This bill seems to single out heritage organizations that the author don’t like. A Confederate heritage organization is not equivalent to the defeated army itself. It is not rebelling against the Union or proposing to overhaul anything in Virginia by force or even mere words. These "clubs" are for local (and often elderly) history buffs with a penchant for genealogy and cultural memories. Importantly, they care for the graves of the dearly departed. When we honor the dead, we honor all dead indiscriminately. This bill is not forthcoming, in that it really proposes to evict the meek ladies that gather in a beautiful building on Arthur Ashe Boulevard, which they cannot afford to pay real estate taxes on. Not only have they suffered much vitriol and outright mob attack on those venerable halls, the property tax skyrocketed around them because the Sons of Confederate Veterans were nice enough to donate the land to the VMFA for the neighborhood’s general improvement. A tax exemption sounds like a nice gesture. However, this club generates no real money from outside. Real Estate tax is justifiable for homeowners whose families benefit from city services (schools, roads, etc.) but the members concerned here are most likely already paying real estate taxes on their individual homes. The bill should be opposed.

Honorable Delegate, I respectfully object to HB 167 currently before the House Finance Committee. I realize I live in a different state, however my family is from VA, some fought and died for the state. It is our heritage, not hate! Thank you

Honorable Members, I'm writing in opposition to HB167. I see it as yet another attempt to rewrite history according to a particular viewpoint. The organizations affected do not promote divisiveness and simply attempt to present the history of our State as seen through the eyes of the people who actually lived it, good or bad. Those who choose to change or ignore the lessons of history are truly doomed to repeat it.

Honorable Delegates, I respectfully object to HB 167 currently before the House Finance Committee. This bill is an act of aggression and will cause greater division among Virginians than any perceived benefit to the Commonwealth.

I implore you to oppose HB 167. It singles out a specific demographic based solely on its history, heritage, and culture. Therefore, HB 167 is a blatant violation of the provisions of equal protection under the law provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm writing to oppose HB167. This bill singles out certain Confederate organizations because they look at the war period from the Southern point of view. The times were different in the 1860s and at that time it was honorable for men to be "Virginia First". I know many members of these organizations. They are good people, not political activists, and harbor no hate. They deserve to keep their tax exemption.

As a member of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who has engaged in considerable volunteer work over the past couple of years for the organization, I question the intention and purpose behind HB167. To what end does it serve to tax an organization who's main task for the past one hundred years has been to honor and memorialize the men lost in a terrible civil war? I ask this question because our main task - as an organization - has been the preservation and remembrance of individual soldiers. The main project of the Virginia SCV has been the restoration of Oakwood Cemetery's Confederate Section in Richmond, Virginia. This includes the maintenance of the grounds and the installation of headstones upon the grounds. Across its boundaries, over 16,000 Confederate dead are buried in this section; men from every Southern State. My role in this has been to help with the installation of these headstones and to recant the story of these men; why and how they ended up here - in Virginia - and why they lie in Oakwood today. These men were from every walk of life in the south; from the sons of wealthy plantation owners to humble, yeoman farmers conscripted to fight in that war. All of these men buried in Oakwood never made it home; they came to find their eternal rest there. Gone, but not forgotten. The SCV took it upon themselves to maintain the grounds of that section and to encourage families and relatives to fund the installation of headstones for their ancestors buried there. This - by all measures - is a good and noble task that the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has taken upon themselves to fulfill. By removing the tax exemption status for the SCV, it inadvertently harms the memorialization of these men. It would be wrong for such a bill to be passed into law because it impedes a noble and honorable deed conducted by an organization who has taken this burden upon themselves.

I respectfully write to express my opposition to pending House legislation HB 167, which targets individual organizations based on prejudices and seeks nothing more than to penalize heritage organizations, of which any person, regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation, are welcome to join, and of whose sole purpose is to honor and protect the shared heritage of all Virginians. Such bills as HB 167 set forth a dangerous precedence which would allow law makers to discriminate against any citizens of their choosing, rather than seeking the common good for all citizens and protecting our individual rights. I make this statement solely on behalf of myself. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of historical preservation, fairness, and civic duty. I respectfully ask that you oppose HB 167.

Honorable Delegate, I respectfully write to express my opposition to pending House legislation including HB 167, HB 1344, HB 1377, and HB 1374, which remove monuments, penalize heritage organizations, or defund or alter historic institutions such as the Virginia Military Institute. I make this statement solely on behalf of myself and my family. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of historical preservation, fairness, and civic duty. I respectfully ask that you oppose these bills.

I respectfully write to express my opposition to pending House legislation including HB 167, HB 1344, HB 1377, and HB 1374, which remove monuments, penalize heritage organizations, or defund or alter historic institutions such as the Virginia Military Institute. I make this statement solely on behalf of myself and my family. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of historical preservation, fairness, and civic duty. I respectfully ask that you oppose these bills and carefully consider the concerns of Virginians who believe our shared heritage deserves thoughtful and respectful treatment.

Please vote NO on this bill which strips the tax exempt status for UDC and Sons of Confederate Veterans. These organizations provide valuable community service resulting in thousands of volunteer hours as well as monetary support. These volunteer services include helping at food banks; supporting veteran organizations, both financially and in person; contributing to the flooding disaster last year in western North Carolina by sending significant contributions to Mercy Chefs to provide hot meals to our affected North Carolina neighbors to name just a few. These acts rarely, if ever, make it into the newspapers to let people know the good that is done by these organizations. Most newspapers refuse to print submitted articles. By stripping the tax exempt status of these organizations and losing their financial impact, our commonwealth will be the loser. Thank you.

This Bill violates agreements made by the state to obtain property from the United Confederate Veterans in the 1950s. The state should be forced to keep its agreements. If passed, litigation paid for by the taxpayers will surely commence. I for one will assist in financing the legal cost to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This is a historical organization of ladies that has existed since 1896. It preserves graves and monuments, nothing more. I must admit that if they are forced to leave Richmond, I do not know why they would be too sad, they are too honorable and forthright to want to stay in such a city.

Please support HB272!

I am writing in support of bill HB272 to support the growth of the film industry in the beautiful Commonwealth of Virginia. Incentives help to entice studios to produce film projects that provide good paying jobs to Virginian constituents while boosting local businesses and the overall economy across the state and in the localities where filming takes place.

Dear Legislators, Please support HB272 !!!! At the moment there is no film work in Virginia

Funding these bills increases the chance of long term film work within the state of VA. The last few years have seen a weak and non competitive television and film incentive for productions to come and invest in this community. With fights for film worker's rights, threats of AI replacing jobs , and conglomerate studio mergers, US film work even more competitive. Productions have been choosing to out source to work to european countries it makes the pool of work even smaller. We have a strong and talented community of film workers and technicians in this state and we are looking forward to your vote to pass this bill and bring us the work we need and want here. Fund the Arts. Fund bringing work to your constituents. Fund economic growth to VA. Thanks for your time.

It would be great to get some more incentives in Virginia so some work and money could come back into the state so the people who grew up in this area and want to continue to call Virginia a home would like to keep doing but if I can't work I can't afford to live in Virginia much longer

I live in Richmond, and I work in the film industry. My livelihood depends on an increase in these incentives! I am 42 years old, and I have worked in film for nearly 20 years. I need more film opportunities here to survive! Thank you very much for your time.

As a film worker, my livelihood depends on these bills. Once I turn 26 I will need to be in a union to have healthcare. If union jobs don’t come to Virginia, I’ll be forced to leave my home state.

Please support this bill as it helps to incentivize film work in the Commonwealth; supporting our state-wide economy and boosting sustainability for trained tradespeople to live, raise families, and work in Virginia.

I am writing to ask that you please consider supporting HB272. As a location scout in the film industry, I have seen how incentive programs like this bring in large scale film productions that not only provide a livelihood for local crews, casts and artisans, but also directly pump money into local economies. These productions contract numerous local vendors for their services and are often among those companies highest spending and most vital customers. Without incentives like this, it is almost certain that these large productions will cease coming to Virginia and that will negatively impact not only the livelihoods of local film workers, but also the numerous vendors services that we contract.

Good morning, distinguished Committee members, I write to you today in support of an issue that will play a vital role in reinvigorating the Virginia film industry, bringing jobs and revenue back to the Commonwealth. I am one of hundreds of workers in Virginia who benefited directly – and indirectly – in years past from Virginia’s support of television and movie production. Passing HB 272, the Film Industry Communities Zone; Local Designation legislation, is critical to the future of Virginia’s economy and helping workers like me. Consider my own story as a camera assistant. A few years ago, movies and television productions routinely came to Virginia. People like me enjoyed well-paying jobs that benefited ourselves and our communities in Virginia. But much has changed since Virginia’s film incentives lapsed. Workers like me must routinely leave Virginia to find work and practice our trade. Tonight, for instance, I am writing this while working in North Carolina, where I just wrapped a day of film production for a Netflix series. While I have been fortunate to still live in Richmond, many of my colleagues have been forced to move to North Carolina and other states to make a living. Skilled artists and technicians who love our state have moved away reluctantly – to follow the work and earn a living. This is a loss for Virginia on many different levels. There is an immediate economic impact. For example, today I saw hundreds of workers in North Carolina – not Virginia – earning good money and spending it in the local community. These are jobs and revenue that a few years ago could have been in Virginia. With this proposed legislation, this well-paying industry could once again return. Movie and film production could become much more common in the Commonwealth. The revenue impact of movie production snowballs throughout a community and the state. The impacts are far-reaching. Beyond tax issues, the potential tourism advertisement that comes from Virginia film goes completely muted without an incentivized reason to bring productions here. A lack of a visible film output in Virginia misses valuable opportunities to bring more public attention to the Commonwealth, with real world economic impact from both tourism and industry. The industry also directly drives the livelihoods, wages, and healthcare of those workers. Film production work often leads to union participation, which in turn subsidizes employee healthcare. However, union healthcare is dependent on participation. As industry opportunities diminish in the Commonwealth, film workers face rising costs of public healthcare options or risk losing their healthcare entirely. Healthcare achieved through union production lessens the burden of public cost health on state taxpayers while at the same time helping Virginia workers. To tie these thoughts together, tonight I write to you from North Carolina as one single member out of a production crew of hundreds of people. Crews of this size earn impressive wages, which are taxed by the state before they are spent on goods and services in the local economy. Instead of this happening in North Carolina, this should be happening in Virginia – and this legislation can help make that happen.

As a local film crew member, I understand the importance and the impact our shows can make on the communities in which we shoot. I have worked on films/shows that have filmed all over the Commonwealth and know the crew and cast have contributed greatly to the municipal, retail, hospitality and service industries. Allowing the communities to find ways to bring this kind of work to their localities is empowering and a great way to stimulate our industry. Our livelihoods. Thank you for your time.

I work in the film industry and my livelihood depends on the boost these incentives give our industry. Please support it! Thank you!

My name is Victoria Petrone and I live in Richmond, VA and have been in the film industry for 10+ years. I love my job and the community it has given me. Not many people can say that, however, I know just how fortunate I am as well as the community. By supporting HB 272, you are giving back to small businesses, showing how wonderful our city is and just how much we have to offer. The lack of work due to the loss of incentives has been devastating. Richmond was once a place that was booming with new opportunities and future creative projects that allowed everyone from all walks of life to support themeselves and families. Please consider supporting HB 272.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 272. I live in Richmond, VA and have worked on motion picture productions for twenty years alongside hundreds of hard-working local technicians, tradesmen, artists, coordinators, assistants, drivers, office staff, and other workers. Sadly, our once thriving industry is now stagnant because Virginia can’t compete with nearby states. Jobs, a talented workforce, recent graduates and dollars that could have been spent here are forced to go elsewhere. It’s disheartening when a movie or TV show that is set in Virginia is filmed in a nearby state because that state offers more flexible economic support . Virginia has EVERYTHING other states have (great crew, stunning locations, supportive small businesses, etc.); the only thing we lack is the legislation to support our industry. Please help put Virginia BACK on the list of economically viable places to bring film and television production. Please support Virginia’s current AND future workers and businesses by supporting HB 272. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, I'm writing in support of tax incentives for Film in Virginia. I've been a resident of Richmond Virginia since 2002 and have worked in the Film community since 2008 and join the Camera union local 600 in 2013. We have a wonderful, talented and diverse crew here in Virginia who love this city and what we do for our livelihoods. None of us want to travel to NY or Atlanta to work, leaving our significant others and pets here just to support ourselves. Thank you for your consideration. -Eric Eaton IATSE Local 600

Please support HB272! As a film location scout, I understand the importance of localities having the ability to offer their own incentives to attract film production. Film productions have a significant economic impact on the areas they film, especially for the local businesses. Also, film locations have been known to see a boon to tourism.

I believe this bill seeks to only correct one distinct word in paragraph E of the existing State Code 58.1-3221. That is, to correct the one critical word in the phrase ... to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district (not "landmark"). I could be wrong, but I believe this has been a one word error since the original bill was drafted and adopted many years ago. This code deals with commercial and industrial structures. I believe and contend that paragraph E should be and was intended to be the exact mirrored equal to that of paragraph F in the existing code 58.1-3220 Partial exemption for certain rehabilitated, renovated or replacement residential structures. That paragraph F states. "Where rehabilitation is achieved through demolition and replacement of an existing structure, the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district. In Staunton we have six historic districts: Beverley Historic District, Wharf Historic District, Newtown Historic District, Stuart Addition Historic District, Gospel Hill Historic District, and The Villages Historic District. Someone in one of those districts may choose to demolish and replace one of those existing commercial or industrial structures and attempt to apply for the rehabilitation tax credit program. The property by itself may not be a registered landmark but it may contribute to the historic district which it is within. That is why I believe it is important to have the wording in state code § 58.1-3221 paragraph E to be corrected from “…the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic landmark” to what I sincerely believe was the original intent to be “…the exemption shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district.”. That detail could be used against us (and other Virginia jurisdictions) with registered historic districts and rehab programs to qualify for the program if and when they were to tear down and rebuild a property in a registered historic district is the building by and of itself wasn’t also a registered Virginia landmark. "

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written comment on HB345. I am the City Attorney for Staunton, Virginia. Our locality was approached by a property owner within a historic district in our city and asked about their options for the parcel as well as potential tax abatements for the parcel. The parcel in question is in a historic district, but it does not contribute to the significance of an historic landmark. As we examined the potential options, we noticed that Virginia Code Section 58.1-3321 would permit the demolition of the building on the property to be eligible for a tax abatement if the property was used for a commercial or industrial use. However, Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3220 and 58.1-3220.1 would not offer the tax abatement if the property was demolished and used for residential or hotel/motel uses. Both statutes use the word "district" rather than "structure." Thus, this parcel located in a historic district would be eligible for a tax abatement if it was demolished and made an industrial use, but not for residential or hotel uses. It appeared to the City that this may be a scrivener's error. The current wording would incentivize demolition of properties within historic districts for industrial or commercial uses rather than less intensive residential or hotel/motel uses. Given that we are talking about historic districts, it did not make sense to use that the statutes would incentivize the more intensive use. Therefore, we respectfully are requesting that the General Assembly amend the current statute to equalize commercial/industrial uses with residential and hotel/motel uses in terms of demolishing a structure within an historic district. It seems a rather odd result to maintain the current wording as tax abatements could incentivize demolition of structures in a historic district for a more intensive use. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. Respectfully Submitted, John C. Blair, II

RE: HB345 The City of Portsmouth suggests the following friendly amendments: Lines 32 and 33 need to be amended to say "The exemption may commence upon completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement, or on January 1 of the year following completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement." Explanation of suggested amendment: It would be a nightmare to keep up with any of these that start at completion. They need to start January 1st or July 1st after completion, depending on whether the locality runs a calendar or fiscal year. Outside of that, the bill currently reads like our city's normal rehab program. It would b

HB 345 - Va First Cities thanks our member, the City of Staunton, and their Assessor, for catching what appears to be a scrivener's error in § 58.1-3221.