There will be a Public Hearing on a  Zoning Ordinance change before Christiansburg Town Council at their next meeting. The Planning Commission has already had a Public Hearing and last night (1/30/12) they voted on their recommendation to Town Council on that change in zoning ordinance. The vote was a tied: 4 members voted against and 4 voted for the Zoning Change. The proposed change will go to Council with no recommendation by the Planning Commission. On the other hand, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to endorse a CUP contingent upon that Zoning change for a large apartment complex in one specific area. I personally believe that the application is correct for the land it is proposed for, but I have some problems with the changing of a Town Zoning Code in order to allow it to happen.

So, what was the change? Well, I’ve included a copy of the proposed change, 2012 District B3 Zoning Change to allow high density residential and it pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3, Section 30-100. Permitted uses of the Christiansburg Town Code.

The long and short of it is that the proposed code amendment would add this statement: “and for multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of twenty dwelling units per gross acre.”

How does that affect citizens? To really see the potential impact of such a zoning change you need to take a look at the current zoning map. (Since I had some difficulties getting the Town’s page for this to load on my computer, I’ve provided an extra copy here of that document: 2011 Christiansburg, VA Zoning Map.

You really have to look at the map in order to see what properties are potentially affected by this change, which properties will have the door opened for high density residential development. On the map, it is all of those areas designated in “Red” color which includes a large volume of land.

Then, take a look at all of the land currently zoned as R3 (Multi-Family Residential which is “Yellow” on the map). These sections provide for a maximum density of multi-family dwellings of 10 dwelling units per gross acre (per Christiansburg Town Article VI. Multiple-Family Residential District R-3, Section 30-48).

Next note that there are 2 other designations on the Zoning Map: MU-1 (see Article VIII. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business District MU-1, Section 30-69 which allows up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and MU-2 (see Article IX. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business-Limited Industrial District MU-2, Sec. 30-80, which, again, has a maximum of 10 dwelling units per gross acre). What is most important is to look at exactly how much acreage is actually committed to these Zoning types. You’ll be hard pressed to even find them on the map!!! And yet, these two designations were implemented as a means of providing a location for high-density development!!!

These other areas share the common “10 dwelling units per gross acre” and one other feature. They are limited to a maximum of 2 unrelated individuals sharing a residence.

Now, looking at the Town Code (Article XII. General Business District B-3), Sec. 30-99 Statement of intent. provides this:

This district covers that portion of the community intended for the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent access, but which is not characterized either by constant heavy trucking other than stocking and delivery of light retail goods or by any nuisance factors other than occasioned by incidental light and noise of congregation of people and passenger vehicles. This district shall include such uses as retail stores, banks, theaters, business offices, newspaper offices, printing presses, restaurants and taverns and garages and service stations. In view of the extensive application of the district and the variety of conditions which may be anticipated, residential uses are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. (Code 1972, § 30-77; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-77)

As noted previously, the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3 Sec. 30-111 would take the existing Code (Section 30-100. Permitted uses. (a) and change it from the original text:

(a) Any principal use permitted in the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District, with a Conditional Use Permit, except that  uses permitted as conditional uses in the R-3 District but permitted as of right in the B-3 District shall not require a
Conditional Use Permit. Dwellings are subject to the same requirements as in the R-3 District except that a single-family dwelling in association with a permitted office, business or commercial use, in the same building or on the same premises for use by the proprietor or an employee of said business shall be permitted but not subject to said requirements, including one unrelated individual per unit.

to allow for “multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of the twenty dwelling units per gross acre”.

Granted, it will require a Conditional Use Permit which means that depending upon who is in office and how they feel about a particular proposal may be the determining factor in what happens in a neighborhood near you, or in YOUR neighborhood. It also means that citizens will be dependent upon the Town for monitoring and enforcement of the Conditions. (yeah, right, like if a condition gets violated the Town will make someone tear down a bunch of apartment buildings and restore the land). In fact, what would happen if there were violations such as 5 unrelated people sharing the same dwelling? Are there fines? Or, are they just unenforceable words stuck on paper to look good?

Go ahead and take a look at the map. See what areas of Town could be affected by a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Stop and think about traffic problems, the overcrowding of schools, the lack of pedestrian access, limited bus service, impact on existing infrastructure such as water and sewer, and general quality of life related to growth. Of course, given the current economy, it could be that people move out of their homes and into apartments, leaving a lot of empty houses.

At the public hearing, to be held on 2/7/12, Town Council will allow citizens to speak up on the proposed Code change and on the Conditional Use Permit. The packet for that meeting is not available online yet, but it will be there soon. You may want to check the Town’s website often so that you can see what documents Town Council will have before them, or browse through the documents that have been included as part of the Planning Commission Packets for the Jan 30th, and Jan. 23th meetings when these were discussed.

You can also look at the videos of those Planning Commission meetings (http://myvaresources.com/Town%20of%20Cburg/NEWAudioVideo.htm), or Jan. 23rd Planning Commission Videos,  and, Jan. 30th Planning Commission Videos are right here:

Following the last Planning Commission Meeting, where a change in Zoning Ordinance and a CUP for a large apartment complex, I wrote this article:

333 Apartment Complex Coming to the Mall Area in Christiansburg?

At the 1/23/12 Planning Commission Meeting, this came up again. I had reviewed the documents in the packet and saw that there was still no report on how this could affect our schools. “Our schools” does not mean schools that are owned and operated by the Town of Christiansburg. Only Cities and Counties “own” schools, so it is all taxpayers of Montgomery County who foot that bill. However, at the time of the meeting, apparently a statement from MCPS had arrived and been delivered to the Planning Commission.

Unfortunately, I’d already used a couple of minutes of citizen comment time asking that the Planning Commission please address this in their deliberations. There had also been some other issues raised that resulted in a request by the developer’s representative to ask for a delay in the process to deal with those issues. I did not get to see or hear the contents of the MCPS statement so I requested a copy. I just received that copy about an hour ago and I am sharing it here with you:

MCPS Response to CUP for Major Apt. Complex in Cburg

Every change in population density of an area has an impact on public schools. Much of the current overcrowding of the schools has been due to rapid growth. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for the impact on schools. Whether that is a function of “impact fees/cash proffers” to help offset those costs or through increased taxes, or cutting funding to other services. It simply must be done. Here, that means it is up to Montgomery County to establish such a program. Both Towns would have to agree to it though (I believe that is why we don’t already have such as system … only 2 of the 3 jurisdictions supported this issue when it arose several years ago.) § 15.2-2329. Imposition of impact fees.

The object of the fees is to provide a fair distribution of costs of services. Will those costs actually be born by the property owner? Sure, anyone selling homes is going to pass such costs off to buyers. Those are the people who will ultimately be using the facilities. They will be using what other taxpayers have been paying for over the years.

At some point, someone needs to look at the costs of growth. Montgomery County School Board is already having to look at redistricting in order to deal with growth. Some people will find that their children will not be able to graduate from the same schools, have the same teachers/principals as their other children had through school. It could mean that there would need to be a change as to which high school football team their child plays on next year.

Anyway, this is but one of several issues that have been discussed at the last two Planning Commission meeting. The videos for this most recent meeting will be coming soon. Ooops…there they are now:)

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on these a while back, the next regular Town Council meeting will include another public hearing. What is being proposed is a change in the zoning code and a CUP to allow for a 3 story apartment complex with 333 apartments on the land behind Lowe’s. The only point of access is from Farmland off of Franklin, the same access road used by Wheatland (across the street from Sheetz). The apartments would be up to 3 bedroom in size and allow up to 3 unrelated people in each apartment.

Video of Planning Commission Meeting (6 Parts – also available on myvaresources.com video page):

At the Planning Commission meeting, I asked for and received clarification on the 3 unrelated people thingie. That means that only 3 people who are not related to each other could be residing in the apartment at any given time. However, the following scenario could also apply: There could be a family of 5 who shared an apartment with 2 other non-related persons for a total of 7 people (get the picture?).

Traffic studies that were done several years ago were used to indicate that there would be almost no impact on traffic at the street for access. Note that there was no mention of the impact of that many vehicles on other roads and intersections in the area. Let’s see, just off the top of my head, for a worst case scenario (if there are only 3 unrelated people in the household and if there are “related members” in the household they only have 1 car) 3 vehicles per apartment and there are 333 apartments … that comes out to about 999 vehicles to park and to be coming in and out of the complex. I’m thinking that there could we be an impact on local traffic, particularly on Game Days!

Add to that, the issue that Christiansburg uses a “complaint driven” codes enforcement policy adds to the mix by making it the responsibility of citizens to report any apparent violations of the “3 unrelated persons” promise. That means that there could be 20 people living there and unless it is reported by some citizen (usually one willing to suffer retribution for making a complaint) the situation will continue. If a report is made, Christiansburg Police Dept./Codes Enforcement will need to spend time and taxpayer money following up on the complaint. Of course, given the increased traffic and increased likelihood of vehicle accidents, there may be more Police officers in the vicinity anyway and they can save a few minutes there. ( It might be a good idea to check into exactly how difficult these types of complaints are to enforce to begin with!)

If you’ve taken the time to look at the package of materials provided to the Planning Commission, you can see some of the specifics of the complex and it looks very nice on paper. I’m just not sure that given the traffic problems we already have in that area, that now is the time to add this sort of  traffic increase. And, heck, while we’re at it, why not make it so that the owner of the rentals is responsible for costs of any law enforcement costs required to “police” the 3 unrelated persons complaints so that taxpayers don’t have to absorb that costs. If modifications are required to existing water and sewer system in order to maintain quality of service to existing residents, or if additional traffic lights or alterations in roads are required, then the developer should pick up the costs for that as well, not taxpayers.

I hope Council takes a close look at other land adjacent to this which could also be affected by the change in the zoning ordinance proposed in order to allow this development (as well as other areas of town which could also be affected) and thinks about the potential for growth and future traffic increases that could apply.

Why 2 hearing? Well, the job of the planning commission is significantly different from that of council, and they are suppose to make a recommendation to council about the proposal based on the comprehensive plan and existing land use codes. At the core of the problem, in my opinion, is the fact that once something is presented at a public hearing before council (including the joint public hearing) there is little opportunity to really work with citizens and developers/property owners to come up with a solution that works best for all involved.

The planning commission public hearings are the perfect time for citizens and developers/property owners to express concerns and SOLUTIONS. Some have argued that this will make the process longer (by about 2 weeks) and that this works against developers/property owners who may be under time constraints. I propose that an additional 2 weeks that allow for citizen participation and input, as well as an opportunity for the developer/property owner to identify issues that were not noted in the original proposal and work with their “neighbors” to come up with modifications that work, is not a bad thing. In fact, it creates a situation where the project has the greatest degree of success and citizens are happier with the results.  Of course, it does require some investment on the part of citizens and the developer/landowner who must be willing to work together to come up with the best solution.

Another important issue related to this process is the proposed change in the fees required. Example: Previoiusly, one fee was applied to all rezoning requests, regardless of the size of the property. Whether the person owned 1 acre or 40 acres made no difference. If it would ultimately lead to 4 homes on the property or 100, made no difference. If it affected 5 neighbors or 75 neighbors made no difference.

Town Council is be addressing this proposed fee change at their next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011. At that meeting a Public Hearing will be held to discuss the new fee structure. You’ll have to check the town’s website for the agenda for that council meeting for the specifics, but what it does is base fees on the size of the property involved. In essence, those proposals involving larger parcels and affecting more people will be covering their fair share of the costs of advertising and notifications rather than letting it fall upon taxpayers to ‘foot-the-bill’ for the difference. (A change well over due!)

While your waiting for the official council agenda version to appear, you can check out what was presented and voted on at the last planning commission meeting at: http://christiansburg.org/archives/66/12-12-2011%20PC%20Package.pdf

For properties less than 5 acres – $500

For properties of 5 -20 acres – $750

For properties greater than 20 acres – $1,000

It remains to be seen if the large property developers/landowners will show up in force to try to get council to vote this proposed change down or not, or if existing citizens and homeowners will show up to support this proposal. If you have an opinion on the matter, consider coming to the public hearing or writing/calling council members to express your opinion.

Overall, it would seem that a more fair and equitable distribution of the costs to the town for having the public hearings would be a welcome change (and a savings for tax dollars, perhaps even enough of a savings to make sure that there is money for the Fall and Spring cleanups!). The separate public hearings will allow for more citizen input and more opportunities would exist for the developer/landowner to work with citizens and the town to increase the likelihood that they can get approval of a project. To me, that looks like a clear win-win situation.

There were others doing similar activities, but I can only report on the perspective and experiences of this one person because it was (and still is) me. Carol Lindstrom.

During the course of those years, I have agreed with Cm. Barber and I have argued with Cm. Barber depending upon the issue involved. Mr. Barber was the first, and for some time, the only member of Council to encourage open government. His response when I started posting Town documents on my own website because they were not available on the Town’s website was that the Town should post everything it could. It took some pushing and some changes on the Town Council and Town Administration of that time to get things rolling but now the Town of Christiansburg has an excellent website that literally shouts “Open Government”.  Cm. Barber did not do this single-handedly.  Cm. Brad Stipes was largely responsible for the beginning of the website followed by years of pushing one huge boulder uphill to get things started. It also took the cooperation and votes of other Council Members to make things happen.

Cm. Barber was one of those who got behind the idea of an Aquatic Center and made it happen. While I was against the lack of citizen participation in the process, I believe that the Aquatic Center has been and will be a net positive for the Town of Christiansburg. The income generated by visitors via sales, meals, and lodging are a crucial component of town revenues.

Cm. Barber has striven diligently to keep from raising property taxes by promoting fees and taxes that are related to “use” such as the motel and meal taxes instead of property taxes. Those taxes lead to revenues from people who are making a choice. It also makes sure that visitors to the area contribute to the tax revenue for the Town. Those people visiting the Aquatic Center eat and sleep here generating tax revenue that helps keep our property taxes low WITHOUT having to cut necessary services and minimizing any reductions to desired (but not necessary) services.

I sat through many meetings of the Finance Committee which Cm. Barber served on (with former Cm. Ann Carter and current Cm. Brad Stipes) and unless you were there you did not have an opportunity to see how he hard he worked:

• to keep property taxes low
• to keep keep those “user” fees discussed about as low as possible
• to make sure that infrastructure needs were met
• to hire a well trained and experienced Finance Officer (Val Tweedie)
• helped to implement the Priority-Based Budget process that includes citizen input in the process of evaluating services to increase efficiency without compromising citizen values
• to push for open government (including the funding for a Public Information Officer – Becky Wilburn – creating an open government atmosphere that can be an example to other jurisdictions
• to not layoff town employees (which would have a negative effect on local businesses where those employees spend their money)
• to not reduce necessary services to citizens
• to not reduce those services which citizens enjoy but are not necessary (i.e., Fall Cleanup)
• to push Town Administration to sort through and cut any expenses that were not absolutely necessary (all of these hours of work were done before Council ever looked at the budget)

If you attended Town Council meetings or watched the videos of those meetings, you saw that Cm. Barber bases his votes on what is best for the Town, not on what is her personal feelings or pressure from special interest groups. He listens to citizens, but ultimately, when I have asked him about them, he makes his decisions based upon facts that he can explain to you. You will also have seen that he tried to negotiate when opposing forces have the Council split on some issue.

Cm. Barber did not support moving the elections to November and had, what I consider, a good reason for not making that move. The primary concern was that the local elections would become polarized by party politics of the other elections. Indeed, that may well become an issue with those who vote purely party lines. Local elections are exempt from having party affiliations but in the perception of voters, there is a possibility that choices could be made simply because of a perceived party affiliation rather than by their qualifications to lead the Town. Parties have no place in local politics. Potholes don’t really care if you are a Republican or Democrat or Independent, they just need to be fixed.

Moving Town elections to November will likely increase voter turnout, but with the chaos surrounding other elections and redistricting, will voters be voting for Town Council members based on their qualifications, or based upon a name they recognize, or the face that appeared at their door? I guess that will only be determined by time. I sincerely hope that people will do a bit of research to determine who is the best candidate for themselves. Having Town elections in November will say some taxpayer money, and given that the push for this change originated in the Registrar’s Office over 4 years ago, will make the job of Registrar and Election Officials easier. (Yep! It’s in the minutes, the County Registrar was the first one to promote the idea of moving the elections to November.)

When I first moved here, I was not familiar with local government or candidates and I relied upon the recommendations of Mr. James (Jim) Dorsett. Mr. Dorsett told me that Michael Barber was a fair and honest man and was worthy of my vote. I have found this to be true. I have consistently voted for Cm. Barber and will do so again.

As to the remaining two open positions, I believe that while Ms. Baluh does not have experience in government, neither did any of the current Council Members before they were elected. She will however, bring in something that has been lacking on Council. Ms. Baluh has a strong working knowledge of emergency services and how important they are. As a former paramedic myself, I know that Ms. Baluh will bring with her knowledge of the importance of traffic flow, infrastructure issues (road conditions, flooding of streets, safety of water and sewer lines) that will help Council to make the best possible decisions regarding health and safety of citizens. That same working knowledge makes her particularly aware of the importance of police, fire and rescue to citizens. (Any one who has ever been a paramedic on the scene of an accident can attest to the fact that the support of police and fire department personnel can make the difference between life and death, sometimes of the paramedic/EMT as well as the patient.) We already have a Council of individuals with business backgrounds and one with education background and another with legal background. Having someone on Council with knowledge of emergency services and health, will make a more well-rounded Council. The greater the collective knowledge of our Council, the better the decisions that will be made.

Beyond those two, I am still reviewing videos and noting any inconsistencies or other issues that will affect how I vote for someone. A council member needs to work as a team member above all else. The person elected must be willing to work with citizens, Town Administration, and other Council Members in order to get things done. The person elected needs to have knowledge of how decisions will effect other areas of Town business and citizen lives BEFORE they make those decisions. Every change made will have an impact on other areas and must be taken into consideration. For example, laying off employees or cutting salaries will affect how many people are spending money in Christiansburg or eating out. That will affect overall revenue. Not funding needed infrastructure repair and upgrades can easily result in damages to citizen vehicles, home, belongings, and the health and safety of citizens.

Councilmembers must have the ability to assess the actions taken today and the long-term repercussions of those actions in order to keep our Town healthy. Perhaps, just perhaps we are better off here in Christiansburg than many other areas of the state simply because of the long-range vision of our Council Members such as Michael Barber. And, perhaps by bringing in new visions (Ms. Baluh), we can do even better.

One thing is for sure at all levels of government these days. Just saying NO to spending money is not the best route to go. It is in spending it wisely, with the ability to anticipate future returns on those investments of taxpayer money, that we can keep Christiansburg as healthy as it is today and help to fix some of our financial difficulties at the State and Federal levels. Nobody who just says “NO” will get my vote. If you’re going to say NO to something then you better be able to give a reason and an alternative. I believe that both Cm. Barber and Ms. Baluh are the people to do just that!

On Wednesday October 26 Candidate Forums are being held for:

• Town of Blacksburg, Town council: 7-9pm in Blacksburg Town Council Chambers
• General Assembly Forum is being held at 7pm in the City of Radford at the Radford High School Auditorium

On Thursday Oct 27, General Assembly Forum: 7pm-9pm at the Montgomery County Government Center in Christiansburg.

Voter Guides are now available for all of the forums except City of Radford.

Videos of the three (3) forums already held (Town of Christiansburg, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors & School Board, and Montgomery County Constitutional Officers) are available on the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, VA 2011 Election webpage (http://lwvmcva.org/LWV-2011Version/2011Elections/MainPage.html) and have been distributed to local libraries as DVDs.

Videos of the Blacksburg and Montgomery County General Assembly forums will be posted as soon as they are available. If a video of the Radford forum becomes available, it will be posted on the LWVMCVA.org website as well.  In the meantime, the Voter Guides give some good information for voters.

Do you really want to end up having to see your town taxes have to be raised because of a bad decision made by the Board of Supervisors??? Come on out and show your support of those speaking against the destruction of the building and maybe add a word or two of your own in during any citizen comment section.

The Town of Christiansburg has been working on establishing a historic district in the Old downtown area of Christiansburg for more than a year now.

In large part, this endeavor has be to try to preserve the friendly “home town atmosphere that “downtown” conveys. It is also to provide some motivation for people/businesses to come into downtown and revitalize it. In recent years, we have see a lot of improvements in the downtown area at the expense of taxpayers AND individuals. New sidewalks and streetlights, buildings being restored and cleaned up, businesses coming in.

All of this has happened DESPITE the significant negative impact that building the New Courthouse has caused. Despite the loses in revenue of downtown businesses due to the construction. Despite the noise, dirt, and other byproducts that are inherent with any such construction.

Through it all the Town of Christiansburg and the residents have “bit the bullet”. Citizens are NOT happy with what has happened, but they have gracefully accepted it.

Now, the County would add “insult to injury”. All of a sudden, after all of the planning that was done to make sure there would be adequate parking, all of the taxpayer money spent in the design and building of a parking garage, the County has decided that more parking is needed. In order to get that parking they propose to destroy one of the areas most important historical landmarks, the Phlegar Building. Why is the parking even needed? Why does it have to be at this one particular location?

(If they are going to tear something down, how about the world’s largest Rubic’s Cube … you know the ugliest building in the County, the Courthouse Building that is now being replaced?) It is the most common comment and laughter generator that I’ve heard from tourists in town.)

The Phlegar building was included in the National Register of Historic Places on November 13, 1989 (Reference # 89001892). It is of a (rae for this area) Victorian Italianate design and  is a local landmark for Government office/Businesses. The specific periods of significance for the building date from 1900-1924; 1875-1899, and 1850-1874.

Along with it’s National Registry designation, if you do a quick check on Google, you will find it is listed in many of the tourism sites on the internet. Thus, it has a certain significance as a tourism site for the Town of Christiansburg.

Unfortunately, the Phlegar Building has been treated in much the same way that some of our schools have been treated: ignore it until we can tear it down, let’s see if by neglect we can accomplish the demolition that we really want to have happen.

This is not just about the destruction of a building though, or of the destruction of a beautiful piece of our local history, it can have a devastating impact on all of the work the Town of Christiansburg has done to develop a historic district downtown, possibly resulting in a large portion of the proposed district being cut out of the accepted area. It is one of the 3 standalone anchor buildings that gives credence to the Town’s goal of establishing a historic district.

For the property owners and the Town, this would mean the loss of tax incentives and grants that could have gone far in helping to revitalize our downtown.

Personally, this total disregard for the citizens of the Town of Christiansburg, for Christiansburg’s history, for the negative impact this will have on revenue for the Town, and for the negative impact on a long worked on historic district for downtown, is disgusting!

If the County wanted to be a good steward of their properties and wanted to work with both Town and County residents in a positive light, they would do as Councilmember Michael Barber suggested at the last Christiansburg Town Council meeting: fix it up and transform it into the County’s Tourism Center. It is the perfect use for such a building and the perfect location!!!!

It is high time that Montgomery County started doing something to help rather than hurt Downtown Christiansburg! Come on Board of Supervisors, do the right thing for citizens. Christiansburg citizens are just as deserving of a little bit of respect and thoughtful consideration as are residents of Blacksburg, Riner, or anywhere else in the County. After all, we pay County taxes too. Oh, and by the way, we VOTE!

• October 13: Christiansburg Town Council: Moderator Mary Housak: 7pm – 9pm, Christiansburg Town Council Chambers (Completed)
• October 17: Montgomery County Board of Supervisors and School Board: Moderator TBA: 7pm – 9pm, Blacksburg Town Council Chambers (Completed)
• October 20: Montgomery County Constitutional Officers: Moderator TBA: 7pm – 9pm, Montgomery County Government Center
• October 26: Blacksburg Town Council: Moderator Chris Trejbal: 7pm – 9pm, Blacksburg Town Council Chambers
• October 26: City of Radford General Assembly: Moderator Clay Waite: 7pm, Radford High School Auditorium
• October 27: Virginia General Assembly: Moderator Chris Trejbal: 7pm – 9pm, Montgomery County Government Center

As these programs are completed, videos of the forums are being posted on the lwvmcva.org website along with Voter Guides. The videos are unedited and don’t require much explanation. However, the Voter Guide is not always clear to everyone.

Part of the process used by the LWV’s for these forums is to send a questionnaire out to all candidates. Each candidate is asked to complete a biography and to give short responses (100 words) to some questions that have been picked by members of the LWV’s. (Hey! You wanna get your questions in on the written form rather than during the videos, you have to join the League:) These documents are given out to the public at the forums and are available on the lwvmcva.org website so that citizens who cannot attend the forums will have access to those as well as the videos posted there.

A link to sample copy of this questionnaire is provided on the Voter Guides section of the first forum listed on the 2011 Election page on the lwvmcva.org website. You will also find links to the video files for each forum on that page:  http://lwvmcva.org/LWV-2011Version/2011Elections/MainPage.html

So, if you have missed either the Christiansburg Town Council Forum or the one for the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors & School Board, you can still watch the candidates and hear their responses to questions generated by the audience.

These forums are but one piece of the whole when it comes to choosing who to vote for in the upcoming elections. Some additional things you might want to consider are:

• If the candidate is an incumbent (currently in office):
• How well have they performed in that capacity?
• How long have they served?
• Did they stand by previous campaign promises?
• If the candidate is not an incumbent:
• Do they have any work related or volunteer experience relative to the position for which they are applying?
• If they do have experience, how much and how does it compare to the duties to which they may be elected to perform?
• These two also apply to “incumbents” as it may be that one person can be an incumbent with extensive experience because of work, while another is an incumbent and experience in office but none otherwise.
• For all candidates:
• Are they making campaign promises that they may not be able to meet?
• This requires a bit of thinking because if they are a member of a group of elected officials, they are but one person and one vote. They cannot precipitate changes by themselves. This requires that they be willing to negotiate and compromise in order to get the best possible option for those they are elected to serve. For those in a singular office (i.e., constitutional officers, it is far more important to know what it is that they are suppose to do in the performance of their jobs and then look at whether or not what they are promising is even possible.
• What is the individual actually campaigning on? What changes do they propose to make?
• If the candidate is running under one or two major issues and does not or cannot articulate how those issues impact other areas, then it could be that the person really does not understand how changes in one area can affect another.

But enough of the general stuff. There are also a few things that I tend to look at, but they may not be of interest to you.

• Does the person follow the rules and regulations? It is fine to disagree with and strive to change rules and regulations, but making conscious attempts to violate the rules and regulation under which they must operate may not be the best thing. It could lead to costly legal action for taxpayers. (i.e., as much as I support the Freedom of Information Act, I know that there are some limits/exceptions which I do not agree with and I will work to change the laws on those. I would not, nor would I ever vote for anyone who violated those laws.)
• Does the person listen to all sides of a story before making a decision, or do they let one person’s wishes dictate their position? (This is easily seen in those who are incumbents. However, if you know the person running, the odds are good that you will see some of those same traits in how the handle things in the rest of their lives (home, work, church, etc.)
• Does the person show a willingness to work with others? Regardless of their position, every elected official has to work with others (employees, supervisors, peers, citizens, etc.) I don’t know about you but I’ve seen more than enough stone-walling in Congress of late to last me for a lifetime. Negotiation and compromise are crucial to effective leadership. A failure to do this results in a “winner” and a “looser”. Compromise makes sure that the best possible option for all is the outcome and while both sides of the argument may have to give a bit, they all end up winning to some degree.

I could go on for quite a bit on these, and I may well do that later. Right now work calls so I’ve got to attend.

Remember the lwvmcva.org website has candidate forums and each of the jurisdictions has videos of the main elected groups (Town Council, Board of Supervisors) offer online videos of their “performance”. The General Assembly only has live video of the current session, so that is not a great resource. However, there are other checks on the General Assembly that you won’t find for local officials. Sites like www.govtrack.us will allow you to check on the voting history and what bills those officials have proposed. Additionally, the Virginia General Assembly website provides access to information on incumbents listed by name. You can quickly see what committees the person is assigned and the Legislation for which they have been Chief Patron or Co-Patron. This gives you a good idea of what areas of interest the elected person has supported.

Is it worth all this work just to vote for someone? Well, I guess it depends on you. You are choosing who will make the decisions that will affect your daily lives and your community. Your vote could be the determining factor. It only take 1 vote to win.

The League of Women Voters is hosting this forum and they have a webpage with information on this and other Candidate Forums being held this Election cycle. You can find out the who, where and when of the forums at: http://lwvmcva.org/LWV-2011Version/2011Elections/MainPage.html

This year, for the first time, Christiansburg Candidate Forums will be televised. Channel 12 – Alive-TV will be replaying this forum several times.  But, if you have a question that you want to be put in the pot for those given to candidates to answer, you have to be there.

This is also the first time that Christiansburg elections will occur in November. If you are a registered voter in the Town of Christiansburg, who will you be voting for on Nov. 8th? One way to find out about the candidates is to come the forum and present your questions. You do not have to stand up and ask a question, nor do you have to identify who you are. It is an anonymous process of writing your question on a 3″ x 5″ card and handing it in to one of the volunteers collecting them.