GEORGE ORWELL, the author who skewered the manipulation of language for political ends, would have a field day with Stafford County’s proposed zoning changes to allow residential development at a rate of up to 96 housing units per acre. The legislation, which would be a windfall for big developers, is couched in language that obscures and distorts the truth until it is almost unrecognizable.
The basic idea behind “Orwellian” thinking is to repeatedly assert the opposite of what is true until it comes to have the appearance of truth. Thus in his famous novel, 1984, “Big Brother” asserts, among other things, that “war is peace.” The same logic applies to forcing this new zoning law onto the residents of Stafford County.
People hate runaway growth and the negative consequences it brings (think higher taxes, more congestion, increasing crime, etc). So if you want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, you don’t call a plan to green-light unprecedented growth the “Plan for Unprecedented Growth.” Instead, you refer to it as “Traditional Neighborhood Development.” Rumor has it that the plan was originally called “Traditional Neighborhood Development, Motherhood, and Apple Pie,” but that was a bit unwieldy.
With development, of course, comes the destruction of the natural environment. How can you obscure this basic fact? Simple: Call concrete plazas “open spaces,” a designation previously used to indicate green spaces. (Note to developers: Why limit it to concrete? Shouldn’t parking lots and roadways be designated “open spaces,” too? Think of the possibilities.)
And if you are concerned that some developer might go native and actually want to include a viable green space in the project, write into the regulations a rule that limits green space to no more than 50 percent of the project.
Worried that the voters (particularly the ones in Griffis–Widewater, where the supervisor is up for election this November and a developer wants to build 12,000 housing units) might not like a zoning law that allows up to 96 housing units per acre? Obscure this inconvenient truth by talking about “overall density” of 10 houses per acre. That doesn’t sound too bad!
And how do you cram more than one house on a lot and still be able to sell it as a separate, detached single-family home? You allow “carriage houses”—two-bedroom units above a detached garage—and call it “affordable housing.”
Want to allow any type of business possible, but don’t want people to know it? Easy. Limit the “by-right” commercial uses to “high-intensity retail uses not otherwise listed.”
And want to do away with those pesky setback areas for each lot, where no building is allowed? First you define the setback, then you list all the “encroachments and projections” that are allowed in the setback. Yep, that’s right—you can’t build in the setback unless you’re building a stoop, porch, awning, balcony, or bay window.
And then there’s the county’s “comprehensive plan,” which is supposed to guide planning for the future of the county. Sober-faced county officials sincerely invited public participation in the lengthy process that would review this important document. The paper covered the deliberations as significant news.
Now? Well, never mind. Turns out the “comprehensive plan” is neither comprehensive, because this new ordinance completely bypasses it, nor is it even a “plan,” because the new ordinance uses “floating density” that can be moved any place within the county’s growth area, making it impossible to plan for the future.
Some way had to be found to comply with “public” meeting requirements without actually having the public interfere with developers’ plans. A multi-prong strategy was needed here. First, don’t advertise most of the meetings so the public can’t find out (but let developers know, of course), and keep no records of these meetings so there’s no paper trail. Second, at the meetings that are public, let it be known that regardless of what residents think, the substance of the ordinance cannot be changed. That way you can rush through the ordinance with as little public input as possible before the public catches on.
On July 17, the Board of Supervisors has to vote on this monstrosity of an ordinance. Having voted on June 5 to fast-track the ordinance, the three Republican supervisors (Paul Milde, Mark Dudenhefer, and Bob Gibbons) along with so-called “independent” Jack Cavalier appear set to approve it, despite their stated concerns about growth.
But in the interim, the public has caught a whiff of what is happening. Now what will the supervisors do? Can they keep a straight face while they argue that voting “yes” to allow more growth will somehow control growth?
Or will Orwell triumph again in the form of a bureaucratic trump card: a vote to defer. In this case, “yes” means “yes,” and “no” means “no,” but a vote to “defer” means “I know citizens oppose this so I’m waiting until after I’m re-elected to foist it upon them.”
Orwell could have learned a few things from this process. Development is Preservation. Urban is Traditional. Concrete is Green. Private is Public. Oh, yeah, and big developers don’t run Stafford County.
Mariel Berrios–Riebe is a resident of Stafford County.