Some slow-growth proponents say residential development creates traffic and other woes. Prince William Co. has even put the kibosh on new rezonings--yet restrictive land use policies could make matters worse, not better. FILE/MIKE MORONES/THE FREE LANCE-STAR Visit the Photo Place

Gov. Kaine, step in now and help the working man buy a home

Prince William's moratorium on building is a recipe for disaster

Date published: 1/3/2007

GIVEN THE VIRULENCE of the anti-growth sentiment sweeping the state, it was only a matter of time before one of Virginia's counties adopted a building moratorium. In November 2006, Prince William County was the first to take this step, and Loudoun may soon follow.

Pretending that this harsh action was forced upon them by the state government's transportation policies (or lack thereof), the county's clever contrivance will largely serve to (1) further enrich those of its constituents already lucky enough to own their own homes, (2) add immeasurably to the hideous traffic problem that burdens Northern Virginia, and (3) severely limit the economic opportunities for families of moderate means.

Over the past decade or so, Northern Virginia's more distant counties--Loudoun, Stafford, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and Fauquier--have attempted to slow their growth by adopting land use regulations that have the effect of excluding from their communities low and moderate income households.

Of course you can't do this directly--a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1930s ruled that it was illegal for communities to exclude people by income. But as country clubs demonstrate, you can do this indirectly by raising the "membership fee."

In the case of Virginia's counties, the implicit membership fee is the price of a home--and by making its housing less affordable to families of moderate incomes, a county can easily limit its new entrants to the better-off.

In an effort to deter growth and upgrade community demographics, in the late 1990s Virginia counties began to adopt a series of restrictive land use regulations to limit the availability and affordability of building lots (down zoning and limited rezonings) and/or impose a substantial implicit tax on all new houses (called a proffer).

These higher fees and artificial land shortages caused home prices to soar, forcing families of moderate means into the rental market, or pushing them to the distant fringe of the metropolitan area--where lower land costs and less onerous land regulations provide affordable housing.

Forced to move farther away from their jobs, the time they spend on the road lengthens, and traffic congestion worsens.

Data published each year by the U.S. Census Bureau reveals the adverse impact that Prince William's extant abusive land use practices have caused. In 2000, the median value of a home in the county was $149,600--25 percent greater than the national average.

Follow us on

Date published: 1/3/2007

Most recent reader comments: