Home Local Politics Would-Be Arlington Government Changers Get Shadier By The Day

Would-Be Arlington Government Changers Get Shadier By The Day

223
4
SHARE

Arlington’s League of Women Voters isn’t exactly known for flying off the handle & making rash statements. So when they take it upon themselves to express public concern with the group trying to change Arlington’s government, you know something must be very wrong:

The League of Women Voters of Arlington is bristling at a snub by the Committee for a Better Arlington (CBA).

The Committee did not respond to the League’s repeated requests for information about the effects of CBA’s proposed change to Arlington’s form of government, prompting the League to issue a press release today saying it’s “concerned” about “the depth of the public dialogue” regarding the change.

It’s not the first time the change-of-government folks have skipped a chance to publicly defend their views. The CBA bailed out of an Arlington County Democratic Committee public forum just days before the event. What are the government changers so afraid of? That an informed public will realize that at a time when 87% of Arlingtonians are satisfied with county services, this coalition with more cash than supporters is willing to blow up the entire system, including key environmental & discrimination protections, to achieve a few narrow goals?

Show your support for the system that serves us well by joining the Arlington Coalition for Good Government on Facebook.

  • jfontaine

    I don’t think you it is appropriate journalistic license to call someone shady because they didn’t respond to a questionnaire when given a 1 week turnaround. Also just because they are hiring a few petition signers doesn’t mean that they have more cash than supporters.  Last petition signature count I heard was well over 20K.  Right now the Facebook Group for Better Arlington has 300 members and while the Coalition has 242

    I’m not sold on COG, but I’m not just dismissing it and I’m certainly concerned about the legacy of at-large voting and neighborhood accountability for services.  As I mentioned in my diary Democrats should engage on this discussion and provide a better solution.  They should also try to use this tactic by the Republican’s in Arlington to force the Republicans in Richmond to move on some specific local autonomy state wide and elaborate their positions on how things are working in Arlington.  Why shouldn’t more counties have the right to enact these environmental and discrimination protections.  What’s so special about Arlington.  This is something that can rally the base, but instead you want to sit there and pretend that everything is just fine.

  • Teddy Goodson

    I note that Arlington has handled devlopment along the metro lines much much better than other areas, like Fairfax County, for example. Arlington also seems to have built a far more liveable system of growth and development than, say, Loudoun County. From a Realtor’s standpoint Arlington often has better communities with low-income housing and services than most of the Washington Metro area. Why change the system which has accomplished so much good? If there are gaps or problems it seems to me it is far better to work within the system than mischievously monkey with it.

    I do believe that the Commonwealth very much needs to abandon its rural-centric present political system and come into the urbanizing 21st century when it comes to creating local government systems; it strikes me we need something between plain county with separate city jurisdictions, perhaps a metropolitan-county?

    And, more importantly, additional sources of funding for local jurisdictions, sources which would not be tied to real estate—- as it is, real estate taxes on residential and commercial property are the largest single source of funding for local jurisidictions, and this places an undue burden on property. Services by local jurisdictions are where the rubber meets the road in quality of life, where most people see their government in action, and paying for it all weighs disproportionately heavily on property owners.