Fewer Homes, Smaller Homes

Every municipality in Virginia bases its land use planning on the anticipated demand for new housing. Their plans are only as good as their projections. And the projections are good only as long as historical trends hold up.

The demand for housing is based upon the rate of new household formation. And that is driven by population growth and the average size of the household. Of the two, population growth is the most important, but average household size is by no means insigificant. Look what’s happened over the past century or so: In 1915, the average household size stood at 4.5. By 1967, it had declined to 3.0, and by 2006, it had dipped again to 2.6.

Bottom line: Shrinking household size has turbo-charged the growth in demand for housing. Insofar as housing projections are predicated upon past increases in household formation, the planning assumptions embedded in comprehensive plans across Virginia assume that average household size will continue to shrink.

While population is expected to continue increasing, we cannot assume that household sizes will continue to shrink. Indeed, there is evidence that household sizes actually may begin to increase in size. That is the thesis of a column, “Reinventing the Family,” that I wrote earlier this week for the Times-Dispatch. (Here is the version posted on the Boomer Project web site.)

One factor is the increasing tendency of adult GenYs to live longer with their parents. Whether the trend reflects a prolonged adolescent dependency or the economic realities of student loans and credit card debt, I don’t know. But it’s happening. At the same time, on the older end of the age scale, more parents are moving in with their children. Thus, we’re seeing signs of a re-emergence of a three-generation household. (There are other factors reversing the atomization of the family, but those are the two biggest.)

I suspect this trend will be accelerated by the severity of the current recession. As unemployment shoots up, it only makes sense for family members to combine residences and reduce overhead. As much as Americans love their big homes and personal privacy, they are not immune to economic forces. They will change their behavior in response to adverse economic circumstances.

Yesterday, USA Today published an article quoting the National Association of Home Builders to the effect that the average size of new single-family homes, which has climbed steadily over the decades, has gone into reverse. The NAHB’s analysis showed that the average size of new houses declined from 2,629 square feet in the third quarter of 2008 to 2,438 — the steepest dip since researchers started collecting the data in 1999.

Business-As-Usual is on its last legs. Many assumptions that underpinned Virginia’s governance systems of the past half century are no longer valid. We are entering a new era — and I fear that our planners and elected officials are not prepared for it.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

113 responses to “Fewer Homes, Smaller Homes”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Interesting Virginia is such a huge state though.

    I am just going to add some data points from up here In NoVa land.

    The Y generation boomerang is very strong.

    In Loudoun there are tons of Religious Conservatives who are having large families.

    Closer to the beltway where I am you have large immigrant families. This does support your theory of multiple generations living together but the birth rates of these families are often very high. Since housing costs are lower now it should be interesting to see if some of the immigrant families start buying and moving out. Many of the jobs have dried up but there is always a demand for services in this highly populated area.

    Yes it is a new era. Whatever happened to all of those 55+ retirement communities. I am assuming they have stalled out since the people who would move out propably can’t or don’t want to given the bad market.

    NMM

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    Jim:
    One general comment: The move to smaller homes is not new and has been reported for several years. People in their 50s and 60s tend to want to move to smaller dwellings closer or in cities — this has been reported adinfinitum.

    Comments on the piece that ran in the newspaper:

    (1) You don’t mention that families in many cultures have long included live-in grandparents, notably African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and of course, Russians.

    (2) You don’t say so but it was a conceit of middle and upper middle class white people of the generation before us NOT to have their parents live with them until absolutely necessary. It was considered higher status and more prestigious to have the parents or grandparents live elsewhere because this suggested YOUR FAMILY HAD MONEY.

    (3) You really got into some sexist, tangential stuff. What does the “Pill” have to do with housing and single families? Contraception puts woman on a more equal footing with men. In their younger years they can choose not to have kids but still have sec when they want. Later, they might want kids and many had them. What is the connection between drugs to prevent conception and having single-parent or homo-parent homes? If they are parents, they obviously have kids, so there’s a little loss of logic there. Plus, shock over the the Murphy Brown phenomena was right-wing jeremiad 20 years ago. Artificial insemination isn’t that common. What are you really saying — keep ’em barefoot and pregnant?

    Peter Galuszka

  3. E M Risse Avatar

    Jim Bacon,

    A few notes:

    In Para two I think you mean 1890, not 1990.

    See definition of Household in GLOSSARY and why SP no longer uses “family” Re settlement patterns.

    The size of the dwelling has little to do with the size of the Household, it varies with disposable income, not number of occupants.

    You will recall our Korean snake story. A lot of the families that NMM describes are living in three bedroom ranchers built in the 50s and 60s.

    For a good handle on the “small house and small but satisfying life” issue Google “Sarah Susanka.”

    Now if you lived in this Cluster or in this Neighborhood, EMR could loan you four of her very good books.

    Which brings up the most important point: When citizens start sharing things at the Dooryard and Cluster scale they will need less space to store all the ‘stuff’ that they can no longer afford.

    Which brings up the larger point that demographics are important but not nearly as important as settlement pattern or economic prosperity, social stability or physical sustainability — including physical proximity.

    EMR

  4. I always thought it interesting where population projections came from in terms of who did them and by what methodology since many localities, school systems, MPOs and VDOT as well as a host of other functions such as courts, law enforcement personnel and medical facilities – use such “projections” to determine infrastructure needs – and in turn – money needed for them – which, in turn drives advocacy for more money …taxes and ..preferred by the localities… from the state rather than they having to pick up the tab.

    I asked this question at the comment period for our just finished 2030 Transportation Plan .. which.. in the first few pages – gets right to the point of how many people we will have in our area in 2030 – and this, in turn, becomes the driving impetus behind how many roads we will need…. gotta get all those roads in “the plan” so that when/if VDOT hits the jackpot… we’ll already have our regional irons well roasting in the money fire…

    I note.. that this same dynamic is repeated all across Virginia.. Hampton Roads and Tidewater and their tunnels and bridges “need” being predicted to soon hit the “crisis” level.

    In Virginia, these numbers (at least some of them) come from UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service – which characterizes it’s mission (on their website) as:

    “The Center’s mission is to anticipate and forecast change and to serve as a resource to those who need to recognize and address that change.

    The Center traces its ancestry to the Bureau of Public Administration, created at the University in 1931.”

    okay.. so I’ll cease the blather and cut to the chase…

    so much depends on Weldon Cooper.. I do wonder how they do their projections and similarly whether or not or how they incorporate the trends ..including those alluded to in this blog entry.

  5. ah… took my own advice…

    and here is the method to their madness…so to speak:

    “The Cooper Center’s 2006 final and 2007 provisional estimates, as well as onward estimates up to 2010, are prepared by combining ratio-correlation estimates with a new series of estimates derived from the housing unit method. This approach incorporates the Cooper Center’s newest research on estimates methodology, which was funded by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007.

    The housing unit method of estimating post-census population is straightforward. In order to make a current population estimate, four data items are required, each of which is estimated for July 1 of the estimate year: (1) the current housing stock, (2) the occupancy rate (3) the average number of people living in each occupied unit, and (4) the number of people living in group quarters. The household population is derived by multiplying total housing stock by the occupancy rate and by population per occupied housing unit. An estimate of the group quarter population living in the locality is added to the household population estimate to produce the estimate of the total population.”

    http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/POPULATION%20ESTIMATES/Methodology.php

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    We used to call this “Kicking the can down the road.”

    The estimate is based on the current housing stock for the estimate year. The projected housing stock number comes from the planning directors. They base it on lots of things. The primary one is building permits for the next year, zoning changes for future years and zoning plans for the far out years. They then correlate this with population and employment forecasts.

    The only reason this produces a good number is everybody uses it. If it is too high you get overbuilt roads and utilities and high school taxes. If it is too low you get builders complaining about lack of zoning for development.

    This has noting to do with highway plans. The MPO plan is permissive. If it is not on the plan it will not get built. If it is on the plan it will only get built if VDOT also puts it on the VDOT plan. The VDOT plan is a “peanut butter” plan the spreads construction to every State House and Senate District. Congestion only enters the picture after the money becomes available for that district.

  7. I agree about the MPO Plan – which is formally called the CLRP – Constrained Long Range Plan. The “constrained” aspect is that Fed Law requires that all projects on that list have a known, likely source of funding,

    Further, if a road is not on the CLRP – it cannot be funded – which has been used by some MPOs to not build roads that they did not want – that VDOT did want.

    Next is the “short range” Plan which is the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) which is “roughly” analogous to VDOT’s Six Year Plan and which generates bunches of “paperwork” updates to remain consistent with every change that VDOT makes to the Six Year Plan.

    Further – once a project is on the TIP/6yr Plan – VDOT can and will decide how to allocate funding among the projects and their method for doing so if not purely arbitrary certainly borders on a black art.

    So, for instance, you can have 20 projects in the TIP – and VDOT can choose to allocate money in a variety of non-proportional ways including choosing not to fund some projects at all – and further, projects waiting for incremental annual funding – towards accumulating enough money to go to construction .. you never know how much they will get.

    Further… in many TIPs and the 6yr plan, the projected start build date is not a key item. Sometimes it’s not present. Sometimes it is ..but it does not reflect new delays…

    ..further.. the projected cost (which does vary with inflation and delays).. often is not shown.. nor it it updated to reflect delays.

    Which leads to projects that end up with incremental funding windows way more than 6 years – even though the basic theory behind the TIP/6yr is that it contain projects that are ready to be built.

    What this leads to is what we have going on right now. Too many projects, not enough funding.., now we’re cutting projects – delaying and/or removing them entirely from the TIP.

    Okay.. enough blather…

    The point made earlier still stands.

    VDOT and the MPOs base their projects on population projections from the Cooper Center. And at least in my area, the Planners also base their longer term projects (as opposed to estimates) on Cooper Center numbers.

    And if the Cooper Center says that your area is going to grow by about 5% a year in the foreseeable future – then you’ll find many areas planning departments and MPOs and VDOT’s using those numbers as planning numbers for estimating how many roads, water/sewer, schools, etc – and in turn – basing their budgets and their proper tax projections on those numbers.

    Now.. with regard to this blog entry.. I am not aware that the size of the household has any material affect on population projections… the amount of roads % transit, school enrollment or the number of water/sewer hookups perceived to be needed in the future.

    I’d be interested in hearing and learning more from others who do know…though…

    But the thing that needs to be recognized is that whether it is VDOT/MPO or locality or region – they all must use growth projections if they are to do even rudimentary planning and those numbers have to be not wishful thinking but ones that can be relied upon – in making decisions about infrastructure (like water supplies and sewage treatment plants).

    If a given area is projected to gain 100,000 new people – the planners do not have the luxury of saying that new trends in settlement patterns means that they choose to believe that the numbers will end up being much smaller and thus no need to plan for more infrastructure.

    And that’s the important point here – that projections – and commitments to build more infrastructure are going to happen… if you end up with “too much”.. then you slow it down.. delay new projects for longer than initially planned but the reverse … having to play catch-up because of a willful failure to heed projections… will get you into big trouble…..

    like…defacto growth moratoriums via things like DEQ consent degrees… and draconian water restrictions.

  8. In Virginia, with HB 3202, one of the provisions of it that directly affect settlement patterns – in ways that could be good or not… is the part that requires some places (not all) to create UDAs – Urban Development Areas:

    1. – at least 4 units per acre

    2. – must be large enough to accommodate at least 10 years and not more than 20 years of growth.

    Now think about this.

    First – is this a good thing?

    Second – if it is – why does it not apply to all places in Va instead of just a few?

    Third – you don’t wave a magic wand and get infrastructure supports 4 units (or more) per acre.

    You have to have the facilities (like water/sewer) to support this and those things do not suddenly appear by command.

    This requires substantial planning by the jurisdiction.

    Where will they obtain allocations for the water and the sewage disposal?

    How much will those facilities cost?

    How will they pay for those facilities?

    I would have thought that EMR would have had a LOT MORE to say about the concept of UDAs and their value (or uselessness) in fundamental change.

    Here..we DO HAVE an initiative that directly relates to more efficient settlement patterns and this blog – that spends much time blathering on and on about it… has spent precious little time discussing the Virginia Law that waded into the efficient settlement pattern policy issue.

  9. Groveton Avatar

    Magic words from Terry McAuliffe:

    “I think we need to take power away from Richmond,” McAuliffe said.

    More magic:

    He also probably delighted local officeholders in the audience by saying he thinks the Dillon Rule is too prohibitive.

    I’ve said for more than two years that the Commonwealth of Virginia will be reformed when the inevitable crisis occurs. And I’ve said that the political elite in Richmond and their pre-historic adherence to Dillon’s Rule had to change. Now we have a legitimate candidate for governor who is a master at fund raising saying the same things I have been saying (and a lot of other people have been saying).

    Virginia’s political elite are being knocked over by a combination of economics and demographics. They are under water. It is time that we step on their air hoses until they are all as dead as doornails – politically and metaphorically speaking.

    Go Terry!

    http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/for_mcauliffe_a_manassas_meet_and_greet/27676/

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton – local officials in Virginia, especially in Fairfax County, no more want rid of the Dillon Rule than do business owners really want competition. The Dillon Rule is an excuse. It permits Fairfax County supervisors to satisfy the wants of real estate developers while blaming Richmond, the General Assembly, the Governor, the CTB, etc.

    What would Fairfax County do if it had full authority to turn down development that could not be supported by public facilities, while having responsibility for those public facilities? The Dillon Rule is a mask that covers the face of irresponsible and, even, corrupt government.

    Moreover, even today, Fairfax County officials have substantially more authority over land use decisions than they are willing to exercise. Again, they can blame it on the Dillon Rule.

    The problem in NoVA is the people who live here. We don’t insist on good government, accountability and results. Maybe, tough economic times will help change this. But I won’t hold my breath.

    TMT

  11. Groveton Avatar

    TMT:

    The present system isn’t working. Just like the last 8 years of a Republican in the White House didn’t work. The people want more local autonomy whether the local politicians want it or not. And they want that autonomy because the General Assembly has failed them. The state government has held most of the cards for as long as I’ve been alive. Its failure must be addressed. And a credible candidate for governor is campaigning on the issue. Good for him.

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton – I still struggle to think of which of Fairfax County’s major problems were caused by the Dillon Rule.

    Most of the current fiscal problems were caused by overspending, creation of too many programs, duplication of programs, gross mismanagement of the pay-for-performance compensation plan, and the approval too much development without insisting on the infrastructure necessary to support it. All of these situations were caused by the decisions made by our local elected officials. If Fairfax County had home rule powers, none of these problems would have been avoided. Indeed, I suspect that, with home rule powers, Fairfax County would be facing an even bigger deficit and more overstressed public facilities.

    The average person in Fairfax County has no clue as what goes in county government. If they did, they would understand that Judge Dillon and the General Assembly aren’t the cause of the problem. The problem is the clowns — the Kate Hanleys, Gerry Connollys, Elaine McConnells, etc. who served on the board of supervisors. And we are bozos who voted for them.

    We fail ourselves. We hopped up and down with joy when Mark Warner and John Chichester raised our taxes because it was for the schools. But we were too darn stupid to realize that the benefiting schools were not in Fairfax County. Indeed, about 20 or so districts were able to cut their local contributions for public schools after the Fools in Fairfax shipped truckloads of dollars south. And we have many, many more poor children than all of those school districts combined. But that bill would not have passed the General Assembly without sufficient votes from our own senators and delegates. It’s not the fault of the Descendants of Pocahontas that we are buffoons.

    It’s not Judge Dillon’s fault that we are ecstatic that the feds are approving a multi-billion dollar boondoggle known as Dulles Rail when it won’t fix traffic and will actually trigger enough new development that traffic will get worse. It’s not the Pocahontas crowd that is screwing Dulles Toll Road drivers to subsidize a no-bid contract for Bechtel and a $250 million plus zoning windfall for SAIC.

    We get what we deserve because we simply don’t look out for our best interest or demand accountability from our local elected officials. Maybe, hard times, which will get worse because the Obama Administration — for good or for bad — will substantially reduce the amount of defense/national security/homeland security contracting that has kept NoVA and, indeed, the entire Commonwealth running. For good or for bad, the high water mark for Virginia contracting has been made and is now receding. Perhaps, tougher times will force us to think and demand accountability from the clowns that reprsent us. And maybe we’ll have more people like John Foust and Pat Herrity instead of the jokers who now represent us.

    TMT

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    “The size of the dwelling has little to do with the size of the Household, it varies with disposable income, not number of occupants. “

    What do you suppose happens to disposable income that isn’t “disposed of”?

    If there is money, then it has to go somewhere, and it will inevitably lead to some kind of consumption.

    Get over it.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    Demand accountability from our local elected officials?

    You are kidding, right?

    Once those guys are elected they can do what they please. Period.

    And, one thing they do is put themselves on rotating terms, to make themselves less accountable: it takes twenty years to throw the bums out.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    “Too many projects, not enough funding.., “

    How would we know that? Maybe the number and type of projects is correct, but the funding has been deliberately restricted for political reasons.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    “Here..we DO HAVE an initiative that directly relates to more efficient settlement patterns… “

    Again, how would we know that? These are merely assumptions: that we have too many road projects, or that four dwellings per acre (but only in some places) is somehow more efficient.

    There are no measurable facts that demonstrate objectively that any such thing is true. There is no “settlement pattern model” that has been through anything remotely resembling a vaidation or ferification that it works.

    RH

  17. re: “local officials in Virginia, especially in Fairfax County, no more want rid of the Dillon Rule than do business owners really want competition. The Dillon Rule is an excuse.”

    re: ..”There are no measurable facts that demonstrate objectively that any such thing is true. There is no “settlement pattern model” that has been through anything remotely resembling a vaidation”

    TMT is precisely and exactly correct.

    The Dillion Rule and the VDOT model of road building allows localities to approve growth and claim:

    1. – they have no choice because of the Dillion Rule

    2. – that the transportation consequences are not their responsibility but the “States” (VDOTs).

    Look what happened when VDOT evaluated that huge proposed development in Loudoun – the county supervisors had kittens about the “interference” from VDOT.

    Imagine the nerve of VDOT actually telling the citizens what the infrastructure consequences of a massive rezone might be.

    With regard to settlement patterns – I was not advocating one over the other –

    ONLY POINTING OUT ….

    that infrastructure is required for more population, increased development…

    that it does not appear overnight by snapping fingers..

    .. that it DOES REQUIRE longer term planning

    .. that it DOES REQUIRE local money …

    you cannot rezone massively on a wide scale nor even specifically on a high density – without the need for infrastructure to serve it.

    The question is – who is responsible for providing this infrastructure?

    Who is accountable for this?

    I agree with TMT completely.

    Who would the localities have to blame for development decisions if there were no Dillion Rule and no VDOT to whip?

  18. re: …”funding has been deliberately restricted for political reasons”

    Wrong! And so wrong that it shows how little understanding there is…

    Your projects are what your funding will pay for – not what you wish or advocate for – which is a separate issue.

    The answer to less funding than you want is called PRIORITIZATION.

    This is the same exact process that you use in your home budget.

    Your excuse that …you house has no heat …because you needed a large screen TV is just as lame as a similar State excuse…

    The correct answer is why the TV was higher on the list than your home heat.

    And that is the correct answer for the state.

    Whether it is Schools or Roads or any other funded purpose –

    an excuse of “not enough funding” for bad prioritization of existing available funding is ….. irresponsible….at your personal budget level and at the State budget level….

  19. re: “Magic words from Terry McAuliffe”

    He does have some bold thoughts, I agree but no thanks to him becoming “King” by superseding our legislative body and whatever else of our laws and Constitution that we perceive to be an obstacle to change.

    I would have though, we’d learned our lesson on that from Messrs Bush and Cheney.

    As frustrating as our system is… and I totally agree… that we are essentially being held hostage by the ideologues of both political parties…

    I’m not yet at the point..where I’m willing to cede everything to one guy.. no matter how bright or how strong a leader…

    not yet……

    I’ve got this silly idea that our form of Government is better than a banana republic but I must admit.. it had all the trappings of it with this last administration…especially when they were telling the Supreme Court to butt out of their plans to torture folks while they were being kidnapped and held without charges… etc,…

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    United Van Lines tracks the destinations their customers move to.

    District of Columbia gained the highest rating this year, Detroit had the lowest.

    http://www.unitedvanlines.com/united-newsroom/press-releases/2008/documents/2008-united-van-lines-migration-study-list.pdf

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “…”funding has been deliberately restricted for political reasons”

    Wrong! “

    Oh come on, of course it has. Otherwise we could have built the ICC decades ago.

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    ” what the infrastructure consequences of a massive rezone might be.”

    Massive rezone? Is that before or after the previous massive downzones? Let’s at least get our historical facts correct, even if we are willing to trample the political ones.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    “we are essentially being held hostage by the ideologues of both political parties…”

    Bingo.

    Either political party wants my support, they better fix this. The present situation is nauseating.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    “The answer to less funding than you want is called PRIORITIZATION.”

    Yeah, or more funding.

    If you have a project that is really worth while, and you don;t have the money, then the best thing to do is go borrow the money, rather than prioritize to do without.

    If you keep getting stuck on one side of an argument, then you will be wrong half the time.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    “This is the same exact process that you use in your home budget.”

    what planet do you live on? My wife sets the priorities and I go find the money. 🙂

    —————————-

    “…you house has no heat …because you needed a large screen TV is just as lame as a similar State excuse…”

    Look, I like thought experiments too, but at leas try to find one that has some semblance of realism. This is s total red herring.

    If you are prioritizing road projects, you prioritize one against another, not some other program or agency. (Yeah, OK, some uber priority has to be set to figure out what agencies to have.)

    Then you do the roads with the best ROI first. When and if yu run out of money you look at the next item on the list. It might still have such a good ROI that you cannot afford to pass it up, money or no money. It might still have a better ROI than that large screen.

    But you don not just let a good project languish, because it is costing you money that you might use on the NEXT job. Money you will never have if you build things the way we built the ICC.

    Besides, plasma screens are energy hogs. If you had a small room, a big screen, and a blanket, it might beat heating your house.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    “Who would the localities have to blame for development decisions …”

    Are you talking about development approvals or disapprovals?

    Either one might turn up a result that calls for blame being set.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    I’ve said before that we have a system to prevent development. If you don’t want development you can just buy up the land and not develop it.

    No new laws required.

    The down side is that then you would have to pay more taxes, same as if someone else buys and develops the property. And you would have the expense of buying and owning the property. Plus the profits, if any.

    What antidevelopment folks want is to not develop land owned by others, thereby avoiding the costs and the risks.

    In Today’s Post is a story of one activist who who finally understood.

    “Guerrilla Tactics at Oil-Lease Auction
    Activist Drives Up Prices With Bidding”

    Unfortunately, he spent $1.8 Million he doesn’t have. I think that is a small amount of money, and probably some philanthropist will bail him out. In the meantime, he is facing unspecified charges.

    You can contribute to his cause at http://www.bidder70.org.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    " …."Americans increasingly go through the day looking over their shoulders instead of where they want to go." The land of the free and the home of the brave has become "a legal minefield" through which we timidly tiptoe lest we trigger a legal claim. What should be routine daily choices and interactions are fraught with legal risk.

    Time was, rights were defensive. They were to prevent government from doing things to you. Today, rights increasingly are offensive weapons wielded to inflict demands on other people, using state power for private aggrandizement. The multiplication of rights, each lacking limiting principles, multiplies nonnegotiable conflicts conducted with the inherent extremism of rights rhetoric, on the assumption, Howard says, "that society will somehow achieve equilibrium if it placates whomever is complaining……"

    http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/01/11/running_at_recess?page=full&comments=true

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray – I cannot speak to what occurs in Fauquier County — it seems extremely different than Fairfax or Loudoun Counties.

    But I see a difference in property rights between someone who wants to build to right, as permitted by the Comp Plan and zoning ordinance, and someone who is seeking a change to the Comp Plan.

    Let’s take a local office park in McLean (fooled you, no Tysons example in this one). It is a business townhouse-style development on the edge of both the McLean Central Business District and residential areas. The last rezoning included a proffer that excluded any retail operations. The land was previously zoned as residential. To gain consent for the rezoning to commercial, the landowner gave away the right to lease his space to retail stores.

    Now, the landowner wants to revoke the proffer and lease space to retail stores. The proposal is strongly opposed by neighbors who feel there is enough retail in their area and for traffic concerns. Also, the vision for the McLean CBD would concentrate retail in the new Main Street area that may be built.

    It strikes me that the office park’s owner’s rights would not be violated in the event that Fairfax County does not permit him to lease to retail operators, but that the neighbors’ rights would be violated if the County were to change the zoning. This is not downzoning. This is merely enforcing the agreement that permitted the original rezoning at the cost of abandoning the right to do retail.

    TMT

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    “But I see a difference in property rights between someone who wants to build to right, as permitted by the Comp Plan and zoning ordinance, and someone who is seeking a change to the Comp Plan.”

    Absolutely. You get no argument from me there.

    But.

    Almost alwyas the comp plan and current zoning are the result of previous DOWNZONINGS sometimes of a wholesale nature.

    In Fairfax that must have happened decades ago, but in Loudoun it was pretty recent. To then turn around and refer to ANOTHER change or “re-change” in the comp plan as a “massive rezoning” seems to me like playing with the historical facts.

    The issue remains whether the people who were downzoned by the comp plan were compensated in the first place. If they were not, then complants about massive windfall profits based on a rezoning are mostly hollow.

    If your family has owned a piece of land for 200 years, it isn’t a winfall when it eventually becomes time to sell. The more recent arrivals and newer residents are not doing you some kind of favor when they “permit” you to do exactly as they have already done.

    ———————-

    Re your example. The previous owner gave away the right to retail stores in order to get commercial rights. It seems to me he has no reason to complain now. Especially if a new owner subsequently bought the property knowing retail was excluded.

    Time, and when the changes occur make a difference. When oregon tried to compensate for historical downzonings, they went back 25 years, or one family, whichever was longest.

    In this case, I agree, it is not a downzoning, it is merely enforcement of an existing agreement – voluntarily entered at that.

    Now suppose time goes by, and commercial buggywhip manufacturing is no longer profitable in that space. In fact, no non-retail trade can survive, as shown by a string of bankruptcies to his tenants.

    The county still insists on its rights under the previous agreement, and the county is still entitled to. But the county is just silly, at this point. Even so, at any hearing citizens would be there with placards “No comp plan changes.”

    But what is the benefit? At this point the county, by enforcing the rule has effectively taken all the commercial value out of the property. No buggy whip maker is moving in. Ever.

    It could, of course, revert to residential, but we “know” that residential is a black hole,so why would the county do that?

    So, When does the county position become just silly, not to mention uneconomic?

    That is the situation in much of Loudoun and Fauquier. There is zero possibility that a farm here will make money: even state AG officials say as much.

    And yet, more than half of Loudound and 90% of Fauquier is zoned agricultural! it is buggy whip redux!

    Now, I for one (despite what EMR claims and Larry thinks) think that might be OK. There might be valid environmental and economic reasons for the counties to pursue such policies, but we should damn well understand exactly what they are, just as we should understand exactly how much auto congestion METRO constructionand operation reduces.

    And then, we need to make sure the policies benefit everyone, including the restricted landowners. They should not be the only ones to provide such valuable public benefits.

    or, as Anne Mackin said, “Buy the scenery, don’t zone it.”

    —————————-

    That is why I see little difference in the corruption you complain about and the corruption that is implied in the new concept of urban development areas. If anything, they are a recognition that large lot restrictions have failed in their (real) goal, even if they succeeded in preventing (local) congestion.

    The urban development areas will engender the same falure using the reverse kind of incentive. We will still not get what we want or need, because we are not willing to pay for it.

    Nor am I impressed with Larry’s argument (The landowner has no right to develop: the Polluter has n right to pollute).

    To me, that is a right asserted as an offensive weapon, wielded to inflict demands on other people. It says, elliptically, “I have the right to keep you in slavery so that you cannot do damage to my property.”

    You may think that slavery line is overblown, but after 20 years of dropping substantial sums on the local economy (in adddition to my residential taxes) I no longer do. I’m REQUIRED to do certtain things, and I can see clearly now that the rules here are good for everyone but me and people like me.

    I think it is corrupt. same as you do.

    ———————-

    Bottom line, I agree with you. Upzoning is different from downzoning. Provided that the downzoning that made upzoning posible was compensated to begin with. Having once set a zoning plan or comp plan, then further downzoning without compensation is clearly wrong.

    For example some communities had full compensation for flood plan takings, some had partial compensation, and some had no compensation. At least one group has to be wrong, and therefore corrupted.

    Here is the wierd thing about the difference between Fairfax and Fauquier/Loudoun. the environmental, school, and congestion issues, the housing issues, etc. are completely different.

    But when you go to the hearings, the arguments are the same. And I think they are mostly wrong, and only partly right.

    We can do a lot better.

    RH

  31. Groveton Avatar

    TMT:

    Re; Dillon’s Rule and Fairfax County. Remember the Rt 28 construction project? Or, how about this:

    http://www.nsba.org/SecondaryMenu/COSA/Search/AllCOSAdocuments/FairfaxCountyattendancezones.aspx

    If you don’t like decisions made by the school board just go to the courts and plead Dillon’s Rule.

    It’s alos interesting that you name Foust and Herrity as examples of good supervisors. I agree. However, you failed to mention that both are serving their first term as supervisor. It seems that improvement is possible after all. Have 25% of our state representatives improved over the last election cycle? Note: I’ll concede Chap Peterson as an improvement over Jeanmarie Devolites-Davis to start this conversation.

  32. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    I don’t get it:

    “I’m not yet at the point..where I’m willing to cede everything to one guy.. no matter how bright or how strong a leader…

    not yet……”.

    McAuliffe wants to be governor and wants to take power away from Richmond. The governor is part of “Richmond”. Isn’t he saying that he thinks the broad organization he wants to run (i.e. state government) has too much power? How is this giving power to one guy? I think it’s just the opposite. If I thought McAuliffe was espousing a further concentration of power in Richmond – I’d be just as aggressive in opposing him on that point.

  33. Groveton Avatar

    RH:

    “Here is the wierd thing about the difference between Fairfax and Fauquier/Loudoun. the environmental, school, and congestion issues, the housing issues, etc. are completely different.”.

    Yes, they are very different. And all three counties are in roughly the same area. So, how does this support a strict implementation of Dillon’s Rule which consolidates power over very different places in the state government? Given the differences, shouldn’t they have the autonomy to chart their own course? One size does not fit all. Whya re we trying to make one government body fit all?

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    I’m from New England, where the town is pre-eminent. And they can pretty much do whatever the state hasn’t prohibited.

    They still manage to have problems. They don’t call it Taxachusetts for nothing, and no one is more likely in your face than the local officials.

    That doesn’t excuse the Virginia legislature for not doing their job. If anything, the legislature ought to be in a better position to see the differences and act accordingly. Even if they have to move money geographcally to do it.

    That is one thing the counties will not be able to do, and it will be a handicap, in the same way that new England towns tend to “think small” : they haven;t the resources to pool or do otherwise.

    Overall, Dillons rule seems like a bad idea to me.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    Re setting priorities:

    This seems to have become a national issue among economists.

    The Obama Team doesn’t have the time to run a field experiment to determine what works. In addition, it wants “general equilibrium impacts now! To my surprise, Paul Krugman has come out against cost/benefit analysis of public policy

    “The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05krugman.html

    So, how do we determine and debate what policies are “good” and how do we rank them? “

    From Environmental and Urban Economics.

    Well gee. That pretty much detroys anything I ever believed about public policy. krugman doe make a point though: we don’t require ROI analysis for tax cuts!

    RH

  36. Groveton Avatar

    Dillon’s Rule is like coffee. If you do nothing you have black coffee. That’s Virginia (sort of, it’s more complex than that). If you add a little cream then it’s stong coffee. If you add a little cream and a little sugar then it’s strong, slightly sweet coffee. If you make the drink out of milk and then toss in some coffee it’s a latte.

    Nobody that I know favors giving all the power to the localities. Heaven forbid. But a lot of people (apparently including Terry McAuliffe) favor giving more power to the localities. While the details need to be determined, I’d be in favor of letting the localities keep a certing percentage of the tax monies they raise for whatever they find important. This would be before the massive and complicated re-allocation process in Richmond. Fairfax county might use the money for Rail To Dulles (among other things). Prince William County might use the money for additional law enforcement. Henrico might give the money back to the taxpayers. A county struggling to attract emploers might use the money for economic development.

    I am thinking in terms of 25% or so kept by the localities to be spent at their discretion. Of course, all local laws and decisions would have to be in compliance with the US and Virginia constitutions. Under this very tentative plan, Richmond would spend about $25B per year in General Fund and Transportation Fund initiatives and the localities would spend about $10B of the money formerly earmarked by Richmond.

  37. Groveton Avatar

    RH:

    Krugman’s article is very interesting. A charitable person might say that the benefits of an anti-economic-depression spending program are naturally impossible to define since there haven’t been enough depressions to build a baseline. Or, a charitable person might say that time is of the essence (especially given the latest atrocious employment statistics) and we all need to follow our gut more than building a detailed plan.

    However, I am a bit suspicious of Paul Krugman. He did work a year in the Reagan White House. But his 2007 book, “The Conscience of a Liberal” was pretty much a wealth redistribution screed. An uncharitable person might say that Krugman and other wealth redistribution advocates believe that the present crisis opens a door to “under the table” wealth redistribution. Under this theory, speed of decision making is really a cover for “redistribute the wealth before the majority of people realize what you’re doing”. Unfortunately, I have a cynical view of $1T economic quick fixes proposed by wealth redistribution devotees.

    There is a lot of hooey being slung about the economy right now. For example, recent job creation numbers are compared with past periods. No mention is made that the population of the United States and the size of its economy were both a lot smaller in those past periods.

    I personally believe that a lot of America’s “social engineers” are using and misusing recent economic data to push their socio-political agendas. That’s too bad considering there is real financial misery in the country and our leaders (political and intellectual) should be trying to solve the problem with scrupulous honesty and non-partisan logic.

  38. Anonymous Avatar

    Nobody has raised it so I will. Do away with the Dillon rule and you will see local taxes on everything. I shudder to think what would happen in Fairfax. I might have to move if that happens.

    NMM

  39. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton:

    Agree.

    I watched a couple of Krugman interviews lately, and he is very cautious with his words, or else he knows less than others think he does.

    The money is going to go somewhere. Try to find an avalanche and stand in the way. maybe some of it will stick.

    My version of the economy is that someone has to make things and someone needs to buy them. When there isn’t enough to go around more people will make things cheaper, until someone buys them. The rest is just details.

    RH

  40. re: McAuliffe, Richmond “power”, Dillion Rule, Home Rule, up zoning, downzoning, sideways zoning, out-the-wazoo zoning….

    I’m seriously suspicious of any view that what we need is a “strong” leader who will overrun the legislature…

    It’s frustrating.. the process.. and it’s ugly.. sausage-making , et al..but it’s far, far superior to banana-republiicanism …

    with regard to Dillion Rule vs Home Rule… in both cases, the State allocates to the locality – the ability to determine land-use… and to determine where they will provide infrastructure for more intensive land-use.

    In other words – your right to develop your land – ends at your property boundaries.. – as it should.

    no landowner is entitled to infrastructure…

    I guess we can quibble over whether “development” can occur without infrastructure – but that determination is pretty easy.. to figure out..

    when someone other than the owner has to pay for it.. you know…where the money is NOT coming from…

  41. re: the government deciding it knows how to spend your money better than you do….

    Okay.. stay with me on this…

    The Government tells you that it has determined that it is better to take your money and spend it on a Humvee to help fight terrorism than it is to let you keep it to spend on a large screen TV.

    Note that in either case – a job is created… it’s only a question as to whether that employee is building a screen for a computer in the Humvee or a screen for your TV room.

    Okay.. so time goes by… and the Government says – “we have enough Humvees and we have the terrorists on the run – but we really, really need some wind turbines and a smart grid so we’re going to just use that same money we’ve been taking from you to do these new priorities…

    So.. we convert the plant that was making Humvees to one that makes Wind Turbines and smart grid stuff… and everything is the same as it was before… including the fact that the money you would have spent on that wide-screen TV is still not available to you but instead has been allocated to things the government things are more important to build than your TV.

    Not that this money ..no more goes into a black hole for wind turbines that it went into a black hole for Humvees.

    In both cases.. jobs are created… and that guy takes home a paycheck.. and he spends it on stuff ..maybe a big screen TV or food.. and of course the government will get a cut of it ..to spend on the things it deems as worthy of spending your money on.

    Okay.. so tell me where I have got this wrong…

    Bonus Question: what does the Government spending your money have to do with NoVa’s economy?

    tricky ..eh?

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    NMM – you have hit the nail on the head. Home rule would bring many more fees and higher taxes that would hit residents and small businesses the hardest. The big real estate interests would find ways to keep their subsidies — e.g., below-cost zoning and land development fees; the Economic Development Authority; anemic proffers; the annual developer pilgrimage to Richmond to raise taxes to increase VDOT’s slush fund; the proposal by the Tysons Task Force to have commercial real estate operators in other parts of the county subsidize infrastructure for the Tysons crowd; fees from Dulles Toll Road drivers to pay for Dulles Rail to enable more density at Tysons. Those are the ones that come to mind.

    Then, toss in the professional carrying class that would find a home rule Fairfax County with more jobs and higher pay.

    I agree that state law should be changed to authorize counties to levy the same taxes as cities; and I could support a plan that allowed local governments to keep a portion of the income taxes they generate (probably with added responsibilities). But I still don’t see where giving more power to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors would improve the lot of the average county resident or small business.

    As Senator Janet Howell has told me on a number of occasions, the problem lies with the refusal of our local elected officials to use their existing statutory authority to further the common good — as reasonable people might define that term. It’s similar to what I tell my 14-year old son. If he cannot manage cell phone limits properly, why would he expect me to believe that I should trust him with my car in a couple of years? Show your independence from the big developers and the professional caring class and I might write that letter supporting home rule. Right now, Judge Dillon is a protection against even bigger and more expensive messes in Fairfax County.

    TMT

  43. I’m a little perplexed here.

    In “theory”, the closer the decisions are to local elected, the more accountability …

    It would seem to me..that relying on Richmond to “protect” Fairfax would be… not only relying on folks not elected by Fairfax citizens but, in fact, folks who are heavily donated to by the development community….

    A good example is the current efforts by folks remote from NoVa to .. do away with proffers and replace them with mandatory impact fees which virtually everyone agrees will be much lower… thus putting even more of the costs of development on the existing taxpayers of a locality.

    So.. it seems.. until TMT corrects me.. that he has more confidence in non-NoVa folks in Richmond to decide Fairfax development policies.

    tell me where I’ve gone wrong here.

  44. Groveton Avatar

    LarryG – You raise good points. TMT’s objections form the foundation of what I’d call the “victory through gridlock” school. I won’t say that’s TMT’s philosophy – only that he sounds like some adherents of that school.

    The “victory through gridlock” school doesn’t really want change. They feel that change has generally been bad for their lifestyle and that further change will probably be bad too. Those in this school never see enough analysis since more analysis defers change. They like governance structures where state Senators like Janet Howell blame the local politicians while the local politicians blame people like Janet Howell. Finger pointing defers change. The students in this school say that NoVA has changed due to an influx of north-easterners and, therefore, the will of the people can be discounted. Regardless of how large a percentage of teh state’s population is represented in NoVA, it doesn’t represent the “real Virginia” so it doesn’t count. When you note that Charlottesville, the City of Richmond, city of Petersburg, etc. are all voting more Democratic that NoVA you hear some vague talk about “different demographics in those places”. They call McAuliffe a carpetbagger even though he has lived in NoVA for 17 years. They claim that a dillution of Dillon’s Rule will result in a loss of their “gun rights”. The Dillon Rule is the basic textbook in the “victory through gridlock” school.

    I see this inbred resistance to reasonable change as a disease in Virginia. From the first day that Virginia planters knew that tobacco was ruining the soil but kept planting it anyway to the efforts to thwart Brown vs. The Board of Education through Massive Resistance, Virginia has been steadfast in its resistance to modernity. HB3202 was only the latest example of the all-powerful state government performing its rendition of the Keystone Cops.

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    “In “theory”, the closer the decisions are to local elected, the more accountability …”

    The theory is broken. It has been corrupted by the major political parties which have taken all the teeth out of elections.

    In small town New England there are social bonds that sometimes help grease the skids, but in the larger towns with representative town meetings you have the same problems as here.

    ——————————

    “…..thus putting even more of the costs of development on the existing taxpayers of a locality.”

    You keep repeating this mantra as if it was true, when substantial evidence suggets that the usual formulas and procedures used to support it are simply wrong.

    If the Existing Residents wanted to prevent development, they could have bought more land and not developed it, but then their costs and their taxes would be higher. By itself, this shows that it is not new development that causes taxes to go up – necessarily.

    —————————-

    “They feel that change has generally been bad for their lifestyle and that further change will probably be bad too. “

    No one likes change. But preventing change, like any other kind of conservation costs money. These folks like other ER’s want the New Residents or the Old but Undeveloped residents to bera all the costs for preservation AND for development.

    Groveton is right, inbred and unreasonable resistance to change, based on faulty ideas and analysis is a disease in Virginia.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    “So.. we convert the plant that was making Humvees to one that makes Wind Turbines and smart grid stuff… and everything is the same as it was before…

    ……..

    Note that in either case – a job is created… it’s only a question as to whether that employee is building a screen for a computer in the Humvee or a screen for your TV room.”

    Nice try, but this isn’t even close to being correct. You need to go do some reading.

    Somewhere I saw a table that showed jobs per MW of electricity produced. It was something like Solar = 10; Wind = 7, Hydro and Nuke = 6; Biomass = 4 and Coal = 1

    Therefore the nine jobs created by solar are not a benefit of wind but a cost, over and above the cost of coal. And the cost of those jobs will show up in your electric bill.

    That’s just one way to look at it, but generally speaking an economic analysis of one technolgy vs another does not result in jobs as one of the benefits to be measured.

    I know it sounds strange, but go read up on it before you go off.

    The other thing to consider is that jobs are not fungible. There will be real hardships involved for the job losers, and Kaldor Hicks efficiency says that needs to be compensated before we can assume some public benefit through other “new” jobs.

    And those other “new” jobs are not free, either.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar

    “…when someone other than the owner has to pay for it.. you know…where the money is NOT coming from…”

    Property rights raises its ugly head again.

    Who “owns” the infrastructure?

    Who gets to use it? Only those that paid for it?

    Who keeps the books?

    RH

  48. re: non “green” jobs verses “green” jobs

    you don’t get it RH.

    In terms of a job – pure and simple – a job – and someone who gets a paycheck… it does not matter what they produce…

    as long as somebody wants it…

    so someone might claim that Humvees are a waste of money.

    Others might claim that large screen TV are worthless.

    Yet others might claim that wind turbines are a waste.

    But the point is – that all of these produce a job and a salary…

    even someone who works for the Lottery or the porn industry or throw away paper plates has – a job.

    You keep confusing – a job …
    and whether or not a particular product has a productive use.

    they are separate issues.

    and it rolls back to this…

    if the govt takes your money and spends it on something.. it will produce a job…

    whether or not the product or service that is the result of that job – being useful – is a separate issue.

  49. re: Dillon and gridlock

    I agree with the analysis….

    I do not see… abdication of local voter involvement with local elected leaders – to folks in Richmond as a “good” thing.

    I would dare say that if the Tysons issue did not involve folks from outside of Fairfax.. including special interests in Richmond… that the locals might well have more influence in the outcome.

    Compare to Loudoun..where that BOS had lots of grand plans for a massive rezone of the county and what happened?

    they got tossed…

    that scenario has been repeated in more than a few counties throughout Va.

    In my own county.. at the next election after a massive rezone – most of the BOS was replaced.. and the incoming board instituted a much more responsive approach to growth – in line with what citizens who elected them – wanted.

  50. re: “who owns infrastructure”

    not when the question is: “who will pay for new infrastructure”?

    When a development – like Tysons proposes a development that will need infrastructure – what is the question?

    The question is not “who owns the infrastructure”

    no.. the question is ” how much infrastructure will be needed and who is going to pay for it”?

    and that’s the same question repeated just about every time a development proposal is made.

    And keep in mind – once again RH… a “proposal” implies that it is not a “right”.

    If it were a “right”, you’d not need a “proposal”.

  51. shoot – I almost forgot this:

    Money in Fairfax Politics

    Featuring a review of campaign donations to candidates in February 3 special election for
    Chair of Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
    Invited Guests
    Sharon Bulova
    Patrick Herrity

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009

    http://www.vpap.org/updates/show/134

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    A couple of comments.

    Public Facilities. Fairfax County's Department of Planning & Zoning is coordinating an analysis of the impacts of an urban Tysons Corner on public facilities. One such impact is the need to relocate the existing Fire Station 29 that is on Spring Hill Road and would be next to the Tysons West Metro Station; construction of another fire station by 2020 and a third by 2040. How should Fairfax County pay for those stations? Should landowners/tenants and subsequent purchasers of improved real estate pay for those costs that would be incurred only because of the upzoning? Or should other taxpayer fund all or part of those costs?

    Change. Groveton — I'm not against change, but I want to know what will change and the likely impact of the change before I'd support it or oppose it.

    What specific problems would Home Rule fix? With only a couple of exceptions, I do not trust local Fairfax County officials to act in any way that could conceivably be considered to be in the public interest. I am not alone; many people in the Dranesville, Hunter Mill and Providence Districts feel the same. It is not an political division, as I know as many Republicans as Democrats who don't believe their local government works to protect the interests of existing residents.

    I would like to know what the candidates for Governor would do to protect residents of Fairfax County from being further overrun by development that is not supported by adequate public facilities. If they believe abolishing the Dillon Rule can do that, I want to know how.

    Personally, I'm tired of candidates saying they will do X, but then doing Y once they are in office. While I don't agree with Jim Webb on a number of issues, I find that his behavior in the US Senate is largely consistent with his campaign. That is refreshing.

    I don't like candidates, such as Mark Warner, who run for office saying that they will not increase taxes, only to turn around and do it. At least Walter Mondale was honest in 1984.

    TMT

  53. Groveton Avatar

    “I know as many Republicans as Democrats who don’t believe their local government works to protect the interests of existing residents.”

    I am sure that is true. However, I believe that these same people would have a full on hissy fit of they ever saw an honest accounting of how much money is raised in taxes in Fairfax County vs. how much state money is spent in Fairfax County (including money that the state takes in from localities and then redistributes to localities for purely local functions – like schools). Herrity, Bulova and the rest would look preety good in the shadow of that analysis. You yourself have posted links to videotaped Fairfax County BoS meetings where the Tyson’s plan was discussed. Supervisors like Foust were aggressive in their opposition despite being from the same party as Boss Hogg Connolly. Where are the videotaped budget allocation discussions from Richmond? Maybe they exist and I just don’t know where to find them.

  54. Groveton Avatar

    P.S. – I want to dillute Virginia’s strict adherence to Dillon’s Rule – not abolish it.

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    “I know as many Republicans as Democrats who don’t believe their local government works to protect the interests of existing residents.”

    Why would anyone think that is the goal, or even a rational one?

    Government parctitioners wish to have better jobs, same as the rest of us. That means more responsibility and bigger budgets, more subordinates. Passport to a bigger bettter job in a bigger and better government.

    The idea is to create a bigger better wealthier world or community for all the inhabitants, exisitning and new. That makes more tax revenue available for bigger gov’t and more projects, more employees and faster advancement.

    A government practitioner considers the probability of success times the amount of money involved, and that is where he puts his effort.

    That’s why you get promisis of X and get Y instead.

    —————————

    If it were a “right”, you’d not need a “proposal”.

    It used to be a right and you didn’t need a proposal. We lost that right when it was taken away without compensation. Had government protected our rights we could have sold them, and now we could buy them back.

    Instead, government allwed or caused those rights to evaporate:
    After existing residents already used theirs.

    ————————

    You are wrong.

    You cannot ask who pays for the infrastructure without considering who owns it and who has the right to use it. If the answer to the last two is everyone, then so is the answer to the first one.

    ———————–

    I know that the same type of idiots ask the same questions every time a proposal is made. You can go to any hearing and predict word for word what certain types will say.

    It is just as Groveton says, they always want more analysis, because it puts off the inveitable.

    The premise for their (usually rhetorical) questions are wrong, and so are their presumed answers, but it does not make any difference because they think the result is in their own best interest, as opposed to the community best interest. They are greedily beggaring their neighbors, and they don’t care.

    Don’t bother to try to convince me otherwise: I’ve seen it too often. I even know people who freely admit to being door slammers.

    I don’t claim that hings aren’t as Larry describes. I just see that it is unethical, and uneconomic, not to mention sociopathic. Sooner or later the door slammers will find their own toes in the door.

    RH

  56. Groveton Avatar

    Here is the first of two interesting articles I read. This article examines the exodus of people from California. I found this point the most illuminating:

    “With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.”.

    A plan to remake downtown LA has stalled.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/ap_on_re_us/fleeing_california_3

  57. Groveton Avatar

    This is the second article. It chronicles the loss of value in state pension funds. A couple of states have reacted by promising far less in pension benefits for newly hired employees. This is in keeping with my belief that a combination of a massive wealth transfer from young to old, Baby Boomer demographics and longer life spans are creating a looming inter-generational battle.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw9HrY21Ynno&refer=worldwide

  58. Anonymous Avatar

    “….cost-benefit analysis, properly used, can be used to identify smart policy options, maximizing environmental and public-health benefits while minimizing economic costs. The technique enjoys broad bipartisan support because the American public is unwilling to pay infinite costs to reduce risks. Rationally, they want to ensure that government regulations don’t impose greater costs than they’re worth.”

    Michael A. Livermore, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

    That ought to apply to government regulations concerning provision of infrastructure as well.

    Rationally, Larry would want to ensure that the regulations we have don;t impose greater costs than they are worth. Instead, he irrationally assumes that the new folks should pay for their own damn infrastructure, and that he (and everyone else) should have the right to use it.

    I aree with Livermore: if we jettison cost-benefit analysis, in favor of something like the precautionary principle, or user pays, then it makes it harder, not easier, to convince a cash-strapped government that our regulations (for whatever purpose) are actually to the people’s benefit.

  59. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton:

    California is also facing multi billion dollar deficits due to declining business prospects and state flight from its regulatory condition.

    (As Larry points out its GDP reamins huge, just declining.)

    RH

  60. Existing infrastructure has been paid for – by the people using it.

    The issue is that a new development is proposed – and the studies indicated that without additional infrastructure that it will degrade the existing infrastructure.

    Who is responsible for paying for the NEW infrastructure that…if not built.. will cause degradation of the existing infrastructure?

    That’s the issue in Tysons as well as most other places with new development proposals.

    Tysons – if built without additional infrastructure – will cause major degradation of the existing infrastructure.

    Who should pay for the NEW infrastructure that will be necessary to keep the existing infrastructure from being degraded?

  61. Groveton Avatar

    “Existing infrastructure has been paid for – by the people using it.”.

    I guess so. The government builds a road using taxes I’ve paid over the years. Then, I drive on the road. Later, a new arrival to Northern Virginia (undoubtedly a liberal from the NE US) drives on the road. But she hasn’t paid for the road. I guess that I’d say infrastructure has been paid for by the people who were paying taxes when the infrastructure was built.

    See my article on California (above) –

    “We’ve lived off the investments our parents made in the ’50s and ’60s for a long time,” says Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento. “We’re somewhat in the position of a Rust Belt state in the 1970s.”

    This guy seems to think that California’s infrastructure has been paid for – by the parents of the people using it.

    When we refuse to pay sufficient tax to build new infrastructure aren’t we the problem?

  62. Anonymous Avatar

    “Existing infrastructure has been paid for – by the people using it.”

    That is only partly true, Larry. A lot of our infrastructure is built with borrowed money and it will be paid for along with the new burden you propose for new residents.

    As usual, you ae sticking to your guns, while failing to load, or pick a target. You are more interested in winning your argument than getting something accomplished.

    You are still ignoring the idea of who owns infrastructure and who uses it, by aiming only at who pays.

    ————————-

    “When we refuse to pay sufficient tax to build new infrastructure aren’t we the problem?”

    Pretty much the argument that I have been making, except I now realize that it too is only a partial answer.

    1) We now require infrastructure of higher quality and cost: I went to a grade school with no plumbing.

    2) We think we can “afford” to make higher and more exotic demands if only the New Residents have to pay.

    3) Our previous infrastructure was insufficient to begin with.

    4) We maintained it insufficiently.

    5) We now blame higher taxes on requirements only for “new” infrastructure, never mind what happened on River Road recently.

    6) We use infrastructure costs and lack of infrastructure as code words to enforce conservation – on someone else. If God dropped the Garden of Eden of infrastructure on us – for free, you would still have the same idiots at the hearing fighting against development: They just don;t want change.

    8) Larry is flat out wrong, but he will never admit it. He should at least consider the idea that there is more than one way for all of the community to get ahead – including himself. That just because the commmunity gains, it does not mean he has to lose.

    ———————

    “Tysons – if built without additional infrastructure – will cause major degradation of the existing infrastructure.”

    Not proven. I don’t doubt it, but it isn’t proven.

    Anyway, more heavily used is not the same as more degraded.

    ————————-

    “Who should pay for the NEW infrastructure that will be necessary to keep the existing infrastructure from being degraded?”

    Well, who is going to own it? And who is going to use it? And who is going to maintain it?

    For Tysons to become as big as expected that is gong to have to be a lot of people using, maintaining and paying for that infrastructure.

    Your neighbor has a grotesquely ugly wife that perversely likes to sunbathe right next to your favorite spot to enjoy your rose garden.

    Who pays for the privacy fence? Who owns it? Who uses it? Who maintains it?

    Tysons is grotesquely ugly, but that doesn’t mean they pay for our happinesss.

    RH

  63. When you build a new house – there are two charges for water & sewer.

    The first charge is called an "availability" fee.

    It is your share of the cost to bring the water/sewer infrastructure to your new house plus money to go into a fund to use for future expansions of the system – the water/sewer plant itself plus the expansion pipes.

    this is what is used to to make water/sewer – "available".

    In other words.. the water/sewer did not suddenly appear as if by magic at the curb next to your new home.

    The money to put that stuff there – had to come from somewhere long before you pay your "availability" fee.. or else there would not be anything "available" to you no matter how much money you would be willing to pay.

    But the same type of dynamic also goes on with schools and roads….

    New schools do not suddenly appear – ready to receive new students from new developments.

    The school must be funded and built PRIOR to the development being finished.

    Where should the money to build a new school come from – since we do not fund them the way we do water and sewer?

    The same would be true with what would happen with an existing little-used rural road – now with 5 times as much traffic due to new subdivisions..

    If you are going to approve a new subdivision on an existing rural road that will double the traffic on that road such that the road's existing capacity is overwhelmed – who should pay to upgrade that road?

    Ray and perhaps others say that the existing resident should pay – and apparently that would be true no matter what the rate of growth is – no matter how many new roads and schools need to be built.

    There's only one little problem with this.

    Existing residents are only going to pay a certain amount before they get fed up and throw out whoever is raising their taxes to pay for new development.

    Now… the property rights folks, if they get their way in Richmond – this is how it would work.

    No matter what the rate of growth… existing residents would have their taxes increased higher and higher and the BOS would say that their hands are "tied" by the Dillon Rule – at which point the citizens throw the BOS out of office and institute "no growth" policies.

    So..back to Richmond…and two things ongoing…

    1. – an effort to outlaw proffers and replace them with impact fees – not determined by local process but dictated by the State….no matter what the actual costs might be.

    2. – A new law that says that some localities MUST.. designate areas for dense growth – at least 4 units per acre, (requiring water/sewer) – enough for 10 years worth.

    But note this – despite RH and the property rights folks – the law does NOT REQUIRE the counties to rezone the entire county and provide infrastructure county-wide.

    Now why is that?

  64. re: “When we refuse to pay sufficient tax to build new infrastructure aren’t we the problem?”

    so… when someone comes to your neighborhood like they did to TMT’s neighborhood and proposes a massive rezone – you and TMT should pay for the required infrastructure?

  65. Anonymous Avatar

    But for rezoning and subsidies, Groveton makes a good point. We do have an obligation to pay to maintain and expand our infrastructure, including roads. But do we have an obligation to pay more for the infrastructure that will enable someone to have his/her/its real estate rezoned to higher densities?

    For example, a friend of mine has worked as a commercial real estate appraiser. He did some digging and conversing. His estimate is that SAIC’s property will increase in value by $250 million from the rezoning caused by the arrival of rail. Now that is before a spade or a shovel has been taken in hand. This is a profit from the design and construction of a top-notch building, but from lobbying, hiring Gerry Connolly, foisting most of the costs for constructing Dulles Rail on Dulles Toll Road users. Why should someone pay higher taxes to build more infrastructure to support SAIC?

    Another issue is subsidies — recall the two hundred million in annual subsidies to heavy trucks that was posted here earlier. Do we have a duty/obligation to pay higher taxes or fees to pay for the damages caused by heavy trucks? Similarly, Dulles Rail is being built under a no-bid contract. Do we have an obligation to pay higher taxes to fund the certain cost overruns for Dulles Rail under that agreement?

    Fix the glaring inequities; eliminate the subsidies; fix the land use laws with adequate public facilities provisions; then let’s talk about the need for more revenues.

    I think Groveton’s over-arching criticism of Virginia as a state where some believe the rest owe them tribute rings true today. We don’t have slavery or a poll tax or race-based restrictions on who can marry. But we do have a political system that is generally maintained by both political parties to deliver tribute to a few. As Til Hazel once told a Richmond audience: I build things and the people pay taxes for the supporting infrastructure. Philosophically, there is not much difference between those remarks and the system of slavery or SAIC’s plans to gain a windfall on the backs of taxpayers and Toll Road Users.

    TMT

  66. Anonymous Avatar

    I am kind of in the middle on all of this. I am pro business anti residential. This is what Fairfax has been for a while now. It makes sense to me you get an increased tax base without the demand for services. Well except for the NVTA which is a mostly business run group advocating for more money to be spent on transportation

    Why should someone pay higher taxes to build more infrastructure to support SAIC?

    Because then SAIC will grow and pay more taxes and provide more jobs which = higher incomes = higher tax recepits = more people shopping and eating lunch in Tysons corner = more jobs and tax recepits etc…

    Now where I agree with Larry and TMT is residential.

    Residential brings you property taxes like business and requires police and fire like business but then residential also requires, schools which are over 50% of the budget in most localities. Residential aslo puts a greater strain on transportation. WIth business you have two rushhours and some commerce. Residential I would think creates many more trips. (Thats an assumption might be wrong)

    So in closing I think Fairfax has it exactly right pro business and anti-residential. Let the suckers in Loudoun build the residential

    Loudoun has massive costs with new road construction and school construction. School Budget has been growing by double digits purely due to student population growth.

    NMM

  67. Anonymous Avatar

    NMM – I like your theory, but let me try to pop your balloon. More employees and higher profits for SAIC or any other company is certainly positive in a overall economic sense. But is there a measureable positive return for Fairfax County taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users? No one has been able to demonstrate it with data and analysis.

    Increased income taxes benefit the rest of Virginia much more than they benefit Fairfax County. We pay them; they spend the money. I am not interested in paying a dime more so that the rest of the state can be subsidized.

    Commercial real estate pays property taxes and everyone pays sales taxes. Can anyone demonstrate that the increase in real estate taxes and sales taxes from the added value to SAIC or any other Tysons landower produces a greater return for the county taxpayer or DTR driver than the amount of additional taxes or tolls paid? The Old Bill Lecos’ song and dance doesn’t cut it. Show me the economic study.

    I’m not arguing that residential is a winner. It’s not, but I’m not ready to buy the argument that subsidized commercial development provides a net benefit for the residential or small business taxpayer, much less the DTR drivers.

    There isn’t a single big business or landowner at Tysons who would invest a million dollars or a hundred thousand dollars on the empty sing-songs that are used to justify supersizing Tysons on the backs of other taxpayers and DTR drivers. Let’s see the analysis.

    TMT

  68. re: “pro business and anti-residential”

    .. where does that leave the outer burbs and bedroom communities?

    For instance, the Fredericksburg Area gets all of the residential and none of the business…

    AND… in terms of a broader view .. you have a whole bunch of people burning a whole bunch of gasoline generating a whole bunch of pollution.. getting back and forth between work and home….

    and remember also.. all those residential that got to the outer burbs… TWICE a day ..they are maxing out NoVa transportation network … as they go to and from their NoVa jobs….

    so.. who pays for the transportation network in NoVa?

    Do the folks that live in Fredericksburg and work in NoVa and max out NoVa’s roads – pay for upgrading NoVa transportation network?

    Are you not ..in effect.. trading the cost of residential.. not having to pay for schools.. but instead having to pay for transportation?

    Isn’t this TMT’s major complaint?

    That it’s not the Tysons project per se…. it’s the inevitable transportation impacts of the the folks driving to and from Tysons?

  69. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry good points

    I didn’t say it was best from a macro level.

    Its best from a selfish point of view as a Fairfax County tax payer.

    A key point transportation is provided by the state not locally. So the tradeoff is shifiting from a local responsbility (schools) to a state responsibiltiy (transportation).
    Yes it is true that Fairfax gets riped off by the state. But better to be ripped off by the state then having to pay for schoosl 100% locally.

    I also still agree with TMT. But look at the proposed development at Tysons closely. It is mostly residential not Business. Like I said before IMHO Residentail is a net lose you have the increased strain on services and I strongly suspect Residentail creates much more traffic trips and congestion than businesses. With all this new Residential on top of the existing mall travleing on weekend might be even wores than rushhour as hard as it is to believe.

    The planners would have you believe all of these new residents wont have cars and will use metro exclusively. It looks good on paper and you can point to the Orance Line cooridor in Arlington as a success story but Tysons and Orance Line corridor are totally different landscapes. Tysons is not anywhere close to being walkable/pedestrian friendly. There is no commercial development to support the proposed influx of residents within walking distance either.

    NMM

  70. Anonymous Avatar

    larry’s mind is stuck. he will never get over the ideas he has in his head, even if they are incorrect or lead to lesser net public benefit – including his own.

    As far as I can tell, from numerous sources, the idea that existing residents are harmed by new development is widely believed and mostly wrong.

    I’ve said my piece. larry can repaet wrong arguments as long as he likes: it won’t make them financially or economically correct, even if they zre politically powerful.

    ———————–

    “His estimate is that SAIC’s property will increase in value by $250 million from the rezoning caused by the arrival of rail.” ….. “Why should someone pay higher taxes to build more infrastructure to support SAIC?”

    Wait a minute: won’t SAIC pay higher taxes on that increased value? How is someone else paying? Won’t the same increases in value acrue to just about anyone near Tysons? and isnt that really why TMT and others are complaining about “higher taxes” – because their property value went up?

    Or is it that such urban places are NOT really more efficient: that they require higher taxes in addition to those caused by property value increases? And they require higher taxes because of extravagant amenities like METRO?

    If the proposed
    APF laws don’t come with revenue sources to fund the facilities then they are nothing but mis-named antigrowth laws, and you get right back to who pays for infrastructure, who owns it, and who is allowed to use it. Til Hazels remaks sound callous, but really, what is the point of him putting up an office if you can;t get there, or flush the toilet when you do? Why is that HIS infrastructure.

    Sure, we can require so much up front money that therest of his office is unprofitable: then what?
    Nothing. And that is the true intent of the APF laws: people (Exiting Residents) don’t want change, but they are not willing to pay what it takes to keep the status quo, either.

    ————————–

    “I’m pro business anti residential”

    I assume that is because we believe that residential doesn;t pay its own way. Otherwise, what ever happened to balance? If it is true that residential doesn’t pay its own way and that busineess and farms pay more than their share, then what we are saying is that the tax structure is inequitable and thereore residents (including existing residents) SHOULD be paying more.

    I don’t see any way for the Larry’s of the world to vbe correct with such conflicting reasons for what amounts to selfishness.

    ———————–

    “…but then residential also requires, schools which are over 50% of the budget in most localities.”

    But then residential also brings you business. Where do all those people that own and operate the businesses that pay the taxes live?
    They live in residential houses.

    I’d say that the overemphasis on business is what causes thousands of people to go to one place at the same time, and THAT is what cause congestion and the need for heroic solutions like METRO. As I see it, inthe final analyisis this kind of beleif is what causes imbalance which causes the problems we have.

    We are going to make those problems WORSE with APF and urban development areas. We are going to multiply the effect of SAIC and others getting huge profits while everyone else gets left out.

    —————————–

    “But is there a measureable positive return for Fairfax County taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users? No one has been able to demonstrate it with data and analysis.”

    THAT IS THE PROBLEM. With that analysis in hand Larry will still claim it is wrong and go on beating his dead horse. But, with enough real data we can start making real decisions. Until then we are flapping in the breeze.

    “Are you not ..in effect.. trading the cost of residential.. not having to pay for schools.. but instead having to pay for transportation?”

    We don’t know, because we have not done the analysis. i suspect that Fairfax, by overbuilding businesses has exportes some of its cots to the suburbs and exurbs. But overall, I also believe that the state is taking more out of NOVA than it is putting back. Part of that is the fault of the Smart Growth Coalition and others who have actively fought against any money being spent in NOVA.

    We have dozens of special interests, each pulling in their own desired dirrection, and the result is that we muddle through, suboptimally. OR, you can assume that this IS the best we can do: that the highest and best optimum social condition occurs when each individual and special interest succceeds as best he can.

    If that is true, then we can pretty much scrap central planning: just put a price on development which will be approved if the price is paid, and then move on. At least is wuld silence the antidevelpment croud and elimintate the kind of wasted efffort that is epitomized by the 40 year struggle against the ICC.

    RH

  71. If proffers, impact fees, land-use laws, the need to get permission for rezones -… if all of those things were “Larry ideas” then RH would be correct.

    But all of those things are current realities … and pretty much the way things work – right now….

    What I give is the rationale for them… as they are things that already exist regardless of my views.

    right RH?

    so.. if you don’t agree with the way things currently work – you’re not disagreeing with “Larry” but you are disagreeing with a whole bunch of folks…

    .. including folks like TMT… and many others….

    right?

    so this is not a “Larry” issue.. it’s more of an RH does not agree with the way te world currently works… issue.

  72. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray I think I agree with alot of what you said. I still come back to the core belief though that residential does not pay its own way and its an agree to disagree.

    I will just repost with what I agree with and add a comment or 2

    I’d say that the overemphasis on business is what causes thousands of people to go to one place at the same time, and THAT is what cause congestion and the need for heroic solutions like METRO. As I see it, inthe final analyisis this kind of beleif is what causes imbalance which causes the problems we have. (Totally agree but from Fairfax countys perspective it still makes sense. Businesses still pay property taxes and the state handles transportation needs. The system is broken but until transportation costs are localized it makes total economic sense for Fairfax to continue its policies)

    As an aside here is a radical idea. Flip trasnportation and education. Make transportation a primary local responsbility and make education primarily a state responsibility. I think that would help tremendously in terms of equity.

    _____________________________________
    We don’t know, because we have not done the analysis (agreeded we are all just blowing hot air really :-p). i suspect that Fairfax, by overbuilding businesses has exportes some of its cots to the suburbs and exurbs. (yes) But overall, I also believe that the state is taking more out of NOVA than it is putting back (definently yes). Part of that is the fault of the Smart Growth Coalition and others who have actively fought against any money being spent in NOVA.

    I would argue the main fault is the funidng formulas and the legislature. Like TMT said already the Ds and Fairfax County public are stupid. They are voting to increase the government tax pie when NoVa gets a disproportiante slice. They should focus on changing the size of the slice first before increasing the pie.

    ___________________________________

    We have dozens of special interests, each pulling in their own desired dirrection, and the result is that we muddle through, suboptimally. OR, you can assume that this IS the best we can do: that the highest and best optimum social condition occurs when each individual and special interest succceeds as best he can.

    No real comment but special intersts aren’t going to ever go away. We will see how Obama does.

    “If that is true, then we can pretty much scrap central planning: just put a price on development which will be approved if the price is paid, and then move on. At least is wuld silence the antidevelpment croud and elimintate the kind of wasted efffort that is epitomized by the 40 year struggle against the ICC.”

    Agreeded. If you could get rid of zoning you would have an actual free market. I think this is a main idea that Jim Bacon believes in.

    NMM

  73. Anonymous Avatar

    “residential does not pay its own way and its an agree to disagree.”

    This is a commonly stated belief, but somne economists who have lloked at the belief and its origins have come to the conclusion that it is not true. And it depends on where you are.

    Either it is not true and the TMT /Larry arguments are wrong, or else it is true, and what we have is an unfair tax structure: residential isn’t paying its own way.

    If that’s the case then residential residents SHOULD pay more and the TMT/Larry arguments is moot.

    It seems to me that you are arguing aginst yourself.

    All I say is that residential Does pay its own way – by way of business taxes. But because of the geographic dislocation of businesses, that amounts to an unfair tax structure as well. It is a lousy way to do things.

    RH

  74. re: lousy way to do things –

    not according to a majority of voters and their elected officials – to date. (as opposed to “Larry”)

    The State has a legitimate interest IMHO of trying to level the playing field for kids and their ability to obtain a minimal equivalent education.

    In this regard, I believe in “wealth” transfer of taking from NoVa and giving to RoVa.

    I believe in it if they are taking from Fredericksburg and giving to RoVa – because I support the basic intent of the policy. If the current formula is “wrong”.. then fix it but using that policy or a flawed implementation of it – as justification for other dumb settlement pattern strategies is…. well.. it’s dumb.

    so one can agree or disagree with this (the school funding issue) but it has virtually nothing to do with who should pay for infrastructure for new development nor whether it makes sense strategically for NoVa to export residential and keep business.

    Even if NoVa/Fairfax was Home Rule – the State Policy with regard to education would still be in effect – as it is in many jurisdictions that have Home Rule.

    And in those Home Rule jurisdictions – the issue is STILL – who pays for the additional infrastructure that will be needed for new development.

    Exporting residential to the Exurbs and keeping the business – has consequences – whether your jurisdiction is Dillon Rule or Home Rule.

    It’s called commuting traffic and everyone who work in your “kept” business will then use your roads to get to their “exported residential”.

    That’s the germane point here.

    So.. if you have a big business that wants to locate in Fairfax/NoVa – you get the taxes they pay.. even the increased taxes that they pay when the real estate appreciates in Value…

    .. but here’s the question –

    does the increase in the taxes generate enough ADDITIONAL tax revenue to pay for the transportation impacts of having even MORE employees who live in the exurbs and use NoVa/Fairfax roads to commute to their “exported” exurban residential?

    The real question is – who should pay for the roads that commuters use to get from their exurban residential to the urban workplace?

    Bonus Question: in 2012 when HOT lanes go “LIVE” – who will pay for the roads that commuters use to et from their exurban residential to their NoVa/Fairfax jobs?

  75. Anonymous Avatar

    “But all of those things are current realities … and pretty much the way things work – right now….”

    I agree that is the way things work.

    For the most part,they are ethically wrong, and they amount to stealing, which is sheltered from court action.

    It is a crroked, wasteful system that allows the mob to steal from their neighbors and smugly believe it is OK.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar

    “As an aside here is a radical idea. Flip trasnportation and education. Make transportation a primary local responsbility and make education primarily a state responsibility. I think that would help tremendously in terms of equity.”

    Haven’t thought this through, but at least it is an IDEA. a new one apparently, and not tainted with ideology, or “how do I get mine?”

    Congratulations.

  77. Anonymous Avatar

    “If you could get rid of zoning you would have an actual free market.”

    i don;t think you get rid of zoning, nor do you want to. the original concept of zoning was valid, but it has long since turned into an engine for everything but its original purpose.

    Now it is historical and environmental preservation, social engineering, racial segregation, class segregation, and god knows what else. The one thing it doesn’t do is prevent nuisance, which was the original goal.

    Now, zoning IS the nuisance.

    —————————

    We should set a price on upzones and downzones. Whoever wants one,pays the price. If the price is paid the neighbors have no right to complain. End of story. Everyone would know what is allowed and not allowed, and what the price is.

    You want to upzone to a brothel? $50,000,000. Next. That ought to take care of APF.

    RH

  78. the thing about transportation is this.

    What you get back from the State is basically what you paid through your gas taxes and car sales taxes and other taxes.

    They’re not going to give you more back than you pay in. (unlike schools) ….

    because.. unlike the SOQ standards – which define how much money a locality will get (from that 9 point formula)…we don’t have an equivalent formula…

    and even if we did.. think about this guys…

    taking gas tax money from RoVa for NoVa would be like squeezing blood from a turnip.

    the numbers simply do not work.

    You’re never going to convince Hampton Roads/Tidewater or Richmond or Charlottesville that they ought to be giving NoVa their gas tax money.

    So.. the only one’s you might take it away from are places in SW Va.. and what you’d get would be literally pennies on the dollar…

    The other part of this is that NoVa/Fairfax has willingly engaged in a development strategy that has caused their own transportation problems.

    Giving them more money would only encourage them to do more of it.

    At some point, Fairfax/NoVa needs to realize that every single new job that exports the residential means a new car on your transportation network – at rush hour.

    The idea of “Smart Growth” was/is for folks to work AND live in near proximity.

    Some folks have confused this to mean that you live in a dense residential community

    .. but think about this..

    you can have a very dense residential community… but where will those folks work – and how will they get there?

    I think TMT and NNM mentioned something about the “mix” in Tysons.

    What is that mix?

    What percent of Tysons will be residential and how much will be non-residential?

  79. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, Ray, All,

    We are very close I think we are finally getting somewhere 🙂

    The Tysons mix is correct from a longterm policy whats best for everyone standpoint. The plans are for mostly residential which seeks to correct the imbalance of too many jobs at this location and not enough residential.

    TMT and I and others are upset/frustrated because residential generates more traffic (the planners saying it will all be metro is a joke) and there are no plans in the master strategy to address updating the transportation network or how or who will pay for it.

    However this is a local problem that can be solved through education/electing others.

    NMM

  80. Anonymous Avatar

    It’s not that I disagree with how it works, Larry. I see how it works, and I know how much it hurts.

    When I built my Alexandria house it cost me 50 to 70k more than it should have because of county stupidity. I’m still P.O.d and I”l tell any official so until I see the system change.

    But, it could have been a lot worse. If I had not succeeded, then in only a few months the rules would have changed and iwould not have been allowed to build a home that has now been there successfully for 20 years. I’d be out the value of that home, which is considerable.

    And why? No particular reason, except someone said so. my house is no different in any respect from hundreds that were built before it. But to do it again today is impossible. The door has been slammed.

    And yet, right down the street, there is a new supersizer going in, and it is right in the flood plain. the stram practically goes through the house. I know he is in marine clay. How does that happen?

    I got lucky in Alexandria, but in Fauquier I got slammed, and it cost me the price of a nice home. I could be a lot better off and none the worse off, and yet my neighbors won’t allow it, because they want things a certain way – no change.

    And none of them would be able to see this home, if it was built. I could retire, but instead i’ll labor an extra five years to make up the loss for what they want.

    Yeah, I call it slavery. I’d call it something stronger, if ihad another word.

    And why is all of that happening? No particular reason, someone just decided. Inth words of a former supervisor “People were taking advantage of the law.”

    Huh? Isn’t that why we HAD the (previous) law? so poeple wouldhave an advantage. By all means, let’s squash that idea.

    ————————

    I know how thngs work, what I disagree is Larry’s decription/justification of why they work that way, or why they should.

    That part is just wrong. I don’t believe that in Fauquier it has anything to do with paying for infrastructure: it is just one more tool to prevent growth and change.

    Maybe it is different in F’burg, but I doubt it.

    Some people want certain things that belong to others, and they have found a way to get what they want without paying for it.

    In Tyson’s it is different, maybe, but here, my neighbors don’t want me to build becuase they don’t want me to build, and it doesn;t cost THEM a cent to get their way. It has nothing to do with infrastructure.

    Tysons corner is gong to make a lot of money for someone. Whoever that is forgot to share some of it with TMT. If the price was right, then he would not be complaining so.

    My guess is that if you had impact fees or APF and builders started oming in and paying the fees, then someone would want the fees higher, and higher, until they were ludicrous.

    And Larry would still be out there waving his hands saying its fair, its fair.

    BAH. It is ridiculous, wrong, unconomical, and transparently so. someday those chickens will roost.

    RH

  81. okay.. now I am confused:

    …..”..TMT and I and others are upset/frustrated because residential generates more traffic”

    If this increased development was not residential but jobs – would it not also increase the traffic?

    Are you saying that if the Tysons Proposal took away the residential and made it all Commercial that then it would be acceptable to you?

  82. Anonymous Avatar

    “taking gas tax money from RoVa for NoVa would be like squeezing blood from a turnip.

    the numbers simply do not work.”

    Seemed to work OK gong the other direction though.

    For forty years or more.

    Even if they don’t pay for NOVA roads, at least let them pay for their own, for the next forty years.

    Figure out how much (total) that ROVA gets from NOVA (first and second hand) and at least give NOVA credit for that.

    Don’t just call them rich liberal northern SOB’s – with your hand out.

    Stop trying to justify a continuous gang rape of a few counties by the many, go back the the drawing board and figure out what would work best.

    Anyway, if it is so fair, why would you object to reversing the budget?

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar

    Residential or commercial, the way to reduce Tysons traffic is to move it to F’burg.

    Jimmy Carter was complaining about Chinese civil rights, when a Chinese diplomat stopped him.

    “We’d be happy for them to have rights, how many million would you like us to send?”

    Pretty much sums it up, in my book.

    RH

  84. Anonymous Avatar

    “TMT and I and others are upset/frustrated because residential generates more traffic (the planners saying it will all be metro is a joke) and there are no plans in the master strategy to address updating the transportation network or how or who will pay for it. “

    I agree that is the major problem. I do not think it can be solved, so it won’t matter who pays.

    RH

  85. re: "My guess is that if you had impact fees or APF and builders started oming in and paying the fees, then someone would want the fees higher, and higher, until they were ludicrous."

    look beyond your own circumstance.

    look beyond Tysons.

    Look beyond NoVa/Fairfax.

    The issue is the same.

    No matter where people live – they do not want:

    1. – their existing quality of life degraded

    2. – increased taxes to pay to keep development from degrading their quality of life.

    So I ask the question.

    Who should pay for the infrastructure?

    Across Virginia. Across the US, the answer is the same.

    The new development will pay.

    they'll pay for water & sewer – their fair share of what it costs to provide them with that expensive infrastructure.

    They do not pay more for it than it costs. They pay their fair share of it.

    And everyone who uses it – both existing residents and new ones pay to maintain and operate it.

    The only part that is paid for by new folks is their fair share that is needed for their hookup.

    This is no different than what you'd have to pay if you needed a drain field.

    In both cases – you need water and sewer and it costs money to provide those things – and those costs are legitimately your costs.

    Water & Sewer is but one part of the infrastructure needed to serve new development.

    What I advocate is following the water & sewer model for new development.

    Pay your fair share for the infrastructure that you need – and join the rest of the existing residents who pay to maintain and operate the infrastructure.

    I do not consider this approach to be 'stealing'.

    Most others involved in this issue – also do not consider this to be "stealing".

    I think my position is clear and consistent – and in line with the way that it is done in most localities.

    The primary argument that is ongoing is that while it is pretty easy to calculate what the price of a water/sewer hookup should be….

    (at least I don't hear the property rights people yelling about those fees being "stealing")

    … it is not so easy to calculate the other costs like roads, libraries, fire&rescue, etc.. but localities DO have their calculations and developers and property rights folks are free to challenge those numbers… just as they are free to challenge the water/sewer numbers…

    but instead of challenging the numbers.. they challenge the concept… of charging for the infrastructure.. (though as I said.., they don't challenge the concept of water & sewer charges).

    As stated – this is not a "Larry" opinion.. nor is it a small group of "Nazi" planners… this is by far on a widespread basis – how this is done …across Va and across the Nation…

    I sympathize with Ray's personal circumstances but I don't see the connection to be honest….because they seem to me to be very different issues.

  86. re: “..Figure out how much (total) that ROVA gets from NOVA (first and second hand) and at least give NOVA credit for that. “

    If you are talking about roads – let’s see some data….

    besides roads are not going to help NoVa…

    this is a dumb argument guy…

    more major Interstate-type roads – money or not – is not in the near future for NoVa.

  87. re: “Residential or commercial, the way to reduce Tysons traffic is to move it to F’burg.”

    we ALREADY have the residential!

    We’d be GLAD to have the commercial.

    We’d get BOTH if the folks in NoVA/Fairfax would say “NO” and “go take your jobs to Fredericksburg”.

    but Ray.. then you’d be taking away people’s “rights” to develop NoVa/Fairfax.. right?

  88. re: “Larry is flat out wrong, but he will never admit it. He should at least consider the idea that there is more than one way for all of the community to get ahead – including himself. That just because the commmunity gains, it does not mean he has to lose.”

    but who decides this?

    Isn’t it the community that decides?

    Who would you have make the decision if not the community?

  89. Anonymous Avatar

    At a general level, my problems with development in Fairfax County are: 1) there has been no real attempt to follow the existing laws and policies that indicate added development that requires some type of change to zoning or the Comp Plan is supposed to be balanced with adequate public facilities; 2) there has been no attempt to obtain the same type of proffers that are being made in nearby counties; 3) there is no tracking of zoning or proffer compliance; 4) fees for zoning and land development services are set well below cost; and 5) despite being told how advantageous development is to the average citizen, the very same people argue that we need to raise my taxes so that the beneficial development machine can roll. All of these concerns could be addressed. Why aren't they?

    My problems with Tysons Corner include: 1) the county staff and the consultants told the Task Force that somewhere between 90-110 million square feet, Tysons would simply overwhelm all transportation systems – so the Task Force comes up with a final proposal that could go as high as 220 million square feet; 2) the Vision contradicts the planning parameters (a walkable community without sufficient parks & recreational facilities, such that residents will need to get in their cars to drive outside Tysons for recreational facilities; 3) no public facility impact studies were done to justify the proposed densities; 4) the County's TOD policy is ignored by proposing high densities away from rail stations; 5) the Task Force never released any of its studies or planning assumptions; 6) county policy limits Tax Increment Financing to blighted areas, but the Task Force wants to use TIF in the premier new urban area; 7) the Task Force wants competing commercial landowners to subsidize the building of infrastructure for Tysons landowners; 8) the Task Force wants a private entity to make decisions about land use and spending public tax dollars; 9) The Vision proposes high densities near residential neighborhoods despite a charge by the BoS to protect those areas from density; 10) there are no final cost estimates for constructing the infrastructure necessary to support an urban Tysons Corner; 11) the Task Force strongly opposes the use of hard triggers to control the timing of development (soft, mushy triggers that can be managed by the private entity are OK)and …

    Thank goodness that the county staff and the Planning Commission are starting to take some control over this insanity.

    TMT

  90. Anonymous Avatar

    Lets sing another song boys: this one has grown old and bitter.

    “but who decides this?”

    Larry, all I said was you should atleast consider there might be other ways for the community to get ahead that don’t involve the existing residents coming out behind.

    You are convinced that the only way this can happen is if the new residents carry all the burdens that new residents cause.

    You are convinced that the existing residents can and do call the shots, and for the reasons you claim.

    I’m convinced existing residents never psid their fair share to begin with, and they are using a rfusal to do so now to claim property (or the effective use of property) that isn’t theirs.

    I’m convinced that you are wrong, and that there are ways to skin this cat so that everyone comes out better off, inclusing you and TMT (and me, since I pay Fairfax taxes).

    I’m convinced there is no way to conclude the arguments you have been making without either contradicting yourself, or concluding that the tax system is unbalanced: meaning residents SHOULD pay more.

    I’m convinced the REAL agenda is to preserve the status quo, prevent change and development and (allegedly) preserve the environment and quality of life.

    So long as the proponents therof don’t have to pay for any of the changes required (and already instituted) in order to get what they want.

    In my plain and simple way, I call this stealing.

    I’m convinced that if you ever decide to look for a way forward, you will find it. Until then, as far as I can figure out, you are an advocate for theft, and you think it is OK because the community decided so.

    I don’t.

    The community is working on a certain theory: residential doesnt pay, development ruins our life. It only takes one example to break a theory.

    Suppose someone (like you) wakes up one day and says, “heres and idea” and they take it to the government. (person in charge, also part of the community).

    If that idea helps a minority and does not hurt anyone else, then the government is OBLIGATED to act on it.

    Regardless of what it does to the working theory, or what the community thinks about it.

    Otherwise,you have mob rule and theft.

    RH

  91. Anonymous Avatar

    “but Ray.. then you’d be taking away people’s “rights” to develop NoVa/Fairfax.. right?”

    I’d use the same principle as stream bed loading, cap and trade The area can only take so much load, those that want to use the load can bid for the rights.

    The excess money would go to F’burg and they could use it to provide free office space. They could put those spaces riht where the train staion is and use those parking spaces for office parking, shut down the trian and save more money for free offices.

    Some people would call free offices a subsidy, of course.

    Look, we put restrictiona on the number of house per acre, why not the number of jobs per acre?

    RH

  92. Anonymous Avatar

    I sympathize with Ray’s personal circumstances but I don’t see the connection to be honest….because they seem to me to be very different issues.

    My personal circumstances are fine, but they could be a lot better if a handful of people would mind their business more than mine.

    I sympathize with those a lot less fortunate than I was. People who came as little as six months later who never had and never will have a chance like I did.

    I just use my circumstances as an open page example, because that is what I know best. There are a lot worse stories out there, and millions upon millions in opportunity costs sitting there rotting, because someone else, with nothing in the pot, has different priorities.

    RH

  93. Anonymous Avatar

    No matter where people live – they do not want:

    1. – their existing quality of life degraded and they don;t care who they kick below thm on the laddder

    2. – increased taxes to pay to keep development from degrading their quality of life. nor pay for what it costs to buy additional protections to their quality of life, which were never included in their deeds. What they want is something new, that never existed before, and they don’t want to pay for it

    So I ask the question.

    Who should pay for the infrastructure? It is the wrong question. It is a red herring. The question is who should pay for the new protections to quality of life these people get.

    Across Virginia. Across the US, the answer is the same.

    The new development will pay. some of it will, but much of it will never happen. it wil lbe like Marshall for the last thirty years: stagnant, which whas both the original goal and the point.

    This will result in higher prices the value of which accrue to those who were most successful in keeping the riff raff out. And those same higher prices will further keep th eriff raff out. And they will increase the opportunity costs for the other existing, but undeveloped residents, to the point that changes have to be made.

    It is a stupid way to go about things, and it is a bad, selfish outlook.

    RH

  94. Anonymous Avatar

    TMT is right. The Tysons situation IS a disaster, and it will get worse. It’s a bad plan, with bad execution, bad sales, the wrong funding, etc etc.

    Sometimes you just have to scrap the whole thing and start over.

    RH

  95. TMT said – “my problems with development in general and Tysons in particular are:”

    a long list of essentially procedural issues – that.. if followed …would prove that the size and scale of what is being proposed will not fulfill what is being promised but, instead result in further degradation of quality of life of the folks who reside there.

    no?

  96. re: “You are convinced that the only way this can happen is if the new residents carry all the burdens that new residents cause.”

    not at all…

    what I ask is – who decides how much of the burden they WILL carry.

  97. re: “.I’m convinced existing residents never psid their fair share to begin with”

    you’re entitled to your opinion.

    where are the facts that back up your opinion?

  98. re: “I’m convinced that you are wrong, and that there are ways to skin this cat so that everyone comes out better off, inclusing you and TMT (and me, since I pay Fairfax taxes).”

    like I said.. you’re entitled to your opinion – and Ray… your burden is not to prove me wrong – you have to prove that a lot of other people are wrong.

    Your view of how things “should” work are similar to some others like EMR – who rail about how Democracy works but always manage to not actually come right and say that there needs to be a benevolent dictator to make things right.

    Either you stick with Democracy and advocate changes within the context of Democracy – which means convincing others of the righteousness of your argument to change the current system….

    or what?

    If you cannot convince other land owners that it is in their best interests to pay for infrastructure for development – then what should be your next move or strategy?

  99. re: ” ..I’m convinced the REAL agenda is to preserve the status quo, prevent change and development”

    Ray..look around you.

    Does Fairfax look like it did 30 years ago?

    do you think that development was stopped and the status quo maintained?

  100. re: “In my plain and simple way, I call this stealing.”

    and I say that if you tax people to pay for others infrastructure -that this is stealing

    .. If your argument were true then you could go to voters and say ” I’d like to raise your taxes to pay for infrastructure for new development and after the development is built, I’ll give you back your taxes plus a profit”.

    If you cannot make that promise, then what you are doing is stealing their money.

  101. re: "In my plain and simple way, I call this stealing."

    we have a way forward.

    It's called water & sewer connect fees.

    if you want to develop and you need water & sewer – you pay for it – not others.

  102. re: “The community is working on a certain theory: residential doesnt pay, development ruins our life. It only takes one example to break a theory.”

    bullfeathers

    The community is saying – “if you want to develop property – then fine – but pay for the infrastructure you need”

    Look around you Ray.

    There are hundreds of thousands of new developments in the NoVa region.

    A majority of people AGREED to let development occur and the proof is all around you.

  103. re: “..Otherwise,you have mob rule “

    ahem

    “mob rule” is how we elect the President – right?

  104. re: “Look, we put restrictiona on the number of house per acre, why not the number of jobs per acre?”

    Now this IS a novel concept.

    I wonder how this would play into the access and mobility ideas of EMR.

  105. re: “Who should pay for the infrastructure? It is the wrong question. It is a red herring. The question is who should pay for the new protections to quality of life these people get.”

    who decides?

  106. re: “It is a stupid way to go about things, and it is a bad, selfish outlook.”

    no.

    If you can show others and convince them that it is not in their best interests – they are not stupid.

    If you actually show them a way that better benefits them why would they not be in favor of it?

    That’s the elemental question for most any development proposal – “Will this development improve and benefit this communty”?

    If a majority of people don’t object, the answer is assumed to be – yes.

  107. re: “TMT is right. The Tysons situation IS a disaster, and it will get worse. It’s a bad plan, with bad execution, bad sales, the wrong funding, etc etc.”

    but methinks you are playing on both sides of the issue.

    Your basic mantra has been – over and over – that the property owners have the right to develop their property and that existing residents should pay for the infrastructure.

    TMT and the folks who are opposed to Tysons – oppose on the principals that you are on the opposite side of.

    Their view is that the community should have the right to demand that the Tyson Developers pay for the infrastructure needed by the project.

    At least.. in your musings.. stay true to your own principals…

  108. OOPs! I violated my own 100 comment limit.

    sorry about that.

  109. Anonymous Avatar

    “but methinks you are playing on both sides of the issue.”

    I am playing on both side of the issue. I have plainly said so because I pay taxes in both Fauquier and Fairfax. It is why I can afford to be dispassionate, because I can see both sides clearly.

    Both sides are screwed up, and both sides are screwed up beause we have not properly defined and allocated property rights. There is too much stuff lying around tha people THINK they are free to grab.

  110. Anonymous Avatar

    “Your basic mantra has been – over and over – that the property owners have the right to develop their property and that existing residents should pay for the infrastructure.”

    Gee you rally don’t listen.

    Yes, the owners have the right to develop their property.

    No, they dont have the right to expect unlimited use of resources. We have air pollution limits and buildings contribute 20% of air pollution. government and planners shoul have told them long long ago what the limits were (What are my full expected property rights).

    Yes, there are physical lmits, within those limits they should be allowed to develop their property.

    No, the neighbors do NOT get to drum up phony physical liomits (This is what is happening in Fauquier. I don;t beleive the no develpment crowd hee has anywere near the moral authority behind it that the no development crowd in Tysons has.)

    Yes, development has both positive and negative effects on people outside the perimeter. If we can show the effects are substantial and immediate, then someone should be compensated. If it turns out that TMT’s tax liability goes up because of increased property value due to Tsyon’s, then maybe he should be paying THEM. But if it turns out it is only due to increased cost of facilities used primarily by Tysons, then HE should be comensated. There is also a question of timing in the costs and benefits, but all of this should have been laid out in proerty rights law, not in zoning law.

    You keep picking, picking at one part of an argument, like a demented, complaining hen in the chicken yard, never happy with whatever bug or kernel is in front of your beady eyes and beak at the moment. Oblivious to the fact there is a kindly farmer out there, whose only wish is to provde good and decent and fair care to all the hens, unable to enjoy the barnyard for fear you are the only one being led to slaughter.

    RH

  111. Anonymous Avatar

    “If you actually show them a way that better benefits them why would they not be in favor of it?”

    I am one independent voice.

    I don’t even pretend to be able to compete with MSM line Piedmont Environmental Council, American Farmland Trust, or Chesapeake Bay Foundation, however much my training and experience leads me to believe that their missives are fundamentally wrong, misleading, counterproductive, misdirected, and even sometimes comical.

  112. Anonymous Avatar

    “where are the facts that back up your opinion?”

    Bridges falling spontaneously into rivers. Roads falling spontaneously into water mains. sewer and water systems that have been leaking for 50 years or maybe a hundred.

    We have never paid enough. Now we are trying to forward the bill.

    RH

  113. Anonymous Avatar

    There could have been a sensible plan developed for Tysons Corner that would have improved on the current plan. I know some people who worked on the last Task Force (early 1990s). They would be the first to admit that their plan could have been made better.

    Also, Fairfax County could have used the same approach it did when it appointed the prior Task Force. The earlier one was truly mixed and diverse. It was not dominated by developers and populated by others who weren’t up for the battle. The earlier effort was bloody. People fought tooth and nail, but realized compromise must occur and that compromise must meet some of the needs of every stakeholder.

    Well those approaches would have likely resulted only in incremental changes to the current plan that could permit Tysons to grow from 45 million square feet to somewhere around 78 million. In other words, Tysons would probably not get mega density, but would probably be a better place. Well windfalls don’t come from reasonable change. So the County picked a Task Force that would be overwhelmingly dominated by developers and landowners. The public would be largely kept from participating so that windfall-generating densities could be awarded. See the flaws in my earlier post.

    The goal is not to develop a plan that makes a workable urban Tysons Corner. The goal was not to permi great buildings to be constructed. The goal was to come up with approvals for mega-density that would enable the landowners to sell their property for windfall profits without building anything. And they bought Gerry Connolly, who road this mule all the way to Congress. Move over Blago!

    TMT

Leave a Reply