Rockbridge.Biz

Virginia Legislative Reps Propose Menhaden Extinction!

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:25:05 -0000

Virginia State Senator Richard H. Stuart of Montross and Va. Delegate Barry Knight of Virginia Beach have filed bills for introduction in the 2012 Virginia General Assembly which could set the stage for total extinction of the Menhadden fishery in the Chesapeake. Menhadden, which form a basic foundation of the Chesapeake Bay's food chain have been increasingly subject to overfishing, and in November, 2011, the Atlantic States marine Fisheries Commission took the first steps towards establishment of science based "catch limits" to preserve the species.

The menhaden fishing industries reaction: let's move to remove all limits and make a fast buck while we can. Two bills pre-filed for introduction in the 2012 Virginia General Assembly pose a grave threat to efforts to promote Bay conservation.

HB 88
Introduced by Barry D. Knight would remove the cap by removing a provision that allows an adjustment for underages or overages in the annual harvest cap to be carried over to the next year's cap limit. Currently, if a person harvests less than the 109,020 metric ton limit on taking menhaden, he can add the difference to his cap for next year's harvest. Conversely, if he exceeds the cap in any one year, he must reduce his harvest in the succeeding year by the amount of the overage of the preceding year.

A copy of this bill is available at:http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB88+pdf" rel="external" title=""> http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB88+pdf

SB 18
Introduced by: Richard H. Stuart removes authorization for Virginia's membership in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact. The purpose of the Compact is to promote better utilization of the marine, shell, and anadromous fisheries of the Atlantic seaboard through the development of a joint program for the promotion and protection of such fisheries and by the prevention of the physical waste of the fisheries from any cause. If any state desires to remove itself from the Compact, it must send a six months' notice in writing to the member states of its intention to withdraw from the Compact.

A copy of this bill is available at http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+SB18+pdf

To stop these bills, Virginia legislaturive representatives need to hear from you now - early and often!

Go tohttp://legis.state.va.us/" rel="external" title=""> http://legis.state.va.us/
to find the name of your Delegate and Senator and others and write them to stop these bills.

Congratulations VMI Class of 2012 on Ring Figure!

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 04:40:00 -0000

VMI's Class of 2012 were presented with their class rings on Sunday, November 21, 2010!

Here are a few pictures from the Ceremony! Register and share your images from the event either by upload to our website or by sharing a link to your personal online image sharing website.

NEW MAURY RIVER BRIDGE OPENS TO TRAFFIC

Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:41:24 -0000

VDOT Press Release - 9/22/2010

STAUNTON – The newly constructed Maury River Bridge on Route 130 in the Town of Glasgow in Rockbridge County is opening to traffic on Sept. 22. A ribbon cutting event hosted by the Virginia Department of Transportation was held at 10 a.m. on Sept. 22 to celebrate the completion of the new bridge.

Work will continue at the construction site, which will include completion of guardrail installation and the removal of the old bridge. Traffic will be able to use the new bridge, but motorists should be aware of construction activities within the work zone and drive with caution.

The ribbon cutting event features a number of scheduled speakers including: David Tyeryar, Deputy Secretary of Transportation; Senator R. Creigh Deeds; Delegate Benjamin L. Cline; R. Hunt Riegel of the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors; Samuel H. Blackburn, Town of Glasgow Mayor; and Maynard Reynolds Former Glasgow Town Council Member and Former Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors Member. Garrett Moore, P.E., VDOT Staunton District Administrator, is the master of ceremonies.

The project was awarded to Haymes Brothers Inc. of Chatham by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on May 15, 2008. The contract value is $11,234,027.40.

The new bridge features two 12-foot lanes and 10-foot graded shoulders. The old bridge was built in 1931, is no longer able to handle modern day traffic and is posted – which means only lighter weight vehicles can use it.

A groundbreaking ceremony was held at the bridge site on June 25, 2008.

The VDOT Staunton District serves Frederick, Shenandoah, Clarke, Warren, Page, Rockingham, Augusta, Highland, Rockbridge, Alleghany and Bath counties.

Rockbridge FAQ Feature Launched!

Sat, 09 May 2009 17:51:16 -0000

We have launched our Rockbridge FAQ - a feature designed to enable users to ask and answer questions, to share their knowledge of Rockbridge County, Virginia, the City of Buena Vista, and the City of Lexington, and to create a knowledge base of frequently asked questions about Rockbridge County, Virginia. Visitors and residents are welcome and encouraged to submit questions. If you know the answer to a posted questions, please feel free to share your knowledge and submit an answer. If you believe a posted answer is wrong, or could be improved, please post a comment.
The Rockbridge FAQ feature may be accessed from the user menu in the left column of each page.

Is Ben Cline Selling Virginia's Chesapeake Bay to Texas?

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 05:27:08 -0000

Not literally, of course, but figuratively speaking, after receiving donations of $500 in each of 2005 and 2006 (a total of $1,000, as reported via www.VPAP.org) from Omega Seafood, the Texas based menhaden processor that owns the Reedville Virginia facility and fishing operation that is accused of over fishing and depleting the menhaden stocks of the Chesapeake Bay, Rockbridge voters have the right to focus upon Del. Ben Cline's actions and votes upon this issue.. Critics claim this overfishing depletes Menhaden stock, a basic food source for many species, thereby triggering a "up the food chain" decline in all Chesapeake bay fisheries. $1,000 in campaign contributions is a very large sum for a Texas company with operations in Reedville to be donating to a delegate from Rockbridge - large enough that Rockbridge, Lexington and Buena Vista voters should pay careful attention to Ben Cline's votes on this issue in the future and be sure Ben isn't just another fish caught in a Texas net woven with Texas money. In the 2007 General Assembly session, Ben Cline voted lock-stock and barrel to support the Omega backed "cap" which set a cap that equals or exceeds recent years catches, a figure that is meaningless with the declining population. This measure was backed by Omega to head off more stringent caps that they feared might otherwise be enacted. Critics say the cap is too high to be effective, but Omega counters with that the cap will work and that the menhaden fishery is healthy and growing. Science on the subject seems to be in short supply. The rest of Virginia will have to wait and see, and hope we don't learn to late that Ben Cline helped sell the Chesapeake Bay to Texas. Or Rockbridge voters can pressure Ben Cline to use his voice on the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee to ensure that state agencies further monitor the effectiveness of the cap, have funds to conduct scientific studies, and, if necessary, impose more stringent limits in future years.

Civil Remedial Fees for "dangerous driving behavior" - HB 3202 and New Virginia Code � 46.2-206.1

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:33:30 -0000

from the Virginia Supreme Court:

HOUSE BILL 3202/CHAPTER 896
CIVIL REMEDIAL FEES
New Virginia Code � 46.2-206.1
This is a general explanation of the new civil remedial fees. It has been prepared
by staff of the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court, which is the
administrative office of the Virginia court system. It has not been reviewed by the
Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia. It does not represent an order of or statement
by the Supreme Court of Virginia. This general explanation is meant neither as legal
advice nor as a �how to� guide. Any questions regarding a court�s assessment of the civil
remedial fee in a particular instance should be directed to your attorney or to the court
assessing the fee.
During its 2007 Session, the General Assembly of Virginia passed House Bill
3202 (Chapter 896), which was designed to provide additional funds to address various
transportation needs in the Commonwealth. (See this link for the bill:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp5 ... es=071&typ=bil&val=hb3202.) The
legislation requires agencies and branches of state government which implement parts of
the legislation to make accessible to the public information about those efforts.
(1) Civil Remedial Fees. The legislation creates �civil remedial fees� to be
assessed against Virginia residents convicted of certain motor vehicle-related or driving
crimes. These civil remedial fees will not apply to traffic infractions like failure to obey a
highway sign or failure to yield or parking too near a hydrant. They apply only to certain
motor vehicle-related or driving felonies and misdemeanors (certain motor vehiclerelated
or driving offenses which are crimes). The civil remedial fees will be assessed
against juveniles who have been found delinquent because they committed one of these
motor vehicle-related or driving felonies or misdemeanors. The civil remedial fees will
not be assessed if the juvenile court defers a final judgment against the juvenile and does
not find the juvenile to be delinquent.
(2) Purpose. The statute states the purpose of these fees is �to generate revenue
from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial
burdens upon the Commonwealth.�
(3) Effective date. These fees are assessed upon convictions of the applicable
offenses only if the crime was committed on or after July 1, 2007.
(4) An additional fee. In one important way, these fees are like court costs. That
is, if the fee is applicable to a particular conviction, the court must assess the entire civil
remedial fee. However, these civil remedial fees cannot be suspended or reduced. Instead,
by law, an applicable civil remedial fee must be assessed by the court in full. Finally, the
law provides that �The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be in addition
to any other fees, costs, or penalties imposed pursuant to the Code of Virginia.�
(5) Virginia residents only. The civil remedial fee is applicable to Virginia
�residents� convicted of these crimes. The law provides that �The civil remedial fees
established by this section shall be assessed on any resident of Virginia operating a motor
vehicle on the highways of Virginia, including persons to whom Virginia driver's
licenses, commercial driver's licenses, or learner's permits have been issued pursuant to
this title; and persons operating motor vehicles without licenses or whose license has
been revoked or suspended.�
(6) Three-part fee. The civil remedial fees are imposed in three equal parts. If the
fee applies, the court will order the first part of the fee to be paid to the court following
the conviction. The court will also order that the second part of the fee must be paid to
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) within 14 months and, then, that the third part
of the fee must be paid within 26 months of the conviction. DMV will tell people who
owe the second and third parts of the civil remedial fees when those parts of their fees
will be due.
(7) Fee schedule. The civil remedial fees are as follows:
(a) Driving on a suspended license: $250 to the court upon conviction, with two
additional payments of $250 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and
the other within 26 months of conviction.
(b) Reckless driving: $350 to the court upon conviction, with two additional payments of
$350 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and the other within 26
months of conviction.
(c) DUI and related offenses (�� 18.2-266, -266.1, 46.2-341.24): $750 to the court upon
conviction, with two additional payments of $750 each due to DMV, one within 14
months of conviction and the other within 26 months of conviction.
(d) Other misdemeanors, �Any other misdemeanor conviction for a driving and/or motor
vehicle related violation of Title 18.2 or [Title 46.2] that is not included in one of the
preceding three subdivisions�: $300 to the court upon conviction, with two additional
payments of $300 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and the other
within 26 months of conviction.
2
(e) Felony convictions, �Any felony conviction for a driving or motor vehicle-related
offense under Title 18.2 or [Title 46.2]�: $1,000 to the court upon conviction, with two
additional payments of $1,000 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and
the other within 26 months of conviction.
(8) Installment or deferred payment plans. Civil remedial fees paid to the courts
(the first part of the three-part civil remedial fee) may be included in the installment or
deferred payment plans which courts use now for the payment of fines and costs, upon
request and approval. The judge or the clerk of the court which convicts the person sets
up the payment plan. These court-ordered installment or deferred payment plans will not
apply to second and third parts of the civil remedial fee, which are to be paid to DMV.
(9) Prepayable offenses. The civil remedial fees do apply to two motor vehiclerelated
or driving misdemeanors which are on the table of so-called �prepayable�
offenses. When an offense is prepayable, the accused person may plead guilty by paying
to the court before the trial date the entire prepayable fine and court costs. Because these
two offenses require the civil remedial fee, a person prepaying one of these two offenses
must pay to the court not only the set prepayable fine and court costs, but also the first
part of the three part civil remedial fee (the part due to the court). If the entire amount due
for the prepayable offense is not sent to the court at the same time, the court cannot
accept the payment. Once the civil remedial fees become effective, the references in the
table of prepayable offenses to these two offenses will look like this:

full release of Virginia Supreme Court

News versus News from the Community

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:44:58 -0000

Understanding the difference between our "News" feature and "News from the Community.
News from the Community is intended to be an organized community "blog" which enables all registered users to submit and self approve for posting news and announcements on a variety of topics relevant to daily life in Rockbridge. That feature is unmoderated, thus registered users have the flexible ability to post news and announcements relative to the topic. Submissions to that category will be "pruned" after a reasonable period of time. We will, upon request, create a new topic category or subcategory for use by any Rockbridge neighborhood or community based organization so that members of that group may readily find and post news of their organization or neighborhood.

The "news" feature is a more moderated news area, where all articles are approved by the website moderator or a vetted contributing writer. We welcome providing serious writers the opportunity to publish articles and stories of the history and heritage of Rockbridge. WE also are open to local writers who wish to write regular columns on a variety of topics (we are open to suggestions) relevant to local readers.