GOP proposal drawing fire from counties More county supervisors' reactions to the transportation plan:
Local government officials react to GOP plan
By COREY BYERS and MEGHANN COTTER
Date published: 12/29/2006
Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates have altered their strategy in Virginia's transportation battle, and now county supervisors across the state are caught in the cross hairs.
"The easiest job in the world is to be a supervisor approving a subdivision," said Del. Clay Athey Jr., R-Warren, "because basically, you can approve it and you get to start blaming the state immediately because they haven't repaved the road."
Athey was one of three GOP delegates who spoke at a press conference Wednesday and proposed legislation dealing with land-use issues.
Three proposed bills would:
Require localities (or homeowners associations) to maintain roads in new subdivisions.
Create "urban transportation service districts" giving localities incentives to maintain secondary roads now under state care.
Require counties to plan growth in "urban development areas," places where water and sewer lines and access to public transportation are available.
Gov. Tim Kaine is expected to offer up his transportation plan next week. State lawmakers will start debating in January.
House Speaker Bill Howell, R-Stafford, said Virginia is one of just a few states in the country that still manage secondary roads through the legislature.
That method, he said, has for too long excused local officials from considering transportation impacts in their land-use decisions.
His bill creates incentives for development to occur in the growth areas and expands impact-fee options on by-right land, where homes can be built without additional county approval.
"We think local governments can probably do as good a job, if not better, maintaining secondary roads," he said. "Answering the problem of transportation is broader than raising taxes and giving the money to VDOT. The prime culprit is increasing sprawl."
The measures, he said, are an attempt at offering transportation relief statewide and giving localities more control.
He calls the early criticism from local officials unfair.
"We want to work with them, and we've designed a plan that will benefit them," he said. "For them to say, 'Oh, its not going to work,' is frustrating."
County supervisors in the Fredericksburg area had mixed responses to the plans.
To reach COREY BYERS: 540/735-1976
Email: cbyers@freelancestar.com
Marshall described the GOP plan as "the same old story."
"Some of the members of the General Assembly don't want to live up to their obligation to take care of transportation, so they pass it on to the local governments," Marshall said. "It's wrong, it's bad, it shouldn't happen."
Marshall doesn't know how state officials can put responsibility for the issue of growth solely on localities. He's disappointed they won't take care of the transportation issue themselves, and said growth will happen whether houses are built or not.
"I think the people of the state of Virginia expect the General Assembly to take care of issues, not [just] local governments." |
A former president of the Virginia Association of Counties, Acors questioned where extra funding for road maintenance would come from at the local level.
"As long as the money comes to do the work, then that's fine."
Acors said that, in his experience, members of the General Assembly "get a monkey off their back and put in on someone else's."
He's concerned about legislation being fair to smaller counties in the state--he doesn't want his county to continue to lose funding.
"Caroline gets a very small portion of the fuel tax dollars funding," Acors said. "If the formula changes and it gets more money, it may not be so bad." |
"They need to tone down the rhetoric and stop pointing fingers," Wolfe said.
"It might be the path of least resistance for Richmond, but it would be disastrous for smaller localities like mine."
Wolfe said that from his understanding, the bills don't address growth that has already taken place.
"I think legislators need to work with counties instead of pointing fingers--slapping us around isn't going to achieve the result." |
Connors said that while the proposals may make for good "political hay" in the short term, the General Assembly has failed in coming up with true solutions.
Connors said governments, locally and regionally, are working to tie transportation use to planning. He said his board has pursued commercial growth--growth that's filling state coffers with new revenues.
"If Delegate Athey doesn't like commercial growth, I would suggest he sponsor legislation that lets us keep the sales tax instead of sending it to Richmond," Connors said.
He believes lawmakers are not investing in mass transit and are blaming the local governments after abdicating responsibility.
"As long as they're not doing anything to fix the problem, why don't they just give us their salaries, too, because they 're not earning them."
|
Fields said local officials share some of the blame for poor land-use planning. But he contends that the fault falls mostly on those who made zoning decisions 15 to 20 years ago without considering long-term impact.
"In the past, rezonings were done with thought that it probably wasn't going to be built out," he said. "There are counties like Clark and Fauquier that chose not to rezone lots of property," he said, adding that they've seen slower growth than Loudoun, Stafford and Spotsylvania.
It is, however, entirely possible that the proposals will work, Fields said.
"None of these are bad ideas. The tricky part, of course, is talking about giving the roads back to localities without revenue streams," he said. "Ultimately that's been the problem: The states have the roads and localities make land-use decisions."
|
Gibbons said the proposals fall short of the tools localities actually need. They also fail to consider zoning decisions made decades ago.
"The problem in Stafford is that the county was zoned back in the mid-'70s."
Right now, the county doesn't own or maintain the roads. And officials can't deny subdivisions if the land is already zoned for the proposed use.
"If an application is filed for a subdivision and we don't have proper schools, roads and water and sewer in place, we should be able to turn that down until we have it." Gibbons said. "If we had the adequate-public-facilities legislation, that would be worth looking at."
Local governments, he said, also need more state money, if legislators are going to hand over road responsibilities.
"We are in favor of the land use and roads together, but you gotta have the tools in which to do it." |
|
Date published: 12/29/2006
|
