Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Quotable Quotes Regarding the House Land Use Initiative

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I’ve culled these quotes from the articles filed today about the House land use-reform initiative.

From the Washington Post:

Speaking in blunt terms, House leaders said an eagerness by local officials to approve development was “an abdication of responsibility” to plan for the impact on traffic, and that supervisors in growing counties “have done a less-than-stellar job” in planning for the future.

“The easiest job in the world is to be a supervisor approving subdivisions,” said Del. C.L. “Clay” Athey Jr. (R-Warren), who leads the House GOP effort to design land-use legislation. “You can approve it, and as soon as it’s over and done with, you can say any impacts to the roads you don’t have to consider at all and you can just start blaming the state.” …

County supervisors, Democrats and Republicans alike, reacted angrily to the accusation that their planning decisions are why the state’s roads are such a mess.

“It just shows how desperate they are to find somebody to blame rather than themselves,” said Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D), who was singled out by name during the news conference. “This is all yet another attempt to sidetrack the public discussion from their unwillingness to put any new money on the table for transportation infrastructure.” …

Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall said Wednesday that the governor and House Republicans are “generally rowing in the same direction” in regard to the newly proposed legislation. But Hall cautioned that the governor had not seen any specifics.

From the Virginian-Pilot:

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said he welcomed the Republican ideas and would introduce his own growth-control bills during the session. “I think it’s an area where there’s a lot of common ground,” Kaine said. “I think that they’re looking at it in a smart way.”

From the Times-Dispatch:

“We are pleased to know that issues of transportation reform and land-use planning are being recognized as top priorities,” said Lisa Guthrie, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters. “Both polling and recent elections show growth management and transportation reform to be critical issues for Virginians.”

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

9 responses to “Quotable Quotes Regarding the House Land Use Initiative”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ha ha .. yes I’m thinking this is going to make for some very awkward “moments” when State Legislators meet with local BOSs to discuss legislative “priorities”.

    If the GA guys were afraid of the BOS guys voting them out of office… but they’re not.. it’s the voters.

    If you think about this – it’s pretty crystal clear… local BOSs know that money is going to be needed for local roads but they don’t want to be the ones to do the tax deed.. necessary to pay for them….

    they want the GA guys to take the “hit” on taxes.

    the local BOS guys .. basically want the GA guys to raise taxes and get thrown out of office for doing so.. so they can continue to approve local development – unfettered by traffic concerns. They’ll just continue to blame VDOT.

    The question of the day is .. does the average voter see this?

  2. Politicl.Animal Avatar
    Politicl.Animal

    By that logic, don’t the GA guys want to make the local BOS guys have “to raise taxes and get thrown out of office for doing so”?

    It’s either passing the buck or real reform. I’m still pondering the proposal.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It depends on how many local voters believe that their BOS caused the problem in the first place by rezoning without planning for the infrastructure impacts.

    When folks see “too much” local traffic – their immediate thought is “where the heck did all of these people come from” … and “why haven’t the roads been upgraded to deal with them”.

    The perceived answers to these two questions – have a lot to do with how local citizens feel about the issue.

    I’m betting that they’re NOT going to blame a Delegate or Senator who refused to raise their taxes – on top of the other growth and development issues… but I could well be way … wrong…

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s a puzzler .. perhaps someone can explain this:

    HOUSE BILL NO. 1742
    Offered January 10, 2007
    Prefiled December 27, 2006
    A BILL to amend and reenact �� 33.1-67, 33.1-69, and 33.1-72.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to taking streets into the state secondary highway system.

    here’s the amendment:

    B. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, any local ordinance, or any provision of Title 15.2 (� 15.2-100 et seq.), on and after January 1, 2008, no street or road or any portion thereof in any county shall be taken into the state secondary highway system for maintenance purposes unless it is within an area under the control of a homeowners association. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring or permitting the levying of any fee, charge, or assessment, however denominated, by any homeowners association on any member of the association for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, constructing, or reconstructing any street or road or portion thereof. The county in which they are located shall be responsible for streets and roads not taken into the state secondary highway system.

    No.. what I don’t understand is the inclusion of the HOA verbiage. The amendment REQUIRES the HOA but then specifically EXCLUDES it from financial involvement with the subdivision road but rather says the County is responsible.

    Okay.. fine.. but then why have the HOA be a requirement?

    anyone?

  5. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    To pass the ‘blame’ for new “fees” to fund “road maintenance’ off to local, draconion HOAs, and not BOS or City Council members.

    Pass the buck …. hey, let’s pass the buck off to the HOAs! wa-hoo! Political cover!!!

    BTW – there isn’t any HOA where I live. We have a civic league – but it is volunary and cannot force anyone to pay dues – or force them to pay – anything.

    EVERY road in my neighborhood was built by the developer.

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reid, I’m not sure where you’re coming from in your post, but let me try to explain the logic behind the House proposal.

    For the past 70 years, boards of supervisors have ruled thumbs up or thumbs down on subdivisions without considering the impact of the subdivision roads on VDOT’s maintenance budget. Why should they? It was VDOT’s problem, not their’s.

    Over time, reacting to development pressures, boards began adopting zoning policies that called for lower and lower density subdivisions. These large, low-density subdivisions require far more lane-mile of road per resident than more compact or clustered subdivisions. Why should the boards care? It’s VDOT’s problem.

    The purpose of the House legislation is to align land use and transportation planning. If county boards have to take responsibility for maintaining miles and miles of low-density subdivision road, they might think differently about the kinds of subdivisions they approve or disapprove than if they can simply pass the buck to VDOT.

    The goal here is not social engineering. The goal is not “forcing” anyone to live in townhouses or apartment buildings. The goal is not destruction of the suburban way of life. The goal is simply to make people pay the location-variable costs of where and how they build. I would hope that anyone who truly believes in free markets would agree.

  7. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    With all due respect – transportation and mobility are the foundations of social engineering.

    Do I agree that the developers and people that bought new developments should have to pay the cost of the adverse impact of existing local government infrastructure? You bet.

    I have supported APF bills for years!

    But face it, the push for “New Urbanism” and it’s kissing cousin “we need to get people out of their cars!!! Elites is an agenda being crafted by the “Social Justice” crowd.

    Read the first TEA-21 and ISTEA documents – preface written by whom? Why that would be Al Gore.

    The whole PUSH to starve future road building and more lane capacity – instead “investing” precious “transportation funds” into Socialist TOD/”walkable cities” has its roots in a whole quagmire of Liberal utopian desires.

    REGIONALISM also has its foundations in the teachings of Karl Marx.

    The fact that other jump on the train because the believe they see the wisdom of forcing new “growth” into higher density, multi-use “balanced” “new urbanism” thinking there exists an economy of scale that will magically cost less due to replacing the private car with “mass transit” doesn’t change the underlying agenda of the push for “urban” – and the political agenda to do what can be done to destroy “suburbia”.

    Read a political map – high-density urban centers – they trend HUGE to Liberal tax & spend Democrats.

    Affluent, peaceful, low density suburbia – and rural America? It’s anti-tax & spend, and trends Republican -p for the minorities that bother to vote anymore.

    Here’s the other reality – people FLED failed urban centers because they are financial disasters. The failed urban centers are desperate to create a way to recapture the tax revenue they lost when the upwardly mobile working class fled to “edge cities/ring cities”, and left behind were the welfare class that sucked up the remaining tax funds by their dependency of living of the taxpayers. So REGIONALISM and the mantra of the ULI’s “New Urbanism” are just the ticket. Developers and land speculators LOVE TOD!! They buy urban slums cheap – use the local government to manipulate the marketplace – use taxpayer money to pay for “Light rail” – and rake in 400% increases in property values, wa-hoo!

    So now the greed of the business community is the money to fund the political lobby. Developers get rich- taxpayers pick up the tab. Ironically – many are the same developers that got rich creating the low density suburban development that resulted in the roads being overcrowded.

    Make money creating the problem – make money creating the solution. Such a deal! Well, not for the taxpayer. But who really care about them anyway?

    So, now we have a problem with a lack of “Affordable Housing” – the solution? Of course MORE taxpayer subsidies – or more tax breaks to developers to sell “housing: at below market “value”. Wa-Hoo! Mo-Money for developers!

    Of course – why are the houses un-affordable? Because businesses have supported the agenda of transitioning to a service sector economy and our wages do not keep pace with skyrocketing real estate costs! But hey, Wa-Hoo – the business community made a killing off of cheap labor outside the United States!!! Ops, sorry there are no more decent middle-class jobs in manufacturing anymore.

    Wait – we developers can’t sell our over inflated “housing”: anymore – we need taxpayer subsidized called “Affordable Housing” – we “need” is for teachers, Firemen, Police and government workers – the taxpayers must subsidize this – thus, the “free market” cannot be allowed to “adjust” to supply and demand – nor the ability of customers to afford the housing “product”. Government will artificially enable the real estate developers to keep the over priced “housing” – and “subsidize” those that cannot afford it.

    Okay … this isn’t Socialism – how??? But hey, the pro-raise taxes lobby screams – we have to do something! We “need” more money for “Transportation!”

    Of course, there isn’t any real plan for how the money will be spent – but TRUST us, we will spend it wisely.

    Meanwhile the disciples of the “New Urbanism” are licking their chops at the prospect of gaining access to BILLIONS more of our tax dollars – to “reshape” Virginia – to build the better mouse trap – to go back and build new urban centers just like the ones that failed before – even going back to the outdated light rail trolley cars. Never mind that the original “New Urbanism” are now crime ridden slums – monuments to failed social engineering and the 60s and 70s failed “Urban Renewal” pipe dream.

    Folks, there are so many agendas in play right now – the failed YES Campaign of 2002 ran their ads stating “Tired of being stuck in traffic?” Do Something – vote YES.

    I’ll say the same thing now I said then – never advocate “Doing something” for the sake of NOT doing something – instead – advocate for doing the right thing.

    All appointed regional authorities are NOT the right thing.

    Raising taxes with NO PLAN or commitment for how the money is to be spent, WHEN new transit capacity will be delivered, or any idea whatsoever what the COST of all of the proposed solution will be – is NOT the right thing.

    Failing for the slick marketing pitch that everyone really wants to live in expensive, crowded, high-density “walk able cities” – that everyone wants to walk down the street – and then stand out in the cold and the rain to wait for a filthy bus to show up. And the to ride seated (hopefully) next to people they do not know – that is NOT the right thing to do.

    The right thing to do is to make a list of proposed solutions, determine which ones return the biggest bang for the buck on reducing traffic congestion, fire VDOT, and hire a new organization to oversee getting the highest priority transit projects build as soon as possible. WHILE that is in progress – amend the Constitution to protect the TTF. AND – draft sensible land use reform legislation requiring AFP funding tied to all new development.

    STOP mixing speculative “economic development” projects with real transit needs of citizens.

    IMMEDATELY fund new highway traffic accident remove teams – and get accidents OFF the highways as soon as possible.

    STOP the corruption and political influence buying of the business lobbies.

    STOP the addiction to “growth”.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Wow! Diversity of opinion – this Blog – DOES HAVE! 🙂

    With respect to Jim’s point about subdivision roads – two points:

    1. – Maintenance IS expensive

    2. – MANY subdivision roads – RESULT in overloaded Secondary Roads

    If you have ever had to pay to have your drive plowed – consider your costs is say.. your “share” of a one mile subdivision road was YOUR cost also.

    Right now – folks who live in apartments, townhouses, farms, etc their tax dollars are being used to plow YOUR the road that you use to access your house.

    Worse – this is money that is being diverted from maintaining roads that THEY use.

    When your subdivision road finally needs paving – it can easily cost 300K per mile to resurface it. And again, when that happens, your legitimate share of that cost is instead being paid by others who don’t live in subdivisions and AGAIN diverted from repaving the rural roads that are now overloaded because of all the new subdivisions.

    When an area is a high growth area – it’s true that almost everyone lives in a subdivision but what happens is that the folks who live in counties outside of high growth areas – again are at risk for having their tax dollars being diverted from their rural areas to areas with lots of subdivisions.

    Now.. because of this (at least in part), we’ve run out of money.

    And the pro-growth folks – what they want is to raise the taxes on ALL Virginia residents to replenish VDOT’s coffers so they can continue to provide roads and maintenance to fast growing areas with lots of new subdivisions.

    Anyone who lives in one of these fast growing areas in a subdivision who wants to believe that your 17 cents per gallon gas comes anywhere close to pay for the roads you use – are simply not paying attention to financial realities.

    Boards of Supervisors are VERY WELL aware of this. They want VDOT (the state) to continue to pay for these roads because as they put it “it’s a STATE responsibility”.

    Well.. folks… the STATE is nothing more than taxpayers and when we have a system where one taxpayer pays money to plow and repave other taxpayers roads.. we have a serious problem not only with equity – but with longer term sustainability.

    The simple reality is – if you live in an Apartment or Townhouse – you pay to maintain the roads that service it AND you also pay taxes to plow and maintain the roads in subdivisions with far better housing than what you live in.

    So the irony is… that we have folks – pro-growth folks who say that … continuing to pay for subdivision roads is continuing the “American Dream of affordable home ownership”.

    What a CROCK!

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reid, I have enjoyed reading your comments and I find myself agreeing with many of them. However, I would ask you to distinguish between the land use reforms advocated by the authors of this blog (i.e., by me, and by Ed Risse with whom I am 90 percent or so in accord), the reforms advocated by the “smart growth” movement in Virginia, and the reforms advocated by “smart growth” practitioners as you characterize them.

    I think you will find that Virginia “smart growthers” are less the social engineers than their counterparts in other states. They may espouse a more urbanized vision for the state than you desire, but they don’t propose cramming that lifestyle down anyone’s throat. Read carefully what the leading groups like the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Coalition for Smarter Growth have to say. I think you’ll find that they differ from “smart growth” advocates elsewhere.

    As for Ed and myself, we are the true defenders of free market principles in this debate. We start with the understanding that land use is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the American economy, distorted by subsidies of all kinds, by zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, restrictions on housing types, etc. We don’t advocate social engineering. What we advocate is leveling the playing field by making all forms of development in all locations pay their location-variable costs. What kind of costs? The cost of supplying transportation access. The cost of providing water, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable and other utilities. The cost of providing public services such as fire, police and rescue protection.

    You have made it very clear that you prefer the suburban lifestyle. Neither Ed nor I would take that away from you. All that we would insist upon is that you, like any city dweller or the resident of any New Urbanist community, pay the full location-variable costs associated with their choice of where to live. Similarly, we would insist that businesses pay their location-variable costs.

    In addition, I would re-think zoning regulations and other county policies — as explored in past columns too numerous to detail here — that segregate land uses, prohibit mixed uses, mandate lower densities, encourage pod-like development along collector roads and create many of the other dysfunctions of suburbia.

    If we allowed market forces to rule, and developers to build the kinds of communities that people want to live in, there would be plenty of suburbs exactly like the one you live in. I suspect, however, that the balance would shift to more New Urbanism-style development and more urban re-development, particularly as the number of Empty Nesters increases. But I don’t know that for a fact. And I don’t propose imposing anything on anyone. I say, let the marketplace rule and let families vote with their feet on the kinds of places they want to live in.

    There are a couple of places where planning can be useful. (1) Creating communities with balance of jobs, housing, shopping, recreation and amenities. The idea is to create communities where the vast majority of daily needs can be fulfilled locally, thus reducing the number and length of automobile trips on congested arterials and collector roads. (2) Planning transportation improvements to support those balanced communities, and connect with one another. As long as government is in charge of building and maintaining roads, it’s in the planning business. Can’t get around it. (For now, I’ll not get into the topic of reconfiguring jurisdictional boundaries to encompass these balanced communities.)

    In connection with (2), I think it is crucial to align transportation and land use planning at the same level of government. Therefore, as Larry Gross suggests, local government should be in charge of local roads, MPOs in charge of regional connectors, and the state in charge of inter-city roads.

    In sum, it would help clarify the debate if all the participants in this blog distinguished between the free-market “smart growth” solutions advocated by the authors of this blog the middle-of-the-road “smart growth” solutions proffered by other Virginians, and the social-engineering “smart growth” solutions advanced by others outside the state.

Leave a Reply

Read More