OPINION: It's Time

In a time of elevated, heated political debate, how much is enough?

By Jon Gerlach
GUEST OPINION

Photo by Nils Huenerfuerst on Unsplash

I’ve seen enough.

Someone has to stand up for our city.

About a decade ago, I took my first steps into the inner workings of our local government. The journey has been revealing and inspiring. While I’m not running for re-election, I’m still deeply committed to our community and its future.

The people who live in Fredericksburg are more than just residents. We are neighbors, friends, and family. In our close-knit town, the threads of our connections are woven tightly, leading to countless encounters in everyday places. Even when we don’t know one another personally, a shared sense of belonging unites us all.

The beauty of this closeness is undeniable, and it creates a profound bond among us. With this bond, however, comes an important responsibility. Unlike larger cities or counties, we owe each other a special duty of care – one rooted in moral obligation rather than legal requirement.

Why am I saying this now? Historically, Fredericksburg’s political culture has fostered respectful disagreement and debate, and I’ve participated in these discussions for nearly a decade. However, what’s been unfolding lately – especially in this election cycle – genuinely alarms me. I once naively thought that the toxicity plaguing our country wouldn’t breach our city limits. Yet, it’s clear to me now that we can’t take our sense of well-being for granted. We must actively protect it to preserve the spirit that makes our home special.

The troubling trend of ruthlessness we see nationally has now spilled over into our city’s campaign season. I cannot comprehend how anyone could think it’s acceptable to be cruel simply because they are a candidate or supporting one. In my opinion, there is no justification for attacking someone’s personal life or threatening their livelihood – especially since we are all neighbors living together in the same small town. Harassment and intimidation have no place in our discourse, regardless of political differences.

Bringing up a candidate’s voting record? That’s fair game. Questioning a candidate’s position or experience on issues that matter to you? Absolutely. Scrutinizing the council’s decisions on specific matters, or how something was handled by the city, is clearly an essential part of the democratic and legislative processes and I would never condone limiting that discourse. But, if you’re going so far as to accuse individuals of criminal behavior, you need to tread carefully – very carefully.

And in the words of a dear friend: “It’s dishonesty I can’t stand.” Nor can I.

So, you might ask: Is this really happening here? You bet it is. And that’s why I’m writing this.

Residents find notes stuck to campaign signs in their yards, criticizing their support for certain candidates. Some folks are sharing their discomfort about displaying yard signs. A few even decided to remove them due to harassment they or their neighbors endured. Others report being confronted on the street and criticized for their candidate preference, by people claiming that one candidate is a slumlord, another has an inappropriate dating history, and that virtually all candidates not featured on misleading sample ballots are accepting bribes. These kinds of attacks are a form of political intimidation that raise serious concerns about our civility. Ask yourself: who would run for office out of a genuine sense of civic duty only to endure almost constant unfair personal attacks?

I think it’s very important to note here that if your main issue is really about “transparency”, then you should know that there is no transparency without honesty. So let’s get honest.

Some candidates are resorting to distortions about their opponents’ political, personal, and professional histories, trying to gain an unfair advantage. This misinformation is spread through flyers left at residents’ doors and in mailers sent to voters’ homes, often with the help of their supporters who are brazenly trying to deceive people on the street about candidates who are opposing their chosen candidates.

I understand the need for specific examples, and while I’m hesitant to name individuals, I believe voters deserve clarity. It’s unfortunate that we’ve reached this point, but transparency – and by that I mean honesty – is essential. I feel terrible that it has come to this, but here we are, and it’s only due to their actions that we’ve reached this point. I find no joy in doing this.

I’m going to give only a few examples – we’d be here all day if I gave you every instance of dishonesty that has occurred in this campaign cycle.

• Matt Kelly accused his Ward 3 opponent – Susanna Finn – of advocating for convenience stores in College Heights’s Small Area planning. In truth, she engaged with residents about their concerns and successfully led City Council to remove the commercial component on College Avenue, thus preventing convenience stores. Mr. Kelly knows this but made these claims in a flyer anyway.

• At a recent candidate forum, Ms. Little claimed that City Council members – including candidates Susanna Finn (Ward 3) and Chuck Frye (Ward 4) – allowed data centers to pull water from the river and use our drinking water. During Planning Commission and City Council discussions this winter, however, both possibilities were explicitly banned in the ordinance based on common sense and public input. Ms. Little was present for all these discussions, so she knows her statement is inaccurate.

• Personal attacks on the family of Ms. Langdon (Ward 3 School Board candidate) were voiced at the early voting site by a person supporting her opponent – Ms. Stelmock – and are too vile to repeat.

• People trying to vote early were confronted by accusations from a campaigner for Ms. Little, claiming that Ms. Crump – who is Ms. Little’s opponent in Ward 2 – neglects historic buildings and exploits her renters. In truth, Ms. Crump devotes significant time and resources to preserve her downtown properties, often at great expense. Her residential tenants benefit from below-market rent in beautiful homes. Ms. Crump’s properties are meticulously restored and maintained. I encourage you to see Ms. Crump’s properties for yourself.

• Mr. Kelly claimed that Susanna Finn received $1,000 in data center funds while on the Planning Commission, implying that it influenced her later City Council vote on the TOD data center rezoning. This accusation is baseless – and legally dangerous.

In discussing “data center money,” I want to correct a misconception that has been circulated by some candidates and their supporters. Despite accusations, no city council candidate has received donations from any data center company. This is obviously a deliberate attempt to confuse and deceive voters. Truth be told, a local attorney who represents Silver – the current owner of land in Celebrate South – made relatively small contributions to campaigns. This attorney has a long history of supporting candidates based on his personal values, since well before data centers became a thing. His civic engagement is motivated by his children’s education in public schools, his active involvement in the community, and his role in representing numerous nonprofits and small businesses.

In an ironic twist, Mr. Kelly accepted a substantial $5,700 donation from Silver’s PAC (not his attorney) during a previous election cycle, yet he has never faced accusations of undue influence or accepting bribes, nor should he. Silver, arguably the city’s largest developer, will likely sell his land to a data center developer in Celebrate South.

Everyone has their First Amendment right to support candidates of their choosing. It’s appalling and downright bizarre that in this election cycle there’s a narrative suggesting that some people should be excluded from exercising their First Amendment right to support candidates. The idea that simply backing a candidate – whether expressed through a contribution of money, displaying a yard sign, or any other honest form of free speech – might subject someone to ridicule and harassment, is unacceptable.

I’ve never witnessed such disturbing tactics in our city before, and I sincerely hope this is not the start of a deeply troubling cultural shift. One thing is clear: it will only be a cultural shift if voters in the city allow incivility to succeed.

I know that, as a result of writing this op-ed, I may be the next target of personal attacks, intimidation, and harassment. That’s a small price to pay, however, for the sake of decency in our city. The stakes in this local election are higher than you might realize. I think we must be honest about that.

Some of you know that I owned and operated Safe Passage International for decades, an insurance agency that arranges security services for folks working in dangerous parts of the world. We witnessed firsthand what happens when the threads of civility unravel, creating opportunities for bad actors. It happens quickly. Attacking people’s political, personal, or professional lives can have serious, life-changing consequences. No one running for office deserves that. No one.

Today, I call on all voters to reject personal attacks – and focus instead on issues facing our city. To quote someone who ran the gauntlet of attacks when he early-voted on Friday after tossing a misleading sample ballot in the trash: “I’m for humanity, not insanity.”

Jon Gerlach currently serves Ward 2 on City Council, and writes this in his individual capacity as a resident of Fredericksburg.

Local Obituaries

To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.

Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism

The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:

• First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.

• First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.

• First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project

Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:

• Drew Gallagher — Humorist

• Dennis Wemm — Theatre Critic

• Hank Silverberg — Transportation

• Bruce Saller — Environment

• Loraine Paige — Food and Business

And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).

• For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.

Your contributions 100% support our journalists.

Help us as we continue to grow!

This article is published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. It can be distributed for noncommercial purposes and must include the following: “Published with permission by FXBG Advance.”