A Sea Of Red

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/lo ... tes/24183/

A divided Lynchburg City Council decided Tuesday it will not consider any additional sites for the relocation of the Heritage Elementary School polling place.

Helgeson, who represents Ward III, expressed grave concerns about the accessibility and safety of the First Church of the Nazarene. LU has raised the same concerns and submitted detailed reports to council outlining the deficiencies it found when it visited the church.

Looks like more City Council drama. What do you guys think?

Also, if you're bored check out the comments on the N&A website

I personally don't have a problem with waiting until the census is over and then moving it. I know that's not the popular opinion around Liberty but it's a fair compromise. Find out where the population lies, look at your registered voters that use Liberty's campus as their address, and then go from there. I'm not a huge fan of putting the polling place at Thomas Road either. I admit I don't have a solution, but it seems like something that could be worked out if everyone was able to concede certain things.

I think it is a very poor decision for them to put it at the church on wards ferry rd if it is not easy to access and is unsafe. There are so many locations available that they have no reason to do that unless they are directly trying to prevent students from voting. For them to not even consider another site is just plain dumb, and a really poor political choice with the looming election.

I agree. I don't think it should be a rushed decision. Gather all of the information and make an informed decision.

I voted at Heritage UMC in the last election so this didnt affect me all that much, but this really looks like its turned into an LU vs Lynchburg issue (Im probably pointing out the obvious with that). Anyway, by rushing this decision and not considering any other possible options (LU backed or not) they are not considering all of the parties that this could effect.

The bus stop on Wards Ferry is not adequate by GLTC standards, and it is impossible for the busses to get into the parking lot there so there is no adequate location for the bus to service the voting place. This not only effects LU, but anyone else in the district who would need a bus to transport them to the polling location. Based off of this information alone, the City Council should eliminate this location and open up the options for other locations.

JDUB wrote:The bus stop on Wards Ferry is not adequate by GLTC standards, and it is impossible for the busses to get into the parking lot there so there is no adequate location for the bus to service the voting place. This not only effects LU, but anyone else in the district who would need a bus to transport them to the polling location. Based off of this information alone, the City Council should eliminate this location and open up the options for other locations.

Im just curious when your running for office....since you have all this time on your hands to research these things.

It doesn't take much time to find things out when you're at the right place at the right time

Without a doubt that's some RM info

Why not CVCC? That seems like a fair compromise. LU's putting in a tunnel at that intersection, it'll allow CVCC students living in the ward to vote while on their way to class, and be closer to other residences in the ward as well.

ATrain wrote:Why not CVCC? That seems like a fair compromise. LU's putting in a tunnel at that intersection, it'll allow CVCC students living in the ward to vote while on their way to class, and be closer to other residences in the ward as well.

Never even thought of that. That's a pretty good idea though.

ATrain wrote:Why not CVCC? That seems like a fair compromise. LU's putting in a tunnel at that intersection, it'll allow CVCC students living in the ward to vote while on their way to class, and be closer to other residences in the ward as well.

That's probably the best idea I've heard concerning this whole mess! You really should submit that to the city council.

ATrain, Your CVCC suggestion confirms my suspicion that the majority on City Council were not looking for a compromise but instead for a polling place that would discourage as many Ward III voters as possible from voting in May. Ward III is the most conservative ward in the city and is also the ward that the majority on City Council would love to see stay at home on election day. I believe Council chose the church on Wards Ferry Road because it is a residential street with commercial traffic levels (11,000 vehicles per day). Add 5000 voters and all those bus stops and you have a traffic jam forcing voters to give up and go home. If Council had really been looking for a fair compromise, they would have chosen CVCC. I never thought of that site but you were brilliant to suggest it. It confirms my suspicion that the majority on Council were trying to find a site that was inconvenient for voters in the precinct. That happens to be a criminal violation of the law!

JLFJR wrote:ATrain, Your CVCC suggestion confirms my suspicion that the majority on City Council were not looking for a compromise but instead for a polling place that would discourage as many Ward III voters as possible from voting in May. Ward III is the most conservative ward in the city and is also the ward that the majority on City Council would love to see stay at home on election day. I believe Council chose the church on Wards Ferry Road because it is a residential street with commercial traffic levels (11,000 vehicles per day). Add 5000 voters and all those bus stops and you have a traffic jam forcing voters to give up and go home. If Council had really been looking for a fair compromise, they would have chosen CVCC. I never thought of that site but you were brilliant to suggest it. It confirms my suspicion that the majority on Council were trying to find a site that was inconvenient for voters in the precinct. That happens to be a criminal violation of the law!

Would there be grounds for a legal challenge if the church was voted on as the polling place?

If the church were to think that there are some serious safety concerns, wouldn't they be able to deny use of their facilities as a polling station?

ALUmnus wrote:If the church were to think that there are some serious safety concerns, wouldn't they be able to deny use of their facilities as a polling station?

That is a valid point, I believe that any facility other than a public one can refuse to serve as a voting site. However, I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm going to e-mail city council tonight and ask if they would even consider CVCC as a possible site in the future.

My church is a polling place here in Texas. It seems odd to have a church surrounded by elections signs. Otherwise it is no big deal.

My church back in FL was a polling place. Very democratic area of town, so there would be pro-gay marriage signs in the grass around the church.... very weird.

We had a parking lot big enough for like 500 cars, tho, so it was an obvious choice. It was a bigger facility than the Civic Center down the road.

The church down the street from me in Salem is my new polling place. Back home in the Farmville area we voted at the local firestations.

Nothing wrong with a church serving as a polling place but, if the church is inconvenient or unsafe for voters as even the City Traffic Engineer and GLTC say that it is, then Council might be violating the law by using it as a polling place, especially since the majority on Council are of a different political stripe than the majority of voters in Ward III. This could get interesting.

Bring out the buses

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/lo ... rty/24315/

Makes my blood boil

And looks like the local anti-LU/TRBC crowd are still holding to form (and I guess the fact that we do things for the community...including being the site for Mr Bibby's funeral...is totally lost on them)

the news and advance is blocked on campus again. this time its intentional as its listed as "custom blocked sites" anyone off campus who can see if there's any new news story relating to this issue or anything else that would give them some (although no reason can ever be a good reason) reason to do this?

is there anything newer than the "slap in the face" story?

Every time its been blocked it has been intentional and for a good reason.