Occoquan Denies Unethical Use of Taxpayer Funds

Update: According to a comment from Occoquan Mayor Earnie Porta, "The person who wrote the email is, indeed, an actual person and a town resident. Staff are familiar with the individual from some past strained encounters. Although his complaint is without merit, in fairness I did want to note for the record that the individual is not a fictitious person or someone masquerading as a town resident."

Original story: After someone claiming to be an Occoquan property owner accused the town on Jan. 9 of unethically using taxpayer funds to produce stating the town's opposition to the proposed , Mayor Earnie Porta defended the use of the funds, saying it was entirely appropriate.

"As a property owner and taxpayer in Occoquan, I was surprised to read in the most resent newsletter that my taxes were being used to attempt to lobby me, and others," wrote the accuser in an email sent at 7:13 p.m. He signed his name as Chris Kiely. "I have no interest in the oaks zoning other than the preservation of the rights of property owners."

In an email statement sent at 8:32 p.m., Porta said that the Town Attorney said there was nothing inappropriate about using town funds to produce and distribute this printed material.

The full text of the original emails is below.

Original email from Occoquan Mayor Earnie Porta, to recipients including Town Council members and me. The email has been included in full and has not been edited.

Dear Town Council Members:

Below is an email sent to the a variety of people, as you can see, which was forwarded to me by a County Supervisor.  As you can see, it claims unethical/illegal use of taxpayer funds for the newsletter insert and flyer stating the reasons for our opposition to Oaks III and asking people to come out in opposition.  The Town Attorney, of course, confirmed that there was nothing inappropriate about town funds being used for the distribution of the newsletter insert or flyer.  Additionally, for the moment there is no confirmation that this person is either a town resident or even exists.  There has been at least one report of a supporter of the rezoning falsely claiming to be a town resident in order to extract information on the subject.  So, there is no inappropriate activity on the town's part, but I wanted to make sure I passed this along to the Town Council and several other individuals,

Thanks.

Earnie

Original email from Chris Kiely, as sent to my email address, and to the email addresses of the supervisors, developer Ken Thompson, and other media. The email has been included in full and has not been edited.

"Unethical possibly illegal use of taxpayer funds WRT Oaks III          

Please read aloud if the hearing permits.

As a property owner and taxpayer in Occoquan, I was surprised to read in the most resent newsletter that my taxes were being used to attempt to lobby me, and others.  This forces members of the town that had no intent of doing so, to influence the outcome of the zoning change against the seeming minority.  As is the case with constitutional republics (USA/Virginia as examples) the minority interest is to be protected by a dispassionate and unbiased government.  As clearly stated by those constitutions, the rights of a property owner supersedes that of the majority, and indeed it is the states responsibility to protect that interest.  I have no interest in the oaks zoning other than the preservation of the rights of property owners.
The town newsletter went far beyond dispassionate facts, which may be in the town government’s preview, which rises to the level of unethical behavior or greater.  
Without the time to invest, I make my observations based on the letter that was provided to me (at my expense), noting significant bias: Points numbered one and two are within the town’s legitimate interest, but are unsupported.
Under “other items worth mentioning”
The first point suggests the notion of coercion, that other developers had consulted the town, and that the developer must first pay some sort of homage outside of due process in order to proceed. 
The second point seems to be laying the foundation for a future eminent domain seizure; that the rights of a property owner who owns via means of donation are somehow less than that of other owners, that the town possibly can, and somehow is the right and just arbiter of “profitability” The government has no lawful interest in the setting, the limitation, or decision of any owners profitability.  This demonstrates extreme bias against the owner.  The town suggests that refusing “to sell only that portion” of the land, as if it is it’s to decide owners best interest. 
The fifth point seems again to presume to dictate the meaning of the market, by suggesting that refusal of the governments offer is illogical or against the owners interest.  This again could be used as a possible foundation of a land grab in the future.
Below, the town uses ‘attribution bias’ The town suggests that it knows the developers almost cartoonish nefarious intent to flood the town like some Disney villain: “we believe the developer was amenable to deferring the vote until January in the hopes that the flooding will fade from memory…” And then attributes it to the developer in the hope that the reader will see it as a admission by the owner of his interest of in only “higher profits”
Most egregious of all, in bold print, the town attempts to influence the voting preference of its citizens, handicapping those that may be for the rezoning, at their own expense.  This is well out of the range of acceptable behavior.  I object to my property (tax revenue) to be used against myself and other citizens to lobby for a position that I had no intent on making.  The town’s interest was far exceeded in the newsletter, and I hereby request an official inquiry. 
As the letter concludes, so shall I:  Without knowledge of the voting members, those who have previously voted, or advocated for the denial of the zoning, cannot impartially decide, and must recuse.
To quote Thomas Jefferson: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Sic semper tyrannis, Christopher Kiely
PS, As I write this, I find that the town has trespassed on my property in order to attempt to further influence the vote by redistributing their leaflets, again at my expense and an opportunity not afforded to the Oaks property owner."