Misleading and Deceptive Practice(s)

            When did the mission of VDH become estranged with it's purpose of protecting public health?

As VDH INC expands its monopoly in the onsite soil evaluation and design services, let us not forget the U.S Supreme Court has held a clear and consistent message to all participants involved in commmerce that,

"where the State acts not in a regulatory capacity but as a commercial participant in a given market, federal  competitive restraints apply.  City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, 499 U.S. 365, 374-75 (1991)."

VDH INC has conspired with local franchises to eliminate private sector competition via fee manipulation, where as VDH INC is an active market participant and has no desire or mandate to recover below-cost pricing losses subsidized by taxpayers. 

"Simple permission to play in a market"does not "foreseeably entail permission to roughhouse in that market unlawfully." Kay Elec. Cooperative v. Newkirk, 647 F. 3d 1039, 1043 (CA10 2011)". 

Should the VDH INC want to continue it's endeavors in exploring an entrepreneurial spirit, it should do so with conformance to applicable state and federal law; else they are just another bully on the economic playground also known as "commerce"...