Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Nov. 6 Growth Backlash

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

It may be the biggest story of Election 2007 in Virginia — certainly as significant as the Democratic Party seizing control of the state Senate by one seat — and it’s three weeks old now, but the Mainstream Media hasn’t gotten around to reporting it yet. On Nov. 6, Virginia voters across Virginia repudiated Business As Usual politics at the local level.

Oh, sure, individual newspapers took note on a case-by-case basis of how the voters threw the bums out, and in a handful of counties, such as Loudoun where the connection was so glaring that even Helen Keller could have seen it, reporters even noted the discontent with the pro-growth incumbents. But no one, to my knowledge, saw the big picture. No one explored the implicatioins of voters installing anti-growth supervisors in power in a dozen localities.

As Peter Galuszka reports in “Growth Backlash,” smart growth advocates are jubilant. But Peter peers beyond the election results to discern what challenges the new supervisors face.

Ironically, the smart growth movement has come to power just as growth is running out of steam. The sub-prime mortgage fiasco and the collapse of housing prices is leading to project cancellations around the state. Suddenly, there is a huge backlog of houses — in Loudoun County, supposedly enough to last eight years. The downturn could be aggravated by any one of a host of factors, from rising gasoline prices to the devaluing dollar. Northern Virginia faces unique challenges of its own: the defense/homeland security gravy train may run off the tracks. After years of double-digit growth, spending could well plateau or, if the Democrats win the presidency next year, decline.

Indeed, the economic situation looks so dire that the home builder associations may start pleading poverty and lobby for clawbacks, such as a rollback of proffers.

Peter explores one other issue. It’s not clear to what extent many of the new supervisors should be described as “smart growth” or just “anti growth.” How many of them truly embrace smart-growth principles such as compact development, higher densities, bicycle lanes, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and mass transit? Board chairman Corey Stewart in Prince William County seems devoted to preserving the autocentric society, slapping moratoriums on new housing starts while catching up on road building. Transit Oriented Development is not part of the plan.

However the local politics shake out, the growth debate will look very different in the next two years.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

15 responses to “The Nov. 6 Growth Backlash”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter did a nice job, especially noting the relationship of Dick Saslaw and the builders, as well as the likely plateau or reduction in government contracts.

    However, I strongly disagree with Peter that any change occurred in Fairfax County. Gerry Connolly is still the Chairman of the BoS. While Mike Frey (R) has opposed some development proposals, and John Foust (D) and Pat Herrity (R) will likely be tougher on development requests than their predecessors, Connolly still has a pro-development majority on the BoS.

    Moreover, the idea that Smart Growth is benign is simply false. I would agree that density has different impacts on public facilities than does traditional, big-lot growth. But is is not correct that stacking people in condos has no impact on most public infrastructure.

    For example, the data show that, even with Dulles Rail, trips in and out of Tysons Corner will still be 60-80% motor vehicle. Adding density does not diminish the need for parks — indeed, it probably increases the need as condo dwellers lack backyards; or electric power generation capacity.

    Take schools for example. One proposal before the Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force would created a need for two or three new elementary schools, one half of a middle school and one half a high school. I’d argue that, with land prices considered, it’s probably quite a bit less expensive to build those schools in a typical suburban setting than in an urban one.

    Growth is growth, and infrastructure needs must be met regardless of the type of growth involved.

    TMT

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I agree with TNT on the growth and infrastructure issue.

    The big flaw in Smart Growth is the implied/tacit assumption that adequate infrastructure already exists and that you can then “stretch” it out – maximize it’s use by building dense rather than sparse.

    Spotsylvania just took a look at their new proposed UDA areas and their immediate response was that those area had previously been “sized” with infrastructure for less dense land development.

    You just can’t go draw a square on a map and say it’s going to be developed “smart” – if the infrastructure is not there.

    this is the number one issue with voters.

    They don’t care if you call it “smart” or super-duper or upty-squat, if it means more rooftops, more cars, more school-aged kids and a “handwaving” plan for “infrastructure” and voters are not buying it anymore.

    TND is running into significant opposition both in Stafford and Spotsylvania because the citizens have absolutely no confidence that the planners have a clue much less a grip on the infrastructure impacts.

    When a road is already at LOS F, and some guy in a developer suit shows up and says he wants to build “smart growth”… the questions fly, and then here’s fun part.

    When the developer AND the county planners are asked what exactly will be done about the roads – they both say, in essence, “that’s not our job”. – It’s a separate issue for VDOT to deal with.

    oops.. but that excuse don’t work no more…

    Smart Growth is just the latest “gimmick” in the eyes of many voters.

  3. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT

    Your are correct on many points but there is one that needs clarification:

    What you say about growth = growth, smart or not, is more or less true at the Cluster, Neighborhood and even the Village scales (except for shared-vehicle system staion-area enclaes).

    Where the saving start rolling in is at the Community scale — e.g. creating Balanced Communities from the scattered swiss cheese that now exists.

    Co-terminus Balanced Communities within the Clear Edge and Village scale Balanced station-areas would have a huge impact, reduce total costs and total VMT.

    Those Tyson’s mode split numbers are based on model assumptions that everything else is Business-As-Usual and the four or five staion-area have no more Balance than they do now, just more density.

    You are right to question the potential of Connolly / Fairfax doing anything like what needs to be done.

    EMR

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry posted while we were writing.

    He is right too, especailly about how citizens feel, but…

    You cannot have “smart growth” at Cluster and Neighborhood scales in scattered locations. Such projects just create another dimention of dysfunction.

    Because of the current patterns and densities in Stafford and Spotsylvaina it is hard to imagine how a project large enough to be “smart” would ever be proposed.

    Right idea, wrong location. To be “smart” a project needs to be inside R = 20 (and even better inside R = 10) and it needs to create “next higher component Balance” not attempt to stand on its own.

    EMR

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It reamins to be seen how many of smart-growth principles such as compact development, higher densities, bicycle lanes, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and mass transit, are truly smart at all.

    If you use the same kind of cost analysis usually used for COCS studies as promoted by AFT, all of these principles will fail the test. TMT is correct in saying the idea that Smart Growth is benign is simply false.

    Larry is als correct in saying They don’t care if you call it “smart” or super-duper or upty-squat, voters are not buying it anymore. Smart Growth is just the latest “gimmick” in the eyes of many voters, and one more elitist NIMBY ploy. EMR’s claim that to be “smart” a project needs to be inside R = 20 (and even better inside R = 10) is just a way to keep growth out of his back yard. Of course, as Larry points out nearly all voters are now NIMBY’s, so there are no back yards available anywhere. More than 3500 jurisdictions have some kind of growth control.

    Nearly everyplace is opposed to growth now, and it will remain that way until workers and voters discover that business as usual also means jobs, as usual. When the economic situation looks so dire that the home builder associations may start pleading poverty and lobby for clawbacks, such as a rollback of proffers, you can bet that others won’t be far behind.

    RH

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t think people are opposed to “growth”.

    what they are opposed to – is adverse impacts on their existing quality of life.

    They’re not opposed to a new subdivision or even 10 new subdivisions. What they are opposed to is the road they’ve used for years not hopelessly gridlocked at rush hour or that the school their kids go to has to bring in trailers .

    One can call it NIMBY but believe it or not, there are actually developments that win over the existing residents if those developments actually demonstrate a commitment to not only mitigate but actually add value to the community.

    Read this article is todays WaPo:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902407.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    and ask yourself what happened to the Ft. Belvoir BRAC proposal.

    What killed that – was not NIMBY – it was some undeniable realities.

    But I found a diamond in the rough and that is a place called Harbor Station – one of the 7 “candidates” for Fed agencies relocation.

    It’s in the article.

    It appears to me that they HAVE met many of the benchmarks for Smart Growth and I’d be curious to know the opinions of EMR, RH, TMT, Groveton and NNM and anyone else including of course JB.

    It’s easy in this blog to knock down various development ideas and I’ve a pretty strong critic of many but this particular project does not look bad.

    thoughts. comments?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I don’t think people are opposed to “growth”.

    what they are opposed to – is adverse impacts on their existing quality of life.”

    What’s the difference?

    There is NOTHING you can do that will not impact someone else. Saying you won’t accept any impact is exactly the same as saying you want to control other people. My experience is that when I want to control other people, I have to pay them.

    We have been through this before. SomepPeople don’t want growth, no matter how big the proffers or promises. No matter how much infrastructure is built. They want things to retain their present scale of living.

    When the existing homeowners bought their homes they KNEW, or should have known, that they did not own the land around them. They KNEW that more growth could happen.

    By now opposing growth they are changing the societal understandings that came with their purchase contract, along with the ones that came with the purchase contracts of other (as yet unbuilt) landowners.

    They are taking control of the benefits of additional open space, without paying for the benefits they recieve by doing so. Had the original zoning and growth controls been in place when they built, they would have had to buy more land and pay higher impact fees.

    By doing that after the fact, they are either controlling other people without pay, or stealing the value of their property.

    Take your pick.

    Either way, they are avoiding impacts on their quality of life by causing impacts to other people’s quality of life.

    I don’t see the moral high ground there.

    It may very well be and probably is correct that the new rules are “better for society”. But if that is the case, then society ought to come out far enough ahead to make fair recompense.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    6200 is what part of the jobs that will still move to Ft. Belvoir?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Transit Oriented Development in PW?

    What transit are they going to orient it to? All they have to work with is three VRE stations, and one of them is in Downtown Manassas. The others need huge parking lots, jast to make the transit work.

    ???

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: NIMBY and quality of life

    they’re different.

    I can name MANY developments that have not adversely affected existing residents and those developments assimilated easily into the communities.

    High on the list is gated communities that have their own roads and provide many of their own amenities.

    Gated communities often have a much higher level of mitigation of their impacts than other communities.

    My point is that most folks simply do not care that a 1000 person community is built where they live if the impacts to them on negligible and developments like that are not only possible but they happen.

    What folks are opposed to is new developments with huge footprint impacts to the surrounding neighbors.

    Folks that recognize this – know how their project must look and function if they want approval.

    Those who choose to ignore these things.. will not be successful.

    the bigger, harder issues to resolve are REGIONAL impacts.

    and that is what was at issue with Belvoir.

    One thing that impressed me about Harbor Station was that the developer PLANNED on a government agency locating there.. he designed his development with that in mind.

    NOW – he truly has a development where some people who work there – may actually live there – and others DO have at some SOME mass transit options.

    In my mind, this IS Smart Growth.

    But I do have an observation about VRE.

    And that is… do you think VRE was a strategic transportation option from the get go?

    My attitude was that it – was not. VRE depending on existing tracks not owned by them – being available to them.

    What if VRE had to start from scratch – like METRO?

    What if they had to buy their own right of way and have their own tracks?

    What if, instead of VRE, it was METRO’s job to see how far south along Route 1 they could/should go.. similar to the west/Tysons/Dulles issue?

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    NIMBY and quality of life

    they’re different.

    I don’t think so. People want a four way stop where they can wave at their (few) neighbors.

    If some developer replaces that with an impressive and excellent six lane intersectionw with lultiple left turn lanes to serve thousands of new neighbors, they won’t like it, even if it doesn’t cost them a cent.

    Read

    Environmentalism as a Determinant of Housing Supply Regulation by
    Matthew E. Kahn

    and then tell me NIMBY and Quality of Life are not closely related, if not the same.

    Housing supply regulation raises the cost of building new housing. Why do housing supply regulations differ across space? One explanation focuses on the median voter’s narrow self interest. Home owners have a financial incentive to discourage new construction because it reduces the scarcity value of their asset. Richer communities may engage in fiscal zoning to keep the poor out. Minimum lot zoning reduces the likelihood that new entrants will be much poorer than incumbents.

    Communities may also enact housing supply regulation to preserve and enhance local quality of life. Environmentalist communities are especially likely to pursue such goals. Environmentalists may seek to block local growth to preserve local public goods such as open space, bike paths and clean air and to preserve the character and culture of their community.

    “Through the 1970s, California was a typical growth region, generally accommodating developers and allowing new construction to meet demand. Starting in that decade, an alliance of homeowners and environmentalists made it increasingly difficult to build in the Golden State. While Los Angeles built 137,908 thousand new units in the 1960s, that city built only 37,743 thousand new units in the 1990s. As supply became constricted, prices rose and people who wanted to move to warm areas increasingly chose metropolitan areas that were friendlier to growth. California’s move to restricting housing was a great boon to developers in Las Vegas, Phoenix and other sunbelt cities which boomed, providing a more affordable alternative to southern California.

    (assorted Quotes from Gyourko, Fischel, and Glaeser, from different sources).

    In Kahn’s paper he showed how political outcome measures related to green causes can be used to study the role of this ideology as a determinant of community land use patterns. The evidence shows that new housing is less likely to be constructed in environmentalist communities.

    And he is not alone.

    “I suspect that the big story in housing supply over the next twenty years is that more areas will begin to follow California and slow new construction. There are many factors which should lead to contagion of this phenomenon. Activist groups learn from each other and the techniques that served the self-proclaimed saviors of the San Francisco Bay can be readily adopted from Montana to Maryland. Judges look at other states when making decisions and pro-conservation decisions will surely spread. The environmentalist movement is not losing steam and its ideology provides a respectable basis for opposing construction in your backyard (Glaeser 2007).”

    RH

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I think TMT is right about Fairfax County. Gerry Connolly is the litmus test for growth in Fairfax. As long as he keeps getting elected, there is no “smart” in smart growth. The 2007 BoS election was a half-backlash. It will be a full-backlash when Gerry Connolly gets voted out of office.

    I think John Foust was a backlash against unchecked growth in the Drainsville District (where I live). However, the backlash will not be complete until Gerry Connolly is gone too.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – you spend too much time NOT understanding the issues.

    The average person is NOT an activist and not a NIMBY.

    Most folks just want a decent job and a safe place to live and they don’t care about how many other people are in the area where they live if they can get onto the highway and to/from work in a fairly predictable period of time.

    It’s when they are an hour late getting home on those nights when they were supposed to be at their kids soccer game – that they get pissed.

    THEN they become ANTI-growth.

    Because their life HAS been adversely affected by a failure to plan and build adequate infrastructure to maintain level of services as growth occurs.

    THAT is why the average person SUPPORTs Adequate Public Facilities legislation and THAT is the reason why local elected get thrown out of office and replaced with slow or no growth elected.

    If you want to continue to pretend that a majority of voters are activist/nimbys – then fine – but what does labeling them as such – accomplish?

    If you were correct – then the percentage of activists/nimbys would be the same across Va no matter where people lived – instead of in areas where growth occurs.

    In fact, most folks don’t give a rat’s behind about growth – until it affects their daily lives in negative ways.

    Growth as actually sought after in Stafford and Spotsylvania -as a way to increase the tax base and to improve services like schools, libraries and fire/rescue and for many years – it was not a problem.

    But when it reached 5% a year, year after year with overcrowded schools and gridlocked roads – people reacted.

    According to you, they were NIMBYs all along, If that were true, they would have ended up like Facquier – right?

    get with it RH – the rest of Virginia is not like where you live – and does not apply.

    Back off a notch or two and recognize that all the counties around you have grown tremendously over the years without NIMBY’s stopping it… but there is a point..where folks start to react..and that is when.. their daily lives are adversely affected.

    None of this is really that important unless you really do want to understand what drives the issue AND, how to resolve it.

    If you’re not interested in truly understanding nor interested in ways to resolve the issue and just tar everyone with the NIMBY label – then be prepared to see more anti-growth sentiment converted into more restricted policies than we have right now.

    Spotsylvania, the other night, looking at their new proposed UDAs said – that they’d not go for the UDAs unless an equivalent amount of land was DOWNZONED to compensate.

    You’re going to say this is wrong – I know – but do you care WHY this happens?

    It happens because the voters will throw these guys out of office if they vote for the UDAs and don’t downzone,

    Why – because they’re fed up with growth without adequate infrastructure.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “My point is that most folks simply do not care that a 1000 person community is built where they live…..”

    Nonsense. I’ve been to too many meetings.

    “…..if the impacts to them on negligible and developments like that are not only possible but they happen.”

    Nonsense again. If the impacts seem negligible, it is because they have not been adequately determined. It is the cumulative impact that matters— look at NOVA.

    You are going to have to show/explain to me why 1% growth is good and 5% is not. At some point, you have to decide you are “built out” – you have reached your sustainable limit. What we are talking about is whether you get there in 100 years or 20.

    You need to show that the oppportunity costs of preventing growth are not just as high as the costs of growth.

    “…the rest of Virginia is not like where you live – and does not apply.”

    And isn’t the point of JIM’s post that more and more of Virginia IS gettin like where I live? I’m the voice of the future telling you where the problems are going to be if you keep this up.

    “Spotsylvania, the other night, looking at their new proposed UDAs said – that they’d not go for the UDAs unless an equivalent amount of land was DOWNZONED to compensate.”

    This is precisely the future I have been predicting. If there is enough social benefit in the UDA’s to make them worthwhile, then they should be able to downzone to their hearts content AND pay fair recompense to those that got downzoned, out of the profits of those that got upzoned.

    In the process, EVERYBODY comes out ahead. Otherwise, it is simple stealing.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “THEN they become ANTI-growth.

    Because their life HAS been adversely affected by a failure to plan and build adequate infrastructure to maintain level of services as growth occurs.”

    Precisely my point. THEY have failed to plan, pay for and provide adequate infrastruture. THEY knew that more growth was coming in after them. Now they want to shift the burden of THEIR failures onto the subsequent new guys, and previous yet undeveloped landowners, by shifteing the cost of their own adverse afffects onto others, who happen to have fewer votes, or no votes (yet).

    No matter who they elect, the government still has an obligation to protect the minority from extremely adverse conditions, including regulatory takings.

    I still can’t agree that most people don’t care about growth. Most people don’t want change, period. The situaton you described, trading UDA’s for downzoning is one example. What this boils down to is zero average growth, with the “benefits” targeted to a few lucky individuals based on the locational lottery.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More