Richmond, VA - On Friday, Delegate Riley Ingram, Chairman of the House Counties, Cities & Towns Committee, sided with the Home Builders Association to force some typically rural communities into establishing an area of high-density high-rise mixed use urban development in the midst of a countryside setting. If Ingram has his way, you'll be forced to forfeit your land for the development of high-density 'urban development areas' also called 'smart growth'. A 2007 law mandating that every county with a population of 20,000 or more or a growth rate of 15% must zone an area for high-density urban planning. Public funds in the form of grants, subsidies, and tax incentives, will be used to promote the project to include rail, bike lanes, and other public transportation projects, reducing access to roads and without the benefit of alternative transportation to many communities. This will increase the cost of housing within the urban boundaries with a natural consequence of increased property taxes, and will reduce the value of property outside urban boundaries.
This type of one-size-fits-all mentality fails to consider that many of the localities like Goochland, Powhatan, and Louisa County are required to establish zones for urban development but offer no alternative transportation for those communities. How are they expected to promote alternatives to personal automobiles in the absence of any alternative? Yet they will be forced to help fund alternative transportation projects for other communities from which they won't benefit. But grassroots activists of the tea party movement are fighting back in support of Delegate Bob Marshall's HB1721 that would make UDAs optional rather than mandatory. The measure would allow local communities to decide if
urban areas are appropriate for their locality. It further allows for input from the citizens in areas that currently use the predetermination techniques of the "consensus" process that dismisses any public input.
8 comments:
The economic realities of building high-priced urban units in greater
numbers than is justified by the demand is not considered in their policies,and their only answer to dealing with these realities is to provide additional public funds to provide incentives and subsidize the costs for lower-income residents.
The fed has been imposing it's will on our states for decades with the hanging carrot. This behavior has slowly been taking root in state assemblies across the republic. The lobbyists know "money talks, b.s. walks". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reason that high density is burden on city coffers.
And only more development is to come. Check out today's Va Pilot. There was a very interesting article on redistricting in Suffolk. Each borough will have to go from 9000 to 12000 people.
The article mentioned that the Chuckatuck, Sleepy Hole, and Nansemond Boroughs combined have a majority of the city's population. Therefore, the southern boroughs will have to extend north more, and the northern boroughs will have to drop in population.
Or could something else be in the works? What about an eighth borough drawn up there? Or adding an at-large councilman?
The article states that in 2001, at the time of the last city-wide redistricting, 3 boroughs were drawn to by majority white (Holy Neck, Chuckatuck and Sleepy Hole, I presume)and three to be majority black (Cypress, Whaleyville and Nansemond, I think) and one "toss-up" (Suffolk??).
How will the new lines be drawn? Will incumbents be safer? Milteer will have to take some from Parr, and Parr will have to take some from Bennett, Brown or Duman, depending on how you slice it. Brown can take from Bennett on the eastern part of downtown. Gardy can take from Duman in the King's Fork area if needed.
Barclay will probably have to drop the most - giving people to Duman or Bennett. Thus the reason Duman and Bennett will have to give to Parr, Brown, and Gardy. Parr (and maybe Brown) will then have to give to Milteer.
Adding 3000 people can be difficult to do. That could be as many as 1,500 voters - or another precinct in some of the boroughs. Will whole neighborhoods be moved, or will certain areas be carefully crafted into the boroughs?
I think that Suffolk should do one of 3 things to make the elections more competitive:
1. Have all councilmembers run at-large. That would give the voters the opportunity to vote for their 3 or 4 favorite candidates each time. It would make incumbents work harder and be responsible to more than their close friends and neighbors. It would be more costly, though. Chesapeake and Portsmouth do this. Norfolk and Va Beach have a few at-large members. At least add an at-large seat to council. That would certainly be a "toss-up" seat.
2. Create and eighth borough in Northern Suffolk. Maybe take from Duman, Barclay, and Bennett to make another so-called "toss up".
3. Re-name the boroughs. Currently, people who live just outside of downtown live in the "Chuckatuck Borough". People who live off of 58 live in the "Holy Neck" Borough, and people living in South Suffolk live in the "Whaleyville Borough". Many of these people have never been to Chuckatuck, Whaleyville, or the Holland/Holy Neck area. They cannot relate to their fellow citizens. The councilmembers have very diverse districts.
I just think the boroughs should be more homogenous.
Another brain dead idea that has one purpose, to line the pockets of developers. This is just crazy and should be stopped. The scarry side of this is that money always trumps votes, just ask anyone on our council.
Hey Rocky...you want to see me pull a acre of land out of my hat that I cant sell in the name of progress? What if I am on council? Or affliated with city corruption as a paid or not paid "friend" of the city? What if I make my living as a land peddler?
Please read the legislation. It does not require the locality to rezone the urban development area. It is only required to be put in the comprehensive plan. Courts have opined that the plan is a guide.
Sadly, from this Republican's (and Tea Party advocate's) perspective, not only you have not only gotten it wrong but also you have been misleading. This must be either from ignorance or deceitfulness. Scare tactics are exactly what the TP should not be engaged in, given the competition. The UDA legislation was adopted for the purpose of enhancing property rights, not limiting them. It was adopted to ensure an market-wise distribution of housing, not to harm the market. It was adopted to increase property values and development opportunity, not to take them away. It was adopted to enhance the local tax base while providing more efficient public services and infrastructure. The misrepresentations that you have been publishing do not serve to advance the conservative agenda. It is a very sad day when a lobby for this agenda advances erroneous positions without, in all likelihood, having any understanding of the legislation they're condemning.
You have determined the article is wrong. Perhaps. We posted it as an opinion piece sent to us as are many others."IS" did not express an opinion, merely tossed it out there and thanks for your response. Let's wait to see if others have something to say. Surely you understand we encourage debate.
Post a Comment