Editor, Gazette-Journal:

Several people have expressed varied criticisms about Gloucester’s recently adopted real estate tax rates. It was evident from the beginning of the budget process; the board of supervisors was divided on whether or not to increase the tax rate. It was also evident the vocal school system support group was once again rallied, via robo-calls, and asked to speak at public meetings in favor of employee raises and a tax increase.

When the time finally came to discuss and vote on the tax rate, the board was still divided. Some supervisors wanted no increase while others wanted as much as a 10-cent increase. The evening before the final budget and tax discussion and vote, chairman John Meyer called for a resolution to be pre-written to reflect the board adopting a 2-cent tax increase. His motion was approved with a 4-3 vote, further exemplifying the board’s division. Mr. Meyer likely did this as an attempt to have the whole board reach common ground and to expedite the final process the following evening. When the voting commenced the following evening, Mr. Meyer voted for a 1.5-cent increase, leaving the three supervisors he voted with the evening before quite upset.

Some folks are insinuating Mr. Meyer flip-flopped his vote as part of a backroom political scheme. The word flip-flopped cannot apply in this situation because there was nothing to flip-flop on. Merely voting to have a resolution pre-written was not a vote for ratification of the resolution. The clock on due diligence and contemplation did not run out until the following evening; therefore all of the supervisors still had one more day to make up their minds. Multiple supervisors changed their mind that final night. Mr. Winebarger voted for the 1.5-cent increase after being against any increase at all. Mr. Ashley Chriscoe and Mr. Phillip Bazzani changed their minds from 1 to 1.5 cents. It really looks more like Mr. Meyer met the division of the board in the middle and no matter which way he voted, three supervisors and the folks who spoke in favor of higher taxes were not going to be happy.

Some folks are claiming an overwhelming majority of Gloucester citizens turned out at meetings at the T.C. Walker building and spoke in favor of a 7 or more cent tax increase. These statements are far from being accurate. In fact, less than 2 percent of Gloucester residents turned out and even if a simple majority did turn out, they would not fit on the property. These types of nonfactual and maligning statements are often used by special interests to deceive the lesser informed populace and are the reason so many bad deals like the landfill, the libraries and Page Middle School were made. They also continue to degrade the image of our county by causing unnecessary controversy and division. I would encourage those folks to educate themselves on all of the details and facts pertaining to how our tax money is collected, spent and accounted for before speaking out or taking sides.

I challenge all real estate owners who want to see a larger tax increase, to donate the difference between their new tax bill and what the bill would be at the rate they wish it could be. If the number of donors ever reaches more than 50 percent of the real estate taxpaying individuals, the higher rate could then be applied countywide. This way, those who feel slighted by the new rate have a way to contribute as much as they want while a truly scientific measure of the People’s Will is conducted. Consolidating services and a few other local government changes will likely render much better results for all of us. 

I and thousands of Gloucester’s residents are thankful to have at least four supervisors who, for the most part, make informed decisions based on facts and who consider the positive and negative impacts on “all” of us when doing so.

Kenneth E. Hogge Sr.

Gloucester Point, Va.