Heat is on: AG says Biscuit Run deal under scrutiny
Write a letter to the editor
Biscuit run investor Hunter Craig and DMB violinist Boyd Tinsley joined Governor Tim Kaine a year ago at the Monticello Visitor’s Center to celebrate the state’s purchase.PHOTO BY COURTENEY STUART
Recently disclosed details of the Biscuit Run state park deal have prompted more than public outrage— they may have prompted an investigation into the transaction that some allege was a government bailout of wealthy investors at taxpayers’ expense.
“I can tell you and therefore reassure the public that the Biscuit Run matter is being reviewed by appropriate parties,” writes Brian Gottstein, spokesperson for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in an email. “I cannot say any more than that without potentially compromising an investigation.”
As reported in the Hook’s January 6 cover story, “Bad Men? New numbers show spiraling costs of Biscuit Run,” the owners sold the 1,200-acre property to the state for $9.8 million in December 2009. Several months later, the Virginia Department of Taxation issued $11.7 million in tax credits, more than doubling the price. The former owners— who include developer Hunter Craig and music mogul Coran Capshaw— have appealed to the state to issue millions more.
Meanwhile, the new governor— a Republican who initially endorsed the deal— now appears to be distancing himself from something arranged by his predecessor, Tim Kaine, who heads the Democratic National Committee.
“The acquisition of this land occurred during the Kaine Administration, not this one,” writes Bob McDonnell’s spokesperson, Stacey Johnson. “This Administration was not involved in that process.”
The process, according to documents anonymously mailed to the Hook around Christmas, includes a questionable appraisal that might trigger millions more for the speculators. And yet, if not for the documents, the taxpayers who’ll end up footing the bill would not have known that an Orange County appraiser asserted that the land was worth nearly $88 million— nearly double what the speculators paid during the height of the real estate bubble.
“This type of secrecy is the worst,” says Jim Moore, a government transparency advocate who’s worked in real estate development. “I guess their excuse would be that it’s socially acceptable to keep large private gifts private— that making them public might discourage the wealthy from providing these gifts. But as we can now see, how can we tell that they’re gifts?”
Moore says he hopes that the state will open the Biscuit Run files, change the laws that shrouded it, and punish any wrongdoers. However, Delegate David Toscano says he doesn’t believe an investigation is actually taking place.
“I do know that [Department of] Taxation would look at this thing first, but there may be other places where it would be reviewed as a matter of course,” says Toscano, who says use of the word investigation “implies something I don’t think is happening here.”
Toscano notes that he doesn’t consider an investigation appropriate.
“Any time you have a transaction of this size, you’re going to have a lot of differences of opinion about value,” says Toscano. “If they can’t agree, then there is some kind of court remedy to determine what that value is.”
According to legal analyst David Heilberg, the AG’s office may have authority to investigate even though it handled the real estate closing. And he notes that if the state allows the massive $88 million appraisal or even its own $39 million appraisal, another potential stumbling block for the investors hoping to recoup losses might come if they attempt to use their charitable donation for a federal tax deduction, opening up an opportunity for the IRS to investigate the land’s actual value.
One person who won’t be getting any tax credits or deductions from the Biscuit Run deal is DMB fiddler Boyd Tinsley. Although he was presented as a Forest Lodge investor at a January 8, 2010, event announcing the sale, and granted interviews about the “gift,” a source close to the deal says that, in fact, Tinsley— who spoke about his close personal friendship with Governor Kaine and said he’d learned about the transaction only weeks before the event— never had any money invested in Biscuit Run.
I wonder who elso in the state was receiving favors for helping this deal happen. Greased pigs lead to greased palms.
Grease Machine
Interesting that Boyd Tinsley never had any money in the deal, is he just Coran Capshaw’s beard in this deal? It’s hard to understand why Boyd is pictured celebrating this deal with Gov. Kaine .
Who is David Toscano? He’s a delegate? - oh that’s right he’s the guy we only hear from when he puts out his campaign signs. Maybe he and Creigh need to sit down and get their stories worked out. They are in the same party, right? - you know the one whose governor helped with the deal. Its the party of the people not big business….yeah right…
This is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read. Who am I supposed to be angry at again, and why?
This is an update to a previous story, what is this.
How many yachts can you water ski behind Coran Gekko?
All of em!
Gee, maybe some developers have their eye on the Biscuit Run land and want this deal torpedoed.
why was Tinsley at the announcement if he wasn’t an investor?
How sleezy!
What a sleezy thing to do, especially in this economy! While schools are getting cuts, the rich get more money in their pockets! How can they live with themselves? How sleezy!
Nero was a fiddle player, too.
It would be nice just to know the bottom line…did the investors lose significant money on the deal? Period. If so, then the citizens of Charlottesville did indeed get a gift in my opinion, and case closed. We do not need to know the amount…just that it was substantial. It’s okay if the deal helped them minimize their loss. Who would blame anyone, large or small, for that? PS. (Sadly, it does seem that someone always has to be blamed for everything nowadays though, especially if they are greedy developers, except the ones who developed your neighborhood when prices always went up.)
did the investors lose significant money on the deal? Period. If so, then the citizens of Charlottesville did indeed get a gift in my opinion, and case closed.
***
This doesn’t make sense. If the developers lost some money, then it therefore makes sense to create a park in the development area and give the developers an excessively large tax credit? Huh? Perhaps the fair thing for the taxpayers was to allow the developers to lose even more money based on their bad investment.
I am with Yes - why should the taxpayers have to pay at all. Oh that’s right, these wealthy people were too big to fail so we should help these unfortunate souls out - GIVE ME A BREAK !!
Look at the names involved. All uber liberal progressive anti-capitalist Democrat politicians and celebrities. They all rant about the evils and unfairness of “the system” and profess to be the defenders of the “working man and the little guy”. And they all use their connections to gorge themselves at the public trough. Disgusting but oh so typical of the hypocrital left. If the people involved were Republicans/conservatives they would be robber barons, right?
It’s all “so Cville.”
small town, small minds:
Actually, given that Biscuit Run is in the county, “It’s all ’so Albemarle’.” What’s “so Cville” is what’s now afoot for the City intersection of Ridge Street and Cherry Avenue. Compare:
~~In 1999, Charles Hurt pays $90,000 for five parcels of land at Ridge-Cherry because a City Councilor who has no right to promises him two adjacent City-owned parcels to go with them.
~~In 2004, Hurt’s subsidiary, Southern Development, unveils a plan for the five Hurt parcels plus the two City parcels, and the involved City Councilor, now Mayor, tries unsuccessfully to deliver the two City parcels to SD.
~~Between 2004 and 2007, SD presses various plans for the site but is repeatedly thwarted by neighborhood opposition.
~~In 2007, thwarted SD dangles aggressively “green” bait — a massive, mixed-use project that looks like a community college campus but features “bird-friendly” window glass (which, of course, birds prefer to trees) — and dazzled Councilors decide behind closed doors to sell SD the City parcels.
~~In 2008, despite continued neighborhood opposition, Council votes to sell the two City parcels to SD for $253,000, to be paid as a contribution to a Council-designated “affordable housing fund.”
~~In October 2009, despite continued neighborhood opposition, Planning Commission and Council approve “William Taylor Plaza,” which SD lists for sale days later for $2.3 million.
~~In October 2010, SD relists “WTP” at $1.8 million.
~~On 23 December 2010, some site neighbors are notified that City Council and Planning Commission will hold a Joint Public Hearing (which will be the only opportunity for anyone to be heard on the matter) to address a request “to amend the PUD” (”WTP”) on 11 January. The notice is singularly lacking in detail. But repeated inquiry reveals that the requester is not SD, but William Park of Pinnacle Construction styling himself as “Contract Purchaser” of not only the five Hurt/SD parcels but also of the two City-owned parcels on which SD has never closed. And it also reveals that among amendments sought are the substitution of 20 “affordable” condos for the “monetary contribution” (i.e. the purchase price for the City parcels), an increase in the project size from 80,000-100,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet, and a retreat from the LEED certification cited in ‘08 as a primary justification for selling SD the City parcels.
So, if CC and PC approve this rushed, below-radar request — now rescheduled (because Park wants more changes)for one-and-only hearing in February — Park will get a project both bigger and badder than anything yet approved for the Ridge-Cherry site as well as two parcels of City taxpayer-owned land in exchange for nothing more than pricing 20 unneeded condos according to a twisted “affordable” formula. And CC’s very good friends at Southern Development will get $1.71 million profit in exchange for nothing more than distressing a neighborhood for seven years.
As a neighbor adroitly observed: “This is nothing but a bailout for Southern Development.” And that really is soooooo Charlottesville.
Brad,
I think what irritates people is that the wealthy moan about how in a capitalist society they shouldn’t pay taxes to subsidize welfare queens, yet here they are at the trough, for a lot more money than some welfare recipient.
It’s like the whole water plan being pushed.
“Look at the names involved. All uber liberal progressive anti-capitalist Democrat politicians and celebrities.”
Oh, yeah, definitely - Hunter Craig is a uber-liberal anti-capitalist. You cannot seriously assert that the C’ville/Albermarle development community - outside of social issues - is even remotely “anti-capitalist”.
The Craigs - from Four Seasons on - have been churning out junk-boxes for a quick buck as fast as they can - they are the epitome of the “capitalist” land developers - and not “socialist” in any sense beyond trying to pawn off on the taxpayer any “exernalities” (schools, roads, sewer, water, etc.) they possibly can in order to maximize their private profits. They are hardly unique or alone in this, but it’s not what you “right wingers” like to call “socialism” (that would be forcing the Craigs to pony up enough cash in proffers to actually pay for the additional costs their developments impose on the county).
Capshaw has been trying to turn a buck at anything and everything he possibly can since time immemorial. Hardly a socialist.
Boyd Tinsley is a former high-school nerd busy showing up all the people who he thinks slighted him as the first-chair-violin geek in the orchestra back at CHS - that’s a big part of his media hound pursuit (along with making a buck).
I’d be very interested in seeing the details about who put up what share of the big bucks for Forest Lodge, LLC, before we start pointing fingers about the politics of those “feeding at the trough”. Maybe the Hook can uncover that information.
Although the deal is a tad stinky - the developers clearly didn’t have to eat all their popped-bubble losses - I’m not sure what the hullaboo is really about. Even after you take the tax credits into account, the cost to the state is quite a haircut, relative to what these guys paid for the place in 2005. Plus, it’s a huge win for all of us to preserve a large space like this, close into the urban core of the city/county.
I think you all miss my perhaps misguided attempt at sarcasm. Of course all these characters are capitalists - to the max. But, of course, they all are so insipidly compassionate, kind hearted souls who, for public consumption, must profess to be oh so caring about the working man in a liberal college town where money is derided as dirty by the very people who continually game the system for their private gain. Like all liberal Democrats they are hypocrits! If this cast of characters were known for their contributions to conservative causes they would be strung up. But because they are “cool” libs no big deal!
Antoinette W. Roades, I would be thrilled to have you on City Council if you are so inclined. Please consider it.
Hawes, are we going to get an article on what she wrote about? It seems very deserving of one to me.
Who is David Heilberg a “Legal Anaylst” for?
Ken,
I disagree with all liberal Democrats being hypocrites. These people aren’t really liberal Democrats. Its the right wing that loves to label it so simply because they aren’t Republicans. So they do things that make the right happy to make it look like they aren’t so darned liberal.
A real Liberal Democrat couldn’t get elected in this town.
Tim Kain is Blue Dog or Conservative Democrat, and I have never heard him portray himself any other way.
The way this whole scandal reads is that Democrats and Republicans have come together to once again, bail out the super wealthy.
Scott,
I think what is important here, be it Tinsely Craig, or whomever, is that it is not poor people feeding at the trough on this. It’s a bailout for the investors at the taxpayers expense.
I also don’t think its accurate to claim that this somehow has as of yet been saved from development. If I recall this land was all in conservation status before being sold off for development, and the developers had to pay the taxes for that. Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive that’s what occured.
Hunter Craig is not a liberal. Get your facts right those that say he is!
I don’t blame the developers for trying to make a profit or minimize a loss. The process is even O.K. IF the appraiser has any ethics which is where the problem truly is.
The appraisers who will give you any number for a fat fee are a dirty little secret and are well known by those who are willing to pay for their services. This is who should be rung up the flagpole.
cookieJar:
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but even if I were inclined to run for Council I’d be in trouble if I won. I suffer the civic disability of being a day person. My personal constitution just won’t let me undertake meetings that begin at 7 pm and sometimes run past midnight — a non-negotiable requirement for full participation in public affairs hearabout. (The last time I voluntarily stayed up past midnight was for my high school graduation all-night party.)
There are lots of good people around here whose circadian rhythms don’t preclude their serving though. And I’d strongly suggest that you seize any chance to single-shot vote for any one of them who hasn’t been handpicked by the current insiders even if his or her politics don’t track precisely with yours. Breaking up the current clot is more important than any particular position or label. Any outsider would be a potential whistle-blower.
cookieJar:
Oops. That should be “hereabout,” of course, not “hearabout.” Call it a Freudian slip by someone who often feels unheard.
@antoinette
It’s all the same “greater Cville area” to me.
Whether it’s the democrats in the City or republicans and tree-huggers in the County, makes no never mind to me. They all kowtow to developers, favor the rich and well-connected and cr@p on the poor and underserved.
Yes, small town, but the city types pay a quarter more in property tax rates to do their kowtowing: to whomever they may kowtow. The county types pay less, their supervisors gripe more about ‘revenue sharing’ (which mathematically could be to their benefit some years), and provide for fewer poor and underserved while griping.
I really want to rescind the word “Charlottesville” from anyone not paying for the privilege of living there. I think the distinction is important. There is no “greater Cville area”. There is a county growth area usurping the name of “Charlottesville” while claiming the advantages of the county.
Antionette, please don’t preclude youself. You could just sleep through the meetings like Mr. Huja does.
Seconding cookieJar’s request for an in-depth article on the William Taylor Plaza story, as well as Charlie Armstrong’s ties to city government. A sidebar listing of developments that were sold to the city and residents, but turned out to contain “surprises” would be lengthy and illustrative.
City government continually makes the same mistake in assuming that developers who offer socially or environmentally responsible proffers are doing so because they are benevolent and charitable. So many of these proffers never see the light of day, and that’s the intention. The Planning Commission serve as the enablers in these fiascoes.
There is a difference between city and county governments in that the city actually does care about the social and environmental mission, for the most part. This means they get repeatedly snookered by developers like Southern Development, the Piedmont Housing Alliance, and any random hipster who fancies himself a “green” builder. It’s like watching a slow-motion trainwreck. The khaki pants and rep tie crowd in the county doesn’t care one bit about any social mission, only about the bucks, and are blatant about it. (Then there are organizations like the PEC that play both sides against the middle, but that’s another watery tale.)
@Ken Betts “I think you all miss my perhaps misguided attempt at sarcasm.”
That’s because it wasn’t sarcasm - it was a straight up ad-hominem against people who profess liberal values, and an attempt to somehow conflate liberal social values with corruption and self-dealing. A more intellectually “rigorous” and objective approach would not have garnered the same response, nor would it have reached the same spurious conclusion.
Very clearly, people of both political stripes try to justify their self-dealing (rather hypocritically) all the time - the list of “up by my bootstraps”, “no government handouts”, “private enterprise” mouthpieces who get rather fat off of handouts and preferential dealings from the government - at all levels of our government (local, state and federal) is very very long. We might start with Wendell Woods and his nice fat deals with the FedGov for otherwise unremarkable land for NGIC. Perhaps my point to you was too subtle: these “free market” types are constantly shoving off onto the government all kinds of “costs” which their “profitable” activities create - that’s socializing the losses while privatizing the profits.
You are ignoring that Hunter Craig is one of the big principals here, and is one of Gov. McDonnell’s big contributors and best buddies - you know, our very “conservative” (in every sense - Mr. Regent U) new governor.
@Old Timer
I think that feeding at the public trough is a despicable and well established (long) tradition in our country. It’s taking from the poor and working to give to the rich. I’m not thrilled that these developers - and I still want to see what the makeup of the LLC was, because I’d bet dollars to donuts that you’ll find quite a lot of the “Republican” pro-development deep pockets in it - right along with people like Kaine, Tinsley & Capshaw. In fact, I’d bet those are the folks who stood to gain the most financially.
That said: the cost to the taxypayers for this land, after you aggregate the tax benefits and the up-front cash, is less than what the LLC put in in 2005 - at least, that appears to be the case now. The only real stink - and I think this does bear looking into - is whether or not the value of the tax benefits and cash at the time of the transfer was higher than the fair market value. I think it looks like they thought they’d get to cherry pick their assessment and the state is pushing back on that - I’m very glad to see that.
My understanding - and *I* may be wrong - is that part of the deal is that the land had to go into a permanent conservation easement - which is quite different from the land-use tax shelter that the previous owners kept it in. That latter shelter did have some claw-back/recission provisions when the land was sold, but that is not an easement on the deed. I also don’t think, once this is a state park, that there is any chance it will ever turn into a subdivision.
If, on the other hand, this hadn’t happened, probably the land would not have been developed right away - maybe not for twenty years - it’s hard to know how long the hangover from this bubble will last - but I think it very likely would have happened.
I think the land-use tax shelter is a good example of well-intentioned “liberal” (anti-development and as such, in fact, “conservative” in the strictest original meaning of the word) policy which in practice works out to be a huge benefit to the wealthy (who pay no taxes on very expensive estates), much like the home-mortgage interest deduction (which is an enormous tax subsidy for holders of ginormous mortgages on very expensive estates). Charlie Hurt has certainly made an art of parking his ‘agricultural’ land very cost-effectively for years and years.
I’m very sure any true conservative, wanting anyone to be treated equally and evenly before the law would insist that these subsidies should be eliminated immediately - the big estates (like Wendell Wood’s “cabin” on Carter’s Mountain) should start paying their full property taxes just like the rest of us do on our much more modest ‘castles’.
Moreover, I’m sure any real conservative would agree the government should quit tinkering in the free market, creating distortions with perverse incentives, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction - why is the government trying to push people into homeownership with these things instead of letting the market sort out who can really afford to own a home?
What say you Mr. Betts? Can we have a little ideological purity and consistency? Or is that “different” somehow?
Barbara Myer: I agree completely about using “Charlottesville” with precision. The distinction isn’t just important, it’s critical. Although many area residents aren’t even aware that City and County are completely separate municipal entities, there’s really no more influential fact of local life. The dividing line is utterly artificial, of course. But the practical results of how each entity is governed and by whom are very real.
FYI: One icy day last winter, while we huddled with the cat around the wood stove, we did the arithmetic and realized that our two-adult household pays more than 20 percent of its net annual income to the City in taxes. And we didn’t need a review to count the ways in which our tax money is used to make life easier for many who have so much more than we do — via PHA, for instance. Two years ago, when local real estate prices plunged 15 percent, the City assessor raised the assessment on a vacant lot we own more than 15 percent. And when we lodged formal protest, we were informed that the new assessment was justified by our lot’s “market appeal.” The experience, which included notable rude treatment, was thoroughly unpleasant. Still, it was good to have in writing proof that the City is in the real estate business.
N.B. In August 2009, non-voting Planning Commission member David Neuman described Southern Development’s Ridge-Cherry project (aka William Taylor Plaza) as effectively “City-sponsored.” He was correct.
Reality Check: And on that same subject, your analysis is right on point. You’ve obviously been paying close attention for a long time — something few do, which is why such manipulation of system and sympathy can persist.
It had been clear to many of us since 2007 that SD’s sole goal had become securing the two City-owned parcels — which belong to all Charlottesville citizens, not just to denizens of City Hall — and flipping the completed package. The listing of WTP immediately after its ‘09 approval bore that out. The sale contract that Council approved in ‘08 does allow for reassignment of the contract but only with the written permission of the seller, i.e. the City. If someone in City government has granted such permission — which would be necessary for William Park to legitimately style himself “Contract Purchaser” of the City parcels and to legitimately petition for rezoning them — without resort to public process, that permission-granter should be reassigned right out of a job.
WTP is eminently exemplary of the wretched excess of the devastating real estate bubble. It should be dying a natural death even as we type, not being resuscitated at taxpayer expense.
And Dahmius: Thanks for the thought. But, alas, unlike Huja, I have neither headgear nor hirsutism to muffle the snore.
When Biscuit Run was sold by the Breedens…to Craig et al. did the Breedens have it in any special tax program (for rural preservation etc) or had they been paying taxes on the land in no special program?
In Charlottesville you either ride the horse, or muck the stall. Guess which one is the taxpayer. Also I love it when the rich fight the rich. So Classy
S,
My understanding was that Breeden way paying lower taxes on it as it was in Land Conservation / Rural status. The developers who bought it had to pay the State back all the taxes that would have accrued had it been in developable status from the time it was put in Conservation.
This is what I recall hearing at the time. I could be wrong on that. To me, it was one more abuse of the system. A convenient way to have a tax shelter until you can shove it off on someone else.
If someone has better facts on that part I hope they will bring it to light.
Some recent article said something like now the Breedens are stuck with paying regular taxes on the Breeden “donut hole” in the middle. I was also thinking there is a rule that you only have to pay back 5 or 7 years instead of from the very beginning of a conservation special tax. (But I could be wrong on that)
Interesting, but predictable, direction this thread has taken– a discussion on conservative vs liberal values.
A “true conservative” would insist that government stay out of a very large percentage of the issues that our government involves itself in, including land conservation, public amenities, land planning, promoting affordable housing, promoting organized zoning, the list goes on. A true conservative would say that those who have the bucks can buy whatever is for sale and do whatever they want with it. Want to turn Biscuit Run into a landfill? Buy it and you can. Want to put a “nucular” power plant on your land on Cherry Avenue? That should be your right!
But those of us who are moderate recognize the importance and value of good zoning, good planning, public parks, land conservation (where appropriate), and affordable housing so our community’s poor and elderly can stay a part of our community and not get priced out.
Did the Biscuit Run people work the system and use an appraiser as their tool? Maybe. Was it unethical, illegal, just plain lucky, or all of the above? Who knows– i don’t have the facts. But that definitely needs to be looked into… it smells funny.
In any case, we the taxpayers should know what we’re getting for our money BEFORE our money is spent. If our elected officials can clearly define what we’re getting and what we’re giving, then they need to make that decision. That’s what we elected them to do every day– make decisions. But if they don’t know the cost, they need to keep their (our) wallets in their (our) pockets until they do know the cost!
S,
“Some recent article said something like now the Breedens are stuck with paying regular taxes on the Breeden “donut hole” in the middle.”
I think that was posted here in Hook and I do not dispue that as the current state of affairs. That does not mean it did not come out of conservation status, with the Breedens intending to profit off of it now it seemed more palatable to develop. Nor does it appear that Mrs Breeden does not want to develop it in the future.
If I am correct in saying it came out of conservation status, then I think it would be just deserts that they now have to pay full taxes on a piece of property they might not be able to develop for many many years to come.
Maybe the Breedens can use some of the $46 million they received from Hunter’s investors to offset their future property tax bills.
An interesting discussion.
My first thought is that Ken Betts either doesn’t understand the difference between liberals and conservatives (possible), or that he has a partisan axe to grind (hmmm…) or that he is a devoted follower of the right-wing talk ranters, including Charlottesville’s version, who consistently twist factual data and misinform their listeners. Perhaps it’s a combination of the three.
Antointette makes a valid point: the city-county boundary is “artificial” but the “practical results are very real.” Yes, the city has a higher real estate tax rate than the county. But so do many localities in the state, especially those that have a Composite Index that approximates both city and county. It’s not been much of a secret that for years, a lack of affordable housing and social services (and jobs) have contributed to the movement of people from more rural areas to the city.
It is also no secret that urban areas require higher expenditures than do rural ones. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission( JLARC) documented this fact in its 2002 report on the state funding of education. JLARC’s study conclude, in part, that “higher population density may require more local spending in local government functions besides education, meaning that less local money would be available for education.”
JLARC went on to identify three such government functions: (1) public safety, (2) public works, and (3) health and welfare. The city-county revenue-sharing agreement recognized this truth years ago.
It’s also true that developers are in business to make money. Some are more socially conscious and responsible than others. Some have few scruples and watt to make as much money as they can while putting as little into their projects as possible; some use cheap, shoddy materials if they can get away with it, and some try and foist as much of the cost of their construction onto taxpayers as they can. But make no mistake; development has a cost.
Antoinette seems to think that the city council is in the pockets of Charles Hurt, a developer. Perhaps. But Hurt spreads his personal campaign contributions around almost equally between Republicans and Democrats (after all, he builds in both city and county). Hurt also contributes substantially to the Monticello Business Alliance, a political action committee made up primarily of builders. Over the last five years, that PAC’s contributions are heavily tilted to Republicans, and there is a reason for that.
See: http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/home/142?start_year=2005&end_year=2010&lookup_type=year&filing_period=all
There are multiple issues related to the Biscuit Run tax credit scandal, and I think that word is entirely appropriate. Those who bought the tract of land for $40-plus million hope to build more than 3,000 homes and turn a keen profit (the development came with extended local government costs). They planned to profit from “the market.” However, when real estate values went south, they got caught with an over-valued piece of property. They were going to default on their loans.
Clearly, some skids were greased to enable the state to purchase the property. Just as clearly there were other, larger and less expensive properties to buy. The state paid what was termed “market value” for the property, while the Virginia tax department valued the property much higher. That higher valuation inflated the tax credits the owners were eligible for, and thus increased the taxpayer subsidy. But that wasn’t enough for Hunter Craig and his free-enterprising associates.
They got an appraiser in Orange to say the parcel was worth TWICE as much as they paid for it at the height of the real estate bubble (one has to ponder not only the character and methodology of that individual, but also whether or not the appraisal is allowed to stand). That grossly-inflated individual assessment could mean even bigger taxpayer-subsidized tax credits for “investors” who allegedly believe in the” free market” except when it works against them.
And there is the hypocrisy. Businesses and individuals–– mostly conservative, and Republican –– who hail the merits of the “free market” and rail against “socialism,” and “welfare,” avidly seek taxpayer welfare for themselves. The last thirty years are a testament to that hypocrisy, and it’s intensified the last two years (one need only to review the bailouts of the big banks and hedge funds, or the positions staked out by the u.S. Chamber of Commerce) .
Responsible democratic citizenship requires commitment to some core principles and values.
But a hypocritical me-first, gorge-from-the public-treasury, say-one-thing-and-do-another, approach to governing is not one of them.
@democracy I continue to be enlightened by your thoughtful comments. Thank you
democracy:
Antoinette does NOT think that City Council “is in the pockets of Charles Hurt…”
Antoinette knows that City Councilors of recent years have been in thrall to Charlie Armstrong, the current public face of Dr. Hurt’s subsidiary Southern Development. Armstrong adroitly combines his mentor’s preternatural fixity on what’s good for him and his with personal fluency in all the fluff that makes modern Councilors and their appointees on Planning Commission and BAR go weak at the knees. Which is to say that Democrats who seek City office and/or appointment these days don’t need cash contributions in return for granting a perpetual free pass through the system. Frequent opportunity to discuss ad nauseum burning issues like the number and location of bike racks in a building — as happened at several Ridge-Cherry hearings — is sufficient payoff for them
N.B. At the same time he was assuring Councilors and PC members that he was as devoted as they to abundant bicycle accommodation, Charlie Armstrong was posting on a General Assembly-watch website (RichmondSunlight) re pending legislation: “The current proffer system is little more than legalized bribery.” As I said.
And a fun footnote: The whole Ridge-Cherry situation actually stems from a brief period at the end of the ’90s when Dr. Hurt spent time in the pocket of Maurice Cox — something to behold, I assure you — and I don’t doubt that he has since repented of taking that ride.
Antoinette raises an interesting point about Charlie Armstrong, late o Real Estate III, the Frank Kessler company that sold off much of what Kessler developed (and he developed quite a bit).
She also points out, and indirectly corroborates my point, that there are many who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and undermine and contradict what the say with what they do. She cites Armstrong individually while I’ve cited Hunter Craig and his Biscuit Run investment cronies locally, and more expansively, the conservatives at the state and national levels who talk-the-talk about “big government” and “welfare,” all the while pushing big government programs, policies and spending that pump money from public treasuries into their corporate and personal accounts.
However it’s sliced or diced, it’s hypocrisy. It’s insidious.
And if it ends up contributing to the general welfare, it’s by happenstance, and/or because it feathers someone’s bank balance.
You all are doing such a nice debate. Why do you have to taint the whole discussion with “conservative vs liberal”. There are lots of bad conservatives, lots of bad liberals, lots of bad Catholics, lots of bad Jews, lots of bad white people, lots of bad black people. There are lots of bad people and it has NOTHING to do with anything other than their character. The great thing about our system is that the more arrogant they become the harder they fall (eventually). Stick to the point and the truth will prevail. Muddy it with other issues and the whole point is lost.
Just my thoughts
democracy:
FYI, Charley Armstrong of Real Estate III and Charlie Armstrong of Southern Development are two different people.
Boyd Tinsley from the Hook Jan 8, 2010
“It was a very pleasant surprise (the Biscuit Run sale to the state),” he said. “Any loss we’ve taken pales in comparison to the contribution we’ve made to the community.
—————————————————–
Boyd Tinsley from the Hook Jan 13, 2011
“….Tinsley— who spoke about his close personal friendship with Governor Kaine and said he’d learned about the transaction only weeks before the event— never had any money invested in Biscuit Run.”