The 434 Newsletter 

Keeping You Informed
Highlighting May 2021

Will you sign-up to automatically contribute just $5 a month to assist with promoting and advancing the conservative platform (continuing this newsletter, digital marketing for issues before Council etc.) within the City? A commitment of $5 a month over the course of a four-year term comes out to over $250, putting the conservative platform in a strong position to be successful. 

Join us, today.

Follow me on my Facebook and Twitter Page
to continue to stay informed.

 

The only Councilmembers playing partisan politics is the current majority on Council.

Before you accuse the Republicans on Council for being "so partisan", take a hard look at yourself. We have moved for debate on lower tax rates (four separate times) and alternative budgetary items to lower spending, yet the majority - a liberal block vote - rejected ALL efforts of the minority, including open debate. But we the conservatives, a mere two votes, are the ones acting in a partisan manner when they control the narrative and direction of Council? Give me a break.

Friends, pay attention. This is your Council. Be informed, and in the future, vote accordingly.

Call me nit-picky, but I don't like the message these proposed City Code Amendments seem to send to law enforcement, and the community at large. Why have rules if nobody can enforce them?

In accordance with the wisdom of the General Assembly in Richmond, Council is considering technical amendments per legislation adopted this past Session that involve motor vehicles. Generally speaking, the legislation changed these types of offenses (J-Walking, illegal exhaust systems, playing music too loud, expired registration, and so on) from a primary offense to a secondary, meaning, they cannot be the main reason for pulling you over or stopping you, but can be tacked on if you are detained for other reasons. Council cannot control the legislation or laws enacted by Richmond (even though, I must admit, I am not a fan), but we can control how they are written into City Code.

The proposed language recommends stating the intent of the legislation, that, "no law enforcement shall stop/enforce/etc. for violation of this code section."

Candidly, I didn't like the message it sends to our law enforcement personnel. As you can see by my discussion with our Deputy City Attorney, it would be preferred to reference the State Code, instead of adopting language that seemingly directs our officers to not enforce portions of City Code.

Unfortunately, this ordinance passed by a vote of 6-1. Even though Council could not have altered the penalties and enforcement of the code, we could have crafted language to be more friendly to the men and women actually patrolling our streets. 

This is not good policy.

After rejecting my proposal of putting $3.4 million into a lockbox - thus taking a steady, conservative approach so Council can specifically address compression - the majority moved to spend every cent of it on a 5% general wage increase.

I argued the following points against this policy:

- The majority of these dollars will go to city employees at the highest paygrades, not to the "boots on the ground" folks hit hardest by compression and the ones who need these dollars most.

- A 5% general wage increase delay's addressing the compression problem and makes it more expensive to fix.

- Council does not need a white paper to understand the compression problems facing our workforce, just go out and engage the workforce; get in a Firetruck, Police Car, etc., and see firsthand the staffing issues they are facing.

- How does the majority plan to finance this compression plan in the future, another tax increase? Where will these dollars come from? I will not tolerate a tax increase in the future knowing this is how the majority engaged this issue today.

I summarized these arguments by highlighting a city worker I know who has been serving our community for 25+ years, making ~$45k, has a family, works a second job to make ends meet, and this Council - instead of addressing the compression problem for him specifically - is only sending him another $2,400, while the folks making six figures are receiving more than double that. Is this how Council wishes to reward tenure and service to our employees?

My recommendation to Council, which failed on a 4-3 vote, was to delay allocation of these dollars so we can do right by the City workforce with the dollars at hand. Ultimately, the liberal majority thought otherwise.