By Staff Reports
Powhatan Today

Marsell Bustos:

This coming election day Powhatan citizens will vote on three Constitutional Amendments.

The first proposed Amendment asks voters if localities should be allowed to grant tax relief to qualified elderly and to the permanently and totally disabled. Our elderly and disabled on fixed incomes are struggling in today’s economy. Our grandparents who have given so much to our community in their lifetime now deserve a payback. Many of our retired seniors, unable to pay their taxes, have had to leave this county. Now also, is the time to lend a hand to those neighbors with disabilities. This tax relief, when administered responsibly, will have an effect on our county budget but can be offset with other sources of revenue.

The second proposed Amendment asks voters to provide property tax exemption to residences of veterans and surviving spouses with 100% service connected permanent and total disabilities. For me, being veteran, this question hits close to home. As a nation, at war, we have asked our voluntary service members to shoulder the majority of the misery and suffering associated with this military conflict. Our men and women are now serving multiple tours of duty in combat. No conscientious American should deny this exemption to this very small group of patriots who have given us so much.

The last proposed Amendment asks Virginians if they want to increase the states rainy day fund from 10% to 15%. Seldom is saving money a bad thing. Yet the state’s commitment to roads, education, retirements, etc. during these difficult times, will make it very challenging to find money to increase the rainy day fund. We citizens will have to build a budget surplus during the better days ahead allowing us to increase savings.

In closing, I applaud our political leaders for allowing the citizens of Virginia, to make decisions affecting the welfare of our great state. 

Jason Moore:

I will comment on the proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution, but also address the next major issue confronting District 2 i.e. a proposed 220 unit apartment complex on Rt. 60 across from Walmart. 

One amendment allows an increase in the “rainy day fund” from 10% to 15% of the Commonwealth’s average tax revenue over the last three years.  The Commonwealth should be allowed to increase the size of the “rainy day fund.”  Personal savings accounts are designed to get us through the bad time, and the Commonwealth should be no different.

A second amendment requires the General Assembly to provide a property tax exemption for the principal residence of a veteran or surviving spouse, if the veteran has a 100% service-connected disability.  The amendment should be passed.  Paraphrasing Lincoln “the world will little note, nor long remember what we [do] . . . , but it can never forget what [our soldiers] did.”  A tax break provides little solace to a disabled veteran, but is the least we can do for someone who gave so much for our country.

The third amendment allows the General Assembly to pass legislation allowing localities to establish their own financial limitations for purposes of property tax relief for those older than 65 or disabled.  A one size fits all solution to setting financial limitations does not work.  The cost of living in the different areas of the Commonwealth must be taken into consideration.  One dollar in Galax will buy you more than one dollar in Fairfax.  Localities, therefore, should be allowed to set different financial limitations based on the cost of living in their area.

The question most people have asked me this week:  “What is your opinion of the proposed 220 unit apartment complex on Rt. 60 across from Walmart.”  My opponent said the county might benefit from the proposed complex.  I have several questions about the proposal.

First, will the size and density of this complex cause an increase in crime.  As a criminal defense attorney, I know crime usually increases around apartments. Increased crime will depend on housing density and the monthly rental cost.  The lower the rent and higher the housing density, the more likely crime will increase.

My second concern is the cost to the county of providing services to those living in the complex versus the tax revenue generated by those living there.  For every $1.00 in taxes collected from those living in an apartment, they use $1.20 in services.  Additionally, we suffered unusually high population growth in the 1990s.  Our schools grew at an average of 90 students per year in the 1990s.  This decade the average is 18 students per year.  We need this respite to catch our breath and improve our infrastructure to develop commercial growth and not residential growth.

Finally, apartments will cause a terrible increase in traffic on Rt. 60.  My opponent opposed Walmart, because our roads could not sustain the increased traffic. How much will traffic increase when 230 to 900 additional residents decide to live in the new apartment complex across the street from Walmart?