“Other People’s Money”

By Tim Stinnette

There is a saying about other people’s money and it goes like this: “Three groups spend other people’s money: children, thieves, and politicians. All three need supervision.” 

“OPM” is the shorthand for “other people’s money” and when it comes to OPM it is the decisions of those who manage OPM that drive the decisions for those who use OPM. 

In the public domain, most government staffs will aggressively pursue OPM over using direct taxpayer revenues. This is called exercising good stewardship. So, if the County wants to build an interchange, the County politicians and County staff are going to aggressively pursue State and Federal OPM. OPM always comes with strings and conditions … some go to timelines and others go to how the project is constructed. The point with OPM is other people make the decisions.

If we consider the oft debated Route 7/690 Interchange project, it would appear other people’s decisions are the driving force for the project rather than us people. And if the project were entirely outside the Town of Purcellville (it’s not) one might be able to understand other people driving the decisions. The fact is the interchange encroaches on green space and wetlands within the Town of Purcellville and will impact the flow of the South Fork Catoctin Creek. 

So, why is it the managers of OPM choose to hold the Town of Purcellville hostage with flooding abatement measures in exchange for encroaching on the Town’s green space, wetlands, and the water course of the South Fork Catoctin Creek? 

It is largely due to the strings and conditions (timelines and construction) associated with using OPM. If those strings and conditions are not satisfied the project will lose its OPM funding.

One should ask, why does the interchange need roundabouts when it was initially designed without. One should also ask, if the interchange is not the cause of a change to the Town’s floodplain, then why are we being held hostage to flooding mitigations in exchange for the interchange east bound ramp when ensuring public safety should not require an exchange or negotiation.

Here’s the deal, the upcoming public hearing on whether the Town should vacate its agreement to maintain its green space, wetlands, and the South Fork Catoctin Creek in exchange for the interchange eastbound ramp and flooding mitigations is where we exercise “supervision” over those who spend other people’s money. 

We should all attend the public hearing and ask the basic question: why would we exchange our green space, wetlands, and the South Fork Catoctin Creek for a flooding mitigation no one has evaluated and “down-town revitalization” based on a traffic projection for 2040 that VDOT says does not warrant the eastbound ramp? 

You gotta love other people’s money. I for one would be interested in hearing the answer to that question and I expect you might be as well. I hope to see you there.

Tip Stinnette lives in Catoctin Meadows.