Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (10)
Tulloch only incumbent at latest League debate
What stood out here? Three races, five candidates, but only one incumbent on hand.Bruce Tulloch (R-Potomac) was the sole sitting member of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to take part in the fifth and final candidate forum sponsored by League of Women Voters of Loudoun County Oct. 17.
"As a supervisor, I'm used to the spears," Tulloch said of his opponents' attacks on him. "My vote is not for sale and it never has been."
Held at Potomac Falls High School near Cascades, the forum featured candidates in the Potomac, Sterling and Sugarland Run supervisor races.
Several weeks ago, Republicans threatened to pull out of League forums because the organization did not hold them for two state races featuring Democratic incumbents. Wednesday night, supervisors Mick Staton (R-Sugarland Run) and Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) followed through with their promises and skipped the event. The Potomac District was the only race with a full contingent of candidates taking part.
"It's time for these embarrassing headlines to stop," Tulloch's Democratic opponent Andrea McGimsey proclaimed at one point.
McGimsey, a former employee of the Piedmont Environmental Council, and Tulloch's other opponent, Independent Ken Mikeman, attacked the board vice chairman on ethics throughout the evening, accusing him of being overly cozy with developers.
Also, Mikeman called "laughable" Tulloch's attempt "to distance himself from developer money."
During question and answer with the audience, Tulloch was asked why Republican supervisors stripped Board Chairman Scott York (I-at large) in 2004 of some of his chairman responsibilities, such as the authority of setting meeting agendas.
Tulloch explained the board took no authorities away from the chairman that the state requires him to have, and that it was York, leading up to the board's first meeting in 2004, who was resistant to working with Republicans.
"That is just complete b.s.," York said afterward, adding that it was he who extended an invitation to Republican supervisors to put items on that first meeting's agenda, but no one responded. He described his relationship with Tulloch as one "of inconvenience."
On illegal immigration, for the most part, candidates at the debate agreed that the Sheriff's Office should assist in deporting criminally minded illegal immigrants.
"They're just not used to being in a place where you can't have chickens in your backyard," Mikeman said, explaining that illegal immigration is also a zoning enforcement matter.
In the Sugarland Run District, slow-growth Democratic candidate Susan Klimek Buckley announced she would "sound like a broken record tonight" and kept her promise.
"Stop overdevelopment," she said on several occasions to a smattering of giggles, explaining that houses approved by Staton are overtaxing schools and roads.
"Make Loudoun better, not just bigger," she added.
In Sterling, Jeanne West, a Democrat, explained Sterling Park is an aging community "yet a wonderful place to live." If supervisor, she promised to steer more county "resources" toward Sterling Park.
On transportation, she also said she supports bringing rail to Loudoun County, something her opponent, Delgaudio, has consistently called in the past a "boondoggle."
Times-Mirror staff writer Anne Keisman contributed to this report.
All the Republicans did was give Tulloch the authority to set the agenda, because they were worried --with good reason -- that York, known for dirty politics, would stonewall them (like he has stonewalled my FOIA's and charged me an arm and a leg just to LOOK at documents about his employers' development in the County.) York was known for making it difficult to get items on the agenda, and if you can't get them on the agenda, you can't act on them...they were the majority, there to do business, and they wanted to make sure they could control the agenda...do you blame them?
Even York has said the Republicans have been fair, and that he has never had an item he wanted to come forward that Tulloch did not allow on the agenda..
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
Yes, we do blame Tulloch and his cronies for sleazy politics and putting special interests ahead of citizens. The proof will be demonstrated on election day.
Posted by MarkKay
Report Offensive Content
2005 tax increase of 14%*
2006 tax increase of 15%*
2007 tax increase of 12%*
48% tax increase in 3 years!
Approved over 30,000 additional home to be built in Loudoun.
Snow, Clem, Delgaudio, Staton do not want to face the voters with numbers like that.
*Louodun County Treasure Office
Posted by concernedcitizen
Report Offensive Content
I forgot this one. Tulloch and Snow love to spout rhetoric like "there have only been 25 houses built that this board has approved". What a ridiculous statement! The point is that we have out of control gridlock now (people who don't work may not be aware of this) and they have added approvals for 15-30,000 new homes while rezoning needed commercial real estate to residential. Not only do we get more gridlock, we now have less commercially zoned land with which to attract companies to move to Loudoun. Of course, since the Economic Development Dept is more concerned with running agricultural tours than enticing
companies to locate here, this is probably a moot point.
Posted by MarkKay
Report Offensive Content
Mr. Kay,
Cite the actual decisions that you say added !5-30,000 new homes in the last 4 years. That is total bull. This Board deleted that many homes from our plan and zoning by down zoning the west--some of you like to say they "added" homes by not downzoning as severley as you wanted, but they took most of the development rights away. The clustering that you claim adds so many homes, is virtually impossible to meet, because it requires wells and septic on very small lots close together. Unless western Loudoun gets public sewer and public water, the numbers out here that can "supposedly" be built are way exaggerated...
This board only added less than two thousand residential units, in Ashburn, and in exchange for major road/intersection improvements..
I am really tired of all of you calling them the builder board...the denied the CPAMS and downzoned the west..what more do you want?
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
Ms Mann: You seem to have unlimited time on your hands, so do some research. My numbers are well documented and not even the "builder board" dispute them. One has to wonder what your vested interest is here. Mine is not vested and is shared with most Loudouners who work for a living and commute.
Posted by MarkKay
Report Offensive Content
More breaking news: Check page 5 of Sunday's Washington Post Loudoun section. It lists candidate contribution numbers including a breakdown of contributions from the real estate industry and the PEC. It also lists a quote from Tulloch which is a gross "missrepresntation of facts". It's amazing how anyone could support a candidate who is so blantantly disingenuous. Also, McGimsy, who made a disparaging remark about Mikeman's developer contributions, actually took more development money than Mikeman! Seems there's more than just one sleazy politician in the race.
Posted by MarkKay
Report Offensive Content
Two corrections to MarkKay comments: First of all it was Tulloch who made the disparaging remark about Mikeman's contributions; although judging from VPAP records so far,Tulloch was most likely referring to something that has yet to be made public. Many campaign contribution records unfortunately are not made public until AFTER the election. Secondly, McGimsey has a well earned reputation as a citizen organizer with an environmental group. She is not sleazy and obviously not all realtors agree with your frivolous comment if they made contributions to her campaign. Mikeman is widely thought of as a wedge candidate who was deliberately put in to the race to take votes away from McGimsey, esp. in light of Tulloch's FBI investigation and poor voting record. Get your facts straight.
Posted by stargazer
Report Offensive Content
Mr. Mikeman has take $2500 from one of Loudoun's most active developers, Van Metre, www.vanmetrehomes.com. Mr. Tulloch has a well-known record of close ties with developers in Loudoun County, although he said at the LWV debate that the developers have chosen "a different horse in this race." I assure you the active Loudoun developers have not chosen me, and I would not accept their donations. I have received $3000 in campaign donations from the real estate industry per www.vpap.org -- none of these donors have land use projects in Loudoun County. Several Loudoun residents who support me are real estate agents -- a common and respected profession in our area, one is a commercial developer who develops projects in D.C. (good for our region's commercial tax base), and one manages commercial properties. When I am the Potomac District Supervisor, I will sign a strong ethics pledge immediately, and I will put an end to sweetheart deals with developers that harm our community.
Posted by McGimsey
Report Offensive Content
Correction Stargazer. McGimsey made a disparaging remark about Mikeman as well.
Posted by MarkKay
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.