LOVE, Hate, LOVE, Hate – I’d LOVE for you to be quiet while I’m talking, Kristie – Back at you, Rick

At a July 14 work session there was little love expressed for a LOVE sign Warren County staff have been developing a design and location for, for over a year to piggyback on Virginia’s half-century-old and highly successful “Virginia is for Lovers” marketing slogan. Unfortunately for the project, that year-plus of consideration has seen increased public skepticism of municipal business in the wake of the Economic Development Authority financial scandal, as well as a transition in the County’s elected board majority to, not only a VERY frugal-one, but a majority elected on a promise of a change in “County business as usual”.

The county supervisors prepare to see a PowerPoint on the development of an entranceway promotional “LOVE” sign. Royal Examiner Photos/Roger Bianchini – Royal Examiner video/Mark Williams

Whether change on all fronts – related or unrelated to the EDA scandal – will be a long-range positive for the community remains to be seen. In fact, public comments for and against the project led to some volatility from opposing sides as will be elaborated on below.

At issue for the county’s elected officials Tuesday was an estimated total cost of about $17,000, $7,000 of which has been spent so far out of the County’s Tourism marketing budget of approximately $300,000. County Administrator Doug Stanley explained that state law mandates a certain portion of local lodging tax revenue being committed to Tourism marketing. It was noted the County’s lodging tax is 5%, with 3% of the revenue earmarked to local tourism marketing efforts.

Following County Zoning Administrator Joe Petty’s PowerPoint presentation tracing the project’s history and logistics, board Vice-Chair Cheryl Cullers and Chairman Walt Mabe led the board’s critical breakdown of the project. In addition to cost, the staff’s chosen north side entranceway location at the Route 340/522 North intersection with Guard Hill Road came under critical scrutiny. Petty explained that in addition to a high-volume entranceway into town, the site offered necessary space for a pullover, parking and a viewshed featuring mountains on the horizon as the road into town approaches the bridges over the forks of the Shenandoah River.

Above, County Zoning Administrator Joe Petty explains the development of an entranceway tourism promotional ‘LOVE’ sign; below the staff-recommended site at Guard Hill Road just north of the bridges into town.

Cullers wondered if the sign’s visibility was adequate as Route 340/522 curved approaching the site. Mabe asked if a planned gravel parking area would not be handicap-friendly.

After the board’s critique, several familiar citizen critics of most things past board and county administrative overseen, raised their voices to condemn the project in whole or part. Those citizens were Gary Kushner, Kristie Atwood and Paul Gabbert, who criticized cost, benefit and even alluded to potential peripheral factors of a seedy nature – “I’m not going to name, names,” Gabbert said of his allusions to potential ethical questions he felt might be in play involving the project funding’s ultimate destination.

However, two familiar community figures, past Front Royal Rotary President and ongoing active member Rick Novak and Blue Ridge Arts Council official Kym Crump, countered those arguments with strong endorsements of the project and its potential benefits in tourism promotion. Novak and Crump spoke following Kushner, Atwood, and Gabbert’s salvos against the project.

As to questions on the economic benefit of the LOVE sign’s placement at an entranceway into town already featuring some historical markers, Novak cited a less tangible social media measurement. He noted the parking-accommodated pull off, rather than attract crowds, would attract isolated individuals, including tourists, who would likely take selfies at the LOVE sign and circulate them on social media, giving the community an unknown promotional benefit – “and for the community, it’s free advertising” Novak reasoned.

He traced the origin of the project to the state government encouraging localities to put their own “LOVE” signs up to expand the “Virginia is for Lovers” marketing theme, adding of Rotary’s interest in the project, “We thought we could carve out $3500 and try and find a location for it,” before observing, “It’s amazing it’s turned into this – hostile,” he concluded hesitantly.

During his remarks, Novak wheeled and called Atwood out for talking loudly through his comments in support of the project – “Did I talk during your time,” Novak asked before turning back to the supervisors to vent his frustration on the tone of recent meetings.

Above, as Paul Gabbert and Kristie Atwood listen in the third row, Rick Novak urges positivity rather than an ongoing ‘tearing down’ of planned County business; below, Novak turns to confront Atwood for talking through his turn at the podium.

“That’s another thing – I encourage everybody out here to start building things and stop tearing things down. It’s ridiculous! Let’s get on with building good things in our community,” Novak said turning toward the supervisors to conclude, “I hope you guys in your infinite wisdom, will continue on with this project whether it costs $12,000 or $30,000 – it’s cheap. You have the money,” he observed of the $300,000 tourism budget.

“It’s a good project, let us do it; let’s not waste the $7,000 that’s already in,” Novak concluded of the expenditures Petty had cited on design, site surveying, and VDOT right-of-way applications.

From her Blue Ridge Arts Council perspective, Crump echoed Novak’s enthusiasm for the project and questioned opponents’ assertions the Guard Hill Road site wasn’t high visibility, noting the large number of political campaign signs that appear there during election seasons. She challenged the board members to not place, or allow to be placed by others, future political campaign signs at the location if it was deemed unsuited for the LOVE sign based on visibility concerns.

The two pro speakers drew Gabbert back to the podium for a rebuttal. He complained that money was being spent out of the community to facilitate the project, suggesting $20,000 could have been given to a local artist to realize the project.

The LOVE sign design explained – the ‘L’ features leaves noting the fall tourism season, the ‘O’ highlights the county’s mountains and rivers; the ‘V’ are two kayaks, and the ‘E’ contains a map of Shenandoah National Park noting Front Royal/Warren County as the northernmost national park entranceway due west of Northern Virginia.

“It’s not about what we have to send out, it’s about the whole dang project, which I think some people don’t see,” Gabbert asserted, adding, “A big LOVE sign – a couple hundred thousand dollars when it could have been made for $20,000 …” leading Novak to burst into loud laughter from his seat at a cost estimate nowhere near what had been cited during county staff discussion of funding.

Following Chairman Mabe’s breaking up any verbal sparring between Gabbert and Novak, County Administrator Stanley reiterated a projected total cost of $17,000, leading Gabbert to refocus his criticism on the destination of where the money was actually spent or to be spent.

County Administrator Doug Stanley reiterates the project’s estimated cost at $17,000, not the ‘couple hundred thousand dollars’ cited by project critic Paul Gabbert.

With no one else volunteering to carry the debate on Mabe prepared to move to the next agenda item, leading Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter to ask if the project was going to be authorized for consideration or public hearing at an upcoming meeting. The project was then set for the board’s lone July meeting on the 21st.

See Petty’s detailed PowerPoint presentation followed by the board critique and contrasting public comments, occasionally turning volatile as noted above, in this Royal Examiner video: