For folks who do not get the Times, how about posting the 400 wd candidate statements the Times ran last week?
Mine is attached..I think it is important that all run, not just mine, so it is clear you are facilitating the political process, not just promoting me.
John Leyzorek
Leyzorek Machine & Tool Co
2133 Edray Road
Marlinton, West Virginia 24954
Leyzorek Machine & Tool Co
2133 Edray Road
Marlinton, West Virginia 24954
304 799 7191
Editor's Note: We await Jesse's and Jamie's statement. normanalderman@yahoo.com
I found Pocahontas County in 1987, seeking to build a life and home of peace, freedom, sustainability. I'm blessed with that and more, friends, neighbors, and greatest of all, a family to defend it for and pass it on to.
This may be the year of the non-politician. I have introduced myself to many of you, saying, “I'm running for County Commissioner, but not because I want the job”.
What I do want, if you elect me County Commissioner, is to provide a level of respect for you the citizens, and for what makes our shared home so precious, that I have not seen from most I've watched serve there.
I will defend private property, by moving adoption of the Private Property Protection Resolution that I wrote in 2005, and by opposing the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which offers no permanent jobs, gas, or gas market for Pocahontas, but threatens our homes and waters.
I will insist that any citizen may address the Commission at any time; I will object to any attempts by the Commission to violate the Open Meetings Act, to exceed its lawful authority, or to do anything that private enterprise and free cooperation can do better...which is most things!
Protecting private property means protecting its use. I oppose any form of zoning or enforceable land use planning by Government. I will oppose higher taxes, and programs that may require raising taxes, since property is not secure, or truly ours if we may lose it to taxes, or if our first concern must be making it pay, not enjoying and preserving, and passing it on.
I will promote the Thousand Ponds voluntary flood mitigation and watershed improvement project
What about “Economic development”? Does this mean highways, office parks and subdivisions? Or that I can get a job to help with the farm, or start a business, and can my kids afford to stay? In my heart I am against the first; in favor of the second. Fortunately the Commission has, and should have, little power over this
Development is not the job of Government. Government's pushing or guiding development is usually oppressive, wasteful, corrupt, and ineffective.
Healthy development comes from protecting freedom, and providing a just and stable rule of law.
If elected I will work hard to protect and improve Pocahontas County for those of us who choose to live here. Now it is up to you.
It's easy to be an "I'm aginner" candidate ("i'm against everything" but for nothing). No benefit to Pocahontas County from the Atlantic Coast Pipeline? From 2019 to 2025, the project will generate just shy of $10 million in property taxes for Pocahontas County alone.
ReplyDeleteHard to tell exactly how much revenue it will bring in taxes, as I understand it that will depend partly on how much gas actually flows through. The assessed value of the project,and the annual taxes, will also decline as it ages. However the deciding issue for me is Eminent Domain. The County could receive revenue if it decided to confiscate every tenth person's property, maybe including yours,too. The foundation of prosperity is everry person's security in what they own and produce. "Eminent Domain" is a fancy legal-sounding term, but at bottom it is theft. Yes,I'm agin' it! John Leyzorek
ReplyDeleteFurther, some existing state aid to Poc CO will be cut by the increase in tax revenue we see,so little or no net gain
DeleteMr. Leyzorek
ReplyDeleteWould you allow non-christian religious displays such as (devil worship) to be placed along side the nativity on county owned land ?
We have many outsiders moving in every year and many are liberals who hate seeing christian displays. So they try to place sick displays right beside nativities.
What??? Sorry to tell you we have freedom of religion and that means all religions not just your's. You allow one religion to place a display on public property then any other religion is allowed to do the same. No matter if you think it's right or not. The government offices local and state must treat any and all religions the same.
DeleteThat is a difficult one. It is not really a property rights issue,because we are talking about public not private property. I support anyone's right to put any sort of display on their own private property, however much it may offend me (or you). The Founder's perspective was that they did not want Government to take sides in sectarian disputes, like between the Baptists and the Presbyterians. A Calvinist may be very offended by a catholic statue of Mary Mother of God, seeing it as idolatry and therefore flat against the First Commandment. Maybe and I said "MAYBE" we could devise a Christian display for the Courthouse lawn so watered-down that it would offend against the doctrine of no Christian sect. WE could say,then, NO displays of any kind on Courthouse lawn..and you cannot say no RELIGIOUS displays but allow non-religious, because antireligion is itself a religion. Or we could affirm the right to assemble by allowing any kind of display, and we would get the KKK and the atheists and the Presbyterians and the satanists. Of course then the Methodists could peaceably assemble around the Satanist display and sing hymns and evangelize, at least until the satanists tried to re-enact Herod's massacre, when they would be morally obligated to use force. I would personally love to see a volunteer-provided Nativity on the Courthouse lawn, but it would not stop there. And until you want the Government to mediate among the Presbyterians and Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and Catholics and Mennonites and Coptics, Government better leave the Satanists alone, too.....UNTIL they commit a non-theological crime.
ReplyDeleteThat is a difficult one. It is not really a property rights issue,because we are talking about public not private property. I support anyone's right to put any sort of display on their own private property, however much it may offend me (or you). The Founder's perspective was that they did not want Government to take sides in sectarian disputes, like between the Baptists and the Presbyterians. A Calvinist may be very offended by a catholic statue of Mary Mother of God, seeing it as idolatry and therefore flat against the First Commandment. Maybe and I said "MAYBE" we could devise a Christian display for the Courthouse lawn so watered-down that it would offend against the doctrine of no Christian sect. WE could say,then, NO displays of any kind on Courthouse lawn..and you cannot say no RELIGIOUS displays but allow non-religious, because antireligion is itself a religion. Or we could affirm the right to assemble by allowing any kind of display, and we would get the KKK and the atheists and the Presbyterians and the satanists. Of course then the Methodists could peaceably assemble around the Satanist display and sing hymns and evangelize, at least until the satanists tried to re-enact Herod's massacre, when they would be morally obligated to use force. I would personally love to see a volunteer-provided Nativity on the Courthouse lawn, but it would not stop there. And until you want the Government to mediate among the Presbyterians and Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and Catholics and Mennonites and Coptics, Government better leave the Satanists alone, too.....UNTIL they commit a non-theological crime.
ReplyDelete