I found this Washington Post story about an open space preservation case in Prince William County to be a fascinating study of what can be behind the “pure” motives of restricting land use. It’s comforting to know that preservationists can be just as self-interested as the rapacious developers they battle. Good work by reporter Nikita Stewart.
“Pure” Conflict of Interest?
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
4 responses to ““Pure” Conflict of Interest?”
-
It’s amazing how much an “environmental” or “preservation” label can hide if aggressively applied for the wrong reasons. This was a very strange episode that had gone a long way down the road and that had more than a few officials compeletly bamboozled. Connaughton was the only one with enough smarts to see through the scheme. He acted decisively to prevent the abuse of taxpayors’ monies. Now there are at least two groups upset with him: those who stood to benefit and the Supervisors who had been led down the garden path. There are ways to take care of the widowed landowner without using public funds.
The episode bears close scrutiny as a case study in how otherwise responsible people will suspend the skepticism essential for good stewardship of the public’s interests in the face of a conservationist veneer.
-
Add one more example to the list of how easements have resulted in unepected results, some time down the road.
Hosen frequently writes about “our open space” and “the public benefit”. We already have a perfectly legal way to preserve open space – we can raise the money and buy it.
You can argue that the landowners should have thought ahead, or that a deal is a deal, and they should stick by their promise. Either way, it would not be an issue had the land simply been sold. The problems result from dividing the land from its utility: the landowner is stuck with near useless land that he still pays tax on and no one gets to enjoy.
Better to pay going rate for the land and have it. If you complain about rapacious developers, it only means that you don’t value the land as much as they do.
-
The supervisors are mad at Connaughton?? What the heck is that about! Hosen tried to run a flim-flam, a shell game, and hose the taxpayers out of $2 million dollars! And we’re supposed to be mad at Connaughton for uncovering it? I say good for you Chairman!
It’s unfortunate that the land isn’t worth much to the owner, but she & her now deceased husband were the ones who put it into protective status to avoid paying taxes on the “real” value. Sounds like they want their cake & eat it too!
I’m glad they got caught.
-
A simple two-question test is used to determine if a public official has a conflict of interest.
1. Does he or she serve two masters – the public and someone else?
2. Is there, or might there be, a conflict between the two masters?
If the answer to both questions is yes, the public official has a conflict of interest – and not just a “perceived” conflict of interest.
Planning Commissioner Kim Hosen argued that she had no conflict of interest when she represented the Prince William Conservation Alliance (PWCA) in its attempt to acquire the Merrimac Farm at taxpayer expense for a PWCA education center.
Hosen recused herself when the commission voted to remove the property from the Agricultural/Forestal district, allowing the PWCA to acquire the property, in part, though a Virginia grant of public money.
Citing her recusal, Hosen stated, “It came to a perception of a conflict of interest enough that I recused myself,” (Washington Post, 12/2/05).
Hosen actually serves two masters: the public, as a paid Commissioner ($800 per month), paid public school vendor ($51,600 since 2003) for educational services through her Nature’s Wonder World nonprofit and the private PWCA as its paid Executive Director ($50,000 annually).
A conflict of interest exists between Hosen’s roles serving both the public and the PWCA in making proper and sound land-use management decisions for this county and its citizens.
Moreover, Hosen stood to benefit greater financially should her PWCA education center come to fruition since her Nature’s Wonder World would be the proprietor of services paid for by tax dollars funneled through the Freedom High School Center for Environmental & Natural Sciences.
Disclosure of the conflict of interest does not make it moot. Sunshine only makes it and other possible shenanigans easier to see.
Hosen admitted there was at least the perception of a conflict of interest. However, recusal from the actual planning commission vote hardly changed the outcome. Hosen lobbied hard to influence the outcome of that vote – and she got what she wanted – the recusal was meaningless.
A perception of a conflict of interest doesn’t begin to describe the depth of corruption represented by all these alliances.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.