Patterson questions Tyson’s retaliation claims
To borrow an often used phrase from Paul Harvey, we may be learning “the rest of the story,” or at least part of it, regarding the alleged retaliation which, at the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, Mark Tyson proclaimed is being directed toward him, apparently regarding his actions at the July 28 Board of Supervisors (BoS) meeting.
He had staff display on the big screen an “excerpt” from a letter he said was provided by “a supervisor” which was highlighted in yellow, and he read it aloud. All guesses made about the identity of the supervisor who “provided” this to him were correct!
The Disgruntled Californian (DC) Buchanan District Supervisor Rottman sent an email to nine people (all members of the PC, one former member of the PC, the county attorney and his legal assistant, the county administrator and the chairman of the Board of Supervisors) on August 3, 2026. The subject of this email was listed as a “2026-08-03 letter to M. Tyson (BOS and Planning Commission), etc.”
I have now been advised that said letter is an attorney-client privileged communication, so that letter must be the “word salad” response Mr. Tyson said he had received from the county attorney. Could it be that the county attorney witnessed his unhinged behavior on July 28 and his letter did not say what Mr. Tyson wanted to hear?
Why could not Mr. Tyson reveal that the “excerpt” from that email was sent by the DC rather than saying it was provided by “a supervisor”? Did he want the public to think it was any supervisor other than the DC who might think anyone who questioned his appalling outburst at that BoS meeting was an act of retaliation against him? Or, did he not want to revisit the shameful incident she referenced in the first and only other sentence thereof in which she stated, “I have no personal information about encounters between David, Mark Tyson and his wife, so have no comment about what may or may not have occurred”? Had she seen it, one can rest assured she would have characterized it as a display of “great fervor,” which would be an extremely kind and sympathetic description of what he bellowed!
If Mr. Tyson were so wrongly mistreated for something he did or didn’t do, why not tell the whole story? Was it because he doesn’t think there is anything questionable about his abysmal behavior at the BoS meeting on July 28? Why doesn’t he just provide a copy of the “rather lengthy letter that I sent to Mr. Lockaby” which he mentioned while consuming the first part of the meeting with this nonsense? We can then compare what he said therein to what actually happened. Does he fear that, if the truth be told, he would look like the villain rather than the victim he claims to be? Does he think he is fooling anyone with this charade?
Mr. Tyson asks a lot of questions. Perhaps he needs to look into a mirror to get answers to most, if not all, of them. Does he not think that people have serious questions about his conduct, which he calls “passionate,” but which others call outrageous, disgraceful and shocking? It occurs to many that whatever caused him, as he said, to be banned from having any contact with the planning department or any supervisor, must have been far, far beyond his just being passionate.
Many would like to think that Mr. Tyson would be anxious to publicly reveal what he said in his letter to Mr. Lockaby and the “word salad” response he said he received from Mr. Lockaby, but would that rain on his sympathy parade? He has asked to be provided the link to the YouTube recording of the last PC meeting. Is that because he doesn’t remember what happened there? Maybe he should take a look at the recordings of the July PC planning session made by several in attendance. Maybe he doesn’t remember his vitriolic outbursts made there. Perhaps that look in that mirror might help?
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that it appears the only opportunity for anyone to discover “the rest of the story” is apparently left up to Mr. Tyson putting his letter to the county attorney and the response thereto up on his thumb drive for all to see, unless he doesn’t want everyone to know what they say. Don’t count on that happening.
Bob Patterson
Fincastle
Buchanan District
Two parts to the data center decision
I have been reading with interest the articles and letters on the Google Data Center. I cannot disagree with the concerns
The concerns are all valid in my opinion. Water usage, power usage, and noise are certainly problems that should be considered. I have also heard people say they would like a facility that would employ more people. Not sure I share that, but they are entitled to their opinion. More employees means more traffic. I doubt people really want that. I also understand why you doubt information now being provided to you. If you were kept on the dark once, what are they hiding now?
I do think there is something else that must be considered. It is my understanding Botetourt County is $120 million in debt. It is normal for counties to use bonds to finance long-term projects. In my opinion $75 million in debt might be more appropriate. It is also my understanding Botetourt County has nine schools over 50 years old. Botetourt County needs $200 million in the next 10 years in my opinion to build and remodel schools. Maybe more. Prices keep going up
It is my understanding Botetourt County is supposed to get $30 million per year from Google. Allowing $10 million per year for other uses, that would provide the $200 million the schools need over 10 years. (Check my math, Bob Patterson – I know you will; if it is wrong I blame public education, LBHS Class of 1973). Bob and I were in the Botetourt Jaycees together and he is very smart.
Do you think you can save $20 million per year from waste by making the school system more efficient? I hate to break it to you, but that is not going to happen. All organizations have waste. Maybe you could save $3 million. Maybe. This is not a management problem. It is a revenue problem .
What I am asking is, if not a data center how do we solve this revenue problem? I do not care is not an answer. The students deserve good schools. A 15 to 20 percent tax increase? That’s for everyone– including those who cannot afford it and those who have no children or grandchildren in the school systems. What else do you have?
Do not let Bob Patterson be right. Do not just be chronic complainers. Give us a better solution before Bob has to write so many letters complaining about the CCC, you have to make him an honorary member
Tom Kirby
Daleville
