Land Use Committee (LUC) met last nigt. We talked for a bit about the regulation of adult businesses and there should be something on the Agenda for next Monday night allocating about $100,000 for the entire process. That would include Adult businesses but also a laundry list of other businesses that we might want to regulate. It’ll take about 6 months to get the whole deal done. We’ve also directed the City Attorney to get us a second opinion what our options are regarding existing Adult businesses.
Just as significant: We also met with Van Metre and the developer of Prescott Arms last night. Both projects have come back for redesign. The Mixed-Use projects that were approved for both places just aren’t going anywhere in the next 5-10 years so they came back to the Council to see if there was a willingness to go with Town House versions of those projects.
They really are two very different propositions: the Prescott property currently has an old apartment building that I would love to get rid of – we’ve had problems there in the past. The owner has worked with the City to improve it but I would be willing to consider a nicely done, mainly brick upper-mid range project (how’s that for adjectives!). The developer had some engineering drawings and some elevations that looked great.
Van Metre is a horse of a different color. The redesign is essentially a sketch at this point and it’s empty land. It’s also right on Center st. Some of the concepts they showed were pretty nifty but we’ll have to see what they eventually bring to the table. I’m optimistic as we have a good dialogue and they seem inclined to work with us towards a project that works.
However, for both, the proof is what is finally submitted. We’ll see.
September 23, 2010 at 9:27 am
$100,000 ‘cha ching’ ‘cha ching’ ‘cha ching’ where she stops ??? And remember folks that doesn’t include the salaries and contracts we were paying to manage city development prior to the business opening.
BTW, I’m not criticizing the CC & LUC, they have to address the issue now, but it would be fiscally irresponisble not to examine or address the source of this little hemoraging of our tax dollars.
Mr. Way chaired a pretty thorough meeting of the LUC. I liked his recognition and push for some sort of stop gap ordinance to prevent another shop slipping in before we have a real firewall in place. Afterall, city staff has argued they were and are powerless to prevent such stores from opening as things stand now.
I missed the first few minutes and I’m just curious Andy whether there has been any discussion with the store owner of buying out her lease? Maybe she, like Manassas itself, would like to avoid a continuation of this little melidrama?
Finally, as to the study itself, I would hope someone from the City Council would be responsible for monitoring the project. Face it folks city counsel fell down on the job in preventing this one from happening, they have an interest, a wee bit of a conflict of interest in – initiating, defining the scope and in delivering the final product of the proposed study. Not insurmoutable, but….?
September 23, 2010 at 9:43 am
Agreed, Mr. Way did an excellent job.
As to how the project will be monitored, I expect that it will proceed as several of our other capital IT projects have been moitored of late: a regular report back to the Council to ensure that things are really moving and not slipping. In this case, the project reports might come just the LUC though…
There was no discussion of buying out a lease.
September 23, 2010 at 10:39 am
A laundry list of other businesses the Council may want to regulate? Is this a case of ‘in order to justify regulating the adult business, we need to show that we are regulating other businesses too’?
It will be great to see something happening finally with these two properties. Just goes to prove that the housing market in northern VA is starting to recover.
September 23, 2010 at 10:43 am
D:
No, we would regulate the other businesses apart from the adult stuff. The process to regulate adult businesses is largely derived from federal case law and is well defined even if it is complicated…:)
They are two very different processes and are not related.
I’ll be happy to see something happen on those properties but only if we can get to a project that looks good and fits! I am optimistic though.
September 23, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Was the B3.5 Zoning Regulation put into place to allow the higher-density, mixed-used development around Old Town? I liked the original plan at Prescott Arms. More townhouses does not appeal and would that require a zoning change? The Van Metre land is where the old self-service car-wash used to be across the street from Seton H.S.?
September 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Voting to regulate viewing booths and abortion clinics regarding health and safety issues ought to be interesting. Which activity poses a greater public health and safety issue to those taking part in said activity? Hm?
September 23, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Andy, thanks for keeping your eye on the ball. Those housing projects are real important . I appreciate that you and others are focused on them.
September 23, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@dave: mostly yes. The real question is best framed like this: do we sit tight for at least 5-10-20 years and just see what comes along or do we re-negotiate with the developers for the best possible project to be done in the next few years?
For my part, I’m inclined to negotiate in good faith and see what comes of it. Realisticly, if we never see another housing market with the froth that we saw recently it’ll be too soon. Those B3.5 projects (in my vew) were only made possible by hyper-inflated values and I expect it’ll be another 20 years before a project like that is viable.
However, I do think the density portion of the projects are desireable – maybe not to the extent that the B3.5 projects took it but townhouses that are on the expensive side could give us something of what we want.
We’ll have to wait and see what those guys ultimately submit…
September 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Dave, you are correct, the Van Metre land includes
the site of the old car wash across from Seton.
September 24, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Off topic, but note that the agenda for the
September 27, 2010 Manassas City Council
meeting is on the city’s website.
Included as an action item:
“Consideration of Resolution #R -2011-24,
Supporting Regulation of First Trimester
Facilities and Providers by the Commonwealth
of Virginia. (Staff: Council Member
Marc T. Aveni.)” The full Resolution is
on page 121 in the agenda.
Hopefully, #R-2011-24 will be approved
Monday.
September 24, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Osbourn Park at Osbourn in an hour at OHS.
A great night for hometown football.
Go Eagles!
September 26, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“Hopefully, #R-2011-24 will be approved
Monday.”
I hope Andy, and at least the one woman on the council, Councilwoman Bass, share Mr. Randolph’s hopes. Because, no matter where one stands on the issue of abortion, the idea that a woman entering an abortion clinic will have less health and saftey protection in place than a man with a bottle of lube in a viewing booth in Old Town, is rather insulting to Feminism, whether one reads Foucault or Coulter.
Bravo Mr. Randolph for supporting the resolution.
September 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm
This is quite the transparent attempt to harrass an abortion clinic and to make it more difficult and expenive for women to receive an abortion in Manassas.
I understand that many constituents are strongly anti abortion as it is their clear right to be. They will support this measure even though many of them know it is solely to harrass. And I appreciate that the council is following the lead of their most vocal constituents. Fair enough. Let’s just not delude ourselves that we are doing this to protect our female citizens.
I bet that the city has developed no record showing a need to take this action. And I do not know but would also bet, that there is a communications string showing the thought processes of a minority of politicians to do indirectly what they cannot achieve directly, which is to outlaw abortion.
It goes someting like this: Let’s outlaw abortion; if we cannot outlaw abortion then let’s make it difficult to achieve an abortion. And if we have to make believe we are doing it to protect women, then so be it. If the law can’t work for us then let’s invent a substitute intent regardless of the facts. The argument is that the ends will justify the means. Of couse, the end here may be a really expensive lawsuit.
I would imagine that several of a majority of council members will hold their noses when they vote “yes” on this one. I won’t blame them. There is a reason for analogying law making with sausage making.
September 27, 2010 at 9:18 pm
@oh well
I can agree, on one hand, with the view one clinic has been targeted. Councilman Wolfe alluded that tonight in his statement to why he did not support this resolution. Have to hand it to him as his points were quite logical, especially this is not a local matter. Councilman Way, although voting yes, also somewhat alluded to it is not a local issue.
But then again, all politics are local.
On the other hand, I see this as basically having the State cut one document specifically defining abortion clinics as a medical facility which would then be inspected as same. I am not sure (yet) what Councilwoman Bass was alluding to when she referred to other clinics, but will eventually sort it out.
The reason for this hand view is the Virginia Code already defines how the local court has jurisdiction in the matter of abortions for unemancipated minors; that any physician licensed in this Commonwealth for medical or surgical can perform an abortion in 1st Trimester; and fetal death reports are already required when an abortion (any trimester) is performed.
Again, all I see this resolution doing is putting it in the State’s lap to cut an Administrative Regulation so a clinic is on-par with the already defined requirements for Acute Care Hospitals that perform abortions.
In some points, I fully agree with Mr. Wolfe. But remember the golden rule that all politics are local.
September 28, 2010 at 12:08 am
It’s too bad the cynicism of “oh well,” Mr. Beverage, and Mr. Wolfe towards the” true” intent of the resolution and its backers, doesn’t extend to the proprietors of the abortion clinic and their monetary interests in operating an unregulated women’s health clinic.
Mr. Wolfe comments and vote marred what I thought was one of the finest moments of the Manassas City Council since I moved here 10 years ago. Andy H, Mr. Randolph, Ms Bass, Mr Way, Mr. Aveni and the Mayor acquitted themselves remarkably well in the their words and actions tonight. The Mayor’s little contribution was outstanding.
As for Mr. Wolfe, I found his words and logic deeply disturbing, both on a practical and an ethical level. On the practical level, he should have listened to Mr Way a little closer, Mr Way’s extended remarks and his rejoinder to Mr. Wolfe concerning the merits of a city resolution on the matter were cogent and sound.
On an ethical level, it’s troubling that a City Councilman, the owner of a small business, and a prominent figure in the arts and entertainment sector in Manassas would have an objection to the city speaking with one voice on how consumers, women consumers of a service should be protected from possible serious, deadly harm by a business that can slip under the radar due its ability to go unregulated as a health clinic.
September 28, 2010 at 2:58 pm
It’s most interesting that it’s not women who have undergone abortions or who are likely to undergo abortions who are asking for these improvements. Rather it’s men who will never have to have an abortion and women who will never seek an abortion who are most interested in this. You are so selfless, seeking to protect those women who don’t know how to protect themselves.
Show me those who support choice and also support imposing additional restrictions on abortion clinics. The truth is that the overwhelming and most ardent support is coming from those who most actively oppose abortion. It’s so revealing that, among all of the issues you could have picked to improve women’s health, you picked this one.
Yes, I know you are doing it out of love. Your love just shines through.
September 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Cynic? Yes, in this LOCAL instance, I shall have the role of the cynic when it comes to this resolution.
First up, I am behind regulating all, repeat, all medical and surgical clinics either under Federal or State laws – to include the “Doc in the Box” that open all over the place. And most clinics do follow the Federal law since they want the dollars reimbursement….just many are not under State and Local ordinances. When it comes to the abortion clinics, the State House has tried several times I believe to put them in; then the State Senate blocks it. So where is the demand from the House to make the regulation go through? Too ungentleman like to brow beat the Senate I suppose. But do note the variety of other Code items are in place from the Commonwealth. Federal is all out of HHS. Most abortion clinics in the Commonwealth do follow them…but let’s keep this local since the grander scale belongs at levels above my pay grade, as the old saying goes.
What makes me a cynic in this?
Let’s go back to around October 2007. The City Council, with Councilman Aveni being the lead on the resolution, looked to form a committee to study what regulations and guidelines Amethyst Health Center are under, and “if more stringent guidelines are necessary” (Councilman Aveni’s statement). Councilman Way backed having a committee, but that committee should have “technically competent people and not position advocates”. A wise statement from him indeed!
So, let’s take out “postion advocates” refered to above and lay out what the LUC exploration may have asked (since there is not an online version available to see on the City website and asking for a copy of the report at this point is redundant):
How many times has Amethyst Health Center for Women since 1998 had the State Medical Examiner investigate improper conduct/procedure as required by Virginia Code; a Doctor lose his license over improper conduct as required by Virginia Code; any violation of Federal Laws, Regulations & Guidelines they must follow and were cited for not following; how many certification inspections (announced and unannounced) by the National Abortion Federation (who work with the Fed HHS the same way The Joint Commission does when it inspects hospitals); how many times has the State, County Health or City cited them for improper disposal (and pardon the crass wording, but it is the Federal term) of medical waste; how many times have they violated a local building ordinance or Fire regulation. Probably found Amethyst by public record or specific inquiry is in compliance with Federal and applicable state & local ordinances.
So, as asked today about another business in town when a similar instance came up in the past (although not in Old Town), how come the Council did not put things in our local ordinance to add “more stringent guidelines as necessary”? Most likely because they found it was beyond their chartered authority from Richmond. Oh yeah, the same State bunch that kept killing seperate abortion clinic regulation.
Fast forward to the events of the last quarter. Mayor Parrish reactivates former Mayor Waldron’s Committee. Del. Marshall gets the AG to give an opinion citing the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as Mr. Aveni did also in 2007. Lots of “postion advocates”.
Of course, the ones who did not step forward with a position were the ones knowing they have done nothing wrong legally, and are complying.
And Monday night, with the Mayor’s two worded tweak (agree his choice of words were outstanding), a resolution is passed. And yes, as Mr. Randolph wisely stated – it was read by me line by line and understood. Again, as I said above, my view is it calls on the State Administration to pull together under one heading of “abortion” all exisiting law, regulation (which means also grab the Federal as did this resolution cite where needed).
And the last line – accurate reporting. Well, if done by a licensed Doctor, it is..and statistic is available through 2008 at: http://www.vdh.state.va.us/healthstats/documents/2010/pdfs/ITOP08.pdf
That resolution puts it back where it belongs – State Administration. And for that matter, the General Assembly. Will something come of it? Depends on total political pressure in the Richmond buildings.
Locally, a wise Council puts out a resolution which acquits them of having to spend time focusing on an issue which, given the total adult population of this City vs. the total comments, emails, letters and phone calls tally to have them “do something”, does not matter to the greater mass.
Still, a worthy endeavor as it proves our Council is a government for all in Manassas.
September 28, 2010 at 4:11 pm
We wouldn’t be having this dicussion if the porn shop had been here long ago…NO PREGNANCY from their objects…but same happy ending!
I want my medical resources acknowledged by the state who have qualified individuals to make such decisions…The City would only be able to pay them a buck two ninty eight….and you know you GET what you pay for!!!!!
TIRED OF MEN trying to MIND WOMENS business…STAY THE (*&% OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! MARK WOLF FOR MAYOR!
“clinic will have less health and saftey protection in place than a man with a bottle of lube in a viewing booth in Old Town.”
DB…you are such a pig…so where does this viewing booth reside…outside your neighbors bedroom? You seem to be the one with issues. You scare me! Making stuff up in an attempt to have people think you know everything.
My momma always said…Those who profess the loudest are usually the most quilty!
I bet your parents left you in a hot car at a young age didn’t they!?!?!?!
September 29, 2010 at 12:24 am
WSGFN,
The pharmacy called your meds are in.:)
I’m sure Mr. Wolfe is thrilled for your support.:)
Despite your courageous, anonymous defense against “men trying to mind women’s business,” given the issue, abortion, methinks you showed up a tad late for the battle.:)
Now if you were concerned about some man forcing his female partner or victim to get an abortion at some skanky, poorly regulated male operated health clinic, then maybe, more Manassas citizens might rally to your” Mark Wolfe for Mayor” rant-in, but I doubt that is what you had in mind, and we know Councilman Wolfe strongly believes that Manassas as “an entity” should neither have, nor express any opinion on such a matter.:):):)
September 29, 2010 at 12:54 am
@Do it for the love of others
Stated:
“It’s most interesting that it’s not women who have undergone abortions or who are likely to undergo abortions who are asking for these improvements. Rather it’s men who will never have to have an abortion and women who will never seek an abortion who are most interested in this.”
That is an outright lie and if you have been following this issue you know it is. It has been the grandmothers, mothers and daughters of Manassas who have been the driving force behind this issue, you dismiss them and underestimate them at your own risk; your dubious claims of championing the feminist side of the issue are belied by the scores of Manassas women who stand in silent protest and prayer against the clinic on a regular basis, and the one man, who stands across the street championing your so-called feminist cause.
BTW, “Do it for the love of others” are you that man?
September 29, 2010 at 9:03 am
Doug, you may have misread “Do it for the love of others” point, and therefore unintentionally responded to an argument that he or she did not seem to make. These are difficult and emotional issues and I could understand this occurring.
As I read his/her submission, the point made there appears to be that the women and men seeking to change the law are not the people having abortions or who are likely to have abortions. By way of gentle example, I presume that the many people who stood up and cheered in council chambers are staunchly anti-abortion and would never consider having an abortion, and would seek to prohibit abortions if they could. Thus, they are not seeking to change the law for their own safety. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.
I agree that they should not be dismissed. I did not sense that “Do it for the love of” was dismissing them. Indeed, I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that they are not a recognized, maybe the recognized, political force here in Manassas. Clearly, the City Council pays attention to them.
Separately, I regret that I was not in attendence and did not hear Mr. Wolfe’s remarks. It’s difficult to tell what he said based on the various reactions I’ve heard. In your view if you wish to share it, what point do you believe he was trying to make?
September 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Richard,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments and can appreciate that you might assume I was missing his/her argument, but I simply don’t agree with the poster’s premise as stated in the quote I used.
Why do so many pro-abortion advocates assume that staunchly anti-abortion advocates have never taken part in or had an abortion? That is not a rational assumption, but an emotional assumption which helps pro-abortion advocates to discredit and dismiss the other side of the abortion debate .
For what does the pro-abortion advocate fear most, beside their own inner doubts and emotional turmoil over the abortion issue? They fear those who can give witness to the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual scars left by an abortion.
And why let linger or promote the pro-abortion argument in this debate that it just some very vocal holier-than-thou types who have driven this issue? Even those who have not taken part in, or had an abortion, have been touched by or witness to someone who has had an abortion, OR, who may consider an abortion like one of their own children, a niece, a family friend. These people are not some recently escaped mad monks from a nearby monastery, they have lived and “loved” in a society in which over 50 million abortions of “potential” human beings have been performed. They are not people unaffected or untouched by the issue.
Richard, you say that you are not dismissing the people who championed this resolution, but you are, when you misrepresent; belittle their motives, but, at least, you don’t appear to be openly mocking and ridiculing them, as did the poster you’re mistakenly, I believe, defending.