. This issue has been in litigation for over 2 years. This is nothing new. Too much money has already been spent. I want to see it ended before more money is paid in legal fees and the City ends up settling later.

    If you want to know what will take place at the meeting go to www.manassascity.org and look at the Sept 22 agenda. Scroll down to page 133 to read the resolution.

  6. TedKennedysSwimInstructor said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    How much is the damn settlement for?

  7. a democrat for mccain said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why not take it to court and fight it out, did the city do something wrong or not? Why can’t the city enforce an overcrowding ordinance, who will sue them next?

  8. Vonnegut said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Only a fool would want to go to court over this matter. All things considered, it’s good business and good for taxpayers to settle and get beyond this.

  9. disgusted said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    depends on how much money we are talking here, I could not find that in the link, what amount of my hard earned tax dollars are going to support an organization like the equal center to do more of the same nonsense in some other locale? thes council folks are spending my money like democrats in my opinion with employee housing give aways and parking garages for empty store fronts, and now this????

  10. Emma said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident, AKA Marie,

    You seriously want the taxpayers of the City to pay off ERC? What did we do to them? You and your group over at the anti site are forever harping on how neighborhood solutions would have been preferable to the Resolution in PWC. So when Manassas attempts a “neighborhood” solution, it gets thwarted by an organization that has no stake in the well-being of our city.

    It’s clear that you don’t want any “neighborhood solutions.” It’s clear that you would attack as “racist” ANY attempt to preserve our neighborhoods from deteriorating because of neighbors who refuse to abide by our laws and to assimilate at the very least to the extent that our communities don’t become Third-World dumpsters.

    Kindly share your “neighborhood solutions” with us, because it seems an awful lot like they involve nothing more than undermining ANY effort to solve the overcrowding and other issues caused by illegal immigration, all the while trying to play on some collective guilt for perceived racial injustice.

    If you feel so strongly about it, I’m sure the City would be happy to take your donation to cover the costs of this bs settlement for the rest of us.

  11. let freedom ring said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    All this does is encourages others to come forward with trumped up charges of one kind or another and then hold out their hands and say pay up and we will go away - and people died for this country to be free of tyrants and are giving their lives right now in the middle east for this kind of limp-wristed government.

  12. Emma said on 21 Sep 2008 at 8:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps Marie and her friends could take up a collection to benefit the “Pro-Illegal Anti-Extortion Fund.” I’m thinking it would become a bottomless pit.

  13. A City Resident said on 21 Sep 2008 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    a democrat for mccain said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:13 pm:
    Why not take it to court and fight it out, did the city do something wrong or not? Why can’t the city enforce an overcrowding ordinance, who will sue them next?

    The City could have enforced the overcrowding ordinances but chose instead to redefine what a family was and passed the Definition of Family Resolution late in 2005. This is what got the City in hot water with HUD for alleged unfair housing practices. The Resolution to define family was in direct conflict with a Supreme Court decision in 1977 (Moore vs. The City of East Cleveland). They set aside over one million dollars to fight litigation. They would not be able to win the case.

  14. A City Resident said on 21 Sep 2008 at 8:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma,
    Manassas did not attempt a “neighborhood” solution. They redefined what a family was. As I said to park ave mommy the City could have enforced the overcrowding ordinances but chose instead to redefine what a family was and passed the Definition of Family Resolution late in 2005. This is what got the City in hot water with HUD for alleged unfair housing practices. The Resolution to define family was in direct conflict with a Supreme Court decision in 1977 (Moore vs. The City of East Cleveland). They set aside over one million dollars to fight litigation.

    I am not for overcrowding or many families living in one house. There are many safety issues, it is not good for the neighborhood and it is against code. So enforce the laws we have on the books. Do not make up new ones.

    You continue to make assumptions. I have said it before and will say it again. For me it is not about legal or illegal. It is about treating people with dignity and respect. Sorry, you do not think everyone should be treated respectfully or with dignity.

  15. Emma said on 21 Sep 2008 at 8:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident, AKA Marie,

    Did you find the cartoons over on the anti site respectful and dignified?

    Just curious.

  16. A City Resident said on 21 Sep 2008 at 8:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually Emma. I did not like them.

  17. CitizenofManassas said on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    A city resident,

    The Supreme Court also said at one time slavery was legal. The ruling was a long time ago, it seems that if the City had any B*** it would tell this anti-American group to bring it on and we can take it all the way to the Supreme Court. How much money has been wasted on illegals already? It seems the same group of illegal supporters never complain about the money that is spent on teaching criminals, feeding criminals, etc. BTW, “diversity(how would have felt in America 100 years ago?) gal” do you even live in the City?

    The fact the last couple of murders in the City were the result of illegals, a huge burglary ring that was made up of illegals, tells me the City has a far worse illegal alien problem, but thanks to a couple of pro criminal supporters of the Council, we will provide the very people who support these criminals with more money to make our City an even worse place to live.

  18. Emma said on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Refreshing to hear, Marie, after seeing so many over there having a party over them. So offensive in so many ways.

    I’m not sure where you can conclude that I don’t think everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. I think the City tried something, as imperfect as it was, to try to mitigate a difficult situation, in the same way that PWC tried something which needed to be amended to protect the police force.

    If I were able to get everything right on MY first draft, I’d have a Ph.D by now :)

  19. Former COM employee said on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City resident, I agreee with everything you said less and except that existing laws should have been enforced. All existing laws were being enforced better than any jurisdiction in Northern Virginia. Manassas City Council was not happy when employees came and told them there were many houses in the City that permitted as many as 20 people to live in them as long as they were related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship. When told that, they decided on a poorly writted ordinance that should have never been adopted. Many years ago I wrote about this subject and was against it back then. I do not want the government telling me which family members I can live with as long as I am not overcrowding my house. What was suggested by many employees is that we slow down and go to the state level to have the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) amended at that level to limit the number of people that can live in a house. The funny thing about this is that in the last code update the IPMC took out any way to regulate the number except to say overcrowding is any amount determined to be unsafe by the building official which could never be defended in court. That was the time for the City and other jurisdictions to make a change, as the state did amend the code but only to add back in the same chart that was used previously ineffectively. As someone who was very close to this lawsuit, the City is doing the right thing. They are paying a law firm millions of dollars to defend the undefendable. I agree no one was hurt by the ordinance, I know this for a fact but the City did the wrong thing. I just hope they don’t give this group as much money as they used to make this silly lawsuit. The ERC is a bunch of vultures because the ordinance had been rescinded before they filed suit. I want to go back and ensure every Manassas City resident that the city was very agressive in enforcing the laws that were on the book. I earned a lot of overtime money watching houses as early as 4:00 am in the morning and counting people coming out of houses. Many people just do not understand code enforcement. The one question I alway got when no violation was found was, How do you know they are related? I would say because they told me they were. And almost always the city resident would say you didn’t make them prove they are related? And then i would have to remind tjem we still live in America and it is not up to them to prove they are related, it is up to me to prove they aren’t. And if anyone out there has a way to do that without a doubt, you could possible have the answer to what many jurisdictions want and could sell it for a mint. But please remember, this lawsuit has nothing to do with overcrowding, it has to do with a local zoning ordinace on a land use issue that had been decided many years ago by the Supreme Court in Moore v. The City of East Cleveland Ohio. This ordinace did not limit the number of people who live in a house. It only told you who could live in the house. The same code was always being used to determine the number of persons wo could live in a house.

  20. Emma said on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Former COM employee said on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:19 pm:

    The ERC is a bunch of vultures because the ordinance had been rescinded before they filed suit.

    And that is exactly why I do not want my tax dollars spent to mollify them and to make this go away. No harm was done, the City does not owe them anything. I hope the City Council does not cave to this extortion.

  21. Former COM employee said on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma, so you would rather spend millions of dollars defending this suit and even if the City wins, they still lose because of the money the spent defending themselves. Sorry Emma, this is why the City is is this predictment (sp?), by listening to citizens who are so self absorbed in this issue they don’t use good common sense. I am not saying the Council should not listen to citizens, only that good common sense should prevail.

  22. Anonymous said on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    The anti site constantly states that the overcrowding problem could have been handled with existing zoning laws, etc. Former COM employee makes it very clear that is not the case. Our laws are insufficient to deal with this new wide spread problem, so how do we fix it?

  23. Peter G. said on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Former is right on just about everything he or she says. I do believe, however, there was a handful of residents that were affected by the ordinance. We had an ‘overcrowding hotline’ that was used and acted upon by the city. I also agree with Emma and others that I hate the idea of paying off these leaches. Sometimes you have to do what is best and not what you want. If it is any consolation, I believe an insurance company is picking up the lions share of the settlement. That still does not make it right, but somewhat better for the tax payers.

  24. Anonymous said on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    let freedom ring said on 21 Sep 2008 at 7:51 pm:
    All this does is encourages others to come forward with trumped up charges of one kind or another and then hold out their hands and say pay up and we will go away - and people died for this country to be free of tyrants and are giving their lives right now in the middle east for this kind of limp-wristed government.

    Jesse Jackson has been a master of this type of “mugging for dollars.”

  25. Naughtius Maximus said on 22 Sep 2008 at 7:35 am:
    Flag comment

    I agree that it’s giving in to blackmail. It’s important to remember why the city did it though. They weren’t just afraid of some frivolous lawsuit. They were afraid of a lawsuit that Bush’s Justice Department was actively encouraging and helping with.

    This government is corrupt from the neck down.

  26. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 7:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Former is correct and what he says is probably more fact than not. I do have to mention the “overcrowding hotline”. It allowed residents to make anonymous complaints. I never liked the anonymous part. It just opened the doors up to nuts like the woman who called in a complaint about every residence with a Hispanic living in it.

    There were many things wrong with the Definition of Family Resolution that got the City into trouble with HUD and Dept of Justice. I do not want to keep spending tax dollars on an issue that can never be won. Former COM has first hand knowledge about the issue and agrees the City will never win. So,
    let’s just settle and put this issue behind us so we can move on.

    I will take issue with Former COM about no one being hurt by the ordinance. There were several families hurt.

  27. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2008 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Former COM employee said on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:03 pm:
    Emma, so you would rather spend millions of dollars defending this suit and even if the City wins, they still lose because of the money the spent defending themselves.

    I would rather pay the money to defend this suit than give it away to a bunch of con artists. Pay now or pay later!

  28. manassascityresident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 8:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2008 at 8:38 am:
    I would rather pay the money to defend this suit than give it away to a bunch of con artists. Pay now or pay later!

    I have to agree with you on that!

  29. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes, I would rather spend the money defending this suit, not handing it over to extortionists. Otherwise the city will be targeted again and again every time it attempts to address this issue.

  30. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Besides, who would benefit from the money? Would it be the small number of families that A City Resident alleges were harmed? No. It would go to hucksters.

  31. Arlington Minority said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:27 am:
    Flag comment

    Common sense tells us that ERC’s extortion gambit is right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook: pick an easy target; file a lawsuit; reach a “financial settlement”; move on the the next target. Alinsky’s biggest disciple is running for president on the Democratic ticket, which does not bode well for vulnerable municipalities, who decide to pay extortion rather than face rogue lawsuits. They may soon face the full force and power of rogue federal civil rights retaliatory actions.

  32. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:22 am:
    Flag comment

    Emma,
    The City does not have enough money to defend itself. The City has already spent probably one million or close to it on legal fees. They need to cut their losses for adopting a resolution that could never, ever hold up in court. We need to just end the foolishness and move on.

  33. CitizenofManassas said on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:30 am:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident,

    How do you feel about the City spending millions educating illegals? How about the money being spent on illegals who use social programs?

    It seems to me if you are pissed about the law suit, and just exactly how do you know the case could not hold up in Court, when it never reached court, and the City spending money on that, you would also be pissed at spending any money on illegals.

  34. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:41 am:
    Flag comment

    The City has no insurance to cover legal fees, A City Resident? Really?

  35. Dave Core said on 22 Sep 2008 at 12:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think after this is settled and the money paid out of insurance that the City should limit the number of adults in a single-family home regardless of family relations. Six is what Herndon has. That would eliminate much of the problem and make enforcement easier. Although “living there” or “being a guest” is not easy to determine without ID and 4 am checks, it’s easier than disproving one is a “cousin”.

  36. Naughtius Maximus said on 22 Sep 2008 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    That makes a lot of sense.

  37. Dave Core said on 22 Sep 2008 at 1:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually six would be for a house of 2400 sq. feet or less.

    From Herndon code –

    (4) Dwelling unit occupancy. In any district in which residential uses are allowed or legally exist, a dwelling unit shall be occupied only by a family as defined in Article VII, Definitions. Occupancy by any other entity or person shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
    a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and as an element of the use of land under this chapter to define and limit appropriate family use of dwelling units, occupancy of dwelling units shall be limited to the maximum number of occupants allowed by this section, to protect against threats to neighborhood quality that can accompany overcrowding of land, or undue density of population in relation to existing or available community facilities caused by excessive occupancy.
    For the purposes of this chapter, an “occupant” is defined as a person 18 years of age or older, living or sleeping in a building, or having possession of a space within a building. The maximum occupancy of dwelling units is as follows:
    1. For single-family attached and detached dwellings or two-family dwellings, the maximum number of occupants of each dwelling unit shall not exceed the quotient of the floor area (measured in square feet) of the dwelling unit divided by the number set forth below, rounded up to the next whole number:
    i. For a dwelling with a floor area up to 1,500 square feet, use 300 square feet.
    ii. For a dwelling with a floor area from 1,501 square feet to 2,100 square feet, use 350 square feet.
    iii. For a dwelling with a floor area from 2,101 square feet to 2,800 square feet, use 400 square feet.
    iv. For a dwelling with a floor area from 2,801 square feet to 3,600 square feet, use 450 square feet.
    v. For a dwelling with a floor area greater than 3,601 square feet, use 500 square feet.
    2. For multi-family dwellings, the maximum number of occupants of each dwelling unit shall not exceed the quotient of the floor area (measured in square feet) of the dwelling unit divided by 200, rounded to the nearest whole number.

  38. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizen of Manassas,
    Illegals are not entitled to nor do they receive public assistance benefits (social programs). You can go to the Virginia Dept of Social Service website and check out the qualifications on who is eligible.

    Talk to the Feds about education. The funds come from Federal, State and Local efforts. Yes, it is tax money but it is a mandate that all children be educated. I do not hold children responsible for the decisions their parents make. CHILDREN SHOULD NEVER BE CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE.

    Emma,
    You must be mistaken. I never said a word about the City not having insurance. I said they had already spent close to or more than one million on legal fees.

  39. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 1:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes, Mr. Core, there are ways to solve the problem of overcrowding where the policy applies to everyone equally-whites, blacks, asians, middle easterners, hispanics.

  40. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 1:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma,
    Why do you think my name is Marie?

  41. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:11 am:
    Besides, who would benefit from the money? Would it be the small number of families that A City Resident alleges were harmed? No. It would go to hucksters.

    There were many complaints and every family that had a complaint called in was hurt. Most of these calls were unjustified. There was one woman who called in about every house in her neighborhood where a Hispanic family was an occupant. Anyone who had the inspectors come to their door was hurt. The small number you speak of were the ones who had the courage to file a suit.

  42. CitizenofManassas said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City resident.

    Illegals are not supposed to be in the Country either, and if you do not think illegals receive benefits they are not entitled too, you are a bigger supporter of them than I first thought. As I thought, you don’t mind spending money on illegals, but do not want to do anything about them.

    Was the family ordnance just put into place because of hispanics? Exactly what language has led you to believe that? And, you did not bother to answer how you know it would not have held up in court.

    If we do away with the parents, we will not have to put up with their kids. Everyone saves money. But of course you don’t mind spending money on illegals as long it is not toward ways to get rid of them.

  43. Just Cause said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident: WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ONCE BEFORE and it has been determined that YES ILLEGALS CAN AND THEY DO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE.

    If illegals have a school aged child, then YES they can receive assistance, All children get the forms on the first day of school..REMEMEBER!?!?!?!?!

    I am not for illegal immigration but I am not against amnesty, but when people are mislead….then I get irritated and I think you are misleading people…again…on the SAME topic we had several months ago…..

  44. Naughtius Maximus said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    “There was one woman who called in about every house in her neighborhood where a Hispanic family was an occupant. ”

    I’m not trying to be funny - but that in and of itself doesn’t imply bias. A year ago we had about 10 of 26 houses occupied by Latinos and I think all 10 were flophouses. I know for a fact 8 were.

  45. Naughtius Maximus said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    10 of 26 on my street, i meant to say.

    Of the 10, guess how many got foreclosed? 9. So far.

  46. anonymous said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Illegals are not entitled to nor do they receive public assistance benefits (social programs).”

    What if they provide some really good fraudulent documentation? The same one that they use to fool employers who can’t tell the difference?

  47. TDB said on 22 Sep 2008 at 4:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:01 pm:
    Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:11 am:
    Besides, who would benefit from the money? Would it be the small number of families that A City Resident alleges were harmed? No. It would go to hucksters.

    There were many complaints and every family that had a complaint called in was hurt. Most of these calls were unjustified. There was one woman who called in about every house in her neighborhood where a Hispanic family was an occupant. Anyone who had the inspectors come to their door was hurt. The small number you speak of were the ones who had the courage to file a suit.

    =============================
    Can you explain what ‘hurt’ means?

  48. DPortM said on 22 Sep 2008 at 4:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Illegal alien females are entitled to benefits when they have children in the U.S. They get Medicare and WIC. Plus you Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, churches and other groups giving assistance to illegal aliens. They find ways to get benefits, including, as anonymous at 2:31 pm points out, by using fraudulent documents. Illegal aliens also can get disability through the federal government. You would be surprised by all of the different ways illegal aliens get benefits!

  49. w e stewart said on 22 Sep 2008 at 4:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Words, words, words. It never stops these “word fighters.” Get a group of word smiths together with a couple of communist lawyers and all of a sudden, you have a word fight. The 1965 passage of the criminal “Civil Rights Act” insured our futures would be plagued with litigation. A “Nation of Laws” my Donkey!
    Well, you askd for it you crubby little worms with your, “We all have rights, don’t we crowd”. Folks, let me ask this question. When someone appeals to the Supreme Court what is the first thing that determines if they will hear the appeal? You hoo, the civil rights act has come back to bite you right on your donkey! States Rights were put out of style with the 1965 civil rights act. Period. The liberals in the justice dept are rubbing their crubbies together whilst they read Pravda. Joe Stalin is smiling.
    “Do they have standing?” Ask your self does the ERC have standing in your community? I think not. A little old fashioned heart to heart talk might solve this problem. Perhaps if we still had the Vagrancy Laws, which I believe were struck down by the court, well, they would have been out of town a long time ago.
    What the liberals are really saying is you can’t be a selfish white race anymore, you have had your time and now it’s time for you to go the way of the Dodo bird. Lawed out of existance by lawyers you paid for by liberals that fought for the US Dept of Education. You can’t exclude, you must include, or we will make your families remaining time a real pain in the donkey.
    Who in the hell are you to actually think you want to live the way you want to live and with whom you want to live? Why, that is the most selfish and racist attitude and it’s been outlawed. (see that word again, lawed or out lawed) your outlaws from the family of minorities, you don’t deserve consideration, and besides wait till oboma is president, he’ll fix your racists white donkey.
    When ever the gov’t can tax your house, for what ever reason, you don’t own it anymore! Period. The gov’t taxing authority owns you and will take it away from you. Is that intimidation, or what?
    Oh I know, there are those of you out there that are ‘patriotic and love to pay taxes” (Joe Biden, don’t forget to vote for the bastard come Nov)because you have a lot more coming in from the taxes then you do going out, taxes are a business income for you. You, the gov’t contractor, the cleaning crew, the food provider, the car company, the gounds maintenance power equipment supplier, the law firm, the baby sitters, the ERC.
    Get the bull dozer and start the recovery process, dig a huge hole, then move 80% of the gov’t, which would leave our police and few hard donkey judges. Don’t forget the school taxing authority, the DOT, including the DMV for damn sure and push them into the hole and cover it up.
    Don’t ask me to pay for your kids education, I didn’t bring the little tike into the world and my future has nothing to do with the fact he can’t read and write, (it’s his future dummy) or may never. He can work at the hamburger stand and like it, if he hasn’t the gumption to know the delta between, “hey dummy, bring that wheel barrow over and hurry up” and the ability to run his own business, he was not cut out to run a business in the first place.
    Today we have a gov’t Dept of Education that has never educated a single citizen. A Dept of Transportaion that has never transported any one anywhere, except down the river.
    A Dept of Housing and Ghetto development that has erected (by the guy that loves to pay taxes) a Cabrinia Green in Chicago, a towering edifice supposed to house our lesser educatable citizenery. Beautiful building, in fact they are all over the USA. The history, especially the 911 history behind these very expensive buldings (also maintained by the guy who loves to pay taxes and escorted into the building by the armed security company (another lover of taxes) who by the way got a special commisioned officers appointment, so they can carry guns and arrest the un-educatable) These so-called public housing buildings became incubators for crime and lawless behavior.
    Why, because no one can be held accountable. Period! The word smiths have insured of that and the lawyers have put their stamp of approval on it. You white trash, go and see if you can get a free apartment from the Dept Of Housing and Ghetto development, just try and we will laugh you out the door. You were hired to pay taxes not get anything free, what the hell is matter with you? Where did you go to school, anyway? Get him outa here before we get the Patriotic lover of taxes to arrest your donkey!
    W E Stewart

  50. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 4:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident, I still don’t understand how you think paying off the ERC will make things right for the famililes you say were hurt. They won’t see one dime.

  51. InTheNavy said on 22 Sep 2008 at 6:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    W.E.S., you almost made me pee my pants (sorry for the visual). And I thought I was the only one who screams about “accountability,” a word which will also soon “go the way of the Dodo bird.” Oh, and although I am a tax-paying citizen, I must also pay tuition for private school in order for my child to have a quality education in an environment free of young Hispanic pregnant girls. Oops, that wasn’t very PC. Sorry, I meant “young mothers of future contributing citizens.”

  52. A PWC Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 7:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t live in the city of Manassas but in the county. But at one time, lawsuits needed to show harm to the complainant. Sounds like the lawyer for Manassas would rather collect a fee than defend the city to me.

  53. A PWC Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 7:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    By the way, you have a new recruit thanks to anti. I have been abused too many times over there and I have never said anything about my politics. It seems that they just want to say how holy they are and bash this website. I will be glad to post my issues here at some point but I don’t really like the hypocrisy of the posters on that blog.

    Gloves are off now!

  54. TedKennedysSwimInstructor said on 22 Sep 2008 at 7:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    I understand that Elwina Slopssberg-Dunkel and her leftist cohorts are already laying groundwork for the Equal Rights Center to expand their grip on some legal tidings over in Prince William County, based on the Equal Rights Center success here in the City of Manassas.

    It’s all a well greased, taxpayer funded slime machine based on fraud, lies and deception.

    Leftists use junta-like “feel your pain” organizations like the Equal Rights Center to exploit their “targeted victims” into thinking they’re God, replacing the real God they’ve otherwise removed from the public square. In their role as God over the lives of their perceived “victims” they embezzle tax dollars from hard working legal residents to buy forced government-sanctioned compassion for their illegal alien brethren.

  55. cityrez said on 22 Sep 2008 at 8:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    we need a few Corey Stewarts, John Stirrups on local council, no doubt about it.

    btw, who told council it was okay to put the Family Ordinance into effect in the first place?? didn’t they have a city attorney review the language for possible challenges???

    if so, please tell me that person is GONE…

    if not, please don’t tell me that person is still on retainer by the city and could be one in the same now CHARGING us to defend this mess??

    yes, it’s time for the city to get back to more pressing matters, like that $38,000 coffee table book for the Manassas Museum..

  56. Former COM employee said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    the money recieved by the ERC may be used to go after Herndon next. Herndon’s ordinance is thought to be illegal by many people in this field. Just a quick explanation why, the commonwealth of Virginia does not permit local governments to amend the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VUSBC). They do permit Local governments to amend the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. This is how the City of Manassas was able to allow uniform fire marshal’s to enforce overcrowding. They adopted the portion of part III of the VUSBC which regulates the occupancy of residences into their local fire code. However, the City of Manassas did not make any changes to the building code, they just moved it into their local fire code. In Herndon’s local ordinance they have actually adopted into their zoning ordinance a new way to limit the number of people who can live in a house. Their formula does not allow as many people as the VUSBC. This is why many professionals in the field feel as Herndon’s ordinance is ever tried in a court of law above the local level they will lose. They have amended the VUSBC through their zoning ordinance.

  57. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nice to see you here, A PWC Resident. You must have been trying to confuse them with logic and good sense.

  58. manassascityresident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes, welcome, A PWC Resident! And it’s great to see you over here, Emma. You win the “most patient of all people” award for trying to communicate with the hate mongers on the other site for as long as you did. I give you a lot of credit - nice try.

  59. saw it myself on tv said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    aveni voted against it - all the others for - we are out numbered it seems . . .

  60. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cityrez,
    From my understanding the City Attorney had reservations about the ordinance and advised Council.

    DPortM
    You are confused again. The only time anyone receives Medicare is when one is a recipient of Social Security Benefits.

    Just Cause said on 22 Sep 2008 at 2:14 pm:
    A City Resident: WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ONCE BEFORE and it has been determined that YES ILLEGALS CAN AND THEY DO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE.

    Who determined that illegals can and do receive assistance? Did you ever work in the Social Services system. Well, I did for almost 30 years and I can tell you that illegal immigrants are not entitled to public assistance benefits or subsidized housing benefits. As for documentation, I think all you hard headed people need to know that the Dept of Social Services can check every system including Homeland Security and Social Security records to verify status. So it does not matter what papers they produce-everything is checked.

    I think I am done with all you people. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

  61. Emma said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, bye, Marie.

  62. A PWC Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident– you are welcome over at the anti site. Have fun trying to ask any questions. Make sure you tell them that you love them first or else they will drive you out. Say hi to Moon-Howler for me–I think it is a werewolf or something.

  63. A PWC Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    And tell the sweet young thing that she is the reason I have come here!

  64. CitizenofManassas said on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident must not know illegals use stolen and or fake social security cards all of the time. But, hey they are in the Country illegally, do not pay taxes, drive without licenses, but do not obtain social services they are not entitled to because they want to follow the law.

  65. A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma
    I think you have me confused with someone else.

  66. NoVA Scout said on 23 Sep 2008 at 5:53 am:
    Flag comment

    Someone get help to W.E. Stewart. I haven’t heard that kind of moon-howling against civil rights legislation since the mid-1960s. Wow.

    Former COM Employee brings an altogether too rare bit of common sense (based on experience) to this. If my siblings’ finances cratered and they had to come live with me, my conservative instincts would bristle at having to prove to the government that they and their children were related in the first or second degree. It might not be pretty around here with another eight people aboard, but I ought to be able to open my house to them. All the local jurisdictions have plenty of tools to work with the complaints often seen here (litter, public drunkenness, unsafe operation of motor vehicles, petty crimes, serious crimes etc.). What none of the jurisdictions have is a constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

  67. w e stewart said on 23 Sep 2008 at 8:06 am:
    Flag comment

    to Nova Scout
    Chances are you’ve heard about how Chevrolet had problems marketing the Chevy Nova automobile in Latin America. Since no va means “it doesn’t go” in Spanish …
    W E Stewart

  68. CitizenofManassas said on 23 Sep 2008 at 8:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Nova,

    Then you must also support the notion that if you own property, you should be able to do with it as you like. Yet, the local government does have the right to tell you exactly what you can and cannot do with the property. If you think not, put a dump on your land and tell the Locals to go stick it.

    Overcrowding has nothing to do with the regulation of immigration. Overcrowding protects people who might live next to a flop house whose owners are too stupid, or rude to understand overtaxing the electrical system is a fire danger that not subjects those living in the house to it, but to those people who live in close proximity to the house.

  69. Anonymous said on 23 Sep 2008 at 8:57 am:
    Flag comment

    A City Resident said on 22 Sep 2008 at 10:36 pm:

    DPortM
    You are confused again. The only time anyone receives Medicare is when one is a recipient of Social Security Benefits.

    Medicare Medical Insurance (also known as Part B)
    Almost anyone who is 65 or older or who is under 65 but eligible for hospital insurance can enroll for Medicare medical insurance by paying a monthly premium. Aged people don’t need any Social Security or government work credits for this part of Medicare.

    Social Security Online
    www.socialsecurity.gov

  70. Anonymous said on 23 Sep 2008 at 9:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 23 Sep 2008 at 8:57 am:
    Aged people don’t need any Social Security or government work credits for this part of Medicare.

    A City Resident: do you dispute the above statement provided by the SS Administration?

  71. Just Cause said on 23 Sep 2008 at 9:09 am:
    Flag comment

    “A City Resident said Who determined that illegals can and do receive assistance? Did you ever work in the Social Services system. Well, I did for almost 30 years ”

    You and I had this discussion not to long ago here on this website. I had asked you a question and you failed to answer, You were also provided a web link ( From another poster) that showed HOW Benefits were obtained if you have a school aged child..You say we cannot see the forest for the trees yet I am discovering you have lost all reason and sanity when it comes to topic. I also have to note that you blantly spoke about situations that you appear to have no inside knowledge yet….you voiced your opinion as though it were fact and it took “Former COM employee” to call you out and now that has cost you credibility in my opinion.

    Bottom line- Where there is WILL there is WAY and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out “how to use the system” ..the system is FLAWED and has been for along time ( Its called HUMAN ERROR)….

  72. Just Cause said on 23 Sep 2008 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Heres a question for A City Resident :

    If you are illegal and you give BIRTH here, is that child not considered a US Citizen??? and because this child IS a US Citizen, doesnt that child qualify for assistance???

    Someone please tell me if I am wrong. I read on the a Virginia Gov site ( Along time ago and now cant find the link) that 1 in 5 illegal immigrants use some form of social services. So its either by theft or by children born in the US…or combination of both..but to say Illegal immigrants DO NO receive any benefits…is…well….misleading..right????

  73. Naughtius Maximus said on 23 Sep 2008 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Our government has provided us with the illusion that illegal aliens don’t receive benefits. Nice of them to do that much at least for us, maybe. Illusions are good enough for most Americans.

  74. Emma said on 23 Sep 2008 at 12:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    This today from Kristen Mack:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202815.html

    So fewer than 70 people have signed the petition, some of whom live in Germany, Georgia, Maine, Alabama, New York, Wisconsin, Glyn Pogue, VA; Australia(!) and Canada, not to mention the ladies, their illegal family members, gardeners and housekeepers. And let’s not forget Mr. Hossein and others who derive benefit from cheap labor.

    And Kristen Mack reports it as if 40,000 PWC taxpayers have signed.

  75. Bridget said on 23 Sep 2008 at 4:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    If illegal aliens do not recieve any form of social services - welfare - benefits - subsidies - Then ask yourself why they, along with their advocates, pitch fits any and every time a jurisdiction attempts to deny their access to said tax payer funded services.

    None other than the Mexican government frets out loud over their “migrants” not recieving social services ….

    http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007377.html

  76. NoVA Scout said on 23 Sep 2008 at 9:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    CoM: glad to see you’re coming around to my point of view on using existing local ordinances to address local problems (regardless of whether they are linked to illegal immigration). I plod along here doggedly to bring enlightenment and respect for the Constitution. You’re one of my rare successes. Hats off to you for having an open mind and being educable. Not nearly enough of that in these parts.

  77. CitizenofManassas said on 24 Sep 2008 at 9:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Nova,

    Don’t fool yourself, and answer my question. In fact, you are the one that came around to me. I got you to admit illegals need to be deported and it does not matter if that number is one or twenty million.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2254