US29 Bypass – Building a Roadblock is Easier Than Building a Road

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Thursday, May 23rd, from 5 pm – 7 pm at the University Area Holiday Inn,  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will be holding an open house style meeting to discuss alternative designs to the southern terminus of the US 29 Western Bypass.  But the question is will “the public” focus on the meeting topic or use this meeting as a platform for opposition to this much needed safety improvement to US29?

Based on the e-mail and Facebook traffic I have seen this week, I fully anticipate the “roadblock builders” to be out in great numbers at this meeting.  Does this mean the public is opposed to the road? 

No, in fact our 2004 transportation survey, Charlottesville Tomorrow 2012 survey [graphic] (and others) as well as the 2011 Rivanna District Supervisor election all seem to indicate the pubic is in favor of the road.

However, when a cohort of any population, regardless of size, is in opposition to a project that cohort is generally more energized than the cohort that is in support of an already approved project.  Therefore, I anticipate the “road blockers” to dominate the attendance at Thursday’s citizen informational meeting.

While the Free Enterprise Forum applauds this vocal minority for remaining engaged, we question the structural integrity of their current six part “GO29” argument.

Please let me explain. 

On their website, The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) advocates for several steps to relieve the congestion on US29 other than the bypass. 

The first step in building an effective roadblock is to redefine the argument.  If you can include portions of the opposition’s solution in your solution, you will have them chasing their rhetorical tail.

By branding this as “GO29”, the SELC seems to think the public will not recognize that many parts of “their” solution are already in process at the direction of those supporting the bypass {and were included in Places29].

From the SELC website:

We can’t bypass our problems. Our community has developed an approach that addresses traffic backups directly, and also gives drivers more ways to reach destinations. Our Go29 video highlights six key pieces of the solution:       

1. Improve the interchange with the 250 Bypass near Best Buy;  
2. Build a compact overpass at Hydraulic Road to eliminate a major source of congestion and allow through-traffic on 29 to flow without stopping;
3. Extend Hillsdale Drive parallel to 29 to give local drivers ways to reach destinations without having to use 29;
4. Build a second compact overpass at Rio to solve this traffic snarl (same concept as Hydraulic);
5. Extend Berkmar Drive up to Hollymead Town Center and beyond, so that drivers could go from Kmart to Lowe’s to Target without getting on 29; and
6. Eliminate the bottleneck between the Rivanna River and Hollymead by widening 29 in both directions.

Wait a minute, four of these items are not issues.  There is community consensus (and in some cases studies completed and even funding) for:

1. The Best Buy Ramp
2. Hillsdale Drive Extended
3. Berkmar Drive Extended
4. The widening of US29 North of the Rivanna River

By suggesting these other items won’t be built, SELC is knowingly constructing a multi faceted false choice argument designed to obfuscate the simple question Expressway or Bypass?  

Should vehicles without business in the North US29 corridor be forced to go through the corridor or should they be given the option to bypass it?

But none of this is the topic of Thursday’s meeting.

According to VDOT:

The purpose of this Citizen Information Meeting is to provide an opportunity for interested citizens and organizations to review preliminary alternatives for the proposed interchange at the southern terminus of the project. . . The project will include construction of a new interchange at the southern terminus of the project that will replace the existing U.S. 250 Bypass interchange at Leonard Sandridge Road. VDOT is considering three alternative configurations for this proposed interchange. Displays showing each alternative under consideration are being presented at this meeting for public review and comment.

So the question remains, will Thursday’s meeting be about the alternatives to the southern terminus of US29 Bypass or a trip down the roadblock builder’s rhetorical rabbit hole?

Will the vocal minority succeed in redefining the meeting agenda to include settled issues or will VDOT be able to maintain the focus on the three proposed southern terminus options?

Clearly in Albemarle County, and many communities, building a roadblock is much easier than building a road.

Stay tuned.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson,President

 

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Free Enterprise Forum, Disney

Graphic Credit: Charlottesville Tomorrow

Greene PC Denies Proffer Amendment

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Back in 2008, Kinvara Properties, LLC received approval of their Greene County rezoning on the west side of US29 near its intersection with Cedar Grove Road (Route 607).  As a part of the rezoning, a series of voluntary proffers were offered by the developer and accepted by Greene County.   On Wednesday, May 15^th Kinerva returned to the Greene County Planning Commission  to request to amendment of the proffers including interconnectivity and removal of the cash proffers 

Attorney Butch Davies spoke on behalf of the request and indicated that Kinvara has a party, Jeana Server, interested in purchasing the property if it included passage from Deer Lake Estates to the Food Lion shopping center and the elimination of cash proffers. Mr. Davies indicated that the buyer would not make the purchase without these conditions.

After hearing from the applicant, the commission opened the public hearing. Chad Womack, a resident in Deer Lake Estates, stated that the residents did not want connectivity to the Food Lion shopping center. Ed Mahoney echoed Mr. Womack’s concern and suggested that a traffic light be installed on Route 29 at the Deer Lake entrance.

Jenna Server, the prospective buyer, said that the $9,000 cash proffer  that was a part of the 2008 rezoning, was not economically feasible given the market study she recently had performed.

Matt Straus, a resident of the Willow Creek subdivision, urged the Planning Commission not to bail out the developer by waiving the cash proffer at the expense of having the residents in Greene County bear this cost. Brian Higgins from the Piedmont Environmental Council asked that the Planning Commission not start a trend of waiving cash proffers. One speaker did speak in favor of the amendment stating it would be good for business in a down economy.

The final speaker was Carl Schmitt, former Greene County supervisor, who helped develop the Cash Proffer policy. He asked the commission not to allow the amendment and to keep the Cash Proffer policy in effect.

The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing and opened their discussion of the request. Vice Chairman Jay Willer indicated he had some concerns about the proffer policy itself, but as for this specific request, he felt there should not be a modification to the proffer policy. Chairman Anthony Herring Joel Snow stated that while he is a businessman and had sympathy with the request he did not support waiving the Cash Proffer. The remaining three commissioners were all in agreement and the vote was unanimous 5 – 0 to deny the rezoning application.

Earlier this Spring, the Free Enterprise Forum issued a white paper ‘Contradictory Consequences‘ regarding the impacts of cash proffers on development projects. While we do not take a position on any project, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the testimony supports that cash proffers are one (not the only) factor in the market viability of this specific project.

________________________________

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Fluvanna Supervisors Talk Roads

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

PALMYRA — The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Virginia Department of Transportation’s six-year-plan for Fluvanna County and was briefed on the Fork Union project during the May 15 meeting.

VDOT’s plan includes paving several unpaved country roads through the ‘rural rustic road’ program and widening heavily traveled county roads.

The rural rustic roads to get paved are Hells Bend Road (Route 606), Stag Road (Route 715), Lantre Road (Route 621), Canal Street (Route 687) and Radicel Circle (Route 687).

Garden Lane (Route 636) qualifies for Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) funds because it has high enough usage and is unpaved. This is different than the rural rustic program that has maximums of road usage to qualify. CTB formula has a minimum to be included and Garden Lane is the only unpaved Fluvanna road to qualify.

The major road projects are widening two county routes, both named North Boston Road (Route 600 and Route 633). North Boston connects the Lake Monticello area to Troy. It is often used by Lake Monticello area traffic to get to Zion Crossroad. This two lane road does not have side white lines and has many pavement patches.

Joe Chesser (Rivanna District) asked for its inclusion during an April VDOT work session. The two projects for the one road were included in previous six-year plans so it could be included in this year’s version without issue. The entire road has a budget of over $3 million to complete. It will require funds in each of the six years to complete the ‘minor widening.’

VDOT also includes in the six-year plan rural additions, countywide engineering and surveying, countywide traffic services and countywide right of way studies for general usage. This helps with speed studies, incidental work that comes up and other issues that arise throughout the budget cycle.

The entire six-year plan has an estimated allocation of $1.2 million from the state government.

Since 2004 the Fork Union community has prepared for a streetscape project. The project is to help improve Route 15 at or near the Route 6 intersection. The project has been slow-moving but county staff hope to submit plans to improve the west side of Route 15 from the Post Office to the second entrance of Fork Union Military Academy soon.

The request for bid will include curb and gutter work, crosswalks, concrete sidewalks with grass utility strip, vehicle entrances, street lights and metering equipment for the business side of Route 15.

Also included in the request will be the first alternate plan to include installation of site furnishings and dry-laid brick pavers in lieu of the grass utility strip. The second alternate is to extend the project from the Post Office to Academy Road (the ‘new’ road around the academy). The third alternate is installing site furnishings and dry-laid brick pavers to that second entrance and the final alternate is street trees installed in the brick paver sections.

The entire project, including all alternates is estimated at $475,300. The early estimates of the construction of just the base bid and first section of brick pavers is $395,900. The project estimates grant money available will be $400,000 for construction costs.

The hope is to get a request for bid out in the next month but the plan has hit snags along the way since 2004. Originally the plan included from the Post Office to the Dollar Store but it was discovered landowners owned from the middle of the road. In order to do such a project, landowners would have to give permanent right of way which not all were willing to do.

Pat Groot, grans administrator for the county, believes as long as the plan moves to bid soon, the county won’t lose any grant money. However, if the plan is delayed longer the transportation enhancement grants have been under heavy scrutiny because many localities have been stretching the project timeframes out.

——————————————————————-

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Split Board Approves Greene County Budget 3-2

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

At the previous Board of Supervisors meeting in Greene County  the property tax rate was increased to equalize the reduction in property values so that the same amount of tax revenue would be generated in the coming year. At the May 14^th BOS meeting the proposed budget that was being reviewed that held local spending flat and required the school system to absorb lower state and federal funding, as had been requested by the school system.

Before discussion of the budget started, Chairman Jim Frydl (Midway District) proposed that a consultant be contracted to review the budget process and provide an evaluation on the process. The only change to the budget that was presented on the 14th was a new request from the Economic Development Authority for additional funding of $12,000 for Small Business Development to hire a part time position. The Board chose not to fund this request in the budget.

Supervisor Davis Lamb (Ruckersville District) was the first supervisor to speak to the budget and he indicated that he couldn’t approve the advertised budget. He cited many inconsistencies in the school budget and referred to cuts in number of school employees made in 2006/7 and 2008/9 along with the 22.5 employee reduction  required to offset the reduction in state and federal funding but then when he compared number of employees of 2008 vs. 2012 he found there is an increase. He said that he would be a hypocrite if he approved the budget with the schools request when he voted against the higher tax rate. He had agreed to only advertise the $.72/$100 new tax rate but he didn’t favor the schools flat funding.

Chairman Frydl asked Mr. Lamb how much he would reduce the request by but Mr. Lamb didn’t provide a specific figure instead he indicated that it was only the school component of the budget he didn’t approve of – the major part of the budget.

Supervisor Buggs Peyton (Stanardsville District) spoke next and he also said he opposed the proposed budget and stated that the majority of citizens he has spoken with were against tax increases. Also, he argued why should citizens pay a higher rate when their property assessments have declined indicating a decline in the property’s value. He felt that the county should only spend 60% of its revenue for schools. He expressed concern that the Reserve Fund has been drawn down the past two years and that in order to pay for all the future projects being considered the property tax rate would need to go up to $.85/$100. Mr. Peyton also indicated concern that Greene County is heading down a path of financial insecurity and fears that Greene will have to return to borrowing to pay the bills. Currently Greene County has $46 million in debt, the Reserve Fund has been consumed and replenished the past two years and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a wish list and won’t get done. He is fearful that the county is heading down the same path as the federal government and Greene County can’t continue to tax and spend.

Supervisor Eddie Deane (At-Large)  spoke next. He recalled that ten years ago the rate was $.84/$100. The tax rate has been lowered and now the failure to sell more hook ups to the water and sewer system is causing the cost of that project to be borne by the taxpayers in their tax rate.  He also said it is sad that local communities have to make up for state and federal mandates being passed on without funding. While he believes there may be cuts in spending in every department in the county, he was in favor of the proposed budget.

Supervisor David Cox stated he supports our budget and thanked Tracy Morrisl for her efforts in preparing the budget and he also thanked the school system in responding timely to his requests for additional information. He indicated that he supports the budget even thought his own property taxes will be increasing as a result of an increase in his properties appraised value.

Chairman Frydl spoke last and challenged Mr. Peyton’s comment about the majority of residents in Greene being opposed to tax increases as he has gotten comments supporting both sides. He also agreed with Supervisor Cox’s comment about getting timely responses from the School System. He also disagreed with the 60% limit on school funding stating that the funding requests should be reviewed on an individual basis and not an arbitrary percentage.  He supported the $.72/$100 tax rate and saw no reason to change from the advertised budget.

Mr. Cox proposed a motion to accept the proposed budget which Mr. Deane seconded. The vote of three ayes of Cox, Deane and Frydl carried the motion vs. the two no votes of Peyton and Lamb.

An additional item of note at the meeting was the announcement of Supervisor Buggs Peyton that he will not seek re-election.

The Free Enterprise Forum commends the Greene Board of Supervisors for their clear discussion on the pros and cons of the budget that was approved.

_________________________________

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle’s Development Double Standard Allows The Library To Cross The Road

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Wednesday (5/1) the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors have an $11.8 Million dollar consent agenda item regarding the relocation of Northside library from its current rental space in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center to a location just west of the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.

The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned a double standard may be in play as this is a “public” project as opposed to a private development. As private development interests are regularly told that the financial demands of regulatory approvals are not the concern of the County. 

In the past, Albemarle has taken such opportunities to showcase how well their projects embrace the goals of the comprehensive plan and build to the highest criteria.  In this case, we believe the county has identified a parcel and is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Would a private development get the same free pass?

Currently the Northside Library is in a retail center with significant parking as well as other community facilities within reasonable walking distances such as a bakery, a number of restaurants, a movie theater, a private health club, as well as a new grocery store.

It is important to the discussion that the County is in a lease agreement in this space and that agreement is up for renewal/renegotiation in 2014.

The new site is located on the south side of Rio Road West, just west of the intersection with US29.  The staff proposal is to reuse the existing structure to house both the Northside Library (30,000 sq. ft.)as well as long term County warehouse and storage space (20,000+ sq. ft.).

The site is bounded by commercial land on all sides and is zoned for HC Highway commercial. 

The headquarters for the Daily Progress is located immediately to west on Rio Road.

Interestingly, this same parcel (in combination with the adjacent parcel) was under consideration for a Homewood Suites hotel location in January of last year. 

That project went to Albemarle’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) on January 4th.  At some point after the ARB issued their initial 15 demands (including the need for 3D Modeling) for future submittals, the investors in the hotel project chose to move the project into the more business friendly City of Charlottesville (read the January 3, 2012 ARB minutes here).

While we are not suggesting the ARB review was the exclusive cause of the hotel project relocation, it certainly was one of the contributing factors.  So now, as the private development (tax generating) option has been eliminated we are looking at a public use on the parcel.

Seeing this item on the Board of Supervisors consent agenda leads us to believe last Tuesday’s discussion at the Albemarle County Planning Commission may be the only public discussion regarding this project. 

Staff met with the Board of Supervisors in closed session early this year to initiate this discussion and to place contractual “holds” on the land to allow for due diligence.  Staff has projected the upfit of the property to be in the $8 million dollar range (~$166 per sq. ft.) as compared with $250 a square foot for new construction.

The staff conveniently found the project to be generally consistent with the demands of the facilities and would be a positive redevelopment of this parcel.  Unlike a private development, the focus of the Planning Commission discussion was not as directed “whether the general location, character and extent of the proposed facility are in substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan” but instead focused on the economics of this infrastructure addition.

The Neighborhood Model portion of the Comprehensive Plan places significant importance to interconnectivity of roadways, pedestrian orientation, relegated parking and multi model access.  

Section 5.9.15 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan includes:

Strategy 2a: All government facilities in the Development Areas should conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model.

The reality is the West Rio site is not well placed to become a neighborhood center, it is not located near significant residential activity and  the existing bike lanes end at Berkmar.  While the location is “not completely devoid of residences,” according to County staff the density of this residential is low, and access from those homes to the site is challenged.

Commissioner Tom Loach perhaps put it most succinctly when he said “Theoretically, this is not the Neighborhood Model”.  But Loach also said, “ we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Commissioner Rick Randolph voiced cost effectiveness concerns saying “Focusing on the ideal should not get in the way of this moving forward”.  Commissioner Ed Smith echoed this sentiment stating “It’s not a campus atmosphere but it is the lesser of two evils”.  Commissioner “Mac” Lafferty believes this is an opportunity that will not repeat itself. 

As a part of the discussion, Commissioner Don Franco pushed County staff suggesting there might be ways to make the project more Neighborhood Model friendly and asked if the applicant (the County) was prepared to make commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of the redevelopment.  He was concerned that by approving this use, the County might end up in a “firing range” situation where as a commission they have no choice but to approve the site plan regardless of the many concerns.

Commissioner Bruce Dotson enumerated a laundry list of things he would like to see in a library site: Activity center, pedestrian friendly, open space, green space were all important items he wanted to be in the Comprehensive Plan.  How this project failed to measure up to those standards was relatively clear.

To address these concerns staff has suggested that future improvements to make the project more pedestrian and bicycle friendly could be reprogrammed from the proposed Berkmar Extension. The Free Enterprise Forum is very troubled by the suggestion of removing a transportation backbone to make a library fit on a less than ideal site.

Loach was OK with the idea that the applicant (the County) would do their best to address them.  Would a private developer get this level of trust?

In the end the unanimous Planning Commission decision supported the library use with the condition that the applicant (the county) “come as close to the Neighborhood Model as possible”  Perhaps this will be the language used in all future land use discussions – I have my doubts.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Free Enterprise Forum

Map Credit: Bing.com

Greene Raises Tax Rate to Counter Property Assessment Decline

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

On Tuesday night, April 23^rd,  the Greene County Board of Supervisors heard from only 12 speakers, a fraction of citizens that they heard from a year ago (over 90 speakers), in the public hearing on the property tax rate. With property assessments declining 6.99%, a tax rate increase of $.03/$100 would be required to roughly equalize tax revenue – this is the rate that was published in advance. Chairman Jim Frydl clarified that the meeting was only to take action on the tax rate and that setting the budget will be at the May 14^th meeting.

The comments from the public overwhelmingly supported the increase to generate level funding. Andrea Whitmarsh, current assistant superintendent who has been named to be the new superintendent, thanked the BOS for public funding for the schools. She vowed to continue to strive for improved cost control in the school system. She announced to the BOS that after the School Board submitted their budget they have learned that health insurance costs will be reduced by $150,000. These funds will be used to reinstate some of the cuts announced to offset reduced state and federal funding (of over $700,000).

School Board Chairperson, Michelle Flynn, thanked the BOS in advance for level funding and for their time spent coming to the schools – all five have attended some event in the school system. She also echoed the Stanardsville Fire Department  who earlier commented on the private fundraising that they do to help fund the schools.

Several citizens did express concern over a tax rate increase and that once a levy is raised it is hard to lower it and that seniors have a hard time making their tax payments. One citizen asked that the county do a zero based budget. He was willing to go along with an increase of $.015/$100 instead of the $.03/$100 proposed. His fear was that increased taxes would deter new businesses from locating in Greene County.

Several of the citizens spoke in favor of the equalized rate and made the comment that this is not raising taxes, but merely to balance out the decline in assessed property valued to generate the same tax revenue – the bill will be the same amount. One citizen encouraged the BOS to equalize taxes to ensure that the quality of life is maintained in Greene County to attract businesses to the county.

The meeting then turned to a discussion among the supervisors. Supervisor Davis Lamb referred to a study he found on line that indicated that in the past decade funding for schools has increased faster than enrollment. He indicated he was not in favor of increasing the property tax rate as Social Security COLA is increasing only 1.4%  and Medicare Part B has a 9.3% increase. Supervisor Buggs Peyton also did not support the tax rate increase since the schools received their largest increase ever last year. He expressed concern over the funding the past two years of athletic facilities instead of academics. He also expressed concern that it is time to stop bullying and intimidation and promote collaboration within the schools. Lastly, he indicated that to meet all the needs of Greene County the tax rate would need to be at $.85/$100.

Supervisor Eddie Deane, the supervisor who proposed the $.72/$100 tax rate, believes that the increase will help avoid a larger increase in the future. He appreciates the transparency with the school system. When a more detailed budget by line item was requested, it was presented the next day. He does not want more people in the schools to lose their jobs. He also suggested that the county look into citizens being able to pay more than their tax bill and identify what function it should be assigned to.

Supervisor David Cox appreciated the comments from the public and applauded them for being respectful this evening. And also he complimented the School Board for being open during the school year. He also supported the $.72/$100 tax rate to help offset problems down the road.

Chairman Jim Frydl was last to speak and he also thanked the audience for attending. He also stated that the county has underspent by $979,000 to date. He agreed with Supervisors Dean and Cox that the alternative to raising the tax rate is to put our head in the sand. He indicated that the School System is not asking for increased funding, but for level funding. With that being said, they are already having to eliminate 22.5 positions due to reduced state and federal funding. He supports the $.72/$100 equalized tax rate which would charge residents the same amount as last year.

Supervisor Lamb said that some of the positions being eliminated are due to people leaving the school system. Supervisor Dean indicated that the lack of sale of EDU’s has caused the county to bear the full cost of the water and sewer system. Supervisor Frydl agreed stating that any units sold at the $10,000 rate will help offset the $2,000,000 cost which is the worst case.

At that time Chairman Frydl summarized each supervisors position with 3 supporting the $.72 rate and 2 supporting maintaining the $.69 rate. David Cox proposed the motion for the $.72 rate with Eddie Deane seconding the motion. Peyton and Lamb voted no and Frydl, Deane and Cox voted in favor of the equalized rate.

The Free Enterprise Forum commends the citizens of Greene County for their behavior during the meeting, quite a difference from a year ago. The vote to equalize the tax rate will allow Greene County to replenish their Reserve Fund which has proven to allow the county to address major financial issues.

——————————————–

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Will Increasing Regulation Increase Prosperity?

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

On the national level, President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”. 

One has to ask, Do the majority of our elected representative support or oppose this concept?

Just as the leaders of our community are being asked to think big regarding their comprehensive plan goals and objectives, they continue to consider government actions that would demonstrably add bureaucracy, and cost with limited public benefit.

Interestingly, the proponents for this type regulations work hard to use a lexicon that discourages opposition. Charlottesville, the “Human Rights Commission” sounds like something everyone should agree on. It was perhaps because they did not want to be seen as opposing “Human Rights” that a majority of City Council favored adding enforcement language to this politically appointed group. Aaron Richardson of The Daily Progress reports:

“The council on Monday night reached consensus to hold a public hearing on the ordinance that would establish a commission that could investigate, mediate and make judgments on claims of discrimination in small businesses and delegate claims from larger businesses to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. .

… Councilor Kathy Galvin told the council on Monday that she was skeptical of the effect a commission with full enforcement powers could have on local businesses. She added that discrimination is not the only thing keeping low-income residents and minorities out of work.”

The Free Enterprise Forum applauds Ms. Galvin’s persistence on this critical issue. Back in December of 2011, the Free Enterprise Forum asked if you could be in favor of Human Rights and Opposed to the Human Rights Commission.

We said, “the Free Enterprise Forum fears that moving forward with the politically appointed Human Rights Commission, based on its current construct and goals, will do more harm than good for City economic opportunities across all demographic cohorts”.

Couple this with Charlottesville’s tax rates, the newly enacted Stormwater fees, one has to wonder how much more regulatory burden can businesses withstand before looking at space outside the City. 

Things are not significantly better in Albemarle County, where their Planning Commission is considering a number of new overlay zones that will increase complexity, reduce property rights and increase the scope and size of local government.

“Adopt a historic overlay district ordinance to recognize and protect historic, architectural, and cultural resources, including individual sites and districts at the local level.

Expand the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historic district overlay ordinance. Revise the make up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the group accordingly”.

This is in addition to the Monticello “land grab” vista preservation overlay (note the verbiage change), the new proposed “Biodiversity” inventory and action plan. Clearly there is an undercurrent in government that more control is better government. The Free Enterprise Forum respectfully disagrees.

All of these regulatory hurdles have an impact on economic development and stability.  This morning’s (4/22) Washington Post featured a Sarah Halzack article explaining DC bucking the trend of “Job Sprawl”.  Citing Brookings Institute’s Elizabeth Kneebone’s study showing DC was the only one of 100 studied that had added jobs to its urban core.  According to the article:

“Decentralization of jobs can have either a positive or negative effect on a metropolitan area.  The implications of this shift can depend largely on a region’s land-use policies as well as the quality and reach of its transit system. [Emphasis added-nw]

“Particularly for low income residents, if jobs move further out, if there isn’t reliable transit and they don’t have a car, that could limit their opportunities,” Kneebone said.

This information coupled with the Charlottesville dearth of jobs in the so called “Orange Dot” Report proves economic realities must help shape local policies if we wish to attract and retain JOBS to live in our region.  The concept of economic vitality has been woefully understated during the community discussions regarding poverty, employment issues and property rights.

While we appreciate Monticello’s contribution to the community, we believe they are a private property owner. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation takes great pains to mention that it receives no government support but now is asking Albemarle County to serve as a middle man between the mountaintop and their neighbors. Perhaps the Foundation might choose to use a part of their most recent $10 million dollar gift to directly reach out to their neighbors rather than mandating local government do so.  

While we understand and appreciate the goals of biodiversity, we do not believe this chapter should be the longest in Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan and we question the need for a Biodiversity Action Plan that virtually deputizes the Natural Resource Committee.

While we remain very concerned with human rights, we are equally concerned that unnecessary red tape will push more businesses out of not only Charlottesville but the entire region. 

While we believe the importance of historic places, we find that property owners, not government, should determine what to do with their property.

If we as a community choose to ignore the significant negative implications of over regulation on business development and retention, the resultant community may not be one you wish to see preserved.  Just as one can ask if the community vision is “Aspen or Austin”, if  these proposals come to fruition a better question may be should Charlottesville be known for Making Products or Making Beds.

Today, we find ourselves at  a tipping point, as the number of government overlays, rights commissions and review boards increase, the economic vitality of the region decreases by an inverse proportion.

Which way will the scale fall?

Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Fluvanna Passes Budget and CIP

By. Bryan Rothamel

PALMYRA – The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors passed the 2014 fiscal year budget and associated tax rates unanimously during the April 17 meeting.

The budget had minimal changes from the advertised budget. The tax rates did not change from advertised amounts, with the real property tax rate at $0.795 per $100 assessed and personal property tax at $4.15 per $100 assessed.

“I love this budget,” said Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) after the meeting. “We put in some things that we took out last year and the schools are in a better position. I loved the whole budget process, the way it was organized, the way it was presented. And we got a 5-0 on the tax rate.”

The minor changes to the budget were increased funding for the Fluvanna-Louisa Foundation and Jefferson Area Board of Aging. These two changes came from other budget lines but totaled $17,000 of changes.

Notable budget items include $13.75 million for the school district, educational supplements for deputies and structured pay increases for county employees who are currently paid less than market value.

“It was a win-win situation for everybody involved: for schools, for deputies, for staff. Those are the best sorts of budgets. I think that’s why we had such smooth sailing this time around,” said chairman Shaun Kenney (Columbia District).

The FY2014 budget is for $65,312,998. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), included in the total budget figure, has $3,834,662 worth of projects for FY2014.

The CIP caused more discussion than the budget. Don Weaver (Cunningham District) did not like the inclusion of a $20 million new elementary school for FY2018. The supervisors only commit to fund items in the FY14 column unless an item stretches from FY14 into following years. The other years were described as ‘hopeful’, ‘dreams’ and ‘planned for’.

Bob Ullenbruch agreed with Weaver’s dissension on the elementary school.

Weaver said he would prefer the School Board raise the issue instead of the Board of Supervisors just including an item from very basic discussions. Weaver hoped in the next nine months the School Board would have a better idea of student enrollment, projections and usage of current facilities including the pending closures of Columbia and Cunningham elementary schools.

The CIP for FY14 includes $575,000 for construction of a Zion Crossroad water and sewer system with another $3.1 million in FY15 and $975,000 in FY16. All three years are slated to be paid for by cash, with the first year coming from the Fund Balance instead of operating expenses.

Also in the plan are a groundwater study and adding a water source to the Fork Union Sanitary Department system. The plan also includes replacing an emergency services apparatus.

The CIP has $1.26 million of spending on school projects including new buses, implementation of a new financial system the county finance department uses, renovations to Carysbrook Elementary School and information technology like server virtualization and internet equipment upgrades.

The CIP was adjusted to take school flooring replacement and playground equipment upgrades out of the FY14 year. The supervisors will vote at the next meeting to pay for those items, totaling $150,000, from the FY13 budget. This will allow the school district to award a contract and begin work sooner in order to give proper time before school resumes this August.

The CIP passed 3-2 with Weaver and Ullenbruch voting against it. Weaver announced before the vote his vote against was a protest vote of the FY18 elementary school line.

The first tax bill to include the new tax rates will be due June 5. The FY14 calendar year begins July 1, 2013.

——————————————–

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Monticello Proposal Still Infringes Property Rights

A open letter to Albemarle County Planning Commission:

Dear Chairman Morris and members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission,

Many thanks to Albemarle Director of Planning Wayne Cilimberg for forwarding me the new submissions the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has presented for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan for discussion. The Free Enterprise Forum regrets the majority of the public will not get to see them in advance of the Planning Commission discussion this evening. Again, I regret I will not be able to join you this evening due to a previously scheduled family event.

Considering our outspoken position in favor of individual property rights, we believed a response to Mr. Cilimberg would be appropriate given this newly available information.

After reviewing the e-mailed documents, we agree that this iteration of language is significantly better than the language the Thomas Jefferson Foundation originally wanted. In addition it is also improved from the language the Foundation inserted into the existing Comprehensive Plan.

Recognizing this marked improvement, the Free Enterprise Forum must continue to oppose the intrusion of local government into this basic property rights issue. We ask the section be removed entirely from the Comprehensive Plan.

Please let me explain.

Regardless of their status or import, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is a property owner with property rights. Their neighbors are also property owners with rights. Because of their position in the community, they have successfully lobbied Albemarle County to insert language into the state mandated planning document that will require the County to act as the Foundation’s agent in delivering voluntary design guidelines to limit the property rights of parcels that may be seen from the “Big House”.

The rationale for this inclusion , according to tonight’s staff report is “In recent years, keeping up with all site plans, subdivision plats, rezonings, and special use permits has been difficult for TJF staff”. As Planning Commission Mac Lafferty regularly reminds the public, the planning staff has increasing responsibilities without the requisite increasing in staffing.

Is Albemarle County now in a position to provide additional staff work for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation?

Will Albemarle extend this courtesy to other property owners as well?

The Free Enterprise Forum is aware that Albemarle County is blessed to have the homes of two presidents within its borders. Why has the County not provided the same accommodations to the staff at Ash Lawn?

This issue of visual impact is an issue between property owners not an issue for government. The reality of voluntary guidelines being delivered by government when a building permit is pulled or a pre-application process is initiated is nothing more than a thinly veiled requirement.

Considering all of the above, we find it ironic that Albemarle County and the home of the drafter of the Declaration of Independence are advocating Comprehensive Plan language that makes some property owners more equal than others.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

President

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan–Deep in the Weeds

By. Neil Williamson

An open letter to the Albemarle County Planning Commission:

April 15, 2013

Mr. Calvin Morris, Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission

Dear Chairman Morris and members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission,

Thank you for the extended deadline to provide written comments on the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan. Staff should be commended for marshaling this process forward and seeking to limit the size of the plan (which is still too big).

Before we get to our analysis of the plan, the Free Enterprise Forum wishes to highlight the failure of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to meet the deadlines associated with the joint City/County/TJPDC/UVA livability plan. In concept this over 1 million dollar expenditure was to “inform the comprehensive planning in the City and County”, the money has been spent but the work is not yet complete. The plethora of meetings, public input sessions and joint Planning Commission meetings produced a number of benefits but absent the final work product the effort must be deemed a failure. While appreciative of the supplementary benefits, the Free Enterprise Forum remains concerned that this project was mismanaged by the lead agency.

We have reviewed the entire plan and our comments are organized sequentially with the plan.

Chapter 2 Growth Management Policy – page 2.2.2 the joint City Count statement “the scale and scope of the impacts of new development on this infrastructure necessitate greater financial participation by new development in addressing this need.” The statement infers that absent new development infrastructure would be adequate – which is not true. A lack of concurrency of infrastructure has been a concern of the Free Enterprise Forum for over ten years. If the answer to this concern is to make Development area projects even more expensive, this will force development into by right status , into the rural areas, or out of Albemarle County entirely.

Page 2.2.3 should recognize that the County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has not kept up with the community needs.

Page 2.2.4 The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the concept of priority areas within the development area. We recognize the limitation of public funds and the need to focus those funds. Where we are concerned is the language: “Land Use decisions should be made consistent with the priority areas established in the Development Area Master Plans. The County may decide not to approve new rezoning or special use permit outside of the designated priority areas as planned facilities are not in place to support the proposed project and the existing neighborhoods. If approved, however, as a part of the land development process, developers will need to provide more significant levels of improvement to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area.”

If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid.

As an aside, The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the growing power of appointed Community Councils. We are troubled that development proposals are regularly referred to these councils for their blessing prior to going before the Planning Commission.

Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan and Background – Page 3.2 The 1998 Sustainability Accords these items have appeared in the Comprehensive Plan since their passage. While there has been little discussion of these accords the plan states “Goals for sustainability were most recently adopted in 2007 when the Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the accords” Has the Planning Commission, or any other body really reviewed the sustainability accords recently? They were written 15 years ago. Should we accept these accords as if they came down from the mountain on stone tablets? Or should they be examined prior to passing the comprehensive plan that would “reaffirm the Accords”

Historic Preservation Page 3.9 (joint City County goals) “To do this the City and County will: Colloborate with the University of Virginia, Ashlawn-Highland, Monticello and other community organizations on historic preservation matters.” The Free Enterprise Forum finds the failure to include property owners in the list of collaborators is an error and speaks to an institutional bias in opposition to property rights.

Chapter 5.1 Natural Resources – Page 5.1.1 This chapter is in need of editing. It speaks to the importance of an issue that the Natural Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan is 30 pages while only 11 pages are dedicated to the economic development chapter.

Page 5.2.4 Mountain Protection – This section correctly identifies the Mountain Protection Ordinance as being rejected by the community in January 2007. IS there a reason for including this text in the plan? The issue has been resolved. This text should be removed.

Page 5.1.10 Stormwater Management – The plan states “Evidence has shown that, once constructed, many facilities are not maintained properly.” While this may be true in some areas, it is clearly not true in other areas. This text is prejudicial and should be reworded.

Page 5.1.13 Objective 1: Retain Biodiversity in the County – “This information should be used to create a database that includes both landscape features such as habitats and critical slopes areas and species occurrences from point observations. The database should then be included in the County’s Geographical Information System so that County staff and the public can use the information for conservation purposes. The information could also be used in reviewing requests for legislative approvals.” [emphasis added]

Is Albemarle County prepared to limit development in their development area based on the number of species established by a biodiversity inventory? What possible project could be approved under such a standard?

Page 5.1.14 Biodiversity Action Plan “Building on this analysis, the County should develop the action plan based on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape” Ecological integrity is an undefined buzz word that promotes existing conditions while failing to recognize potential ecological benefits of development (or redevelopment) This entire concept should be removed from the plan

Page 5.1.15 Strategies – In no other chapter does the work of the comprehensive plan fall so directly on one group of unelected individuals. The Natural Heritage Committee is continually mentioned as a resource and an “expert” on Biodiversity. Interestingly this group has lost more than half of its members in the last year and the clerk’s office has not received any interested applicants in the last two months.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4d.3 – “Apply a general risk management approach to the public water supply watershed whereby land use management takes priority over design and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate risk from land development activities.” Reading between the lines of this dense statement, it suggests regardless of placement in the development areas, any parcel should not be developed if it is within the public water supply watershed. This could be read as a call for no development. This is absurd.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4e.1 – The explanation of groundwater is overly verbose and at times nonsensical. The suggestion that “A new well may also draw water from the flow that is going to a different resident’s well” is gently worded enough to be technically correct but contradicts testimony provided to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from then Water resource Manager David Hirshman.

Chapter 5.2 Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources – Page 5.2.3 “Moreover the number of resources destroyed in recent years suggests that continued reliance on solely voluntary measures would not be adequate to protect those resources. Instead a combination of strategies is necessary, including voluntary techniques, regulation, education and financial incentives.” The Free Enterprise Forum calls for regulation to be removed from the strategies listed. This community has a firm desire for voluntary measures and incentives but Historic Preservation Ordinances are unacceptable.

Page 5.2.8 – No one of the strategies for historic preservation includes the phrase with the consent of the property owner.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b1: “Adopt a historic overlay district ordinance to recognize and protect historic, architectural, and cultural resources, including individual sites and districts at the local level”. We acknowledge that this language exists in the current comprehensive plan but we have not seen significant public support for a new confiscatory historic overlay. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that this language be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2.b.3: “Expand the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historic district overlay ordinance. Revise the make up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the group accordingly”. Considering our significant concerns with the existing regulatory over reach of the ARB, the Free Enterprise Forum does not support the creation of the Super ARB and ask that it be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b.7: “To discourage the destruction of important historic resources, seek enabling legislation that would allow the County to impose meaningful civil penalty for inappropriate demolition, razing or moving of any designated historic resource. This enabling legislation should also authorize the County to use civil penalties collected to fund components of the County’s historic preservation program.” The fact that the County can’t work with existing legislative authority and is seeking to develop a civil penalty slush fund to be used for preservation suggests this is not a true priority for the County. If the county wishes to preserve a historic building or landscape – they should buy it.

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a: “The County should help protect Monticello’s viewshed using these measures:” The Free Enterprise Forum has been very outspoken on this issue. Time and again when we raise the issue we have been told this is a voluntary program. Reading the introductory statement this is not voluntary it is declarative.

While we believe all of strategy 4a should be dropped, we ask that if you consider retaining any language it be improved to recognize that the “protection” Monticello is seeking is at the cost of other tax paying property owners rights. Perhaps change this directive to encourage communication (not cooperation) between Monticello and other private property owners regarding visual impacts (not viewshed).

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a.5: “Staff should be aware of the Viewshed area and be especially careful when applying land use regulations to properties in the viewshed.” Again we believe the whole section should be dropped but this is ridiculous is staff NOT to be careful in applying land use regulations elsewhere in the County. This is superfluous and suggests additional special treatment that does not exist in code!

Page 5.2.14 Cultural and Scenic resources (last paragraph): “Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources. Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities“. Recognizing the balance of this chapter calls for increased regulatory powers and aesthetic controls, the Free Enterprise Forum asks how this balances with the “desire” for economic development. Albemarle County is at a critical tipping point where over regulation, while seeking to maintain the existing condition, may forestall the economic advancement of the community.

Page 5.2.21 Plan for Scenic Resources Objective 1: Support wider enabling legislation for regulating aesthetics in specified areas of importance.” Once again the desires of the property owners will be secondary to the powers of regulations for “areas of importance” This objective and the following strategy should be dropped from the plan.

Page 5.2.21 Strategy 1a: “Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district”. Based on the Free Enterprise Forum’s opposition to the Monticello viewshed overlay one can imagine we are equally, if not more, concerned with the concept of a tourism enhancement overlay district that would hinder the property rights of Albemarle citizens. We do not believe this is the general direction of the Board of Supervisors at this time and question whether the Planning Commission, utilizing Zero Based Planning, has fully vetted this question. If such a proposal were to go forward, the Free Enterprise Forum promises to fight it at the local and state level.

Page 5.2.22 Strategy 2f: “ Consider additional EC [Entrance Corridor] designations as appropriate, or as road classifications change for roads such as the John W. Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route 692/712 Plank Road, and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike)”. Albemarle County today has 19 Entrance Corridors. The Free Enterprise Forum believes this is a gross misuse of the enabling legislation. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that the number of entrance corridors be reduced to ten and that no new road may be added as an entrance corridor unless one is removed.

Page 5.2.23 Strategy 2g: “Review the EC guidelines for effectiveness in protecting the integrity of exceptionally scenic EC corridors, such as Route 250 West.” Now the EC guidelines are not enough the concept is to plan for super guidelines for those “exceptional corridors”. If Albemarle County is serious about create protection for the exceptional, the Free Enterprise Forum suggests simply reducing the number of Entrance Corridors and implementing the exceptional strategies on that reduced number.

The natural progression from this concept is recognized in the last line of this section “recommendations for stricter zoning regulations in the ECs may be an outcome of this review”.

Page 5.2.24 Objective 5: Preserve important views as they relate to tourism and recreational assets. This objective and the strategies supporting it suggest a regulatory solution to the organic change of the community. How does this balance with the economic development [or ecological in the case of controlled burns, timber harvesting].

Page 5.2.24 Strategy 5b: Protect the Monticello viewshed as indicated in the historical Resources Section. – see our comments above

Chapter 5.3 Economic Development: While the Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that the Economic Development chapter is the shortest in the Comprehensive Plan, we applaud the inclusion of this important concept.

We are concerned that the length of the Natural Resources chapter is three times that of Economic Development chapter. While both are important, the Free Enterprise Forum believes ample opportunity exists to balance the chapters to better reflect their equal import.

Chapter 5.4 Land use for the Rural areas. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the inclusion of economic sustainability as a goal for the rural areas. The best way to keep land in agricultural and forestry uses is to allow ancillary uses to help economically support the primary uses.

Chapter 5.5 Land Use for Development Areas, page 5.5.11: Tables for remaining non-constrained land the tables were not updated by the time the document was released to the public for review. We are eager to see the new numbers and anticipate they will consider the land that is now slated to be Biscuit Run State Park to be “constrained”.

Page 5.5.11: “Several studies over the last seven years have indicated that the County has enough rezoned commercial square footage to last more than 20 years. The Studies did not include analysis of already zoned commercial areas or the potential for redevelopment. Because of the amount of work that has already been done on the topic, staff is not going to perform another retail analysis. Instead, attention will be paid to the land designated for industrial and/or employment uses ”. This is a false choice. There is no reason the Planning Commission (or the BOS) should not demand that a retail analysis be conducted for this 5 year update of the comprehensive plan. While the studies are mentioned they are not cited and in just about every case I am aware of these reports were completed with an agenda (both pro and con). Albemarle should insist a proper accounting of commercial space be conducted as a part of this plan.

Page 5.5.15: Objective 1: Achieve high quality development through the application of Neighborhood Model principles. The phraseology of this objective is troublesome. The Free Enterprise Forum believes most if not all applications that come before the Planning Commission have to balance the principles of the neighborhood model to their projects goals and site limitations. We respectfully suggest that the word “flexible” be placed between through and application to better reflect the reality of development [and redevelopment] in Albemarle County.

Page 5.5.19: “A network of streets and convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses and other transit, including the potential for light rail in the future allows alternatives to driving”. Back in 2009, we wrote extensively regarding the population required to support the investment of light rail in any community. While we are aware of the highly popular Tide line in the Virginia Beach area, we also recognize they have significantly higher population to support light rail. This twenty year comprehensive plan does not include such population projections; therefore this reference, while fanciful to many in the planning community, should be removed.

Page 5.5.20 Relegated Parking The Free Enterprise Forum believes the parking regulations in Albemarle County are in need of review and revision. The Comprehensive Plan provides an opportunity to suggest such a review. No other principle has received more attention than so called relegated parking. We call on Albemarle County to review the parking regulations with the Albemarle County Police Community Safety through Environmental Design Officer and report back to the BOS prior to moving forward again endorsing relegated parking in the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.5.22 “Review the cash proffer policy to assess what effect it may have on density”. Earlier this year the Free Enterprise Forum provided the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors our white paper “Contradictory Consequences” on cash proffers. We encourage examining our paper, and the examples included, to evaluate the effectiveness of cash proffers on density. We anticipate your findings will be similar to ours that a cash proffer policy encourages by right development at a density and form that is contrary to the County’s approved Comprehensive Plan.

In 2007, Albemarle County looked to Chesterfield County a model for cash proffer legislation. It is interesting that Chesterfield is now contemplating repeal, or at least rolling back, its cash proffer policy. It may be time for Albemarle to take similar action.

Page 5.5.25 Strategy 6b: “Make land use decisions that are consistent with Priority Areas that are established in the Development Area Master Plans. Do not approve proposed rezonings and special use permits outside of the priority areas when planned facilities are not in place to support the project and existing neighborhoods, unless the proposed project will provide significant improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area”[emphasis added].

As stated above [under growth management] If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid. The Free Enterprise Forum is opposed to the se of Priority Areas to reject land use applications that would otherwise have been approved.

Page 5.6.11: “Fund programs of the County’s Housing Department to implement housing policies.” Similar to our concerns regarding the Natural Resource Chapter mandating the County “Hire” an environmental planner, the Free Enterprise Forum does not believe the comprehensive plan is the proper place for the housing department to be requesting additional funding.

Page 5.7.3: “Dispersed development patterns have helped promote a transportation network that is mostly focused on the automobile. In the past a more abundant supply of cheap land and fuel encouraged development patterns that have become hard to sustain”. This anti automobile philosophy is prevalent throughout academic papers in planning. The reality is the automobile is and for the foreseeable future will be the primary form of transportation for the majority of Albemarle’s population. Given advances in fuel economy, hybrid vehicles and transit opportunities, we must question if the current development patterns are really “hard to sustain”?

The Free Enterprise Forum believes multi modal opportunities should be evaluated and implemented but only after recognizing that people who live, work and play in Albemarle County appreciate and invest in the independent mobility of the automobile.

If you have made it this far, thank you. The Free Enterprise Forum is appreciative of the considerable effort of staff, planning commissioners and the public to engage with this document. In addition, thank you for the extension for written comments, as the 3,000+ words above indicate this is a dense document and required time to digest.

We look forward to being a part of the continuing dialog on this issue.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org