Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Free-Market Conservative’s Case for Journey Through Hallowed Ground

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

At the risk of inciting my blogging friend Groveton, I recommend to readers an op-ed piece that I penned for the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, “History, lifestyles, and vistas are threatened,” in which I extol the virtues of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground.

JTHG is one of the most promising experiments in free-enterprise conservation taking place in the country today. The broad-based initiative, which encompasses the region along the U.S. 15 corridor between Charlottesville and Gettysburg, is based upon respect for property rights. Contrary to the delusional claims of adversaries who see it as a Trojan horse for introducing land use controls, JTHG is conspicuous by its refusal to get embroiled in land use disputes. The group’s purpose is to create an alternate economic model for towns, hamlets and farms on the fringe of the Washington metropolitan area — a model built upon heritage tourism, Main Street revitalization, and sustainable agriculture — that enables landowners to make a decent living without selling off their property for scattered subdivisions and shopping centers.

I’m not saying the model is perfect. Perfection is for heaven, not earth. JTHG wants a federal designation as a National Heritage Area, which would come with funds for educational programs, and it seeks National Scenic Byway status for Rt. 15, which also would entail the expenditure of federal funds. So, if you’re a deficit hawk worried about runaway federal funding, like Groveton, you might object to these priorities. Ed Risse offers a different criticism: If heritage tourism becomes really successful, how much automobile traffic will it generate, and what are the implications for highway congestion in the corridor and for environmental sustainability?

Both legitimate points. But to my mind, those objections are far outweighed by the positive, uplifting example set by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. JTHG aims to preserve our cultural and historic heritage, and it aims to do so not by filing lawsuits and lobbying for government restrictions on growth, but by creating economic value and preserving natural and manmade landscapes. How self-styled conservatives can object to that is a mystery to me.
(Photo cutline: Oakhill plantation. Photo credit: Journey Through Hallowed Ground.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    JTHG can protect whatever they want. All they have to do is go buy it. Then THEY can try to make a living at “sustainable agriculture” and tourist tea rooms. That is the free market system we have.

    JTHG aims to preserve our cultural and historic heritage, and that IS land use control, however admirably they characterize it.

    Sorry, I don’t see why they should get federal funds to pursue their goals any more than I should mine, other than the fact that they are better organized and better funded.

    By itself, that should mitigate AGAINST their getting funds. A special interest is a special interest, and the overriding goal of all special interests seems to be to get more than their share, and then to keep getting it.

    All in the name of public benefit, of course.

    RH

    RH

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, If the JTHG initiative amounts to “land use controls,” then you have just deprived the term “controls” of any meaning. Any time that anyone buys or sells real estate, or starts a business or changes the economic equation that would effect property values in any way, by your reckoning, it amounts to “controls.”

    My definition of “controls” is when a jurisdiction of the state uses the power of law and.or regulation to restrict land use.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My definition of controls is when people gang up on other people. If they use funding from the government and their size and influence to manage how government effectively operates, then I don’t see the difference to the one being controlled. Peer pressure on a massive scale is still peer pressure.

    To suggest that JTHG is free enterpricse conservation is a joke. It would be free enterprise conservation if they go form a corporation to raise money to buy land with the goal of getting their money back back on tourism and sustainable agriculture.

    There is a reason you don’t see very many such corporations.

    RH

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’ve done a little reading up on the JTHG and it appears that it has been done “by the book”. It’s not a “roll your own” bum rush… by local gentry to get a unique designation for their estates…

    it’s been vetted by the National Keeper of Historic Districts.

    http://www.nps.gov/nr/

    please take the time to check the links…

    and it is, in fact, a National Heritage Area
    http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/FAQ/INDEX.HTM

    and there are 37 of them in the USA..
    http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/VST/INDEX.HTM

    so this is not some kind of a funky backdoor effort by local activists to attempt to designate illegitimately.

    it’s the real deal…

    Federal Money IS justified if you believe that there should be a process for .. recognizing and designating legitimate historic resources. You can’t do this for free… the folks who determine significance do not work for free.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’d be interested to know if the national keeper of historic districts has ever turned one down.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/VST/INDEX.HTM

    Why don’t we just paint the entire nation?

    All of Tennessee is a historic area, and all of Virginia isn’t?

    Shucks boys, why screw around with JTHG, and the Shenandoah Valley battlegrounds, just go ahead and do the whole state.

    Can’t let those volunteers get ahead of us.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.nps.gov/nr/results.htm

    “Some States and communities have enacted preservation laws or ordinances that apply to National Register listed properties.”

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “this is not some kind of a funky backdoor effort by local activists to attempt to designate illegitimately.”

    That’s what I’m afraid of. These people are powerful and sophisticated.

    RH

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    yes.. the Keeper has turned down nominations…

    It can be quite an arduous process.

    check here: http://archnet.asu.edu/Topical/CRM/usdocs/36cfr63.html

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Looking at the map, it’s hard to believe.

    The process is arduous: I looked in to having the farm listed on the register, but after I saw the paperwork I decided it wasn’t worth it.

    RH

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I remain amazed at Jim Bacon’s ability to rail against loicalities failing to pay for their location-variable costs then turn around and support this abortion of economic sense. People who drive down a road in Fairfax County should pay a toll for every mile they actually drive but the JTHG should get $15M in federal funds to ….

    To do what?

    Where is the Journey Through Hallowed Ground’s specific plan?

    Not the web site for the National Hostoric Areas, not the Code of Federal Regulations for Parks Forests and and Public Property but the specific plan being proposed by supporters of the JTHG.

    Where is the plan?

    I’d really like Jim Bacon or Larry Gross to answer that simple question.

    The JTHG wants $15M in tax money to “preserve” a road. Where is the document wherein they make binding committments as to what they will do with that money?

    Please provide a link to that document and then we can discuss the specific merits of their specific plan to spend $15M of specific dollars.

    Ray is completely right – they can raise the money and buy the land. Then they can exercise their rights as property owners to leave the land undeveloped. They can put up signs extolling the virtues of a road.

    Robert E Lee and his army took Rt 7 through Fairfax and Loudoun Counties on his way to the battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam for you Yankees). Should the federal government spend tens of millions of dollars “preserving” Rt 7? More Americans died on September 17, 1862 (during the battle of Sharpsburg), than on any other day in the nation’s military history, including World War II’s D-Day and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    If you were to preserve all the rods in Virginia with historical significance you’d have to preserve an awful lot of roads.

    This has nothing to do with history or preservation. It is a naked attempt to use federal funds to split Loudoun County into the undeveloped West and the overdeveloped East.

    Prove me wrong – show us the binding, detailed plan for the JTHG.

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, I have a question for you: If JTHG weren’t trying to tap federal funds, and if it limited itself to promoting heritage tourism, sustainable agriculture and Main Street communities, would you still object to it? Here’s what I’m trying to ascertain: Are your objections to JTHG rooted in what you perceive as an effort to make Rt. 15 off-limit to developers, or do your objections extend to everything the organization does?

    As for your “simple question,” I cannot answer it off-hand. It strikes me as a legitimate question, though, so I’ll ask JTHG for a response.

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, One more point. I do not, nor have I ever, railed against “localities failing to pay for their location-variable costs.” I think you still misunderstand my logic.

    It’s not an issue of localities *paying* for location-variable costs. It’s an issue of localities *charging* the location-variable costs of providing utilities, infrastructure and public services.

    Virginia localities, and that includes Fairfax County, are not recouping the cost of growth from those who are developing and/or redeveloping land. That is the root of rising tax burdens in Northern Virginia.

    You are perfectly entitled to object to Journey Through Hallowed Ground on the grounds that it shouldn’t feed at the federal trough, or it secretly wants to put Rt. 15 in Loudoun County off-limits to development. But neither of those points have *anything* to do with location-variable costs.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It woud be nice if we had some way of knowing what the location variable costs are, as opposed to what some claim them to be.

    It would be nicer still if the costs actually went to those that benefit from the services.

    And it would help if we had some way of including time in the calculations instead of assuming the total instant costs for every proposal.

    RH

  15. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    My biggest objection is that JTHG does not seem willing to clearly state what it will (and will not) do. There is a lot of flowery talk but no detailed plan (that I have ever found). This makes me very nervous.

    This is what their web site says:

    “The Journey Through Hallowed Ground® is dedicated to encouraging both Americans and world visitors to appreciate, respect, and experience this cultural landscape that makes it uniquely American.

    We are doing this by:

    Building a strong network of local, regional and national partners to develop a common vision for the conservation and enhancement of the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural characteristics of the region.
    Developing an education outreach program to reach every student and teacher within the region as well as across the nation.
    Creating a heritage tourism program that will provide economic development opportunities, through regional branding and cooperative marketing, in communities throughout the corridor.
    Working in partnership with local, state and national officials to create a National Scenic Byway and a National Heritage Area to sustain and strengthen our economy, heritage and quality of life in this region.”

    What does that mean?

    Cultural landscape?
    Uniquely American?
    Building a network of partners?
    Reach every student … across the nation?
    Regional branding and cooperative marketing?

    These are nonsense words. So, I did some electronic digging. I traced some of the members of the JTHG Board of Directors through Google. I kept finding references to Waterford, a town in Loudoun County designated as an historic place. It seems that some people believe that Waterford’s designation is being used to unfairly preempt property rights. You should read the odd story of Malari Madison and her attempt to rebuild a dilapidated house in Waterford.

    http://www.citizenet.com/news/2007/aug/21/Waterford-Madison-Historic-Doane-Butler/

    Note: I suggest that the comments following the article be read in addition to the article itself.

    While I certainly understand that there are two sides to the Malari Madison matter I think the whole incident is predictive of where JTHG is headed. Despite the vague words, I believe JTHG intends to create a anti-growth zone along Rt 15 similar to the anti-growth zone around Waterford, VA. Anti-growth devotees use these designations to stop progress and preserve their lifestyles. They trample on property rights and (I believe) create an economic environment where those living outside the “no growth zones” pay higher and higher taxes to support those living inside “no growth zones”. Ms. Madison’s rehabilitation of a dilapidated house would certainly have increased its property value and real estate taxes.

    More troubling than the civil suit between Ms. Madison and the government was the local government’s filing of apparently baseless criminal charges against Ms. Madison. In addition, a local politician’s newsletter was used to harrass Ms. Madison. It was also involved in a rude, vulgar personal attack on Ms. Madison.

    Will JTHG become a vehicle for “freezing in time” a wide swath of land around Rt 15? I suspect so although, absent a detailed plan, we’ll only find out after the legislation is passed and the money allocated.

    I am also very averse to federal funds being used for JTHG. This is a lesser issue to me than the seemingly intentional mystery surrounding this initiative.

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    I’ll accept your point about localities charging for location-variable costs (vs. my point about paying for them). However, I cannot accept you narrow definition of location-variable costs.

    In my previous post I provided a link regarding Malari Madison and her efforts to get permission to rehabilitate a dilapidated house in Waterford, VA. Would you consider Waterford’s refusal to be a location-variable cost? I certainly would. The “cost” of systematically refusing to allow home improvement is the additional money that is forgone in higher real estate taxes. Apparently, the people of Waterford generally like their historical district and their elected officials actively oppose renovation. This reduces the amount of tax money that is collected and sent to the the state. Virginia is a Dillon’s Rule state. Local taxes are not necessarily spent locally. A locality that intentionally inhibits economic growth also inhibits the state’s ability to raise money through taxes. The locality is not “charging” for the benefit of maintaining an historic district.

    Localities are not charging developers the full price of their location-variable costs. Agreed. However, localities are not charging NIMBYs the full costs of theie location-variable (opportunity) costs either.

  17. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, regarding the Malari Madison case, I’ll admit up front that I don’t have much sympathy for her if she purchased property in Waterford in 2003, knowing full well any improvements she contemplated to her historic structure would be subject to review by a historic district review committee. Many other people have repaired dilapidated houses in Waterford and not encountered her problems.

    But addressing your question of whether the existence of historic preservation guidelines constitutes a “location-variable” cost… By inhibiting development, Waterford residents are depriving the county of a higher tax base that could generate more revenues…

    That’s a tricky question. Here’s one possible response: The existence of historic preservation guidelines *increases* property values because it ensures owners that the historic character of the place will not be destroyed by someone who wants to build something totally out of character. I can’t state that is a fact, but I would submit it as a hypothesis that could be factually verified or disproved by comparing the valuation-per-square-foot of Waterford residences with other residences in Loudoun County.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Localities are not charging developers the full price of their location-variable costs. Agreed. However, localities are not charging NIMBYs the full costs of theie location-variable (opportunity) costs either.”

    Thank you, Groveton. In a nutshell that is the argument I have been trying to make.

    I don’t see any way of addressing this until we have an agreed upon system of measurement. No party has an incentive to agree on a system of measurement, because it will inhibit their ability to distort the truth.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How about the Church in Warrenton that wanted to replace their aging and rotting steaple with an exact replica – but in fibreglass.

    From fifty feet away, you can’t tell the difference, but the architecture review board turned them down. The diffence in cost to the church, not the town, was $200,000.

    If the town wants the church to have a heavy and archaic steeple built with ancient technology, then the town should be willing to help pay the (excess) costs.

    Likewise the guy (in Warrenton) that replaced his metal roof, with a metal roof. The ARB complained because it was pre-painted.

    etc. etc. etc.

    Once you go down this road it gets worse and worse and less and less defensible.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.smartwords.biz/samples/business/02.htm

  21. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray and Groveton, Regarding NIMBYs, I agree with you. They are a huge part of the problem. Where they hurt the most is in the urban core where they block the efforts of entrepreneurs to re-develop old, declining neighborhoods as mixed use projects, often transit-oriented, at higher densities.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Ford developed a simple hedonic model of residential house prices in the Baltimore, Maryland, historic district and found evidence supporting the belief that restoration premiums exist. Coffin employed a similar technique in estimating the marginal impact of historic preservation designation in two residential districts in Illinois (Elgin and Aurora). The conclusion was that a modestly sized preservation premium exists in Aurora, but that no statistically significant relationship exists in Elgin. Schaeffer and Millerick examined data for several Chicago neighborhoods and found mixed results. A premium was found to exist for sold properties in the Ridge National Historic District. However, properties in two smaller Chicago historic districts tended to sell at discounted prices. Asabere and Huffman examined data for a three-year period in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but extended the traditional studies to include commercial and industrial properties in addition to residential properties. They put forth the argument that the relationship between historic designation and property values “could be either positive or negative depending on the tension between positive externality effects and the constraints on property rights.” They conclude that the premium on historic preservation districting is positive, which implies that any loss in value associated with the restrictive nature of historic district governance is offset by the market benefits of restoration for residential properties in Philadelphia over this period. For other types of properties, no significant relationship is inferred. Asabere, Huffman, and Mehdian.13 examined the impact of historic district designation on small apartment buildings in Philadelphia and concluded that the adverse consequence of zoning restrictions dominated any positive externalities that might be associated with the historic district. “

    In other words you don’t know what the result will be a priori.

    In the best cases, if the benefits show up in market value, it doesn’t help the people who stay or spend the renovation money very much. It only helps if you want to get out.

    Kind of an odd way to encourage preservation.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What’s the difference between an old declining neighborhood and an historic one?

    Agree with you on the urban core, but there the situation is as much political as entrepreneurial. And there is the problem that the losers get driven out, without sufficient compensation, in many cases.

    You have to be able to measure the costs and benefits, (and willing to) or else any claims of benefits will ring hollow. I’m generally in favor of historic districts, but we need to do a much better job of ensuring that people don’t get hurt in the process.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Create a anti-growth zone along Rt 15 similar to the anti-growth zone around Waterford, VA. Anti-growth devotees use these designations to stop progress and preserve their lifestyles. They trample on property rights and (I believe) create an economic environment where those living outside the “no growth zones” pay higher and higher taxes to support those living inside “

    That’s a pretty powerful thought”

    Let’s assume it’s true.

    Would they be any different than folks in a subdivision trying to keep granny flats out of it?

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, it would be different.

    Assume a subdivision has no provision under zoning for granny flats. Someone who knew there was no provision buys a home there and then applies for a granny flat. The subdivision has every right to resist.

    Assume a subdivision has no provision under zoning for a historic didtrict. A group of people outside the subdivision wish it to have one. The subdivision has every right to resist.

    A group of people who bought into the subdivision, knowing it had no provision for a historic district, then makes application to imposea historic district on other owners. The subdivision still has every right to resist.

    In either case, someone (the granny falt applicant or the historic district applicant) is attempting to gain additional property rights they have not paid for.

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    and if a majority of folks who live in that area.. want the restrictions or historic district.. then what?

    is the land-use written in stone forever.. or can it change if a majority want it to?

  27. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    I bring up the Malardi Madison case only to cite an example of where an historical trust is used to severely restrict economic development (home redevelopment in this case). If Ms. Madison’s house had been outside of an historic district I doubt her renovation plans would have raised an eyebrow.

    Should some areas be “protected” as historic? Sure. I don’t want condos built over Arlington National Cemetery. Nor do I want George Washington’s home at Mt Vernon plowed under for a shopping mall.

    The questions for JTHG are the size of the “historic” area and the intent of the group. It is a very large area as developed historic sites go. The intent of the group is unclear at best. My cynical belief is that it is a buffer zone between the “McMansions” of eastern Loudoun County and the NIMBY-enclaves of western Loudoun County (I am trying to be an equal opportunity disparager). My guess is that they want Waterford style anti-development rules over a very large swath of land. And they want it without the consent of those who live in the area, without being willing to pay for their opportunity costs and with federal funds.

  28. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Historical trusts and plutonium are forever.

    “Granny flat zoning” can be given and taken away by the elected officals. However, builders of Granny Flats (low scale developers in my opinion) shoiuld be charged their full location-variable costs. “Granny” has a car, “Granny” wants emergency service, etc.

    Granny Flats do not ask for direct federal funding.

    If JTHG wanted a referendum in Loudoun County to designate the Loudoun swath of Rt 15 as being zoned “historic” – I’d have few issues. However, that which the voters give may also be taken away. If the residents of Loudoun decided that the “historic” zoning was a bad idea sometime in the future, they could take it away.

    This democratic approach would not serve the NIMBY ideal of “walling off” western Loudoun from “suburban sprawl” – at least not permanently.

  29. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Here’s one possible response: The existence of historic preservation guidelines *increases* property values because it ensures owners that the historic character of the place will not be destroyed by someone who wants to build something totally out of character. I can’t state that is a fact, but I would submit it as a hypothesis that could be factually verified or disproved by comparing the valuation-per-square-foot of Waterford residences with other residences in Loudoun County.”.

    One day you don’t like zoning since it creates dysfunctional human settlement patters. The next day you love “zoning on steroids” (i.e. historical districts) since it raises home values. That’s an interesting intellectual Brittany Spears imitation you have going on this one.

    As for your metric for comparison, I’d suggest valuation per acre instead of valuation per square foot. If Area X tore down a dilipated house and built a shiny new condo building with 20 1,500 sq ft residenses, the value per sq ft might be lower while the value of that acre would be much higher.

  30. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jim: My parents lived in Leesburg until they died (1980&86). About a year ago, I asked a fellow from Loudon Co. why they changed the zoning and became Fairfax – which they had assidously avoided since Sterling Park was built.

    He said, “The money was just too much.” Selling your land brought too much money to just say ‘No’.

    How will this ever equal the money that can be made from changing the zoning and selling out?

  31. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    JAB, You’re right, given the development pressures in NoVa, people will always be able to make more money by selling their land to developers. But not everyone wants to. Many sell because they are financially stressed by rising land values and rising taxes. I think the logic of JTHG is to help people find alternatives to selling out to developers that can increase the economic value of their land and make a living.

    The strategy may or may not work — I don’t know. But that’s the strategy that JTHG has articulted.

    There is one more element that has yet to come into play, and that is the plan to create a REIT, raise several hundred million dollars, and create development on a scale and of a design that is consistent with the farming/hamlet/small town way of life that exists now. Once that comes into existence, JTHG may be able to compete with the big developers.

  32. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    On the issue of historic districts: Yes, it is a form of zoning on steroids. I can’t say how historic districts work everywhere around the state, but I am familiar with Richmond. There is a historic district in Church Hill, south of Broad Street. Everyone loved it, and there was a move in the late ’80s, early ’90s to extend the historic district north of Broad. The houses north of Broad were smaller — more working class, journeymen size, but still almost all dated back to the 19th century. It was one of the largest concentrations of intact, 19th century housing in Virginia. The issue of creating a historic district was put up for a vote by the residents of the district. Sadly, the vote got polarized between white, yuppy gentrifiers and the poor/working class black homeowners who’d lived there for most of their lives and feared that rising property values would force them out of their homes. The poor blacks won, the white yuppies lost. No historic district was created.

    What if the white yuppies had won by a narrow margin? Would it have been right for a majority to impose historic-district restrictions upon the minority — restrictions that poor/working class people would find a hardship to abide by? I’m ambivalent. While historic preservatin is a wonderful goal, I think such efforts should be entered into voluntarily, not imposed — even by a majority.

    However, once a historic district has been created (rightly or wrongly) and has been in place for several decades, as in Waterford, Church Hill (south of Broad) or downtown Fredericksburg, then most of those issues have been resolved. Today, a person who buys property and wants a special exception is the one who is changing the rules of the game and imposing a hardship upon others. And that would appear to be the case with Malardi Madison.

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    this is an interesting thought:

    “There is one more element that has yet to come into play, and that is the plan to create a REIT, raise several hundred million dollars, and create development on a scale and of a design that is consistent with the farming/hamlet/small town way of life that exists now. Once that comes into existence, JTHG may be able to compete with the big developers.”

    and I’d like to hear from Groveton on the …concept.

    The Nature Conservancy does a version of this.

    They’ll buy a large property..with money from their rotating fund look at the parts of it that are the most significant and then sell some of the rest of it – to try to effect a zero-sum financial arrangement.

    People that support preservation could form a REIT to do just this and then preserve land by buying and selling land… for development.. and since they would be non-profit.. this may well be a viable model for.. places like JTHG.

    Would this.. in terms of land-use be a “good thing”?

    that’s my question.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if a majority of folks who live in that area.. want the restrictions or historic district.. then what?”

    If a majority elects to use mob force to get what they want, it is still stealing.

    On the other hand, if they can show the benefits outweigh the costs, or if they can’t show it and think the costs are still worthwile, then they can buy the additional property rights they are claiming, from those that object.

    “”Granny flat zoning” can be given and taken away by the elected officals.”

    Even you recognize this as “taking away”. Taking away granny flat privileges would amount to downzoning, and it should be paid for just as with any other downzoning. Granting granny flat privileges where none previously existed would represent a new property right, and it should be paid for, just as with any other upzoning.

    “If the residents of Loudoun decided that the “historic” zoning was a bad idea sometime in the future, they could take it away.”

    Nice idea, but unlikely. The whole purpose of historic districts is to prevent change. That might be OK in some cases, but as a general idea, (covering the entire state of Tennessee, for example) preventing change is dumb, futile, and counterproductive.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “is the land-use written in stone forever.. or can it change if a majority want it to?”

    That’s what Measure 37 was about in Oregon. It said you cna make whatever changes you like, as long as you pay for the losses.

    RH

  36. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, one small clarification. The JTHG REIT, as currently envisioned, actually would be for-profit. It would be modeled on “socially conscious” investment funds in which investors would still seek a return on investment, but would be willing to accept a lower rate of return, or a longer-term payback.

    Also, though similar to the Nature Conservancy in some ways, it would be different, too, as I understand it (I’m willing to stand corrected). The goal would not be to take land off the market, but to invest in for-profit enterprises. The key is to “do it right.” So, instead of building scattered subdivisions and shopping centers, the REIT might invest in building mixed-use villages built according to New Urbanism principles, with architectural design codes that reinforce, rather than conflict with, the indigenous building materials and architectural styles.

    I’m really flying by the seat of my pants now, but the REIT also might acquire properties of cultural, historical, environmental or scenic value for the purpose of preserving them, but also managing them to generate some return on investment.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “However, once a historic district has been created (rightly or wrongly) and has been in place for several decades, as in Waterford, Church Hill (south of Broad) or downtown Fredericksburg, then most of those issues have been resolved. Today, a person who buys property and wants a special exception is the one who is changing the rules of the game and imposing a hardship upon others.”

    This is exactly right. There is an issue with both changing the rules and how long the rules have been in effect: who got there first.

    Larry believes a majority can change the rules, even if they got there later. I believe, as you do, a person who buys property and then wants change the rules of the game is imposing a hardship upon others.

    If Malardi bought under the existing rules, then she is the agent for change. But, what if she had bought long before the district was imposed?

    These issues werw also addressed under measure 37. If you bought after a rule was in place, you had no right to compain about it. But if the rule was imposed on you or your lineage, (During the past 30 yers, i think), then you had a fixed period of time to appeal for compensation, after which you had to abide by the rule.

    However, additional new rules, would have had to pay compensation.

    Something like Measure 37 would have effectively answered all the problems raised here, but it has been effectively struck down by those who believe they should be able to get something for nothing.

    And it was done through legal chicanery and special interests, with funding from outside the state, by environmentalists who complain about the same kind of activity by developers.

    RH

  38. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    When Richmond wanted to extend the historic district north of Broad – a vote was held. The working class people living in the area voted down the extension of the historic district being supported by the wealthy gentrifiers. At least, that’s what I get from your post.

    If JTHG proposed a vote it would greatly enhance their credibility. You ask a good question about a majority being able to impose historic district restrictions on a minority. However, I assume you would be completely against a minority imposing restrictions on the majority. That’s what JTHG feels like to me.

    The Malardi Madison question is interesting from a number of vantage points. One vantage point is that Ms. Madison contends that the historic preservation of Waterford was abrogated when Waterford was not kept true to its history. As I understand her argument (or at least this part of her argument) the historic district of Waterford was created in order to preserve the historic “look and feel” of Waterford. However, that “look and feel” was altered many times over the years thus rendering the historic district’s original premise obsolete. I have no idea if this is true or not. But it does raise the legitimate question as to whether the designation of a place as an historic district should lapse if the place does not meet certain requirements for “staying historic”. Here, JTHG again seems suspicious. They claim an interest in preserving “hallowed ground” but then talk about creating a REIT to buy land so that developers don’t end up with the land. I think the REIT and the anti-development sentiment is a lot more important to the JTHG organization than any honest desire to preserve “hallowed ground”. The claim of “hallowed ground” is simply an artifice used to block real estate development.

    You write:

    “JAB, You’re right, given the development pressures in NoVa, people will always be able to make more money by selling their land to developers. But not everyone wants to. Many sell because they are financially stressed by rising land values and rising taxes. I think the logic of JTHG is to help people find alternatives to selling out to developers that can increase the economic value of their land and make a living.

    The strategy may or may not work — I don’t know. But that’s the strategy that JTHG has articulted.”.

    I wonder about your assertion that many people sell their property because they can no longer afford the real estate taxes. When an area urbanizes, wages rise. While real estate taxes do go up so do salaries. Along with salaries, prices also seem to rise with urbanization. So, wage earners have more money, small businesses can charge more – who is getting left behind?

    Farmers? Probably so. Yet the “creative destruction” described by Schumpeter and beloved by US conservatives is almost tailor made to fit this situation. An environment that once made land economical for farming changes and the farms are destroyed (the destruction part) in order to allow the building of office buildings for software development (the creative part). You can’t have the creative part of Schumpeterian economics without the destructive part.

    Retired people? Probably so. However, the endless refrain of “helping the elderly afford their home” is a victory of AARP propoganda over the facts. In fact, older Americans have been getting far more wealthy far more quickly than younger Americans. You really need to see the statistics to understand this.

    For example:

    http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2007/07/08/old-and-wealthy/

    “The growing divide between the rich and poor in America is more generation gap than class conflict, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal government data. The rich are getting richer, but what’s received little attention is who these rich people are. Overwhelmingly, they’re older folks. Nearly all additional wealth created in the USA since 1989 has gone to people 55 and older, according to Federal Reserve data. Wealth has doubled since 1989 in households headed by older Americans.”.

    Many of the supposedly low income people who cannot afford rising real estate taxes are actually relatively wealthy people who have retired and do not choose to liquide their assets in order to continue paying for their rich lifestyles. They cover their selfishness by claiming to “live on a fixed income” while, in reality, they are “sitting on a big portfolio”. Giving these people a real estate tax break (such as the proposed Homstead Exemption) is not only regressive but counter-productive in that it further enriches the group that has been enriched the most over the last 20 years.

    Finally, you write about JTHG’s articulated position. Where can this articulation be found? Is it something they ahve told you or is it something written for all to see?

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Historical trusts and plutonium are forever.”

    Exactly. The whole point of historical trusts and conservation easements is to place them outside of the purview of elected officials, the law, and other agents of change. Legal authorites who approve them are essentialy abdicating their right to manage land use and turning it over to TA DA, private interests.

    But, as the ruckus over a power line through norther Fauquier conservation areas showed, even theyare not immune. Suddenly, the conservation intersts were the ones hollering about the “property rights” they usually disdain when it comes to others.

    RH

  40. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I am perfectly happy to see private ownership of land as a mechanism for preservation – whether by REIT or by individual purchase. In fact, that is (by far) the approach I’d prefer to see. However, the landowner gets no tax breaks. If the REIT buys a 200 acre farm “in the middle of nowhere” the REIT pays the same taxes as anybody else. If the area around the farm urbanizes, the REIT pays the escalating real estate taxes just like everybody else. If the REIT ultimatley owns the equivalent of a farm in mid-town Manhattan, the REIT pays taxes based on mid-town Manhattan assessments of the farm’s value.

  41. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Exactly. The whole point of historical trusts and conservation easements is to place them outside of the purview of elected officials, the law, and other agents of change. Legal authorites who approve them are essentialy abdicating their right to manage land use and turning it over to TA DA, private interests.”.

    Brilliant!

    Exactly right.

    And the trusts never pay the location-variable opportunity costs of their decisions.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “He said, “The money was just too much.” Selling your land brought too much money to just say ‘No’.

    How will this ever equal the money that can be made from changing the zoning and selling out?”

    In a way, this is part of the question I asked a VOF representative when I wondered how much preservation was enough.

    You would have thought I had slapped her. the thought that there might be too much had never entered her head. (That, plus she was in a meeting where she didn’t expect opposition.)

    There ARE valuable attributes to opens space. When they are properly priced and paid for, then there will be an alternitve source of funds available to countermand the need to sell.

    And, the less open space there is the more valuable it becomes, liek Central Park, in New York.

    The reason this doesn’t equal the money money that can be made from changing the zoning and selling out, is that those who think it is so valuable are ABLE to get it for nothing.

    Stronger proerty rights would fix that.

    RH

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    not totally true.. but nice try.

    First, folks can willingly put covenants on land that will result in it never being developed .. forever.

    this is allowed.

    Second, localities allow land to be taxed – not at it’s opportunity potential but as land… i.e. “Land Use” Taxation.

    The State allows Localities to essentially agree to allow land to not be developed.. because with Land Use – the increased taxes are only collected retroactively if the land is developed.

    So my point is that land can be preserved without it being done via Historic Trusts and that Government enables this explicitly in the law.

    In other words, it is deemed a policy that benefits the public or else they would not allow it.

    and I further want to point out that ED CAN be accomplished on ANY land regardless of designation.. if the need is proven to be such that no other path is feasible.

    If the policy of the State and the Federal Government is to allow/encourage Preservation then your beef is not with the folks that use the available methods but with the Govt Policy – right?

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Onthe other hand, JTHG wll be a corporation of some kind, owning a REIT.

    What happens if you have a corporate takeover, someday?

    As JAB points out, someday the value may be so high it is irresistable.

    RH

  45. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “In other words, it is deemed a policy that benefits the public or else they would not allow it.”.

    Wow!

    Do you really believe that everything the government does is in the public interest?

    I wish I could believe that. I’d feel a lot better every tax day.

    I believe that most of what government does is a capitulation to special interests.

    I believe that JTHG is a special interest that hopes to stop development in western Loudoun County regardless of the will of the people of Loudoun and regardless of the economic consequences.

    That fact that Frank Wolf and others in “the government” would not only support this special interest but fund it with taxpayers’ money says nothing about public benefit and everything about everything about why people like Frank Wolf need to be thrown out on their butts this November.

    Man, your post has my blood boiling so hot it might just melt the Obama 2008 button I always wear.

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “First, folks can willingly put covenants on land that will result in it never being developed .. forever.

    this is allowed.”

    It is their property, and they accept the loss of value from the covenants. If that is the case, then so be it.

    But, what really happens is that they “give away” property rights, (part of that bundle of sticks, which is a legal concept central to this activity) to another owner, which happens to be a nonprofit corporation.

    For the act of “giving away” property rights that they had no intention of using, they get a tax break (known as a subsidy) and the use value of the land is permanantly lowered (we think).

    And the land effectively passes out of the elected control of local land use authorities.

    What has hppened here is, that in an attempt to protect future generations, we have taken away their right to vote on land use issues.

    EXCEPT

    Nowhere in the contract between the seller and acceptor of these rights does the county agree to perennially low tax rates. They could raise the taxes on the bundle of sticks that were sold. Say they decided they needed more space for housing someday: they could tax unused development rights. Since the nonprofit has no income, it can’t pay the tax.

    “Currently, it is deemed a policy that benefits the public or else they would not allow it.”

    OK, but deeming it a policy that benefits the public, and proving it is something else. The article I posted above has numerous examples that show cases where there is no benefit. I can show there is no benefit to land use taxation in Fauquier, not even to the farmers it is supposed to protect.

    Where is the Dept of Truth that does this “deeming”?

    “the increased taxes are only collected retroactively if the land is developed.”

    So what happens here is that the land is taxed retroactively for a use that didn’t exist at the time. That’s pretty fair. What it means is that the landowner has to defer the sale longer than is economically warranted in order to make enough additonal to pay the tax. The county gets the landowner to pay the county rent on land that the county wishes to defer the use of (for which the county SHOULD be paying rent to the landowner.

    Then we wonder why landowners can’t wait to get out. Quick before the rule changes from five years retroactive to ten.

    “The State allows Localities to essentially agree to allow land to not be developed”

    The state allows localities to order that land not be developed. And since you only get the land use if it is farmed, you are effectively ordered to farm it. (Or you can give up an easement, in which case you don’t have to farm it.)

    This is a funny way to encourage farming. Tax them more than others, tax them retroactively, make their use taxation dependent on a use that loses money, and don’t allow them any way out.

    It has nothing to do with farming, it has to do with preserving the environment, scenery, and other valuable attributes, without paying for them.

    RH

  47. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the point that is being argued is not the reality in law and policy.

    The reality is that governments from local, to State to the Feds have a consistent policy of ENCOURAGING land preservation and it is those laws that enable folks to accomplish the setting aside of land.

    One must assume that lawmakers at all levels of the government – are aware of the “opportunity cost” of such policies.

    Further, one must presume that since we have an elected form of government that the majority of people must support this policy.

    For instance, a locality in Va is not forced to offer Land-Use Taxation.

    They do so .. with concurrence of those that elect them.

    Further.. the law with respect to Land Covenants – allows a property owner as one of his so-called “bundle of sticks” to give up all those sticks to preserve the land.

    Again.. the law supports this and the law is aware of the opportunity cost of this.

    So.. why are we blaming the folks using the laws that they are allowed to use – as opposed to going after the laws that enable them?

    Why not advocate in the Va GA that a law be passed that denies preservation covenants on land?

    Why not advocate at the local level , removal of the Land-Use Tax altogether?

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Man, your post has my blood boiling so hot it might just melt the Obama 2008 button I always wear.”

    Now .. Mr. Obama is a liberal.

    He has, in not mistaken, one of the most Liberal voting records in Congress.

    Liberals.. support Land Preservation,… including ..HORRORs Historic Districts and the like…

    Why would you support a guy like that?

    Is there a disconnect between your personal views about Preservation and the Preservation Credentials of those you support for election?

    🙂

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Further, one must presume that since we have an elected form of government that the majority of people must support this policy.”

    Well, I guess we could say that about any law. Therefore there is no reason to change anything.

    We just continue to let special interests rule the political process which causes politicians and lawmakers to consider “opportunity costs” from a political perspective.

    OR

    We can go out and find out what the real costs are, and use them to argue persuasively for change.

    If we find out that the opportunity costs are justified by other savings, then we can act to divert some of the savings to offset the costs. This will undoubtedly win us more supporters.

    If we find out they are NOT justified, then we can act to divert resources to where they will do more good and cause less harm. This will also wins supporters.

    If we just say we have the votes, we don’t care what is right or wrong, or who pays and benefits, well then, how many supporters does that get us?

    As I see it there is nothing to lose by making the argument right, rather than making it what we think it should be.

    Fine, they are aware of opportunity cost. How much, exactly, and to whom?

    RH

  50. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    First, there are a lot of things more important than the folly of creating economic stagnation through excessive land preservation. Taking power away from the self-appointed elites in America ranks very high on my list. When the working class people in Richmond voted down the “historic preservation” (read:Yuppification) of their neighborhood against the wishes of the rich, white gentrifiers – what do you think “liberals” like Sen. Obama would say? Do you really think Sen. Obama would have sided with the rich yuppies?

    This is not a battle of liberals vs. conservatives. It is a battle of rich vs. poor. The NIMBYs are rich, the victims of their proposed economic stagnation are poor.

    NIMBY “preservationists” (aka thinly disguised anti-development idealogues) are players in a battle of rich elites against the common man. Life-long professional politicians are pawns of the rich elite (including NIMBYs) regarldless of their political party or declared political philosophy.

    Your “litmus test” is badly flawed. Frank Wolf is supposedly a conservative Republican. By your measure he should oppose economic stagnation through land stagnation (aka excessive historical preservation). Yet he sponsors the JTHG enabling legislation including $15M in federal funds. I am betting Sen. Obama would think up some better uses for our tax money than subsidizing the “scenery aspirations” of rich NIMBYs.

    Both conservatives and liberals pander to special interests. And the longer they have been in politics the more they pander.

    Sen. Obama may be a liberal but he is also a relative newcomer to Washington. I am betting he has been less corrupted by special interests than his opponents (from both parties). I am betting he is more likely to “do the right thing” for the American people than professional, life-time politicians like Hillary Clinton or congressmen with decades in Washington like John McCain. I believe that Sen. Obama is more likely to see that stagnating economic development is contrary to the interests of the average American even if it supports the rich elite (read:NIMBY) philosophy of “let them eat cake, I’m already rich!”.

    When it comes to politics, I see inexperience as a virtue.

    Vote Obama – 2008.

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “,,,in Montgomery, recently proposed changes in the county law to require the affordable units to be priced according to the buyer’s ability to pay rather than the developer’s need to recover expenses.

    That isn’t sitting well with the building industry.”

    Re – Obama

    The Remocrats appear to have even less respect for property rights than the Republicans. (see above).

    Meanwhile, despite rising prices and lower afordability, Montgomery county hangs on to their precious agricultural reserve.

    Cost Benefit analysis anyone?

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Wealth has doubled since 1989 in households headed by older Americans.”.

    I fit that category. But then, I spen the first 15 years of my working life trying to multiply by zero. It’s easier to make wealth, once you have something to work with.

    Providing they let you keep it.

    RH

  53. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Cost Benefit analysis anyone?”

    who is keeping you or anyone else from doing such an analysis and then proposing changes based on that analysis?

    What does the Reason folks say about this?

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are correct, any individual is free to do this and submit his reasoning to the elected officials.

    My argument is that people generally don’t understand that their “side” actually loses if they “win” too much.

    A second argument is that there is no consensus on what is allowable, consequently we see one sided special interest “analysies” that amount to agenda driven drivel. Not that there are not valid arguments in them, but they are one sided, which leads to the problem above.

    A third argument is that no agency should be doing their own cost benefit analysis. Not VDOT, not EPA. That work should be handed over to GAO or some such organization that does not have a direct interest in the outcome.

    RH

  55. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reality check time… I checked with the Journey Through Hallowed Ground to get their take on issues raised in this thread about the National Heritage Area and the Scenic Byway.

    First, let me correct some misinformation, which I may have been the source of. The $15 million in federal funding that JTHG would be eligible for would come through the National Heritage Area designation only. It would be $1 million a year for 15 years, contingent upon a local match.

    That money could be used for the purposes of education and tourism only. It could NOT be used to buy land.

    Regarding Rt. 15 and the scenic byway… Designation of Rt. 15 as a scenic byway would be purely an honorific. There would be no funds attached to such a designation, and the legislation would not empower anyone to do anything, much less block development in any way. If Rt. 15 receives the scenic designation, it then will become possible for JTHG to apply for project-specific grants to improve the road. The kinds of projects that JTHG has in mind might be signage, beautification or spot road improvements. JTHG categorically denies that the designation would provide any funds, legal authority or regulations that could be used to block development along the route.

  56. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Looks like VDOT supports it:

    Virginia’s Scenic Byways – Scenic Drives

    Northern Virginia
    There are a number of scenic byways to choose from in Northern Virginia. You can begin on Route 15 traveling north from Loudoun County towards Maryland and the Potomac River. You might stop at Oatlands Plantation in Leesburg, or at Ball’s Bluff Regional Park. From Leesburg, follow Route 15 north on King Street and you’ll soon approach Morven Park. If you continue west, you’ll come to the Loudoun Valley Vineyards. As you continue north on Route 15 through the rolling countryside, you’ll come across the small town of Lucketts and Tarara Vineyard and Winery. Go south onto Route 662, and you’ll find picturesque villages in Virginia’s horse country.

    Another option from Route 15 is to take Route 672 to Route 673 and head south on Route 690 to Route 719, other Scenic Byways. This drive takes you parallel to the Appalachian Trail. Veer towards the trail on Route 7 and you’ll come to the Breaux Vineyard. Pick up Route 734 further south in Bluemont, and you’ll come to Willowcroft Farm Vineyards.

    http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/prog-byways-sites.asp

  57. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    The funding was spelled out in the proposed legislation. You did not confuse the issue – it is what it is.

    My original question remains – does JTHG have a comprehensive written plan as to what it intends to do? There is talk of REITs – maybe for profit, $15M in federal funds – even at $1M per year. Some people fear a loss of economic development, some people worry about land owners rights. You defend this group. I oppose them. However, neither of us are reading from a plan. Where is their plan?

Leave a Reply

Read More