Remarks to the Prince
William Planning Commission: September 21, 2022
My name is Bill Wright and I live in Gainesville. I oppose the Prince William Digital Gateway and would like to lodge a complaint about your conduct of the September 14th public hearing.
Before the hearing convened, I approached the dais where Gainesville Commissioner Berry and Vice Chair McPhail were standing. I handed them a copy of an e-mail I had previously sent to the Chair and the clerk that contained excerpts from the Planning Commission by-laws limiting the public comments of applicants during public hearings. Despite this, a large number of applicants were permitted to speak, pre-empting the input of over 80 non-applicants, who were unable to remain until their opportunity came in early morning hours.
The whole concept of who
the applicant is became muddled. The CPA
application says it is Mary Ann Ghadban, who was also permitted to speak during
what was supposed to be public comment time, as were her lawyer and lawyers for
QTS and Compass. At one point it was
claimed the County was actually the applicant.
These irregularities and the excessive courtesies extended to proponents
for the proposal served to prejudice the proceedings and reflected poorly on
the impartiality of the Planning Commission.
The presentation by the Planning Office was abysmal and their “deer in the headlights” response to the most basic questions posed by the Commissioners confirmed the indefensibility of this proposal and a stunning lack of preparation. The Planning Commission has full latitude to make bad decisions, but any unbiased viewer of those proceedings would question your impartiality and judgment.
Your deliberations closed with a final act of deception. In her motion to adopt the CPA, at video time-stamp 9:43, Commissioner Brown requested that it include changes contained in a September 9th letter from the applicants that rescinded a number of proffers. It is my understanding that only a few Planning Commissioners and members of the Planning Office staff had any foreknowledge of this letter, even though it had most certainly been delivered to a select audience five days prior. The letter closes with the statement: “The Applicants respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully examine and implement the changes recommended within this letter.”
Carefully?? This letter contained information relevant to the public hearing and its contents should have been made publicly available prior to the hearing. Instead, this letter was not created by the Planning Office for posting to the county’s publicly accessible website until 1:22 PM on September 15th, more than eight hours after the hearing and vote had concluded.
This CPA review process is so polluted that it is almost impossible to distinguish incompetence from deliberate ill intent. After witnessing your conduct at last Wednesday’s hearing, I am not expecting responsible action from this Commission, but I am hoping to be surprised.
Withholding essential information relevant to proper decision making, however it happened, should invalidate that hearing and its resulting recommendation. Do the right thing, acknowledge your embarrassing missteps, and initiate a do-over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Post a Comment