Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

John Clark: a Pioneer of Green Development

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Some people think I’m anti-business or anti-development because I don’t buy into the political agenda of Virginia’s real estate industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m convinced that creative, entrepreneurial developers are Virginia’s best hope for creating more liveable communities. Government can make rules, but they can’t innovate. If anyone is going to figure out how to reconcile the goals of sustainable development with the goal of providing affordable, accessible housing, it has to be developers — because developers, not government, are the ones who actually actually build our communities.

That brings us to one of the more visionary developers in Virginia: John Clark, the driving force behind Haymount, a New Urbanist community along the Rappahannock River just east of Fredericksburg. Clark has dedicated half of his adult life to keeping alive his vision for Haymount. I wrote a cover story about him in 1991 for Virginia Business magazine, when Haymount was little more than a plot of farmland and a dream. After struggling for years with regulatory approvals and market conditions, Clark has finally begun building the project. He expects people to begin taking residence in 2008.

What I find especially encouraging is the fact that local environmentalists, who once opposed the community as a great project in the wrong place, have finally embraced it. Kiran Krishnamurthy at the Times-Dispatch wrote yesterday described how John Tibbett, leader of Friends of the Rappahannock, has learned to live with the 4,000-home community in rural Caroline County. “There was an evolution in our perspective toward Haymount, from being the right development in the wrong place to being a model,” he told Krishnamurthy. “Their goals fit our goals.”

While battling to keep the Haymount project alive, Clark was obsessed with incorporating the latest and greatest environmental thinking into his development. He scoured the marketplace and the literature for every green idea he can find. When Haymount finally gets built, it will become a national showcase for green development. Krishnamurthy lists some of the environmental features that Clark is planning:

Haymount will employ state-of-the-art wastewater treatment and stormwater drainage systems; feature an organic farm, garden and market; cluster the 4,000 homes together to reduce the development’s footprint; preserve two-thirds of the
1,600 acres; possibly include man-made wetlands; and equip each home with two bicycles.

Clark also said he plans to set homes back from the waterfront, preserving scenic views and using the development’s … river frontage for a park. Tippett applauds those steps.

“They could have made huge amounts of money doing waterfront lots,” Tippett said, adding he foresees Haymount and Friends of the Rappahannock one day hosting international conferences on eco-friendly development. “We can talk about low-impact development and then walk outside and see it.”

From the conversations I’ve had with Clark over the years, that description is only scratchinig the surface of what he has in mind.

Neal Peirce, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote last month how path-breaking “green” developments are popping up around the country. Prairie Crossing, a 400-home settlement, is located at the junction of two rail commuter lines 45 miles north of Chicago. Prairie Crossing is recycling old corn and soybean fields into the kind of wildflower-dotted prairie that once reigned in the plains. Habersham, a development in the low country of South Carolina, blends “porch-rich Southern architecture” with “marsh-lined water edges and great live oaks, bedecked with Spanish moss.”

Here’s the beauty of capitalism: If “green” development pays, we’ll get a lot more of it. Government can’t do it. Even environmentalist not-for-profits can’t do it. It takes visionaries like John Clark to figure out how to make it pay off. If you count the time value of holding onto the Haymount property, the early and expensive design work and literally years of Clark’s time, the project may never represent a competitive deployment of capital. You can always tell the pioneers — they’re the ones with the arrows sticking out of their backs. But if Clark can prove successful from here on out, others will learn from his experience and spread his best practices like prairie grass.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

33 responses to “John Clark: a Pioneer of Green Development”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    I want to commend you for this thoughtful
    article about how new development can make
    a contribution to Virginia.

    Orenco Station west of Portland is a similar
    community, but it is linked to MAX (with a
    station in the community) that allows their
    residents access to everything important in
    that metropolitan area via that light rail
    system that is linked to Portland’s streetcar
    line.

    We need to build new communities in our state
    with linkage to a mass transit systems.

    Best wishes, as always,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Roger’s comment is prophetic.

    Clark (whom I agree is a GOOD guy) wants to build 4000 houses. That’s 40,000 car trips a day if one believes the Federal Highway – traffic generation calculations.

    There are virtually NO jobs in that area. Most folks would have to travel at least 30 miles.

    Clark, like most every other developer thinks that it is not his responsibility to upgrade the state roads that will serve his development.

    If he agreed to widen the 2-lane road (Route 17) to 4 lanes – the price of his homesites would be even higher – perhaps beyond the reach of all but the rich.

    Beyond this – Clarks’s development is indeed a “compact” development but it’s in a completely rural area and this is where the concept of why compact development is a “good thing” enters the realm of – “is compact development a good thing – ANYWHERE – even if it is out in the boondocks without water, sewer, libraries, fire/rescue, etc.

    There is literally NO infrastructure to serve this development.

    People will have to drive 30 miles to get to a library. They’re NOT going to do this on bikes or on foot.

    Roger advocates rail. The cost of rail to serve this development would totally ecclipse the cost of upgrading the 2-lane road to 4-lane .. and essentially would render this project economically unbuildable.

    Roger believes (I think, along with Ray – I think) that because of the costs involved .. that it has to be a taxpayer-funded effort.

    The concept is that transportation is AS important as Schools in terms of public benefit – therefore large investment of taxpayer dollars ARE justified.

    Ironically – their argument is not all that different from Smart Growth folks – who believe that compact development tied to transit/rail is the right path (I think).

    Of course Rodger also subscribes to the concept of an urban boundary like the Smart Growth folks do but obviously John Clark does not.

    So….. I guess I’m sort of wondering… if compact development beyond the reasonable reach of transit/rail and/or a real or imagined urban boundary is “Smart Growth”?

    To be honest – we cannot expect John Clark … with his development – to solve problems of such immense proportions that even the state is flummoxed

    … however… not having a state policy (as Rodger points out) means that John Clark has no guidance (nor restrictions) so if he can make this project “work” financially – then why consider him a unique case.

    There are PLENTY of developers who haveproposed “Smart”, compact developments but as far as I can see – NONE of them propose a way to provide the mobility infrastructure necessary to serve their development – but instead propose to USE infrastructure provided by taxpayers.

    Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning above?

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Roger’s comment is prophetic.

    Clark (whom I agree is a GOOD guy) wants to build 4000 houses. That’s 40,000 car trips a day if one believes the Federal Highway – traffic generation calculations.

    There are virtually NO jobs in that area. Most folks would have to travel at least 30 miles.

    Clark, like most every other developer thinks that it is not his responsibility to upgrade the state roads that will serve his development.

    If he agreed to widen the 2-lane road (Route 17) to 4 lanes – the price of his homesites would be even higher – perhaps beyond the reach of all but the rich.

    Beyond this – Clarks’s development is indeed a “compact” development but it’s in a completely rural area and this is where the concept of why compact development is a “good thing” enters the realm of – “is compact development a good thing – ANYWHERE – even if it is out in the boondocks without water, sewer, libraries, fire/rescue, etc.

    There is literally NO infrastructure to serve this development.

    People will have to drive 30 miles to get to a library. They’re NOT going to do this on bikes or on foot.

    Roger advocates rail. The cost of rail to serve this development would totally ecclipse the cost of upgrading the 2-lane road to 4-lane .. and essentially would render this project economically unbuildable.

    Roger believes (I think, along with Ray – I think) that because of the costs involved .. that it has to be a taxpayer-funded effort.

    The concept is that transportation is AS important as Schools in terms of public benefit – therefore large investment of taxpayer dollars ARE justified.

    Ironically – their argument is not all that different from Smart Growth folks – who believe that compact development tied to transit/rail is the right path (I think).

    Of course Rodger also subscribes to the concept of an urban boundary like the Smart Growth folks do but obviously John Clark does not.

    So….. I guess I’m sort of wondering… if compact development beyond the reasonable reach of transit/rail and/or a real or imagined urban boundary is “Smart Growth”?

    To be honest – we cannot expect John Clark … with his development – to solve problems of such immense proportions that even the state is flummoxed

    … however… not having a state policy (as Rodger points out) means that John Clark has no guidance (nor restrictions) so if he can make this project “work” financially – then why consider him a unique case.

    There are PLENTY of developers who haveproposed “Smart”, compact developments but as far as I can see – NONE of them propose a way to provide the mobility infrastructure necessary to serve their development – but instead propose to USE infrastructure provided by taxpayers.

    Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning above?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon, Larry Gross:

    I do not advocate rail service for
    this project, but do think such jobs
    should be built on sites that could
    provide rail service — VRE station
    stops along the two lines in Virginia
    from the outer suburbs into the city,
    for example.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The obvious question is who will live in Haymount (Clarks project).

    If it will be folks who work in NoVa (and I doubt Salaries in the Fredericksburg area would be enough to buy in that development)..

    then they’d either have to get on I-95 OR VRE in Fredericksburg.

    Right now – my understanding is that VRE is MAXED and without an additional rail (a 3rd rail) between Fredericksburg and NoVa/Metro.

    Of course… there is an irony here …

    Since Fredericksburg is the STARTing point of VRE … development in and around the Fredericksburg Area could proceed – and, in theory, completely use up ALL of the VRE capacity BEFORE it ever left the Fredericksburg station! (unless VRE would limit the number of folks who could get on – then I would bet a grey market would emerge.

    The is much discussion of new HOT lanes on I-95 also but in both the HOT lane AND the VRE 3rd Rail – unless one or both are “fastracked” they’re both at least 5 and maybe 10 years away.

    I’m sure Rodger can correct any wrong info I’ve supplied.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon, Larry Gross:

    I will not try to respond to the comments by
    by Larry Gross, but I would again state new
    communities such as Haymount would be better
    projects, if they had a link to mass transit,
    as is the case with Orenco Station west of
    Portland, Oregon in Hillsboro.

    Caroline County has approved Haymount, thus
    the standing of this development is a fact.
    Urban growth boundaries, if they were required
    by Virginia, would have discouraged such a
    project in a location with limited services
    and a rural highway system.

    It is my understanding VRE and METRO both have
    capacity issues, as do most of our highways in
    Northern Virginia, thus we have the congestion
    issues yet to be resolved.

    Virginia’s future must include more lines for
    those systems, including the third track along
    rail lines between Richmond and Washington, DC,
    but also the creation of other systems elsewhere
    in the state, such as the light rail system to be
    open in Norfolk by 2009-2010.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Well, there you have it. Rail is more expensive than roads. that is the reason that rail will never serve more than a small fraction of the population, and for an even smaller fraction of their trips.

    That does not mean that rail is bad, or that it should not be funded, only that we should be very careful about where and how we fund it.

    If we are going to limit development,or label it as “good” only if it has a link to mass transit, then we need to be prepared to dig very deep indeed into the transit funding pocket.

    If we are going to do that using Bacon’s formula – those that use the most crowded streets pay the most – then we also need to be prepared to give up the mantra that motorists don’t pay their own way. And, as transit gains ascendancy, we should also expect transit riders to come closer to paying their own way.

    But, considering how much MORE expensive rail is than roads, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    BTW, one reason rail is more expensive, is because of the private enterprise aspect.

    There are other examples of good development, and probably most of them are NOT in urban areas. One reason is that if you want to take this kind of risk, then you can reduce your exposure by getting land where it is cheap, same as any other development.

    I don’t think that good development has to mean ONLY new urbanist style. There is a development in St. Mary’s County MD that has wone wide acclaim. The aim of the developers there was to work around the major trees on the site and work with the landscape in a way that the development is almost hidden from view. However, the resulting meandering design resulted in a number of cul-de-sacs, dictated by the landscape, but no doubt encourged by the economics.

    It isn’t perfect, but it is no worse than others, and it doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.

    ————————

    Larry, I’ll say this again. It is not that I am in favor of rampant generalized taxes to be spent for unspecified purposes, I’ll side with you on that. My complaint is that breaaking every government service into a multitude of niggling payments every time we turn around is at least as wasteful as just making a reasonable contribution to what we need. And, it makes it much harder for us to know what we have actually paid: who is going to keep all those damn receipts and add them up?

    Just like credit cards, you can bet that the smart card dealers and satellite toll collectors will want a part of the take.

    Yes, your suggestions are “more fair”, but you are the one who has said that government need not be fair. I am only asking the question, “Where is the proof that user pays will be more economical, taxes aside?” So far, I’m not convinced that our current policy is all that bad. Insufficient, maybe, but not necessarily bad.

    I’ve spent some time working on credit card transactions and other electronic collections. Yes, it is highly efficient, but there is a ton of money being made off it just the same.

    The question you have to ask is whether you would rather spend the money buying what you are buying, or would you spend it on services to collect the money you are spending? When you give money to charity, you like to know what their overhead is. The State charity is notoriously bad about that. I’m not sure you improve the situation by having the State charity hire a Private charity to collect the money.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the Haymount Project is worthy of further discussion with respect to advocacies to manage growth at a Regional and/or State level.

    Contributors to this BLOG have advocated Regional and State level land-use planning including the use of Urban Growth Boundaries.

    Not infrequently, discussion about the MERITs of where grow, especially new growth should occur – delves into perjorative shading of the developers motives with respect to have a stronger interest in his/her own financial opportunities than their responsibility to not further degrade the quality of life of existing residents.

    In John Clark’s case, he’s clearly worked diligently to have his project to be compatable and consistent with environmental and viewscape principles.

    But the issue of whether that project belongs WHERE it is – is, I think, at the crux of discussions about growth, development, and tranportation ….. PLANNING CONCEPTs – especially so with regard to the difference between how Virginia deals with the issue – say compared to Oregon or perhaps how Utah is currently complemplating.

    In Oregon, Haymount would probably not be allowed outside of their UGB. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    In Montgomery County Maryland.. Haymount might not be allowed within their Argicultural Preserve Area.

    In Facquier, Haymount would probably not be allowed outside their designated service districts.

    So the question I pose to readers of this Blog are – if Virginia itself is undergoing a reexamination of it’s existing growth precepts – should it consider adopting Regional or State level dictates of WHERE growth can occur including the use of UGBs.

    Bonus Question – If Caroline County could go back (they cannot), would they still have approved John Clarks development if they knew VDOT would not be upgrading the adjacent roads anytime in the near future?

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: niggling multiple ubiqutous taxes

    Ray – Yes! it’s essentially a sneaky way to collect more tax than probably could be collected if they all were consolidated into a single weekly bill or like in Candada and some European countries – sales taxes are utilized. I think Canada is in the 10% or higher range.

    I think where the two of us may not completely agree is in the concept of taxes closely associated with consumption verses taxes based LESS on consumption and more on what you own – like real-estate and taxes on cars and other property.

    I pretty much think that taxes that have a close relationship to consumption are more acceptable to most folks than generalized taxes especially those that essentially “disappear” in terms of what they are spent on.

    That’s why I think TOLLs are more acceptable to people than higher taxes.

    70% accept the premise that they should pay more for roads. 77% say they do not want to pay it with increased taxes. 52% supports TOLLs.

  10. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Rodger, I agree, it would be wonderful for a project like Haymount to be located on a light rail line. I’m sure that John Clark would agree, too. The trick is, in an age of scarce public resources for transportation, how do you pay for that light rail line? If you do it (at least in part) by increasing development around the rail stops, and then tapping into the increased property values that result from the higher densities and the existence of light rail, then I’m all with you. If you do it by dunning taxpayers generally, the vast majority of whom will never use or benefit from the rail line, then I have a problem.

    Larry, you are right, Haymount still remains vulnerable to the charge that it is the “right project in the wrong place.” But it’s not quite as ‘wrong” as you portray in your 7:00 p.m. comment. I don’t speak with any authority right now because I haven’t talked to John Clark in quite a long time, but I do recall a few things from our long-ago conversations.

    First of all, you made the comment that the typical household will generate 10 trips per day. First, I would respond that the project will be designed as a pedestrian/biking friendly community that will generate fewer than 10 trips daily. How many fewer, I don’t know. Maybe 0.5? Secondly, I would respond that many of those trips will be internal to the project itself. Haymount will have a considerable amount of retail, as well as public amenities such as a post office and elementary school. No question, if people want to go to a Wal-Mart or Home Depot, they’ll have to drive to Fredericksburg. But those kinds of errands can be accomplished in a single trip per week.

    Third, don’t assume that local employment will be minimal. I’m quite certain that Clark expects to provide some local office space. I don’t know whom he expects to occupy it. Local professional services, perhaps. Also, I think he expects to cater to people who connect to people who can work long-distance via the Internet.

    Fourth, Clark also is making provisions for van and shuttle services for transportation to Fredericksburg. How extensive these commitments are, and what level of impact they will have, I don’t know.

    Finally, don’t make any assumptions about the infrastructure that Clark will provide until you know the details. Again, I do not speak with authority, but I do know that Haymount will have its own water treatment facility. I’m pretty sure it will have its own elementary school. New Urbanists are very big on fire stations, so there’s a good chance he will donate the land for one. Before we can comment intelligently on that aspect of the debate, we need to find out the details.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    It seems two of your regulars, Mr. Hyde
    and Mr. Gross, have taken your article
    about Haymount to advance some of their
    views of the the world that have little
    or nothing to do with your posting.

    I regret that for good planning which
    is accomplished at Haymount is a goal
    we should have the state promoting and
    encouraged on your blog.

    Virginia is fortunate to have well
    done projects such as the Reston
    Town Center, Oyster Point Town Center,
    New Town (Williamsburg)and Virginia
    Beach Town Center.

    Alexandria, Arlington County and
    Norfolk are nationally recognized for
    their revitalization projects.

    Though Haymount is in a rural location,
    it offers a pleasant rural setting on
    a river that will be attractive for
    residents.

    Continued job growth in the federal
    government and private sector in the
    Fredericksburg area will attract new
    residents to Caroline County who want
    to be in a setting away from the bad
    traffic congestion closer in around
    Fredericksburg that our state has
    allowed to grow worst over the last
    twenty years.

    I commend John Clark and his partners
    for what have accomplished and their
    ability to stay the course to make
    Haymount become a reality in a county
    that has decided it would rather cluster
    development in such projects than to
    scatter it on large lots around Caroline
    County, thus adding traffic demands and
    needs in a greater area.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    There’s another relevant aspect of Haymount with regard to environmental aspects.

    F.O.R. (Friends of the Rappahannock) believes that perhaps the most serious threat to the Rappahanock River, indeed all rivers AND the Chesapeake Bay is storm water – both point and non-point source runoff.

    It’s not the “normal” historical runoffs that damage… it’s what happens when there is a substantial rain event – combined with a high percentage of impervious surfaces that leads to what is essentially “toxis wastes” flushing in streams and tributaries not only physically chewing up the banks but essentially putting such harmful toxins in the waterway. Those same toxins would be prohibited from release at tradtional sewage treatement plants.

    From FOR’s perspective… runoff … is the fundamental issue – not WHERE a development is .. nor even what KIND it is – as long as it uses LID (low impact development) principles to insure that runoff is as harmless as it can be in terms of both water quality and quantity.

    The goal is to replicate as much as possible the “pre-development” runoff characteristics.

    There is, however, a sleeping elephant – in the closet – in my view in that most compact development that I have seen – especially the kind promoted for existing urbanized areas and infill development cannot use LID principles because almost every square inch of the land is developed and becomes impervious surfaces and little if any of the land is useable as LID buffers.

    What John Clark’s has done with Haymount is that he has utilized his entire parcel to produce an “inner” compact development and the “outer” along with buffered creeks to be LID buffers.

    Now I suppose the argument “could” be made that it’s better to concentrate development within UGBs… sustain a certain level of acceptable runoff damage … IN EXCHANGE for not developing the areas outside of the UGB and that on a landscape scale – that less damage would occur than if you had “sprawl” and no UGB.

    This approach, however, would require regional and state level growth controls.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Very interesting discussion.

    Perhaps at some point – we might ask the question –

    “Is GREEN development SMART development”?

    or perhaps ” Is SMART development GREEN?

    … I’d posit that SMART development that puts cars UNDERNEATH a structure have the potential to be so – IF they can figure out what to do with the water than comes off the roofs….

    re: trips per day

    some trips can be “recaptured” but it’s on the scale you suggest..
    .5 to 1.0%.

    The rest of the trips still dominate.

    As far as folks using strategies to reduce their trips – yes. Of course if everyone did that especially so in NoVa – we’d have less trips there also – and of course.. less need for rush hour infrastructure.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    I want this discussion steered back to
    Haymount.

    If John Clark’s team is able to attract
    employment centers to their planned
    village in rural Caroline County, then
    the community becomes a model of how
    we should handle new growth.

    Though it would lack rail service or
    a major highway connection, Haymount
    would allow residents to live and work
    there. That is a good thing for them
    and their community.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “I want this discussion steered back to Haymount.

    If John Clark’s team is able to attract
    employment centers to their planned
    village in rural Caroline County,..”

    Fair enough.

    What would Haymount NEED in order to attract employers who could provide 4000 jobs?

    or .. what is MISSING from Haymount that would need to be provided?

    .. and then of course… are those missing things… just enabling policies and the removal of disabling policies

    … or are … things that cost money needed?

    I think Rodger is right.

    If one could figure out how to enable Haymount to be a “balanced” community that could be replicated.. we’d be in business.

    I’ll state up front I’m a bit of a skeptic that you could do something like this JUST with Haymount alone…

    I wonder what EMR thinks of this?

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    Haymount’s plan includes 500,000 sq. ft. of
    office space and 250,000 sq. ft. of retail
    space, plus 4,000 residential units which I
    think includes affordable homes to meet the
    needs in Caroline County.

    It would be an attractive location for small,
    tech type or creative companies to locate and
    have their employees live in a wonderful rural
    setting.

    Nearby employment centers in King George County
    will have employees who will like that project.

    It will also be attractive for empty nesters and
    retired persons wanting a home out in the country
    away from I-95 and the congestion that now plagues
    all of the highways around Fredericksburg.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Dahlgren – a major Navy R&D employment center is about 15 miles away via Route 301.

    Richmond is about 50 miles away via Rt301/I95

    Fairfax is 68 miles away via Route 17/I-95.

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that many prospective residents from more urbanized areas with near access to shopping, medical, quality schools, etc… will not find this location particularily attractive in comparison even if they could telecommute … until the commercial and retail comes online.

    That’s why I asked the question about what things would prospective businesses need to be enticed to locate there – that would give appeal to them MORE than other options they might have.

    For instance, high tech companies are going to want high speed internet – something that is readily available right outside the gates of nearby Dahlgren….so why would a company locate 15 miles AWAY from Dahlgren?

    I think this is a CLASSIC delimma of the “more places” – “regional balanced communities” condondrum…

    sort of chicken/egg

    Not that recently the Governments Urban Warfare folks decide to NOT relocate their folks to the A.P. Hill Area because it LACKED, among other things, Housing…. even though Haymount stands ready to roll…

    What is the story “behind” this story?

    I suspect that those current employees of that agency would not transfer to such a rural area… but that’s just my speculation…

    By the way – Haymont is probably just 10 miles away from A.P.Hill main entrance… so not only a rural setting, affordable homes but a short commute without congestion.

    One would think that this would be a hands-down .. no brainer decision…

  18. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Some back of the envelope numbers. Your envelope may be different.

    500,000 sq ft of office space equals 2,500 employees.
    4000 residential units equals 9600 residents.
    How many school children?
    4000 residential units will have 1,400 out of the work force.

    Looks like 2000 more jobs will be required within a 45 minute commute to balance this development.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Wamsley:

    Within 45 minutes from Haymount there are major federal
    and private employment centers in Stafford, Spotsylvania,
    King George, Caroline, Prince William counties and the
    City of Fredericksburg. Your numbers could be easily
    met in that market from the sources mentioned earlier.
    The school system impact should be limited for the project
    provides for a school site, the county system is limited
    and small, many residents of Haymount will not have kids
    or they might enroll them in larger and more mature school
    sytems in adjoining communities as tuition students.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    We have always taken others word for the fact Mr. Clark is a good guy and has his heart in the right place.

    Haymount, however, is in the wrong place unless it can evolve to become a Balanced (Alpha) Village with the J / H / S / R / A distribution to create the balance within the Clear Edge. Period.

    It is very hard to creat a Balanced Village of less than 30,000 within 150 miles of the Core of a large New Urban Region. All those that approach this goal are ‘old’ places with an economic base like a very good University. For a summary see our comment on “Great Places” to live books in The Shape of the Future.

    Washington-Baltimore is the fourth largest in the United States and the fifth largest in North America.

    Shared-vehicle systems cannot create Balanced Communites, they can support them if the station-area served is WITHIN a Clear Edge around the Core of a New Urban Region.

    The private sector has a hard time providing affordable and accessible housing for the vast majority of the workers who hold the jobs required to achieve Balance.

    Unless there is immediate, fundamental change in the laws of physics and economics as they apply to Haymount, and inspite of the appeal of well-to-do residents living in neatsy houses on small lots with a village green, Haymount will be a disaster.

    It will generate thousands of new scattered urban dwellings on 5, 10, 20 and 50 acre lots and very long commutes for both residents and those who provide them with services.

    It is physics and economics not good wishes and wanting to do something right that establishes the bottom line.

    EMR

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m listening and I hope .. learning.

    When we say “clear edge” in the context of a Baltimore to Norfolk corridor … is the “clear edge” the left/right edges of the Corridor itself with everything in between the New Urban Region?

    I think the future of more development around Haymount is problematical because the Army has their A.P. Hill Training facility there and is fairly assertive about potential encroachments that would be incompatible with nightime low-level air operations.

  22. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Clear Edge is a word of art in our Vocabulary. (Note Captials) We developed the concept as an important tool in our work in Loudoun County and in Handbook.

    We define Clear Edge in “Beyond the Clear Edge” 26 May 2003 at Bacons Rebellion Go to Wonk page, look for our profile and see the links to columns. The column is short and the definion is in the first few paras as I recall.

    The Clear Edge around the Core of the W-B New Urban Region runs form R= 20 to R=30 in the Virginia portion of the National Capital Subregion.

    Outside the Clear Edge around the core of any New Urban Region there is Countryside.

    A clear understanding of this taxonomy requires close attention because every urban agglomeration in the Countryside — say between the Clear Edge around the Core of the National Capital Subregion and the Clear Edge around the Core of the Richmond New Urban Region has its own Clear Edge.

    Fredericksburg has its own Clear Edge.

    Reading our Backgrounder “Quantification of Land Resources and the Impact on Land Conservation Efforts” will give you a summary of why the idea of a Clear Edge is so important.

    Dysfunctional settlement patterns have resulted in far more land within “apparent” Clear Edges than can be sustainably paid for or maintained.

    It may seem strange but our research shows that with good air photos, good maps of water, sewer and other utility lines and maping of economic factors at the Census Block level, the real location of Clear Edges is very apparent.

    There is still far too much land within them but fair allocation of location variable costs will over time reallocate land uses and create more Openspace and more Open Land.

    Transport Corridors, by the way, may deflect Clear Edges but do not define them.

    Haymount is beyond any existing Clear Edge but if it becomes more than an agglomeration of small lot, expensive houses it will have its own Clear Edge and it is inside that Clear Edge that Balance must be obtained.

    Army interests A.P. Hill may have some impact but has not detered large lot urban scatteration near this or other posts. See what has happened to Ft Bragg because of the Southern Pines / Pinehurst golf resort development. When I was in the 18th Airborne Corps you could run night training in the western part of the post.

    EMR

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    EMR – thank you.

    Who would decide what kind of development would be permitted or not in areas beyond the “clear edge”?

    What is your opinion about Va Beach’s Green Line?

    Is New Urbanism Regions – conceptually equivalent to a Statewide or Regional Comprehensive Plan?

    p.s. I’m familiar with both Fort Bragg and Oceana – including the fact that Flordia does NOT want Oceana and apparently belive the adverse impacts outnumber the benefits….

    So far with A.P. Hill – there has been significant cooperation from adjacent counties with respect to cooperative designation of Army-specificed exclusion zones. Conservation easements signed.. more in the offing.

    so … don’t you think these bases with their boundaries and buffers are also Clear Edges?

    Do Clear Edges overlap?

    Do Clear edges move dynamically?

  24. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Not infrequently, discussion about the MERITs of where grow, especially new growth should occur – delves into perjorative shading of the developers motives”

    Yep, I think this is unfortunate. It promotes an “us vs them” mentality that is mutually destructive. We should recognize that developers go to work for the same reasons we do. We should engage them in getting the kind of comunities we want, because they are the ones that are going to build them. What we have gotten is primarily a result of what we have required, as JB has often noted.

    “the issue of whether that project belongs WHERE it is – is, I think, at the crux of discussions about growth, development, and tranportation ….. PLANNING CONCEPTs”

    Well, all we can say about planning concepts is that, historically, they have been wrong. We are extaordinarily maladept at predicting what our future needs will be. Consequently we constantly look back and say, “What went wrong?” Infact, we did the best we could, at the time, but times changed. We need only to look at Metro as an example.

    “In Oregon, Haymount would probably not be allowed outside of their UGB. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

    Oregon has just been through the Measure 37 exercise. Prior to measure 37, you would have been right. During the Measure 37 “amnesty” those who wanted to build outside the UGB’s and were denied could file a claim for damages, in which case the restrictions were waived. Now the deadline for amnesty has passed, so your contention is correct, once again.

    However, future rules will have to compensate owners for loss of value associated with new restrictions. Considering the general situation in Oregon, it seems to me that there are enough rules in place and environmentalists should consider the economic impact of additional rules.

    Further, it seems to me that if UGB’s become common, then some compensation is due to those who are a) restricted from enjoying the benefits of growth b) are subsidizing additional benefits due to those restrictions, and c) are providing valuable services and emenities demanded by those inside the UGB’s. Oregon has long been in the vanguard of environmental regulations, and we should carefully consider their experience with regard to Measure 37, both positive and negative.

    “Yes! it’s essentially a sneaky way to collect more tax than probably could be collected if they all were consolidated into a single weekly bill”

    I think that taxes should be only on income and sales. If there is more development in an area they will have more sales, and probably more income as well. Then, let them spend their money as they see fit, taking only a modest amount to support state level services. Let the state negotiate with the localities, instead of budgeoning individuals.

    I agee entirely. There should be NO taxes based on what you own. You have already paid taxes on the income to buy things, and sales taxes as well. We have to stop somewhere, and encourage those who are industrious and thrifty to keep what they have gained, otherwise there is no point in owning anything.

    Taxes that disappear are especially upsetting, but I figure we have a bettter chance of fixing that than we have of preventing profits accruing to private comapanies that we grant monopolies to, for the purpose of collecting our niggling taxes. Ithink tolls ARE higher taxes, and uneconomical ones to boot.

    I realize I’m in the minority. I also realize that I have just suggested more taxes on income and purchases. Maybe we should institute a system of purchasing highway capacity. This could be an essential self contradiction. But,for the life of me, I can’t think of any purchase tax that is more equitable as to use than a (properly assessed) fuel tax. It might be that this means a fuel tax of 100%, as in England, but so be it.

    I don’t care what the pools say, this is a case where politicians need to assert leadership, instead of followship.

    “If you do it by dunning taxpayers generally, the vast majority of whom will never use or benefit from the rail line, then I have a problem.”

    Right. How far is it from Haymount to F’burg? 30 miles? That is a lot of light rail, and slow to boot., Then you still have to change modes.

    But, with regard to land use, I’ll turn your statement around. If the vast majority benefit from land use regulations that damage only a few, then I have a problem. This is the situation that Measure 37 set out to resolve.

    “First, I would respond that the project will be designed as a pedestrian/biking friendly community that will generate fewer than 10 trips daily. How many fewer, I don’t know.”

    That is the problem. We don’t know.

    “Virginia is fortunate to have well
    done projects such as the Reston
    Town Center”

    I don’t know the other projects, but my opinion of Restion town center is that it is a disaster. It is far too much of a good thing. American Excess at its worst. It is far to big, and Tyson’s is even worse. I sometimes walk from store to store in Marshall (pop 3000). After that, it is too damn big. A walkable Tyson’s is simply a fantasy.

    “Alexandria, Arlington County and
    Norfolk are nationally recognized for their revitalization projects.”

    True enough. And coincidentally their need for ESL classes have declined while the need for ESL classes has increased in Culpeper, Fauquier, and Winchester. What soes that tell you? Once again, the urban areas have exported their costs to areas farther out.

    “Continued job growth in the federal government and private sector in the Fredericksburg area will attract newresidents to Caroline County who want to be in a setting away from the bad traffic congestion closer in around Fredericksburg that our state has allowed to grow worst over the last twenty years.”

    Our state has allowed that congestion to grow worst at the behest of naysayers, who are now among the first to move out.

    “I commend John Clark and his partnerscfor what have accomplished and their cability to stay the course to make Haymount become a reality in a county that has decided it would rather cluster
    development in such projects than to scatter it on large lots”

    Me too. Maybe you could have them consult with the idiots that presently run Fauquier county.

    “F.O.R. (Friends of the Rappahannock) believes that perhaps the most serious threat to the Rappahanock River, indeed all rivers AND the Chesapeake Bay is storm water – both point and non-point source runoff.”

    It is nice tha FOR belives that. Where is the proof? I have a large Arial photgraph on my wall that clearly shows agricultural runoff into the Rapahannock. The photo is thirty years old.

    You are right about the sudden toxic waste from big storm events, but how frequent are these, and what cleansing occurs between events? Should we be preventing impervious surfaces, or should we be preventing oil pan leaks?

    “most compact development that I have seen – especially the kind promoted for existing urbanized areas and infill development cannot use LID principles because almost every square inch of the land is developed”

    There you go. We need more space, and we have runoff requirements in place. What exactly is the trade-off between more travel (in order to cover more space), and more runoff as a result of trying to restrict travel, and more CO2 as a result of driving inefficent vehicles, and even more inefficient trains?

    I don’t think anybody knows.

    “Is GREEN development SMART development”?” Is SMART development GREEN?”

    I don’t think anybody knows. I am a green early adopeter: I drive a hybrid, I have a geothermal heat pump. But I am a cost analyst, and I analyzed the costs for my situation. Most people can;t do that. And there are far too many people willing to paint green only with a green brush.

    I don’t think we know the answers. I do know that what worked for me won’t work for others.

    I’m willing to let the market make those decisions.

    “As far as folks using strategies to reduce their trips – yes. Of course if everyone did that especially so in NoVa – we’d have less trips there also – and of course.. less need for rush hour infrastructure.”

    Maybe. What isn’t clear to me is that we would ever reduce the need for rush hour infrastructure to a point where we could actually supply it. I think the answer is that we cannot, given the current density. It doesn’t matter how much money we raise, or how we do it. Arlington isn’t going to build more roads.

    It is unlikely that Arlington is gong to build more rail, as long as those resources are diverted to Tyson’s. So what chance does Haymount have?

    “If John Clark’s team is able to attract employment centers to their planned village in rural Caroline County, then the community becomes a model of how
    we should handle new growth.

    Though it would lack rail service or a major highway connection, Haymount would allow residents to live and work there. That is a good thing for them and their community.”

    Right. So what is wrong with Front Royal, which already exists, has infrastructure, rail and highwys?

    What is wrong with Warrenton (which just ripped out its rail) or Haymarket, The Plains, Marshall, Delaplane, and Markham which already have rail, and rail stations? Why can’t we attract employment to places that already exist?

    What we are doing is beyond crazy. My wife’s father used to ride his hose from the fto Delaplane, to take the train to school. Later, he was a principal in what is now the oldest Ford dealership in the nation. He helped put trains out of business.

    I’d kill to be able to drive to Delaplane and take the train to work. But someone would want to tax my parking. Who do you suppose took care of Lloyd’s horse while he was at school? We have gone off the deep end on this.

    “will not find this location particularily attractive in comparison even if they could telecommute”

    There is NOTHING that I do at may current job, that I could not do at home, except for the weekly or monthly status meeting. The only reson I have to drive fifty miles, each way, is because my government POC does not trust me to do my job. He wants me there to supervise, even though he is unwilling to provide me with a proper workspace, and even though he has no idea how my job is done.

    Meanwhile, I own and operate and heat a better workspace (with better quipment), that goes unused.

    Frankly, this ought to be against the law. This is stark raving crazy, and if we really want to prevent waste and save energy, this is the place to start.

    Surprisingly, Dahlgren is just as commutable to me here in Delaplane as is downtown Arlington. I turned down a job in Dahlgren, even though I would have preferred Dahgren, because the Arlington Job offered more money. Distnce was more, cost was the same, or less, but salary was less. $15,000 less.

    End of story. I could buy a new car and pay for parking every two years by driving to the city. And the time was the same.

    “For instance, high tech companies are going to want high speed internet – something that is readily available right outside the gates of nearby Dahlgren”

    Fauquier has had a major battle against cell towers. Recently, one was located nearby. If I had the foggiest notion that it would be approved, I would have offered my land for a site. I got a letter from the company asking if I was intertested, but I scrapped the letter under the assumption there was no chance.

    One of my wealthy neighbors got the site, along with $1200/month that I could have sorely used. She stuc the site behind her house and in front of her neighbors house. He was incensed.

    Had it gon on my land, no one would have seen it.

    That is planning for you.

    But, now that the tower is there, I can get wirelss access and scrap my extra phone line.

    All I have to do is kill my government POC.

    “I suspect that those current employees of that agency would not transfer to such a rural area..”

    I suspect that if my present POC got my present work, plus the work represented by the time I spend commuting, he would be ecstatic.

    “Shared-vehicle systems cannot create Balanced Communites, they can support them if the station-area served is WITHIN a Clear Edge around the Core of a New Urban Region.”

    I concede victory. This is all I have been trying to say. Rail is not the toal answer, and it is not necessarily the economic answer.

    “It is physics and economics not good wishes and wanting to do something right that establishes the bottom line.”

    Amen.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    Caroline County is a poor, rural community on I-95, Rt. 1 and Rt. 301
    situated between the outreaches of the Greater Washington DC Metropolitan
    area to the north and the Richmond-Petersburg Metropolitan Area to the
    south.

    The county has watched adjoining communities allow growth to take place
    as a string of suburban neighborhoods and massive big box shopping centers.

    I think Caroline County’s decision to approve Haymount was a good thing for
    them because they have decided to cluster development pressures into a new, very
    creative opportunity. That policy has also been adopted elsewhere in that
    community at Lady Smith.

    The planning police, the policy junkies, the judges of what is right and fair
    for others who dominate this blog writers are being unfair to that community.

    You guys need to find a coffee shop to meet and drown in your criticisms in your
    collective cups.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    Caroline County is a poor, rural community on I-95,
    Rt. 1 and Rt. 301 situated between the outreaches
    of the Greater Washington DC Metropolitan area to
    the north and the Richmond-Petersburg Metropolitan
    Area to the south.

    The county has watched adjoining communities allow
    growth to take place as a string of suburban
    neighborhoods and massive big box shopping centers.

    I think Caroline County’s decision to approve
    Haymount was a good thing for them because they
    have decided to cluster development pressures into
    a new, very creative opportunity. That policy has
    also been adopted elsewhere in that community at
    Lady Smith.

    The planning police, the policy junkies, the judges
    of what is right and fair for others who dominate
    this blog’s writers are being unfair to that
    community.

    You guys need to find a coffee shop to meet and
    drown your criticisms in your collective cups.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think Haymount illustrates the disparate and conflicting forces in the realm of where development should occur or not.

    I’m not sure how many folks realize that Haymount is not a “new” project. It was started in 1996 and there is a reason why – it’s not completed.

    There’s a good article in the WaPo archives:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600888.html

    The article has some very relevant compelling info in my opinion:

    … in 2006 we NOW have…the “right” housing market and a critical mass of jobs have come to Fredericksburg near Stafford County and to Haymount’s Caroline County. Their 1,800-acre parcel of farmland is about 11 miles southeast of Fredericksburg, off U.S. 17. The land is 72 miles from the District, about halfway to Richmond.

    The development underscores the growth in what once was the outer fringes of the region.

    ….the Fredericksburg area is getting about 21 new residents a day. “If not for Loudoun, this would be the fastest-growing area of the state,” he said.

    Caroline County has approved 10,700 homes [which will] more than double it’s population to 51,000.

    [end of excerpts]

    The only way I would agree with Ray’s view that development should be allowed to occur wherever someone wants to build it – is if it has zero impacts to taxpayer infrastructure and services … say like the proverbial 10,000 acre ranch where the owner is entirely free to truly enjoy the benefits of his/her land. He can build as many homes as he wants.. but he also has to build and maintain the roads to those homes. Ditto… other infrastructure/services…

    there is no expectation that taxpayers are responsible for plowing his roads or filling potholes much less repair his fenceline…etc.

    The moment a parcel of property requires taxpayer provided infrastructure and services – the presence of policies and rules becomes necessary – in my view because without them – the developer is, in essence, appropriating funds that do not belong to him.

    The idea that private property development whose primary purpose is to acrue personal financial benefits and wealth – has an absolute “right” to tax-payer infrastructure is, in my view, wrong.

    What you are entitled to is the benefit and enjoyment of YOUR property NOT funding from taxpayers to IMPROVE your property.
    Your financial responsibilities associated with that property belong to you not others.

    What developers do – and I don’t blame them – is to tout the “benefits” of improving their properties to society.

    For instance, they DO provide housing in response to market demands. They also provide amenities to those that buy their developed property.

    But the assertion that such properties benefit the adjacent neighbors and community is just that and little more – unless of course your neighbors agree.

    And if you went to your neighbors in advance and asked them to “contribute” to the infrastructure needs of your project on the premise that it would “benefit” them, I suspect there would be “issues” about equity.

    so communities .. accommodate new development. Notice the word “accommodate” and the difference it and the word “impose”.

    So I DO think that zoning laws and Comprehensive Plans are, in fact, a reflection of the desires of people – who enforce those desires through government to insure and protect against abuses.

    Moving back to Haymount – continuous discussion in this Blog – about at what LEVEL planning (Comprehensive Planning) should occur – county, region, State….

    Developments like Haymount are not purely entreprenurial enterprises because they cannot exist without government/taxpayer provisioning of infrastructure and services.

    For instance, it has been pointed out that Haymount will provide a school site. Fine. Who will build the school and pay the teachers?

    People who live there – will use public roads. The issue about whether it is 10 trips per day or 5 is not saying that there is no use – it’s confirming use.

    It’s the same with other infrastructure and services – libaries, fire/rescue,

    My view is that it is absurd that any private landowner has a “right” to essentially appropriate money from others (known as taxpayers) to provision the infrastructure and services for his venture.

    He might have a “right” to be considered and for a negotiation with respect to the size and scope of accommodations…

    And a key issue with respect to accomdation is the efficiency and expense of the infrastructure.

    Let’s put a simple example. Two developers want water/sewer. One of them is a 100 feet away and the other is 5 miles.

    The guy at 5 miles makes the argument that he cannot be treated “different” from the guy next to the water/sewer and that is would be “unfair” to make him pay for the 5 mile of line and that, in fact, it’s the RESPONSIBILITY of all those folks who paid for their own access to pay for his access because he has a “right” to develop his property.

    In Virginia, we allow entreprenurs to develop property anywhere they wish – and then we have to pick up the tab for the infrastrucuture and services that it needs.

    When you do that – on a statewide basis – you run out of money long before you build enough infrastructure.

    The pro-tax folks don’t believe that we’re doing anything wrong with our current transportation policies – that the only problem – is a lack of money.

    Others believe that HOW we do land-use leads directly to very expensive transportation infrastructure – that we cannot sustain financially…. without reform.

    I’m not banging on Mr. Clark and Haymount. He DOES have a superior project.

    Here’s what I point out. Haymount is wildly successful. Dozens of subsequent developers flood the area with clones and the highways around them… become maxed (like Fredericksburgs).

    What is the solution to this?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I once helped a developer in Georgia with some contracts. He was proposing a very attractive community of single family homes, townhouses and condo/apartments. The area being developed was very close to existing development. Whether it would meet EMR’s standards, I can’t say for sure, but it was certainly not sprawl.

    My client told me that he had to pay development impact fees for infrastructure. He treated those as a cost of doing business. He felt that market conditions would permit him to pay all his costs (including the impact fees) and still make a profit. He went forward with his plans. I don’t know what happened to his project as the market softened.

    Some of the agreements I reviewed were with the gas and electric utilities. Even though the project was not in the hinterlands, both utilities wanted up-front payments to extend lines. We did negotiate some modifications, but the response from the utilities was: “either we recover our costs for serving new residents from those people or we must charge our existing customers.” There were no up-front payments required from either the telephone company or the cable TV company since they both wanted to serve the community. Competition. Market conditions forced them to accept less money than if they had no competition. No automatic pass-throughs. But the bottom line is, in most parts of the country, society recovers a significant portion of new infrastructure costs from the beneficiaries of that infrastructure. Yet, those areas still survive and, often, flourish. Sometimes they can recover all of these added costs, but sometimes they just make less or don’t construct the project as originally planned.

    Virginia still practices feudalism. We are a “good old boy” state, where some people regularly are subsidized by the rest of us. Moreover, they (the good old boys, with a few good old girls thrown in) firmly believe that, as lords of the manor, they have a right to such subsidies. Let’s hope that, in 2009, we can elect a Governor whose platform is “it’s time to end the Middle Ages in Virginia.” It’s time to join the rest of the U.S. in balanced development regulation.

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    This is exactly the way that water and sewer work.

    Separate funds. One is a capitall fund and the other is an operational fund.

    What is not really appreciated is the benefits that developers already receive and that is that a capital fund may not have sufficient money in it to expand water and sewer without incuring debt and interest payments.

    For instance, a developer may only need 100 connections but the line to his development may have to be sized for 10,000 connections.

    You could not build the line if all you had money for was 100 connections.

    So local government will assist in obtaining loans by essentially guaranteeing them.

    At that point – the government “owns” 9,900 connections for which it has no money and has to make payments.

    Now – move this situation to roads. Let’s take Route 17 where Haymount is located.

    Haymount only “needs” 4000 trips per day – road capacity and so the argument goes that as long as his project “only” uses “some” capacity that there is no need for his development to “pay” for it.

    Then.. 20 more developers along 17 do similiar projects with similiar impacts and similarily no payments into a capital fund for future improvements.

    All of a suddent.. Route 17 is in a “crisis”. The level of service has gone to hell in a hand basket and it is in the parlance of some “time for the state to step up to the transporation plate and FIX it”.

    Some, myself included, see this dialogue as not the state – stepping up to the plate” but rather the guy in Wise County… or Charlottesville, or Farmville has paying a higher gas tax… so that Route 17 where Haymount is located along with 20 other developments can be improved and the “crisis” averted.

    So I ask – what if we did water/sewer this way?

    What if .. no matter where individuals choice to develop their property – it would be the responsibility of state taxpayers to pay for water/sewer and/or well/septic.

    Because, in essence, this is what we have with regard to roads.

    We don’t have Capital Investment Plans for roads.

    We allow development along those roads to use their capacity – with no financial plan to upgrade the road when it becomes necessary.

    We “thought” VDOT did that planning and had the financial responsibility but how smart are any of us to think that we can build as many roads as we please anywhere we want… no matter how many lane miles…. without sooner or later dealing with the financial consequences of doing so?

    Basically – we have failed to collect the money that should have been collected and now the “fix” is to charge folks who don’t live anywhere near that road much less use it.

  30. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Your last post is a nice summary!

    That is why citizens much have functional human settlement patterns and the most important tool to achieve these functional and sustainable patterns is to fiarly allocate the cost of location variable decisions.

    As to your questions raised above:

    Who decides? Citizens in a process we outline in Handbook.

    I do not know enough about VA Beach’s Green Line to comment but the column we cited talks about the realtionship between a Clear Edge and Urban Growth Boundaries etc.

    The most critical organic component of human settlement patterns in 2007 is New Urban Region.

    In 7000 BC it was the neolithic trading village, the prototype for eventual urbanization of 95% of the population of First World New Urban Regions (and FW nation-states and FW continential trading blocks).

    New Urban Regions are not New Urbanist Regions. New Urbanism is a different perspective. New Urban Regions are not Statewide or Regional Comprehensive Plans.

    My point with A P Hill was that the Army controls the post but has little influnce over what happens outside the post boundary once scattered urbanization impacts the governance of the land around the post. See history of Ft. Belvior Proving Grounds.

    Before the goverance transition appens the military can play the “we will go away and take our jobs if you do not do what we what” card. Haymount will shift politics and make USA clout much less important.

    Base boundaries are borders, not Clear Edges. Buffers and use restrictions, like transprtation corridors and natural features can influnce or deflect Clear Edges but are not the same.

    Clear Edges do not overlap.

    Clear Edges move over time based on economic, social and physical parameters.

    The key is creating functional human settlement patterns inside (The Urbanside) and outside (The Countryside) the Clear Edge.

    EMR

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    EMR –

    I’m not smart enough to understand … that IF we did fully allocate locational costs – purely a fiscal discipline – that the end result would be naturally evolving New Urbanist Regions – but I doubt it.

    You can have fiscal discipline without having prioritization and budgetization.

    In other words – you can have a responsible budget that is based on DUMB fiscal decisions.

    Like buying a fancy car that while you can “make” the payments for it – you’ve so eroded your overall finances that you have to eat beans out of a can to stay solvent.

    This is what some folks think is the problem with the way we do transportation.

    We bought a fancy interchange or bypass, and in the process, we now cannot fix the potholes in the other roads.

    I would encourage anyone to take a look at their own localities Comprehensive Plan – the Chapter about transportation.

    Here’s what you will usually see:

    A flowery discussion, a map.. then a list of projects … including some physical characteristics.. 2 lane, 4 lane… arterial… rural.. etc.

    Here is what you almost never see:

    A projected build date along with a projected cost

    A CIP (Capital Investment Plan) showing a year by year infusion of funds that will be complete and ready to use – by the projected build date.

    The process is known as Contrained Funding.

    By Law MPOs are supposed to do this.

    Now – take a look at the MPO 6 yr plan – and MATCH it up with your own localities Comprehensive Plan – and you see pretty quick – there is almost no relationship between the two.

    Even with MPO plans and VDOT 6yr plans – you will be very lucky if you see a projected build date, a projected cost, and a fund balance that is accruing on an annual basis the necessary funds to keep the road on schedule.

    This is really a bogus process.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around but the real puzzling thing is that …. You cannot build water/sewer, schools, libraries or just about any other capital project if you approached it the way we approach roads.

    If we built schools like we do roads – we’d not only have kids in trailers – they’d spend their entire school career in trailers.

    That’s how long some roads stay unimproved… before something is done.

    So – as with Haymount. Caroline County and VDOT don’t really have a viable plan for Route 17 – even though Caroline has decided that Haymount is a “good” project.

    Haymount and it’s relationship to road infrastructure is by far not unique by any stretch of the imagination.

    And the point is – that regardless of whether Haymount is a “good” or “green” project – road planning is done the same way … wrong and I think when we hold a project like Haymount up to promote it’s Green Credentials – we’re using rose-colored glasses to avoid admitting that “Green” will not fix our transportation policies.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “It is nice that FOR belives that. Where is the proof? I have a large Arial photgraph on my wall that clearly shows agricultural runoff into the Rapahannock. The photo is thirty years old.”

    Ray – Any cursory examination of the issues facing the Chesapeake Bay (and the rivers that feed into it) will demonstrate the Storm Water Runoff is the 600 lb gorilla that we’re dealing with.

    Yes Farms have had runoff for years, hundreds of years – and for all but the last 50 the Bay was not in trouble – JUST from Farm Runoff.

    The real problem became when our population starting growing and we started paving over land that filtered runoff with concrete and asphalt that funneled it directly into streams – and ironically – the more dense we build – the more runoff we have.

    That really is a STRONG point in FAVOR of Haymount. Clark could have maximized the number of homes and minimized the amount of green buffers so that his project would be like many other compact developments… with runoff issues.

    Neither you nor I nor others would purposely empty a 500 or 1000 gallon tank of anti-freeze or oil or other toxic wastes into a stream but that’s what we do, in effect, collectively with our development practices when we build impervious surfaces and don’t provide adequate buffers for filtering… before the runoff goes into receiving streams.

    You can easily confirm what I’m saying. Next time it rains – go to ANY large parking lot and follow the water…. until you find out where it goes….

    Every new parking lot … dozens/hundreds built every day ADD to this existing problem.

    Your counter proposal… repair all cars .. would result in a situation that you yourself would probably rail against …. REGULATIONS .. where .. when your car is state inspected – it FAILS if it has leaks.. and you have to park it until you have a major engine or radiator repair. Is that what you really advocate as a solution?

    Then… how would you handle cars and other vehicles that are not state inspected?

    Now.. I have to admit – that – that is EXACTLY the approach we have with respect to vehicle emissions….. so to be fair.. that is a potential solution also.. I guess.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Interesting discussion. But I believe whatever side you are taking on Haymount, this is a moot discussion. It is my understanding that Mr. Clark’s partners, AM Miller have pulled the plug on Haymount.

Leave a Reply

Read More