Comments on: Land Use Planning from the Bottom Up

By: With Charlie

With Charlie — Sun, 17 May 2009 05:07:31 +0000

James,
(are you the same James that posts rabid responses to online articles about preserving Central Virginia’s environment?)

Have you read Jim Bacon’s “The War on Sprawl”? Hit the link in the sidebar and become educated. The Richmond Region has now surpassed both Northern Virginia and Tidewater in terms of sprawl. Local media has recently released several articles showing our area has just received dismal marks for air quality. Are you aware that pollution related health effects here now outnumber those from handguns and vehicular accidents combined? The natural environment in it’s pristine state provides a filter for just such pollution. Tim Kaine has been working towards smart growth- I don’t see Finley fighting that. Preserving the environment and some modicum of forested or open space is not necessarily anti-development. Someone somewhere has to care about the future of this part of Virginia, and you aren’t writing any articles, are you? so it’s a good thing BR covers all fronts.

From Bacon’s War on Sprawl:

As articulated in Executive Order 69, there are two driving forces behind the governor’s smart growth initiative: One is to conserve land, the other to address traffic congestion.

“Over the past decade,” says EO 69, “the Commonwealth has lost over 60,000 acres per year, or approximately 165 acres a day, to development.” With state population projected to grow 23 percent by 2030, the pace of land consumption in Virginia could accelerate.

The Kaine document repeats many of the key tenets of the smart growth philosophy. “Sprawling development increases traffic congestion, lengthens commutes, discourages walking and biking, and diminishes our quality of life,” it says. “Our solutions must strive to link planning efforts in transportation and land use more closely together.”

The most obvious attack put to use against environmental concerns is that they’re “anti-development”. Finley didn’t say stop, he asked us to think.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:14:23 +0000

The real question should be, why would government have any kind of land use plan for privately owned land? Make no mistake this is Soviet style central planning. Virginia should drop this requirement forcing the localities to have a land use plan and Henrico should stop the central planning.

By: James

James — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:22:27 +0000

See Charlie, in Henrico County they go by the theory that growth is not evil, but good. They don’t believe as you obviously do, that no one has a right to live where you live. They know people have a right to live where they choose, and if they choose to live in east Henrico, good for them. The county knows growth keeps you from having to pay city of Richmond-style property taxes and keeps them from having to hear you whine about taxes while saying STOP THE GROWTH!!! You can’t have it both ways, Charlie, and anyone who thinks Charile’s got it right. Oh, and your quote that growth costs the county $1.40 for every dollar it takes in property taxes is correct for the first year a home is in place. After the 60-year lifespan of the home, the county pays out $.78 for every dollar it takes in, so growth DOES pay for itself. Henrico knows this, which is why it does not charge cash proffers.

Why was there little public input in the comp plan process? Simple — the public doesn’t understand what a comprehensive plan is supposed to do. A comp plan is supposed to DESIGNATE potential future growth, not eradicate it. One listen to the people who spoke at the planning commission hearing in March on the comp plan proves they had no clue. That’s why the county hires experts instead of Joe farmer. The experts understand, the farmer doesn’t.

Growth is not a bad thing. We need to stop pretending it is and get this comp plan in Henrico approved and on the way.