Patterson responds to March 27 letter
Responding to Anna Yu’s letter (or to whomever wrote it) of March 27 is easy – the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Personal attacks on truthful statements only serve to bolster the veracity of what has been said.
A lesson to learn – If you don’t want to be fact checked, don’t send letters to the editor containing incorrect information and then attempt to crucify the messenger.
Look in the mirror – Follow the “recommendations” in the penultimate paragraph of the Yu letter (note the word “true” in #2 therein?) as they certainly apply to all of the chronic complainers, including Yu and everyone.
If pointing out facts makes one guilty of being “quite condescending, leading to the point of arrogance,” color me guilty and don’t throw away the paint. If you publicly complain in a letter to the editor or at a public, recorded meeting, you are fair game to be fact checked by looking at “public” records. If you must publicly air your complaints, all you need to do is state the facts completely and accurately.
I see that one of the chronic complainers has once again represented that her reassessment went up over 90%. I have been invited to do some community volunteer work – like substitute teaching. I am trying to make those arrangements and hope an announcement may be forthcoming soon. Awaiting that, I will give all the extreme exaggerators and chronic complainers a free lesson as follows:
If a 2000 assessed value was $131,800 and increased to $182,800 in the 2024 reassessment, that assessed value went up $51,000. What percentage of $131,800 is $51,000? Divide $51,000 by $131,800 and the answer is .3869 or 38.69%. Had that assessment gone up 93%, it would have gone to $254,374.
The figures tell the truth! It should be embarrassing to be caught in such a blatant exaggeration, but to double down on it by stating, “It is not his place to dispute how the 93% increase was calculated or under what circumstances that transpired the figure” defies any logic. What does that even say or mean, if anything?
I look at public records frequently. Anyone can! That is why they are called “public.” They do not lie, and they easily point out those who feel as if they can’t get any sympathy unless they overstate something. Tell the truth and you will not be singled out or personally attacked for doing so, except by the chronic complainers who just don’t want to hear it!
Decorum at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors on March 26 was maintained until the end. After I spoke, some of the cowardly chronic complainers could not refrain from booing. As usual, the rules do not apply to them.
Lastly, you can repeat it as often as you want, but prohibiting applause at Board of Supervisors meetings (except for ceremonial events) is not a Freedom of Speech violation. That type of conduct could bully and intimidate others in attendance to remain silent, which infringes on their right to Freedom of Speech. Everyone in attendance has the right to speak and others need to remain silent, regardless of what they think about what has been said.
Bob Patterson
Fincastle
