Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.
1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)
2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)
3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)
3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)
5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)
6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)
7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)
8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)
9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)
10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)
11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)
Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
----------------
(If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweak (10/22-23)
Seems like a lot of people are a little to eager to prosecute/persecute the MP council and PD. All we have seen to date is rather hysterical, one-side coverage on a couple of blogs. That the coverage is one-sided is to be expected as both the council and PD have kept their mouths shut and powder dry to this point, a prudent course that should be reasonably expected of any public body.
There have been quite a number of cries for a response from elected officials and the PD, but as anybody even remotely knowledgeable about administrative procedures and privileges would aknowledge, it is generally not in the jurisdiction’s best interest to respond to any and all public outcries. You may not like or agree with that position but it is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with the statutes and best practices in order to best protect the interests of the residents and businesses it represents.
I would wager a tidy sum that all of the facts have not yet come to light and that those screaming foul and demanding some heads roll might well end up with considerable egg on their face. Hats off to those strident anonymous posters, at least they will be able to wash it off in private.
Dear Mom:
Like you, I believe that fairness and due process requires access to accurate, reliable facts. As you may or may not know, the story surrounding the situation at Rack & Roll was presented before the Virginia, ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) in a two day hearing in 2005. There is 750 pages of sworn testimony and 23 exhibits. The parties submitted briefs to the ABC based on that formal record. Rack & Roll’s brief details the activities of the police and others with respect to allegations by Rack & Roll that they fabricated drug deals at Rack & Roll and underage drinking at Rack & Roll. You can review Rack & Roll’s brief for yourself if you go to http://www.theagitator.com, click on the topic (found on the left side of the page under “Categories”) of Rack & Roll Billiards and scroll down to the posting for Monday, February 20, 2006. You will find a link that gives you acces to the entire brief. The facts, as set out in the brief, are all supported by the record. If one of the lawyers had misrepresented the facts or purposely miscited the record, they would be subject to substantial sanctions.
Rack & roll tried to submit the brief, along with the opposing ABC brief, to the Manassas Park City Council prior to its consideration of the Rack & Roll issue. The brief was mailed, certified mail return receipt requested, to the mayor, the City Council and the Planning Commission. Upon learning that the briefs had been provided, the City Attorney confiscated them including, we are informed, driving to members houses to get them. In other words, the City wanted to make sure that the Rack & Roll situation was colored only in the manner they wanted and feared a valid presentation of the reliable facts that you would have them consider.
Of course, aside from the brief, their is a whole library of videos from the Rack & Roll security system as well as audio recordings of key actors, see, e.g., the recording of Tom Kifer’s phone call to David Ruttenberg, which has been provided in total to the City’s attorneys and a part of which is published in the bvbl post entitled “Anatomy of a Setup.”
I implore you to investigate the substantial available back-up I’ve referenced above. I know for a fact that such documentation is being continuosly consulted by those “hysterical, one-sided blogs.” If your attack on them is to have any credibility, you need to similarly familiarize yourself. As the Rack & Roll said in the final paragraph of their letter forwarding the briefs to the City Council:
“In considering the story the briefs have to tell, my question to each of you is do you believe in truth?; do you believe in justice?; do you belive in fair play?
Well, do you?
It apparently has little to do with fair play at this point. If you had read closely, the fact that the city has yielded little or no information to this point is telling in that it is the most prudent course of action be they correct or in the wrong. On the one hand they shouldn’t do anything to jeopardize the investigation and/or prosecution of any potential criminal issues and on the other they shouldn’t do or say anything that could lead to civil litigation. On the face of it, it’s quite simply responsible governance.
That being said, hysterical demands for “justice” at this point are at best reactionary, there simply are not enough facts on the table to come to an objective determination.
As to your “substantial available back-up”, it is only one side of the story unless it includes briefs submitted by the town to the ABC. Absent their participation (and arguably even if they were involved with the ABC) it is still an apples and oranges situation.
The annual renewal of special use permits is not a provision peculiar to MP but a right reserved by most jurisdictions. The reason being to insure that the initial conditions are adhered to and allow consideration of changes in the codes, business environment, residents complaints, etc. It appears that in this instance the owner of the business assumes that continued approval is his right. The situation might be further colored by consideration of the applicant’s history of paying taxes, license fees, etc. Again, I haven’t seen anyone present that side of the story but I do know there are some questions in that arena.
Lastly, I would suspect that the City Attorney is both capable and probably and at-will employee of the council. Claims of the actions that you have been “informed” of appear specious as it would not be in his interest to embark on such a course and potentially face disciplinary action by the BAR. I can’t imagine that an attorney of any stature would take such actions and potentially risk his reputation and livelihood, its possible but I would suggest highly unlikely.
Dear Mom:
So your answer is you don’t want to read the brief. Some how I’m not surprised. By the way, the City was represented by counsel at the ABC hearing and Rack & Roll attempted to provide not only their brief but also the ABC’s brief to the City Council. They, as you, weren’t interested in the facts, but only to get rid of Rack & Roll.
As a technical matter, under Virginia Code Ann §31-19, Rack & Roll’s permit was no longer a “conditional use” but had become a “permitted use.” In fact, under §15.2-2307, it is not only “permitted” but “vested.” Thus, the use was no longer subject to city council discretion, but only to ministerial compliance within the standards of the B-2 zoning district.
As to taxes, etc., the owners of Rack & Roll have done business in Manassas Park since 1987. I can’t say that all texes were always paid exactly on time but, at least until the City wiped out their business base, they were always paid.
For the record, the issue is much larger than the CUP. The issue involves unconstitutional taking by the City. It involves alleged fabrication of evidence and perjury, by City employees and others, designed to deprive the owners of Rack & Roll of their property, i.e., the business itself, without due process of law. It involves illegal search and seizure. Basically it involves alleged violations of the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The CUP is a red herring. A questionably ethical means to try to avoid the constitutional issues and the City’s responsibility therefor. But for those alleged violations, there would never have been a question involving the CUP. (See Ruttenberg v. Jones, U.S.Ct.App., 4th Cir., No. 07-1037, filed 1/12/07).
As to my “claim” concerning the actions of the city attorney, why don’t you ask him or any of the then City Council members? I doubt seriously they’ll deny it and I wouldn’t have raised it if I didn’t have proof it occurred.
Are you sure you’re really my mom?
Dear Mom:
Check out today’s Manassas Journal Messenger.
Love,
Golem
Yeah, am I supposed to be impressed by an article in the MJM/PN or WAPO? Is that what you consider probative? The article doesn’t alter my underlying caution with regard to he said-she said issues when they involve government entities. Again, why would any prudent representative of any jurisdiction or agency reveal anything responsive to the press in a circumstance such as this? Am I to be impressed by the testimony of nephew and his apparently underaged and (if I understood the article correctly) spouse of recent origin who it appears was dating someone else as recently as 2005. I wouldn’t trust one of my nephews with enough money to buy a gallon of milk so why would I give this “relative” full faith and credit. I’ll keep going back to the well, it is far too earlier to get a real objective take on this as there is not enough evidence on the table yet. I have seen far too many similar allegations against local jurisdictions go up in smoke when exposed to the light of day. Again, I’m not asserting that MP and its officials/employees are guiltless, merely that as both sides of the tale have not been told, it is too early to make a determination.
O.K., O.K., O.K. I surrender.
Love, Golem
Wha….??? A white flag??? Oh, forgot I’m not on TC or BVBL, I was expecting 155 shells. Glad to see some are capable of reason or at least the appearance of it.