Dispensing Advice to Powhatan County

Powhatan County, lying southwest of Richmond, faces similar challenges to a dozen or more other fast-growth counties in the Virginia countryside: rapid population growth that (1) strains infrastructure, and (2) brings an influx of urban residents who demand an urban level of services. The population is forecast to grow from about 28,000 today to an estimated 46,000 by 2020.

Powhatan Tomorrow, a citizens group, and the Powhatan County Transportation Study Group sponsored a panel presentation from an impressive group of luminaries — and me. Our purpose: to discuss the transportation-land use connection. The fact that the citizens of Powhatan are discussing the transportation and land use as a common issue is a tremendous sign of progress. It provides a glimmer of hope that the county may adopt a new, more realistic vision of growth as it goes through the process of revising its comprehensive plan.

The other panelists were informative and respectful. (I wish I’d had a pen to take notes, I’d have a lot of blog fodder this morning.) By contrast, as the resident blogger and hell raiser, I decided to get up close and personal with Powhatan and tell it exactly like I saw it.

The county’s existing comprehensive plan is a disaster: If the document is left intact, the county will be unlivable in 20 years. The plan endeavors to limit population growth by smearing new residents over the county’s 175,000 acres. History has demonstrated that the ol’ one-house-per-five-acres gambit doesn’t stop growth, but does ensure that the growth that occurs is incredibly inefficient. In recognition that some growth should be channeled into concentrations that could be served with roads, utilities and public services, the plan does calls for “village preservation areas” — but the “densities” allow only two dwellings per acre!

According to the county’s own planning documents, long stretches of its main roads will deteriorate to Level of Service D and E (extremely unstable) by 2020.

You’re on your own, I told the crowd. Don’t expect anyone else to bail you out of your poor decisions. The federal road highway trust fund is a shambles. The state road program is shrinking, and there’s nothing resembling a consensus on how to raise new money.

Powhatan doesn’t have many options. Borrowing millions of dollars like Prince William County doesn’t seem like a viable plan amidst global turmoil in financial markets and collapsing real estate revenues. Business As Usual will lead to entropy and congestion. The only solution, I proposed, was to concentrate growth: not in low-density agglomerations bearing no resemblance to villages, but in real villages.

I urged everyone in the audience to buy a copy of Claude Lewenz’ book, “How to Build a Village,” to get ideas of how a village might be built from scratch. Lewenz’ auto-free village sounds radical, even heretical, to Americans who have known nothing but an autocentric society. But two of the 5,000-person entities would accommodate the county’s growth for the next decade in very small, low-impact areas, preserving farmland, reducing car trips and constraining impact on county roads.

I wouldn’t propose that Powhatan actually zone for Lewenzian villages (unless a developer asked for it), but reading the book would stretch the minds of citizens to think more creatively about compact forms of village-scale development. Of all the people in the audience, the young people seemed most enthused by the idea; several came up to me after the panel discussion with astute questions and observations. Our youngesters haven’t yet absorbed the conventional wisdom of what’s possible and what’s not. If there is hope for the future, they are it.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

56 responses to “Dispensing Advice to Powhatan County”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “History has demonstrated that the ol’ one-house-per-five-acres gambit doesn’t stop growth, but does ensure that the growth that occurs is incredibly inefficient.”

    OK, so you gain efficiency by stopping growth in some areas and increaing it in others. At the end of the day you still have 28,000 new people.

    As a result, some people will have much more growth opportunities than others, so you trade fairness for efficiency. You trade some people’s valuation for others.

    Where is the comprehensive plan that equalizes the benefits of growth instead of punishing some and rewarding others?

    RH

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “low-impact areas, preserving farmland, reducing car trips “

    Low impact by what criteria? Who is doing the measuring?

    Preserving farmland for what? Are there profitable farms in Powhatan? Or is this another case of having farmland subsidise the compact, “low-impact”, residential districts?

    How, exactly will this reduce car trips, isn’t it still 8 per day per household, pretty much?

    RH

  3. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    How, exactly will this reduce car trips, isn’t it still 8 per day per household, pretty much?

    I think the idea is actually to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). But, there can also be trip reduction if there are amenities in walking distance.

  4. I buy the village concept, and indeed I believe the concept of intentional community should be central to the implementation of sustainable development patterns. We’re not talking about hippie communes here, just a way to be conscious about growth and intentions for a community before you build.

    RH, I fail to see the inequality. Who do you believe would be “punished”, the residents outside the new villages in a locality like Powhatan? I don’t see anyone losing here. If other locality residents want village life, they should be able to find one suitable for their needs. Maybe I missed something.

    As far as setting the standard for “low-impact”, I highly recommend Cradle to Cradle principles of design. These principles shift the paradigm from “low impact” to “positive impact”, recognizing the abundance provided by geography, sun/wind and other elemental factors, and human capital.

    There are many fronts on the road to truly sustainable development, but it makes sense to me to start changing the way we do new development and redevelopment.

    My only hesitation: affordability. I know cutting Vehicle Miles Traveled goes a long way toward affordable humanscapes, and Cradle to Cradle explores other efficiencies, but you need capital for projects like these. Can the local and state government, perhaps with some federal funding, really realize such an innovative project without screwing it up, and make it affordable and conducive to mixed-income working families?

    Or… is there a financially sustainable model based on community property ownership that can make this vision happen with minimal dependence on government funds and bureaucracy?

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Who do you believe would be “punished”

    Your starting point is one house per five acres, or three, or whatever. Everyone has an equal property right, and an equal opportunity, based on the land they have or acquire. they can avail themselves of the opportunity or conserve it.

    But now you put all the growth in one area efectively cutting many people out. The rationale is (partly) to “save” their farmland. But in so doing you have removed their option to decide whether it is worth saving. A few people in the growth area will suddenly have land that is worth much, much, more than it would have been otherwise, because now it is all that is available, and much of the competition has been removed.

    The overall value of the growth is much the same, but the distribution of the cash benfits is wildly different. This is happening in many rural areas, and the end result is that those very citizens who have conserved their property for the longest time, get hit with the most onerous and costly rstrictions in the end. Those restrictions benefit primarily those in the villages – who have the most votes.

    I’ve seen this happen on Martha’s Vineyard when I was growing up, and again in Fauquier county over the last thirty years.

    —————————

    RE VMT

    OK, so over the last thirty years we see a huge increas in urbanization, and a lot mor VMT.

    Evidently compact living isn’t cutting it.

    It isn’t the number of VMT that counts, its the value.

    RH

  6. I see your point regarding property value, RH. It seems that there is a price to be paid in the transition to sustainable development. However, I do not know of any good examples of “good growth” to point to for accurate historical data on the overall impact. Is a shopping center, or a suburban “planned community”, really a good example? Do you believe the growth you saw in Martha’s Vineyard and Fauquier qualifies as sustainable?

    I agree that the cost may be much the same for rural property owners, but isn’t their property overvalued already?

    First off, the “villages” I envision would include forest, pasture, and agricultural space outside the village center. Therefore the “farms” you speak of may not be heavily relied on by the villages, though this may well vary depending on the human capital and purpose of a given village.

    Secondly, large monoculture farms aren’t any more ecologically or economically sustainable than poorly planned cities. We need a lot of green space left to scrub the footprint of human activity. Assuming that green space would be publicly protected, isn’t it a good thing if that property value declines so that it can be preserved at less expense?

    Thirdly, part of the problem we’re having in our financial markets is rooted in real estate speculation. In a village, it doesn’t matter how much the land is worth because it is being leveraged for utility value instead of the inflated valuation of the “fair market value”. The property a village sits on could be equated to a blue chip stock, while the underutilized rural properties are like dot-com startups. Truly valuable stocks pay dividends instead of relying on the speculative value used in today’s fantasy economy. The reality of “real value” is already hitting the streets, and I don’t see how we can avoid that.

    VMT: Again, I don’t know of a great example of a New Urban Region that applies these principles broadly. Most of the urbanization you speak of equates to “sprawl in the city”, the same old same old… right?

  7. E M Risse Avatar

    Jim Bacon:

    A pen is in the mail.

    For the record, who else was on the pannel?

    Good advice, by the way. But you knew we would say that.

    EMR

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “is there a financially sustainable model based on community property ownership that can make this vision happen with minimal dependence on government funds and bureaucracy?”

    There are thousands of communally owned non-profit corportions that operate as communities, with varying degrees of sharing, religious participation, ownership rights, management styles and profitability. Some work well with the larger community and some are viewed with mistrust/distaste.

    As a general rule, I believe this society depends on and understands private property better than community property. If you want to sell the idea that we will be better off with a compact village environment, there is no better way to sink that sale than to mention anything that sounds remotely like socialism or communism.

    The argument that I’m making is that in order to sell such an idea it must be based on strong property rights. Then the promise that we will all be better off is easily measured and tested. Which is why I point out the disparity that most village plans create today. A proper plan devised in a property rights context would recognize and address those disparities.

    Of course, the problem is that once you address those disparities, much of the “value” or “efficiency” of the plan disipates. Then you discover how hard it is to make a really good and really fair plan that beats the free market.

    The “we” that is better off is only better off by virtue of property rights that have been stolen from others. Frequently the situation is that newcomers move in, exercise their rights, and then wish to curtail others, or demand new ones (like urban style services, new levels of governance that they control, etc. etc. ).

    The situation I’m pointing to is one of fairness not sustainability. I beleive we are so far from sustainability that to consider such a thing is almost laughable.

    We do not properly consider time in our calulations.

    Martha’s Vineyard did a good job, and they are still working on it. They were able to purchase private beach property and make it accessible to the public, when it would not have been otherwise. They saved large chunks of community open space through cluster zoning. So you could look at these as socialism at work, if you so choose. They were able to acquire contiguous land to use for an island wide string of bike trails, which were sorely needed and heavily used.

    So, all of that worked pretty well, but it was expensive and they came up with a plan to raise the money. But, at the same time, MV was a very old community, with families that had lived on one property for over three hundred years. Time and again, I saw those families get worked over by poorly designed “conservation”, “planning” and “growth management schemes”. Later these were revised, with the end result that the original landowners got little, but the second, third, and fourth owners made handsome profits.

    It didn’t affect me personally (Other than I had to leave. for me personally the situation was not sustainable.) But, I was close to people who took truly enormous personal and family losses (over time) because of regulations that were enacted for the public good, but which the public never paid the actual price for.

    For lack of a better word, I call it stealing.

    We all want everyone to be better off, I just think we need to be a lot more careful about how we measure things.

    RH

  9. Groveton Avatar

    Yeah, RH, fairness is never much of a plank in the functional human settlement platform. It seems to me that the farmland surrounding the to-be-constructed villages needs to be bought in the near future. It needs to be bought by government and put into non-development zones. The present owners, of course, must be paid fair market value. Then, once the villages are built (if they are built), the infrastructure savings associated with more functional human development (assumed) and higher taxes on the village dwellers will be used to pay back the loans taken to buy the farms and will pay for money to maintain the former farmland.

    Sound fantastic?

    Not really. Outside Chicago are a series of forest preserves called the Cook County Forest Preserve system. These are government owned parks which run through the suburbs of that city. The parks are much beloved by the residents and are always discussed with pride by Chicagoans. So, how did Chicago find the foresight to buy land on the edge of what was then the city, buy it and turn it into parkland? That’s easy – greed and graft, two staples of Chicago governenance. It seems that the few who owned the land thought their land would never be worth much. It was too far from downtown and it hadn’t gone up much in value for years. So, they bribed city officials to buy the land at a profit. The officials needed some reason to do this and “creating parks” would sound good to voters. The land was bought, cronies got their cash and the people of Cook County got a legacy of open space that exists to this day.

    For Powhatan – buy the farms, make the farmers feel like they “got away with one”, plant trees on the farms, build the villages and declare the former farms a forest preserve.

    See, it’s not that hard when you look at history.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Isn’t their property overvalued already?”

    I don’t know what you mean. I have property along side an interstate (that was built by taking part of the property). Suppose someone wanted to buy it for a truck stop. They would value it at far more than the county, which has it zoned only as Agricultural.

    On the other hand, the reason the county has it zoned as agricultural is because they can tax agricultural land at twice as much as it costs in services. From the standpoint of th eone who pays those taxes, then yes, I’d have to agree that either the land is overvalued (I pay too much taxes for what I get, there is no market need that will support agriculture where I am), or the taxes I pay are spent for urban services, not agricutlural services, so the tax usage is unfair.

    The county over values my land as agricultural because it is profitable for them to do so, but they undervalue it for any use that might actually make ME any money.

    I’m speaking in the first person as a matter of example, because it is what I see most clearly, but my situation applies to many landowners, so consider my examples as generalities.

    The county argues that for evey house I don’t build, they save something like $2700 a year. Fine. I accept their argument, but that means they are borrowing that savings out of profits I might make otherwise. I hold the position that if they are willing to pay me 5% interest on what THEY claim I’m saving THEM, then I’d be willing to shut up.

    You can see immediately that this brings the issue of time into the equation. Their calculation of expenses incurred is based only on the first year of life of that house. Over the lifetime of a house, the ratio of taxes paid to services recieved looks a lot different.

    Their argument is probably wrong, up front, but I’ll accept their argument if they accept the logical financial consequences of it, based on property rights.

    With property rights properly protected, the market can determine whether they are overvalued or not. As it stands now, there is no way to know.

    RH

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Secondly, large monoculture farms aren’t any more ecologically or economically sustainable than poorly planned cities. “

    Good point, as far as it goes. There are 2000 farms in Fauquier county. Maybe 10 or 20 of them count as large monoculture farms, plus the new crop of wineries, which are monocultures. Those 20 farms account for almost all the profits, and they garner almost all the subsidies in the county.

    So, when we talk about saving farmland, which farms are we talking about: the ones that are profitable but (maybe) envrironmentally and ecologically unsound, or the ones that are unprofitable, unneeded as farms, and located near the villages?

    Again, sustainability requires that we address a time issue. Are we talking about sustainable FOREVER, which carries a price apporaching infinity, or are we talking about sustainable over a time period we can reasonably expect to manage?

    Why should I care if my farm is “sustainable” (by some definition or another) 300 years form now, when I’m already worried sick that I may not make it through next year since the county is taxing me at twice what I cost them? Now, if someone who is sufficiently worried about sustainability to pay me to do what they think needs done, then sign me up.

    Until then, I’ve got my own problems, that I own, and I pay for.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton, has hit the nail on the head.

    “higher taxes on the village dwellers will be used to pay back the loans taken to buy the farms and will pay for money to maintain the former farmland.”

    This of course detracts from the argument that such villages are really more efficient. Everyone wants to save farmland as long as they can save it for free and have it maintained for free.

    No, I don’t think it is fantastic at all. Anne Mackin Published an article in WAPO in 2005 “Don’t zone the Scenery: Buy It”. I beleive she has published a book on the subject since.

    What Chicago wound up with sounds much like what MV wound up with, but MV was more up front about it.

    The parks and facilities in Chicago and MV might be much loved, but that does not mean they are actually well used. There are well known methods for determining the usage, utility and value of parkland and other amenities. These change over time, just as the “cost” of residential construction does.

    In Maryland there was a huge hoorah over the last few years when the governor proposed selling underused park land.

    Transparency in accounting is everything. Sooner or later, accounting is going to boil down to ownership, usage, utility, and value. We need to make the utility and value of environmental, and ecological, and intergenerational values clearly understood and measurable.

    We can’t get there with vaguely constructed and unvalued concepts such as sustainability, sold as if they are uniformly a good thing, whatever the cost.

    RH

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Thirdly, part of the problem we’re having in our financial markets is rooted in real estate speculation.”

    Aren’t the speculators now speculating downward? Don’t we now hear cries for a halt on short selling?

    We don’t have a problem. What we have is a new set of opportunities. People who bet too Heavily on the old opportunites are the ones with problems. (However, there are enough of them with enough problems that it will affect us, too.) Blaming this on nameless faceless “speculators” as a pejorative is unhelpful in moving forward from where we are. There is a lot more blame than that to go around. And by the way, we need speculators: they serve a valuable market purpose.

    “In a village, it doesn’t matter how much the land is worth because it is being leveraged for utility value instead of the inflated valuation of the “fair market value”.

    WTF? I have no idea what this sentence says, or could possibly mean. Of course it matters what the land is worth. Of course it’s value depends on its utility. Usually it is something like the net present value of twenty years worth of utility.

    Let’s say my farm like most farms in Fauquier loses $2000 a year. over 20 years that is a net negative utility of $40,000, based on the only use of the property I’m allowed by the county (because that use is profitable to them). If they paid me 5% per year on my disutility, then I’d break even.

    But it would still be a far cry from the fair market value. (How can fair market value be inflated? It is what it is, today.)

    But even assuming the vilages bought that land at fair market value (and assuming they could remotely afford it), WHEN, would they do that? When it was still one home per five acres, or AFTER they got it downzoned a few times, which is what Fauquier has done.

    Time makes a difference, and we don’t account for it well. Especially when government is immortal and landowners are not.

    But at the end of the day, fair market value is whatever you can get someone to pay you for the use which is allowed. (plus some probability that what is allowed may change).

    That’s why you need strong, well defined property rights, protected by the government.

    Now look at PDR’s as purchased by Fauquier County. There is a fixed price, determined by the government, not the market. They are buying development rights AFTER having downzoned many previous development rights (which they THEN claimed had no value as “property” : time seems to make a difference).

    What does the seller get? He gets his utilization PERMANENTLY reduced: the county now takes both time and elections and zoning law changes off the books, FOREVER, following the deed of the property.

    And the seller gets to continue to pay taxes on it, at whatever rate the county sets in the future: irrespective of the utility of the land. The permanent guarantees go only form the landownerto the county: Nothing goes the other way.

    If you believe that one principle responsibility of government is to protect people and property, then this is abdication. And since the contract is permanent and outside of county control future elected representatives cannot change it. The current officers are abdicating for all their heirs and successors.

    RH

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “The land is being leveraged for utility value”

    Precisely. I cannot leverage mu land because the utility value is strictly limited.

    Now suppose the village buys the land, and then some truck stop developer comes to the village to make a deal they just can’t refuse.

    What do you think the utility would become?

    I’ll give you an example. The county once bought some land for a landfill, but it developed the soil was unsuitable (oops). Now they had property and no one was paying taxes on it. What do you think happened? It got sold for (gasp) housing develpment.

    In spite of the arguments the county makes about losing money on residential housing.

    RH

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “But, there can also be trip reduction if there are amenities in walking distance.”

    There exist studies that show that trips made within walking distance are in addition to and not instead of auto trips.

    RH

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Don’t get me wrong. I support the village concept. Studies show that a series of self supporting cites is more productive than a single large on.

    But the devil is in the details. Right now a hear a lot of nonsense like “in a village, it doesn’t matter what the land is worth…” and then I freak out.

    RH

  17. I’m beholding you freaking out, Ray! I’m listening though, and hopefully learning something. I hear your concern about property rights, but I’m not actually suggesting the government remove any of the protections in place now (such as they are, eminent domain and all).

    What I’m suggesting is that private interests could purcchase land for these villages in rural areas. I hear you telling me that this would negatively impact property values of existing land owners. And..? Should the government – I shudder to use this term – bail out land owners who made shortsighted investments? How can we reconcile the right of a group of investors to purchase rural property for low impact development with the material interests of existing property owners?

    Again, I’m striving to understand. Don’t freak out, man. 😉

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    What I’m suggesting is that private interests could purcchase land for these villages in rural areas.

    That’s true. And it sometimes happens. There are thousands of nonprofits that operate villages of various kinds.

    Now, think real hard for about 30 seconds and try to understand why it does not happen more often and on a larger scale.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Should the government – I shudder to use this term – bail out land owners who made shortsighted investments?

    Suppose you bought a large piece of land that was zoned for 50 houses, with the intent to construct your village.

    Then the government downzoned it to 5 houses. How would you feel about your property rights?

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    Then how would you feel if someone told you that youhad made a short sighted decision?

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    If your village is a corporation, it can sellstock and raise money to buy whatever land is available.

    The corporation will owe taxes on the land to the government, so the corporation will need some income.

    How do you propose to get that income? Grow something on the land?

    You are going to need 10000 hogs at todays prices to make $75,000.

    How many people in your village can live on that much money (and live with 10,000 hogs)? Most likely, you can NEVER raise enough hogs to pay off the value of the property, unless the property is very cheap indeed. Youcan make $75,000 a year with around 950 acres of soybeans.

    How many people will your corporation need to rais enough money to buy 950 acres? And how are they going to dived up the $75,000?

    The people who invest their money (property) in your corporation are going to want their money back someday. Or at least some payment for the use of their money? Where will that come from?

    You plan on recycling hearing aid batteries? You will need to be zoned industrial for that, and you will need dozens of permits.

    Whatever operation you try to open might or might not negatively impact the neighbors and other land owners. That won’t make the slightest difference when you go to a public hearing to open you renterprise. If they don’t want it, they will squawk. If they prefer to continue to have nothing next door, they will squawk.

    Anyone who thinks they have a beef is free to try to stop you – after you have invested your money.

    What you think is low impact development may appear entirely different to them.

    I wish you all the luck in the world, and as I said, some people have done what you propose. All I can tell you is, look real hard before you jump in.

    It’s probably a good idea to look someplace other than Fauquier County.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    If your village is a corporation, it can sellstock and raise money to buy whatever land is available.

    The corporation will owe taxes on the land to the government, so the corporation will need some income.

    How do you propose to get that income? Grow something on the land?

    You are going to need 10000 hogs at todays prices to make $75,000.

    How many people in your village can live on that much money (and live with 10,000 hogs)? Most likely, you can NEVER raise enough hogs to pay off the value of the property, unless the property is very cheap indeed. Youcan make $75,000 a year with around 950 acres of soybeans.

    How many people will your corporation need to rais enough money to buy 950 acres? And how are they going to dived up the $75,000?

    The people who invest their money (property) in your corporation are going to want their money back someday. Or at least some payment for the use of their money? Where will that come from?

    You plan on recycling hearing aid batteries? You will need to be zoned industrial for that, and you will need dozens of permits.

    Whatever operation you try to open might or might not negatively impact the neighbors and other land owners. That won’t make the slightest difference when you go to a public hearing to open you renterprise. If they don’t want it, they will squawk. If they prefer to continue to have nothing next door, they will squawk.

    Anyone who thinks they have a beef is free to try to stop you – after you have invested your money.

    What you think is low impact development may appear entirely different to them.

    I wish you all the luck in the world, and as I said, some people have done what you propose. All I can tell you is, look real hard before you jump in.

    It’s probably a good idea to look someplace other than Fauquier County.

    RH

  23. I think part of the concept that troubles property rights folks is the idea that some land is (in their minds) arbitrarily zoned for higher density thus making that land more valuable while other land is not.

    Perhaps to rephrase – why have designated “village” nodes – just allow all land to be turned into villages and let the land owners decide how they wish to develop their land – villages or hog farms or whatever use they decide to pursue.

    The major fly in the ointment is that you cannot have dense land uses without adequate infrastructure – usually, but not always provided by public monies.

    Many locations and jurisdictions do allow the creation of stand-alone gated communities that take care of their own infrastructure needs.

    The approval requirements for these kinds of “villages” are more lenient if the applicant provides his own infrastructure.

    When Government does this – they designate where the infrastructure will go, for instance, where to expand water/sewer and new roads and in the process of doing this – make (in Ray’s mind again) winners and losers.

    If I got this wrong, I’m sure Ray will correct.

    But if you buy the idea that private developers do have the right and ability to build their own “villages” including the necessary infrastructure to support them – how does this square with EMR’s idea of balanced communities?

    More specifically, in EMR’s vision of balanced communities, WHERE should they be – and not be and who makes those decisions?

    Right now, local elected government utilizing Comprehensive Plans (in Virginia) ….. in coordination with their citizens (at least in theory) decide a desired land-use vision for their jurisdiction that basically specifies and delineates what areas will be rural, what areas will be more intensively developed and for what purposes and uses deemed incompatible with other uses – segregated – for instance – you don’t put WalMarts in the middle of a residential area or next to a battery recycling plant.

    This entire concept basically goes back to the idea of Governance – usually elected – making decisions about land use.

    In both EMRs and Ray’s world, they have concerns and ideas about how that should be done and in both cases – they do not necessarily support doing what a majority of citizens support via elected representatives.

    Ray basically thinks when you draw a line that says on one side more density will be allowed that the property owners on the other side of those lines have been discriminated against.

    With EMR, I just don’t know. He has a concept of a clear edge and he has a concept of governance but beyond that it is not clear how the lines get drawn and by who.

  24. It’s probably a good idea to look someplace other than Fauquier County.

    How do you propose to get that income? Grow something on the land?

    You are going to need 10000 hogs at todays prices to make $75,000.

    For those very reasons, my group is currently focusing our land search in WV, TN, and PA… places where property taxes are very low. Who wants to purchase land and then pay “rent to the crown” for the rest of your life? Those taxes may rise, but history and location are the best guides we have. The trade off is that those places with lower taxes tend to provide fewer services, but we don’t want their stinking services! We want the freedom to build and grow as we see fit, and we intend to be an asset to the surrounding communities in ways other than the magical “tax base” I hear most elected officials praying to.

    I agree with RH that the gov’t should not arbitrarily, or lightly, make decisions that affect zoning or property value. My understanding is that this occurs most often due to simple greed and corruption in local officials. I am easily frustrated by the inefficacy of the political process, so I subscribe to my own version of “tune in, turn on, drop out”; obviate government by building a civilization right under their noses that does not need them. Not isolated, but robust and as independent as possible.

    My big question is: if a community can thrive without gov’t services like fire, police, social services, utilities, etcetera, is it enough to keep the tax man out? Like you, RH, I just want the freedom to make my own fortune. I somehow doubt a successful village (really a network of connected villages) would be left alone. The more successful they are, the more likely gov’t will come in for “reverse welfare”.

  25. P.S. – I’m sure you folks know this, but I am aware my scheme for community relies heavily on personal property rights. I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion… and I’m pretty sure the length comments now exceeds the length of the original post. Thanks to the Baconators for creating the space for this exchange of ideas.

  26. Rabbit – does your concept of individual property rights end at the property line of what you own?

    How would you provide your property with water, sewer, electricity, food, prescription drugs, tools, etc?

    Would you be depending on access to roads that you do not own nor contribute towards?

    No village that I know of can function on septic. How would you being doing your sewage?

    Where would you get your gasoline and fuel?

    How would you educate your kids?

  27. Rabbit – does your concept of individual property rights end at the property line of what you own?

    Yes and no. My concept is very similar to the one many localities have tried to implement: property owners should have the freedom to do as they see fit, except where those activities impinge on their neighbors or stress gov’t provided services. I would like to see more transparency and accountability in regional gov’t decisions, as well as some semblance of a Plan so that property owners can make good decisions. Changes that negatively affect property values or constrain owners’ rights should be done by referendum and not back room deals with developers.

    In short: I will have a main course of the Cooley Doctrine with a small side of Dillon’s Rule.

    How would you provide your property with water, sewer, electricity, food, prescription drugs, tools, etc?

    Fresh water source is highest on our list of land search criteria. Sewage is a valuable resource; extract methane for heating and cooking and you are left with humanure, one of the best fertilizers around. Also, algae can be used to generate biofuel while processing greywater. Electricity: plan and build for reduced consumption and generate from sun/wind/hydro. Drugs: yes there is a heavy dependence that should be analyzed. Tools, I was going to dig up rocks and sharpen them, haha. Your point is obvious to me and I have never discounted those factors; I just want to minimize them.

    Would you be depending on access to roads that you do not own nor contribute towards?

    Of course. I’m unconventional and a little crazy, but not an idiot. Regional taxes should cover transportation costs.

    No village that I know of can function on septic. How would you being doing your sewage?

    Where would you get your gasoline and fuel?

    See above, as well as:
    methane biogas
    algae biofuel
    humanure

    waste = food

    We are surrounded by abundance, and yes there will be a great deal of capital investment, human capital, and hillbilly ingenuity required for these projects to succeed. I prefer to tackle such obstacles instead of bemoaning them or thinking of reasons not to try.

    How would you educate your kids?

    This is the easiest question to answer. I have homeschooled my kids in the past, and I am well aware of the issues involved. It would be extremely silly to embark on an endeavor for cultural change while sending the village children to outside state schools to become educated and enculturated. Community or home-based schooling are not only achievable and practical, in the right community it is highly preferable. This requires mostly human capital, and should be a critical path objective. Homeschoolers are readily accepted at institutions of higher learning these days, and in the right circumstances are more likely to succeed in productive lives and gainful employment.

    That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. In order to succeed, our plan and our people will have to be flexible, adaptable. The only thing I take on faith is that there is a path to a more sustainable way of life. The villages I speak of may be referred to as “eco-villages”; it is important to realize that no fully realized eco-village exists that I am aware of. The ideas I speak of may be optimistic, but I temper my optimism by remaining open to criticism such as yours. One thing is for sure: where there’s no will, there is no way.

  28. E M Risse Avatar

    Rabbit:

    Good thinking.

    There are Eco Villages in Danmark and Sweden. EMR and Linda visted one in Sweden when we were working on Telework in the 90s.

    Great and quite attractive sewer systems with fountains, ducks and great plants right in the middle of the small Cluster-scale urban agglomeration.

    Tim Beatley at UVA has visited and written extensively about them.

    But see EMRs note to Jim Bacon re locaton. I am not sure where Tim stands on location.

    EMR

  29. E M Risse Avatar

    UPON FURTHER REVIEW

    Jim Bacon:

    I forgot to mention, I hope you told the P. Cnty folks to be sure to locate the Lewenz / Parallel Villages in functional proximity to create viable Communities.

    Otherwise the locational dispersion will destroy the potential SYNERGY of the agglomerations.

    You will recall our discussion of the viability of Haymount nearly two decades ago. (There is a lesson for Rabbit in those discussions — does VA Bus keep archives?)

    Also P. County needs to do a careful review of both the holding capacity and the rational Regional market.

    I told one of the County leaders this way over a decade ago but they were not interested in Spacial Reality and I had not completed the work in Loudoun County or finished The Shape of the Future at the time.

    When P. County citizens understand the capacity and the market, much of the speculative value of land based on dysfunctional settlement patterns will disappear.

    That will make it less expensive for Rabbit to find a site but the deflation of specualtive value will be long and or very painful.

    EMR

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “I think part of the concept that troubles property rights folks is the idea that some land is (in their minds) arbitrarily zoned for higher density thus making that land more valuable while other land is not.”

    The property rights folks? We are ALL property rights folks, we just disagree on relative values. You think you have an absolute right to property which consists of clean air, and you are very upset when someone tramples on that right, yet you talk about property rights folks as if they were someone else.

    No, I don’t have a problem with different densities. I have a problem with creating different densities after the properties were paid for. What you are now doing is redistributing deansity withour redistributing the wealth that goes with it. That is a violation of property rights.

    A separate issue is the claim that this new distribution will result in greater efficiency and lower costs for government. Again, this greater efficiency does not take into account who is paying the cost for this greater efficiency. Once that is considered, the efficiency is not as great as claimed. And again, the government is claiming a “new” property right: the right to save money through efficiency, without paying for the property right losses that make it possible.

    The government claims I’m saving them x thousand dollars every year. I don’t doubt it, and don;t argue with their numbers. But if I’m saving them money relative to everyone else, I’m not getting paid for that service. And I’m not getting a discount on my taxes, in fact I pay more.

    So, if they want to pay me 5% interest on the money they claim I’m saving them, then I’ll shut up. Otherwise, they are stealing from me in order to get their efficiency, which they then share with everyone, ostensibly through lower taxes, than they would otherwise pay.

    It’s got nothing to do with property rights assocciated with my real estate. It’s got to do with property rights associated with my wallet. It’s got to do with property rights associated with the sweat off my body: how I get paid for the work I do to benefit the county.

    RH

  31. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “just allow all land to be turned into villages and let the land owners decide how they wish to develop their land – villages or hog farms or whatever use they decide to pursue.”

    You mean end zoning?

    We pretty much have all those rights now. A group of adjacent landowners could come up with a plan and apply for zoning changes. it is just incredibly hard to organize.

    RH

  32. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “in the process of doing this – make (in Ray’s mind again) winners and losers.”

    In My mind? Isn’t it you rcontention that new infrastructure tends to make all existing residents losers, if they have to pay for it?

    If anything, existing residents with existing infrastructure will be losers less than existing residents who still pay for it, but don’t get any.

    And, much later, if they ever do get infrastructure, the proffrs they pay will be calculated without credit for the decades they paid, but got nothing.

    I’m not arguing about the concept, just the clarity of the accounting.

    RH

  33. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “the property owners on the other side of those lines have been discriminated against.”

    The discrimination works both ways. On side in favor of and one side against. Property rights work in BOTH directions.

    You seem to think I pick favorites. I think that when real windfall profits are made as the result of government decisions, then those profits should be shared. But I equally think that when government decisions permanently exclude another owner form ANY profits, let alone windfall profits, and when those decisions are for the convenince and profit of the government, then appropriate payments should be made.

    RH

  34. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “if a community can thrive without gov’t services like fire, police, social services, utilities, etcetera, is it enough to keep the tax man out? “

    You can incorporate you rown village and run at as you see fit. The problem you will have is that other communities may think you need certain services in order to keep THEM safe. They are going to insist that you not grow marijuana to fund your village.

    Like I say, there already exist many such communities. You can find a website that lists thousnds of “intentional communities” at http://www.ic.org/. ( I think it is amusing to call them intentional communities, as if all the others got that way accidentally.) Or if you want to practice a low impact lifestyle that is well established, you can probably join an Amish community.

    Just don’t fool yourself that low impact means cheap. You can build a low impact cob home out of practically nothing, if the local building codes allow, or if you get your plans signed off by an architect and structural engineer. But a cob home is incredibly labor intensive, so it is far from “free”. You can expect to find the same kinds of problems with community scale structures, whether they are organizational, social, or physical.

    RH

  35. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “except where those activities impinge on their neighbors or stress gov’t provided services”

    It all comes down to property rights and dollars. Should you be able to impinge on your neighbors if you pay him full price for his “damages”?

    If not, what about eminent domain?

    RH

  36. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Changes that negatively affect property values or constrain owners’ rights should be done by referendum and not back room deals with developers.”

    That sounds a lot better than what we have for eminent domain. There is still a problem, though. There is no reason why a referendum can’t vote for something that is patently unfair. It is just mob rule with legalized stealing. Government has an obligation to protect the minorities.

    RH

  37. so to summarize –

    Ray thinks than ANY CHANGE to existing density designations on land already owned is arbitrary and discriminatory if it does not apply equally to all existing properties.

    (and I assume that if there are already different density designations as the result of past actions where some properties were "up-zoned" while others were not… also discriminatory).

    Further, if Government provides infrastructure like roads and water and sewer.. again – providing it to some property owners but not others is discriminatory….

    So.. if Government wishes to extend water & sewer lines – to the area it has designated to be served by water/sewer – Ray think that the fact that some areas were chosen to receive water/sewer while others were not – is – discriminatory.

    Correct , Ray?

  38. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Sewage is a valuable resource; extract methane for heating and cooking and you are left with humanure, one of the best fertilizers around. Also, algae can be used to generate biofuel while processing greywater. Electricity: plan and build for reduced consumption and generate from sun/wind/hydro.”

    All that stuff costs money. You need economy of scale to make them work, and economy of scale also makes them more complicated, more expensive, and more dangerous.

    You don’t just “extract” methane from sewage, like turning on a pump. You need storage, comperssors, and a substantial source. Plan on generating a lot of electricity if you plan to make your own biofuel.

    You are going to use the biofuel so you can commute to the city and make enough money to do all this stuff, right?

    RH

  39. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “much of the speculative value of land based on dysfunctional settlement patterns will disappear.”

    But this is the same guy that wants to recycle hearing aid batteries to prevent waste.

    “That will make it less expensive for Rabbit to find a site but the deflation of specualtive value will be long and or very painful.”

    In other words effcient functional settlement patterns are going to cost someone a lot of money. Just as long as it isn’t the people who build those communities, its OK.

    EMR: It is the TOTAL costs that count. If you fund education by taking the profits out of enetertainment, as you once suggested, it does NOT make education “free”.

  40. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “As the world faces the existential threat of climate change, the former Vice President has embarked on an admirable quest to reform carbon-heavy habits. Yet despite his talk of making inconvenient choices, Mr. Gore continues to indulge in one of the most environmentally irrational habits of all: eating meat.

    A 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found that meat production generates almost a fifth of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions—more than the world’s cars, planes, and trucks combined. Moreover, the report cited meat production as a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, and lost biodiversity. The scientists concluded “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

    To put this in perspective, a University of Chicago study concluded that an individual American can do more to reduce global warming by going vegetarian than by driving a Prius.”

    —————————

    So, there you have it. Something virtually all of us can do to save the planet. There is almost no cost (to ourselves) in this, and we might even save money. Going vegetarian will do more than all our other clean fuel initiatives combined. How many greens do you think we can sign up?

    It will cost the hog producers however, so even going vegetarian is not “free”.

    Note to RABBIT:

    Forget about the 10,000 hogs.

    RH

  41. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “The St. Paul Port Authority wants to take my company’s property by eminent domain and kick my nearly 50-year-old family run business out of St. Paul. It is using a bogus environmental claim as an excuse to give my property to some yet-to-be-determined private developer. And if the Port Authority gets away with abusing the laws, your home or business could be next.

    The Port Authority believes using eminent domain is a shortcut for economic development. But eminent domain throws a wrench into the machinery of the American Dream. It destroys the expectation that if you play by the rules, you’ll get to rise or fall on your own merits. That is why the Minnesota Legislature restricted its use in 2006.

    Now the Port Authority wants to break the new eminent domain rules and use the environment as a decoy to take our land. But our property adheres to all Minnesota Pollution Control Agency directives. The bottom line is that there is no need to take our land to ensure that the property continues to be environmentally safe.”

    You have rules hat get abused, so you make new ones, and they get circumvented.

    When no one’s property is safe, none of us will be safe.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    Let’s get this straight:

    If Party A buys stock in a company (Ace Buggy Whips), a resource (an asbestos mine) or a commodity (a car load of vine ripened tomatoes) and cannot sell the stock, resource or commodity for at least the purchase price, then “that is the market at work.”

    But if Party A buys a parcel of land, the value of which is inflated by an unfounded expectation of a future use for urban development – shopping center, quarter acre lots or ten acre horse farms – then A must be compensated for any loss in value.

    Now it is pretty clear why Ray Hyde has been attacking Dr. Risse all these months.

    He hopes to obscure the fact that there is far more land held for future urban land uses than there is a market.

    Is it also relevant that:

    Party A may not have paid a fair share of the public investment – economic stability, national, state and regional infrastructure, etc. that made the land suitable for urban development?

    What if a fair allocation of all the costs of this urban development in this location far exceeds the value of the land?

    What if the development of an alternative site has greater benefit and lower costs?

    ANON

  43. Ray Hyde Avatar

    The issue comes down to whether the expectation is unfounded, doesn’t it?

    Now, if I buy a piece of land that is zoned to accept three parcels, then why is my expectation unfounded? The rules are written in the zoning code for anyone to see. In my opinion, it ought to be written in the deed by the county at the time it is recorded. Then there is no argument about what is owned and what isn’t.

    Now, 90 days after I close the sale the zoning is suddenly changed to one parcel, maybe through a technicality, like changing the setbacks or enlarging the floodplain or changing the definition of steep slope.

    Those promoting the new rule have obtained new property rights at the expense of those affected by the rule, with out paying for their new property.

    I call this stealing. This seems simple and clear to me.

    Dr. Risse and many other do not seem to be able to understand this simple concept. When you get something you want, you should expect to pay for it, especially when it affects others.

    I think people who don’t understand this or choose to ignore it are a danger to society, because they are incipient thieves.

    I don’t like thieves, and I don’t like people who promote thievery, however they try to paint it as social justice.

    ———————————

    If there is far more land held for future urban land uses than there is a market, then it won’t sell, will it? I don’t see the problem. If it is sold for future uses, then the pice will be discounted to present values. Again, I don’t see the problem. The seller has a right to sell his property, and the buy er has a right to buy it.

    EMR would like to intrude in this private sale by redefining “urban” and redefining “Market” in such a way that he (or the ecommunity) gets new and unpaid for property rights. I call that stealing.

    —————————-

    Party A may not have paid a fair share of the public investment. I would not argue with that. I only argue for fully transparent and consistent accounting of these matters.

    At least in Fauquier county it is pretty clear who is paying for more than what they get, and it isn’t the urban dwellers. Even the public officials admit as much. When that situation persists for a hundred and fifty years or so, then it is pretty hard to claim they haven’t paid their dues.

    But I’m not greedy, If I’m paying additional taxes for agricultural land, I’d be satisfied to see those monies spent on agricultural services instead of urban services. And when county officials point out what I’m saving the county money by forgoing money of my own, I expect to be paid for having the county rent my money.

    Otherwise, they are stealing from me.

    If they expect and demand me to do work they want done and I can’t get a fair wage for it, then they have made me a slave. They are claiming property rights (ownership of my labor) which they are unwilling to pay fairly for.

    Such behavior is even worse than stealing.

    ——————————-

    If a fair allocation of the costs exceed the value of the land, that might not make a whit of difference. The question is whether a fair allocation of the costs and value produced by the land AFTER development is positve or negative.

    If it is negative, then the development won’t proceed, and there isn’t a problem. If it isn’t negative, then presumably EMR would not have a problem, either.

    But there is a problem when people claim costs that don’t exist in order to prevent development for some other reason, like to promote conservation. There is a problem when people claim costs in one direction but are unwilling to make payments for the same costs in the other direction. There is a problem when people claim public ownership of things that are produced by virtue of private land.

    Any of those things represent a hidden claim for unpaid for benefits. As such they are dishonest AND and attempt to steal.

    ——————————

    What if the development of an alternative site has greater benefit and lower costs?

    Good question. Depends on whether the owner of the other site wants to develop it, wouldn’t you say?

    Unless you think the government has absolute first dibs on what development is allowed AND desireable. Unless you think property rights should be entirely nationalized. You and eponymous EMR are welcome to think that way, just don’t continue to say that you are in favor of free markets.

    My position is that if we can show through clear and transparent accounting; with methods reasonable people can agree on that there really is a net social benefit to developing site A before site B, even if A’s owner doesn’t want it, then we ought to be able to come to an agreement to move ahead.

    But what does that agreement mean? It means for one thing that we are holding B’s land in abeyance for our own later uses: we have now claimed property rights in his land, and he should be paid rent based on the value of the difference in benefits and costs we gained. If we claim a savings at his expense, then we are borrowing our savings from him, and he is owed rent for his money.

    It means that we have made a determination on the use of A’s land, whether he wants it or not. If he does not, then we need to make full payment to him such that he can acquire an equally valuable property with all the costs associated with moving.

    The more property we use up for our uses, the harder and more expensive that is going to be to do. But even EMR would not argue with paying the full costs of urban development.

    Any other way of going about it amounts to stealing from either A or B or both.

    But, you won’t get any arguement from me that a desireable social goal is to maximise net social benefit. As long as there is a true psoitive social benefit, then there is no reason that the winners can not pay fair compensation to the losers and still come out ahead.

    Refusal to do so amounts to stealing.

    ————————–

    Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

    I’m not alone in my thinking. Today, the Christian Science Monitor published an article that points out that trees are worth more dead than they are alive. If we expect people to keep trees for us, then we should be willing to pay them at least the market price.

    If we simply demand that they keep trees for us and order them not to cut them down, then we are claiming property rights and benefits we have not paid for, and we are stealing.

    If the Christian Science monitor can figure that out, and Dr. Risse can’t, well, he is no Christian.

    I have nothing against Dr. Risse. He is free to say and espouse whatever he wants.

    I’m free to say that I believe much of his ideas boil down to stealing, one way or another. Even worse than that, sometimes they boil down to stealing that isn’t even economically sound, and that’s going some.

    I think he has a noble goal – conservation of open space. But I think he has lost all perspective of honesty, ethics, reasonableness, and economics in his quest. He has apparently put the ends above any and all means.

    I think such people are dangerous, but that’s just my opinion.

    RH

  44. As far as I know – every State delegates the right for political subdivisions of the State – towns and counties – to determine land uses and to determine where they will provision infrastructure to support denser uses and where they will not – and let remain rural, forestall … etc.

    People who make a living developing land – know about the government’s role in land use and infrastructure.

    They know, for instance, that in this regard not all land is created the same in term of developability and value.

    and they can change their mind – does not happen that often but it does happen.

    But what I find interesting is the rationale for designating density … in terms of what criteria are used ….

    and especially as compared and contrasted with EMR’s view of where density should be or not be…

    … and the bigger issue of governance… and it’s role in such decisions.

    .. EMR keeps saying that people are going to rise up and demand fundamental transformation…

    but EMR fails to define what it is (and is not) and he has no roadmap… to evolve …transform…

    so most citizens are clueless.. not only about how to transform but, in fact, the concept itself of needing to transform (or not)…

    and local elected.. what exactly would you be telling them that is a “better way” than the way they currently do land-use?

    so …no.. citizens are not going to rise up and do anything when most of them are truly clueless to start with.

    I note that Prince William has decided to plan a bunch of villages… and already folks are questioning how many villages should be created and where they should be created…

    If we were going to “do” fundamental transformation.. it would seem to me that one of the issues would be to render an opinion about WHERE balanced communities should be (and not be) and why….

  45. Question to Ray:

    Do you think it is unfair/wrong/discriminatory for a county to redesignate some properties for higher density and not all the rest of the properties?

    For instance, a county wants to designate just a portion to extend water & sewer and allow higher by-right densities.

    do you think this is discriminatory of other people's property rights who did not have their property also re-designated the same way?

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    Is it time to return to a discussion of George-Reverse George taxes? Can we add transfer of development rights into the discussion of rezoning? If we don’t, only zoning that increases the value of an individual property will be legal. The expense to the community of changes over time will not be considered. One example is the increase in automobile trips after World War II. Increased VMT increased community costs while lowering individual costs. We still don’t have our arms around this change.

  47. I know in my county – even when they designate by-right now days – they require …for virtually every use – a special use permit….

    and that gives them the ability to play a role in what kind of stuff will be built and whether or not it is a benefit to the community and… a good “fit”.

    but still ..at the end of the day… you still have this thing where elected officials selectively rezone certain parts of their county and by virtue of that action – choose not to similarly designate other locations…. and it does create windfall winners – and losers.

  48. Ray Hyde Avatar

    If every thing is “special use” then you may as well throw out the zoning book and save a lot of money and grief administering it.

    What I think is that the rules shold be symmetric, transparent, fair, and predictable.

    “Increased VMT increased community costs while reducing individual costs.” Easy to claim, but hard to prove, especiallly since the community costs are charged back to individuals. We can argue about whether the charge back is adminsitered fairly, but that is a matter of transparent accounting, which we don;t have.

    It isn’t clear to me that the costs of some other system wouldn’t be as high or higher, once you consider ALL the costs.

    Clearly, the county has an interest in reducing infrastructure costs. But if it does that by creating winners and losers in the county, then it hasn’t considered all the costs.

    Clearly the county has a desire to keep capital costs reasonable by controlling the rate of growth. But this argument has been perverted to mean no growth, or no growth for some, ever. When that is the condition, it amounts to the county getting benefits from those people, which they don’t pay for.

    But if it is a matter of only controlling the rate of growth, the county can decides that it can “afford” to issue 600 residential permits this year. It seems to me that every resident has an equal right to one of those permits – even if their land is zoned otherwise. No one claims anymore that building rights are not seperable from land rights.

    So, have a lottery and dispose of the rights that way, so that every citizen has an equal chance to benefit from growth. Once you win a building right, you can use it if your lot allows, or save it for later, whwnit suits your plans.

    Or sell it to a developer who has buildable property. If you are opposed to growth, you can just pocket it, then you get what you want which is less growth, but you have to absorb the cost. Proffers fo infrastructure would be in addition to the cost of the building right.

    This isn’t so different from what Anon said about transferable development rights. If the county decides to allow more or less building rights this year, it would affect everyone equally. The county could charge a fee for entering the lottery to raise some revenue.

    This plan puts everyone on an equal footing and eliminates some of the disparities caused by zoning.

    ————————

    To answer Larry’s question,consider a hypothetical unpopulated county in Kansas, flat as a table with no discriminatig geography. The county is divided in quarter sections with one fourbedromm 2500 sq ft house per. There is no reason to prefer one over another.

    Then the land gets sold off and everyone is on an equal footing.

    First thing that happens is the residents decide they need a county seat. They decide to put it at the center to minmize VMT going to the meetings. The guy that owns the center lot gets a windfall.

    But the guy next to the center lot points out that the total VMT is exactly the same for his lot. Some would drive less and some more, but the total is no different. They guys on the edges and corners can’t make that claim so they are out of luck.

    Just creating one municipal building has created winners and losers, but there is a clear public benefit to having it near, if not in, the center.

    The winners should be able to pay off the losers, and still retain the public benefit.

    RH

  49. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “citizens are not going to rise up and do anything when most of them are truly clueless to start with.”

    EMR says the same thing: you need an educated citizenry. But, in his view, they can only be considered educated if they conform to his definition of everything.

    Or maybe they are not clueless, just more willing to live and let live than some others.

  50. re: citizens property rights lottery

    but Ray… they already have this…

    the county designates the upzoned area and everyone gets to bid on how much it will be worth to them….

    that’s where developers come from….

    but I’d ask a question.

    What is the interest of any county to designate any of it’s land for higher density or higher intensity RESIDENTIAL use?

    You can see where higher density/intensity use for Industrial or Commercial would have the effect of bringing in more revenues which would help to keep taxes low but what is the benefit of upzoning for residential?

  51. re: “special use”

    changing zoning to more dense is not just the only consideration as has been demonstrated over time.

    How a proposed project “fits” into a neighborhood… how it does parking… how it connects to the public highway system… whether or not there are opportunities for intra-parcel connections rather than new curb-cuts…

    what Spotsylvania has discovered is that there are many, many other aspects that can either contribute or detract and they ought to be up for negotiation because one of the underlying premises is that in allowing upzones is that they are supposed to be a benefit to the community also.

    I’ve seem curb-cuts changed to be much better for traffic as a result of the special permit process that would not have happened if the project was completely “by-right” from the get-go.

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    but I’d ask a question.

    What is the interest of any county to designate any of it’s land for higher density or higher intensity RESIDENTIAL use?

    You can see where higher density/intensity use for Industrial or Commercial would have the effect of bringing in more revenues which would help to keep taxes low but what is the benefit of upzoning for residential?

    Bingo Larry thats why Fairfax did what it did and now the poor saps in Loduon have an imbalance of too many residents = massive tax rate increases in Loudoun

    NMM

  53. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “the county designates the upzoned area and everyone gets to bid on how much it will be worth to them….”

    the problem is that the property is already owned by someone, so the gain is already captured. My plan makes it clear that new value comes from two places – the developers labor and capital, and the counties power and decisions.

    The second half belongs to ALL of the people of the county, and my plan makes the value available to all of them equally.

    It is a matter of defining the proeprty rights correctly.

    RH

  54. re: Bingo – yes…

    but it is a serious question.

    What is the benefit of any locality approving residential growth?

    How does that benefit the community?

    is there such a thing as too much or too little?

    or.. do we stand back..get out of the way and let the market provide whatever will sell?

  55. re: property rights

    Ray – it sounds like that your idea of property rights is that no owner of property is entitled to the increased value if it is the result of an upzone.

    they own the land but if it is upzoned they cannot sell it?

    or they can sell it but the government gets everyone above what it was assessed at and it goes into the county revenues to offset taxes for all the rest of the property owners?

    How would this work?

    This is your opportunity to show a different way of doing it.

  56. Ray Hyde Avatar

    I think the value of an upzone comes in two parts: part from the owners investment and labor, and part from the “planning authority”.

    The part tha comes from th e planning authority really belongs to all the citizens, and allthe citizens deserve to gain from that part. After all, the going in argument is that such planning is good for the community. But if you are not in and will never be in the upzoned area, how do you profit, while a selct few rake it in?

    This is TMT’s complaint in a nutshell: “What’s in it for me”.

    I don’t know how to make it work out. My lottery on building permit apllications idea is one way. I’m sure there are many others.

    What I do know is that everyone in the county, including those that get to build new homes, seems to be profiting off of my farm – except me.

    I call that unsustainable.

    Plus a few other unprintables.

    RH

Leave a Reply