Town defers 'abuser fee' vote

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen

By

FRONT ROYAL, Va. — This small Shenandoah Valley town must wait to become a battleground for the growing public debate about whether the General Assembly overreached in assessing high fees for Virginia drivers who break the law. The Town Council last night postponed a decision on whether to stop its 36-officer police force from enforcing most "abuser fees" laws for motorists.

"It seems to me it may be appealing in a kind of small guy versus big guy way, but I'm not sure that is the answer here," said council member Stanley W. Brooks Jr., who proposed postponing the vote. "There is no sense using a hammer when a feather will do."

The decisive vote from the five-member council, vice mayor and mayor was settled by Mayor James M. Eastham, who said the issue had taken on a life of its own overnight.

Shortly after the 4-3 vote last night, a small group of Front Royal residents returned to the Town Council chamber with makeshift signs that read "Not in our Town."

"We didn't want it," Malia Wells, 41, a stay-at-home mom, yelled at council members. "There are 26 people tomorrow who are going to be hurting. Who is going to pay?" Ms. Wells was referring to the drivers who could face the new fees this morning in District Court.

"Real lives will be affected by this in ways that perhaps this town council and perhaps the state assembly don't appreciate," Jim Naccash, 47, a computer-training teacher, told The Washington Times. "Maybe to some of these high-paid politicians a $1,000 or $3,000 penalty doesn't mean anything, but to a lot of people that can be life-changing in a very negative way."

After the meeting, council member Thomas H. Sayre, a Republican who led the effort, said the council missed an opportunity to send a message to state lawmakers in Richmond that they cannot overlook what is best for small communities.

"It would not have hurt us to pass this," he said. "It would have let a judge decide."

No state lawmakers attended the meeting, which drew 30 to 40 people.

Under the proposal, in-state drivers convicted of drunken driving still would have been assessed the new $3,000 fee, but officers would not have had to enforce lesser fees for such charges as reckless or aggressive driving.