|
|
|
| Mon, Nov. 09 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Endangered living
Two Spotsylvania County supervisors want more commercial development in the rural end of the county--is that wise
Date published: 4/7/2008
AN ITEM for the "be careful what Both supervisors provided questionable reasons for seeking the added commercial development, citing the distance residents must travel to reach shopping centers and doctor's offices. What follows, they suggest, is Spotsylvania losing revenue to neighboring Louisa and Orange counties. Perhaps a border fence is in order? To suggest that a 20-minute drive to Bloom is an unfair burden on people who choose to live in a (decreasingly) rural area is comedic. While we realize that misplaced nostalgia is just as dangerous as blindly embracing "progress," this seems like the perfect time to remind everyone that when we were kids, we had to walk 10 miles to school, uphill, each way. Hyperbole aside, Messrs. Marshall and Waddy need to think before they act to change the unique character of the areas they represent. Spotsylvania County has decided to focus growth in the Primary Settlement District of the Interstate 95, U.S. 17, and State Route 3 areas. There are practical reasons for this--infrastructure basics like public water and sewer already exist there, and much of that corridor has already been touched by development. There is also an important philosophical reason for concentrating growth in the PSD. Doing so could, in theory, spare the Livingston and Berkeley districts from the rampant growth that makes shopping a chore, even if you live in the eastern part of the county. There is value in this line of reasoning, and longtime county residents like Mr. Marshall and Mr. Waddy should be the first to see it. They've spent decades enjoying the advantages of a lifestyle that is becoming increasingly hard to find. The forests and farmland of western Spotsylvania are the last vestiges of a pre-commuter county that is still an attractive respite, especially for those who call it home. The county doesn't have the luxury of rich Tidewater plantation soil, nor does it have the moneyed upper crust of Albemarle, so the financial pressure to develop western Spotsylvania is high. It might be impossible to relieve that pressure, but it would be unfortunate for the county to lose its rural character completely. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Waddy should resist additional commercial development in their districts, not only for their constituents' sake, but for the benefit of the entire county. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
Date published: 4/7/2008
commercial or taxpayer provided water/sewer?
(posted by
larryg
, Apr. 7, 2008 11:42 am)
It's important to NOTE that ANY developers, including BLOOM can make a proposal to the BOS and if such proposals have viable water/sewer provisions - why would the BOS turn it down if they received increased revenues from it?
The issue of having the county actually designate the INTENDED land use to be commercial - means that the county is also committing to provide water/sewer.
Let's talk about how much money would be required and who would pay for it....
continued
(posted by
larryg
, Apr. 7, 2008 11:28 am)
commercial at Lake Anna - a BENEFIT to the taxpayers of Spotsylvania?
Why not PROPOSE a TIF District or some other equitable way of having development pay for the infrastructure it needs?
Waddy/Marhsalls advocacy for Commercial without getting the sewer issue in the discussion leaves open the accusation that what they're really after is not what they are saying they are after.
Let's get the WHOLE issue on the table.. and debate it on the merits instead of hiding in the bushes.
re: "there is designation in the comprehensive plan for those services at Lake Anna village. "
(posted by
larryg
, Apr. 7, 2008 11:24 am)
The problem at Lake Anna is that a sewage treatment plant on the North Anna is problematical because Dominion only has to release 40CFS (cubic feet per second) from the Dam and a sewage plant permit is not an easy thing..
.. so the folks at Lake Anna want the County taxpayers to build a sewer line to Thornburg...
.. It's a debatable subject but to NOT be up front about that particular issue in the advocacy for commercial is, IMHO a bit disingenuous.
Why not debate how commercial at Lake Anna ..continue
Get the facts straight
(posted by
fastjoe77
, Apr. 7, 2008 10:51 am)
I wish the editor had done more homework. The fact is that many of those on the Spotsylvania side of Lake Anna have to travel more than 20 miles to get to the Bloom. That takes 35 minutes and $6.50 in gas on the best day. Mr Marshall and Mr Waddy aren't asking to turn Livingston and Berkeley into a PSD. They are merely representing a need we have for basic services. Oh, by the way, there is designation in the comprehensive plan for those services at Lake Anna village.
continued
(posted by
larryg
, Apr. 7, 2008 10:39 am)
and lower salaries are, in their minds, being penalized for the growth.
Neither are innocent of the growth as both have quite often voted for major new residential... that has brought the commuters and demands for more services.....
But to keep things honest, the increases in taxes are not due to the natives. They could not afford the higher taxes. The increased taxes are required by and insisted upon by the folks who move here... and then the same ones complain about the "growth" problem..- to be fair.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
