|
|
|
| Sun, Nov. 22 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Turns ahead
Spotsylvania changes course in zoning
Date published: 3/16/2009
SPOTSYLVANIA County's land- The push-me-pull-you problem of property rights vs. sprawl is driving the about-face. Supervisor Emmitt Marshall says rural landowners should be free to turn a profit from their land, especially in these hard times. Limiting their ability to sell to individuals or developers puts undue strain on multi-acre owners. For many of them, their land is their 401(k), according to this argument. But elevating the economic position of rural landowners in this way comes at the expense of everyone else. Property taxes paid by homeowners don't equal the cost of services required by them; hence, any development is a net loss to taxpayers: Essentially, they're being asked to chip in to help boost the rural landowners' fortunes. Furthermore, "upzoning" (i.e., increasing the number of homes allowed in rural areas) invites sprawl, which, in full bloom, increases pollution, obesity (from too little walking), and ongoing demands for road upgrades, schools, emergency services, and, eventually, stretched-out water and sewer lines. The county's Comprehensive Plan, to which the Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed in November after three years of meetings and discussion, springs from smart-growth concepts--including protecting rural land. Tuesday's decision is a retreat from that doctrine, which is why the Planning Commission asked that it be rejected. At least some compromise is evident, it's true, in the new zoning rules: A landowner can subdivide only one lot a year, and six during a lifetime; only 100 lots total in the county will be allowed each year; and the zoning rule can come up for review annually. These restrictions soften the blow, but only a bit. Supervisor Hap Connors says he's going to propose that 1 percent of real-state taxes be dedicated to a program established to buy development rights. That's the formula in place in neighboring Fauquier County, where more than 6,700 rural acres have escaped development in six years. Such programs offer the best of both worlds: Farmers reap some money from their land by agreeing to keep it from development, and the county retains some rural character. The deer and other fauna are happy, too. The Godzilla of rampant development need not ruin rural Spotsylvania County. But that's the area's probable fate if the Board of Supervisors doesn't set a course, and stick with it. County taxpayers, most of whom were ill-served by this zoning backtrack, should demand no less.
Date published: 3/16/2009
MArshall is a nepotisitc,
(posted by
Tamerlane
, Mar. 17, 2009 6:14 am)
sclerotic fossil.
Get Real
(posted by
JamesTKirk
, Mar. 16, 2009 12:38 pm)
Compromise was achieved. It's ok to follow the Common
Sense Plan sometimes. The cost cited by souuthwest is
incredibly naive, if not intentionally misleading: it could only
be true if all theoretically possible new lots are actually
developed. Silliness. Like saying everybody in America will
move to Nebraska, just because it's possible. Most lots are
not built by right anyway, look it up. This change does not
create big new sub-divisions. And try to remember folks,
nobody is building houses now.
The problem w/ impact fees
(posted by
blitzburgh
, Mar. 16, 2009 11:28 am)
is that a building lot is not worth as much as the impact fee. The proffer per lot is $38,000-, but houses are selling for $125,000. You can't pay $9,400 water meter fee, $2,500 building permit, $38,000 impact fee, build the house and make a profit. See how much Spotsy wants before any work is done on the actual house. The numbers don't work.
if the citizens were involved in the dialog
(posted by
larryg
, Mar. 16, 2009 8:47 am)
it could have been a positive thing - to have folks from
both sides supporting something that would help put away
some of the divisive nature of the issue and helping the
county to move on to a more positive approach to growth
in general.
Too bad.. we're still at the choosing sides and blaming
others for the problem...
we're not looking for fair solutions
(posted by
larryg
, Mar. 16, 2009 8:45 am)
We're instead penalizing ordinary landowners because our current system allows some builders to evade paying
their fair share of infrastructure costs.
but the county was offered to opportunity to place impact fees on every building lot no matter whether is was by-
right or a rezone and they turned it down.
I never heard good reasons why they turned it down but I also never heard them pursue changes in that initial law
that were desired.
they voted it down without a dialog with citizens.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
