‘Rezoning Ransom’: Repeal cash proffers

This editorial first appeared in The Daily Progress on Sunday March 3, 2013.  The full “Contradictory Consequences” white paper can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org under the reports tab.  The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization focused on local government in the Central Virginia region.

 

By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

There are times you have to say no to one thing because you said yes to something else. Such is the case with cash proffers.

If a community believes in citizen vetted comprehensive planning, preserving rural areas by densification of development areas and economic vitality, then such a community must say no to the fatally flawed cash proffer system.

In the recently released “Contradictory Consequences” white paper, the Free Enterprise Forum research and case studies explain the impacts of cash proffers. Sold to the public as a way to make growth pay for itself, the unintended negative economic and planning impacts have caused localities across the Commonwealth to repeal this “rezoning ransom” and replace these funds with more dependable and equitable infrastructure funding options. Today, rather than simply recalibrating their cash proffer calculation, as Albemarle County is doing, full repeal is a much more economically and ecologically sensible and sustainable alternative.

Cash proffers are per unit fees “voluntarily” extracted from applicants seeking to rezone their property. In theory, such “voluntary” proffers would be directly tied to the costs associated with the increased density of a rezoning. In reality, cash proffers lower land values, encourage development contrary to comprehensive plans, and create false hope for outside infrastructure funding.

Lower land values, lower property tax revenue – In concept, cash proffers are voluntary payments made by landowners to mitigate the impacts of changing the prescriptive zoning on their property. The concept works best when the rezoned value exceeds the increased cost of the proffer. Such a symbiotic relationship is difficult to achieve with automatic inflation increasing cash proffers and fickle housing markets not keeping pace.

Albemarle	Single Family Detached $19,753Townhouse $13,432Multi Family $13,996
Charlottesville	No cash proffers
Greene	$5,778 per unit
Fluvanna	$6,577 per unit
Louisa	$4,362 per unit
Nelson	No cash proffers

Basic economic theory indicates any increased cost must be paid by an entity that is a part of the transaction. Many believe the increased cost of a cash proffer will be borne by the end user, the new homebuyer. This can only occur in a housing market that has constant upward motion.

If, due to market conditions, the end user is not available to accept the cost of the cash proffer it is the land owner, whose land will be discounted by the increased entitlement costs that cash proffers create. In turn, such reduced land values reduce the locality’s real estate tax assessed value and revenue (absent an increase in the tax rate).

‘By Right’ Development Encouraged Charlottesville and Albemarle are currently updating their State mandated comprehensive plans. These community vetted plans suggest the manner in which the locality wishes to grow in the next twenty years.

In many, if not most, cases the zoning in a locality’s development area does not match the comprehensive plan designation. While the property owner does not have to agree to the comprehensive plan changes, they cannot act on those new designations until they have rezoned the property. Alternatively, if the land owner chooses to move forward with the existing, some might call “stale”, zoning, which likely does not agree with the locality’s comprehensive plan, they can do so immediately without paying any cash proffers.

In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer, while Albemarle’s exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality, the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the City (without cash proffers) and chose NOT to rezone the property in the county. This calculated decision was based on calculation of the cost (in money and time) of rezoning the County land exceeded the increase value.

Therefore, the land owner is incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. These projects are built to meet local building and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow.

False Financial Hope – Forecasting cash proffer revenue is much like predicting snow in Central Virginia, localities do not know when it is coming, how much they are actually going to get or when it will stop. Cash proffers rarely, if ever, total the amounts localities are banking on.

In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally off the chart.

As one looks at this chart (right) and sees almost $50 Million dollars proffered, one might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run Development.

It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on December 31, 2009, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as receivable in November 2012.

Rural Areas Jeopardized – According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of 10,000 units already rezoned for residential development. Why have these not moved forward?

Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers, created a cost burden the market is unable to bear?

If growth trends continue, won’t these embedded costs push residential development out of Albemarle County’s designated growth areas and into the rural areas?

The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the paradigm that rural residential development remains the least expensive, most profitable development option in Albemarle County.

If the cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities, what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services delivery, as well as loss of ecologically contributing farmland, and productivity?

Cash proffers have produced a plethora of Contradictory Consequences without achieving significant benefit. Now is the time to repeal this rezoning ransom and replace it with a more sensible and equitable alternative.

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

A Tax By Any Other Name

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;” – William Shakespeare

Words matter that’s why it is refreshing that as State Senator John Watkins has been discussing his transportation funding solution he has used the term “Gas Tax” rather than the more trendy “user fee”.

By contrast Charlottesville, if you haven’t heard yet, the bottom line on your property tax bill is increasing but don’t call it a tax. 

No, your property tax bill will be the mechanism the city uses to collect the soon to be passed stormwater user fee.   

Who will pay the fee?  Property owners based on their percentage of impervious surface.  The city has already used aerial images to calculate your property’s impervious surface. Impervious surface includes rooftops, driveways, paved patios etc.

But wait, doesn’t rain fall on everybody?

The goals of the Water Resources Protection Program include “bringing the community together to help protect and improve the city’s valuable natural and man-made resources by protecting public health and safety…”  Aren’t these community goals that should be supported by the entire community?

While some of the costs of the new program can be blamed on the city’s existing, aging  stormwater infrastructure.  The majority of the cost is associated with new TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) storm water requirements that are a part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Bay initiative.   

Back in the old days, when a locality (or State) identified a need in the community and a government solution to that need, the community would fund that solution through its normal revenue stream.

Instead, the city is utilizing enabling legislation to establish a stormwater utility (expect Albemarle County and others to follow) to create a dedicated million dollar a year revenue source for stormwater management.

The city sees significant benefits to the user fee approach –

Providing funding through user fees has many advantages. Charging a fee is fair and equitable since it is based on a property’s contribution to the problem (runoff from impervious surfaces), not simply on assessed value, and includes all properties (including tax-exempt ones). A stormwater utility also ensures that collected user fees are wholly dedicated to funding the WRPP components. Finally, a fee also provides a consistent and stable funding source to ensure that the WRPP is both environmentally and economically sustainable.

It is important to note that the city has been proactive in reaching out to large commercial centers as well as churches (often with large parking lots) to inform them of the fee structure as well as discuss potential mitigation the owners can do on site to reduce their stormwater impacts and their “user fee”.

The Free Enterprise Forum is torn on the user fee concept.  While we tend to like paying for specific services rendered, we see the benefit being provided to larger than just those carrying the cost burden.

One business owner indicated his company owned  several apartment buildings mainly filled with University of Virginia students.  Using the user fee methodology, as schools make up about 60% of the  budget and that his properties do not significantly add to Charlottesville’s K-12 education population, shouldn’t he get a credit on his property taxes?  Of course not, education is a community goal that benefits all – well educated graduates may become future employees (or tenants) for his company. 

Taken to its logical conclusion, couldn’t the same argument be made for the gas tax and the stormwater utility fee.  In the former, an effective and efficient transportation system encourages economic development and improves the quality of life of all citizens regardless of their need for gasoline.  In the latter, environmental improvements included in the WRPP clearly benefit all of the community not just those who own impervious surfaces.

Words matter.  To paraphrase William Shakespeare “A tax by any other name will hurt as much”

Respectfully Submitted

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Should Charlottesville Survey Seek Citizen Input?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Once again the Charlottesville City Council has issued their annual tax survey asking residents how they should prioritize their spending decisions for the upcoming budget cycle. 

Annually, this survey gives the Free Enterprise Forum post Thanksgiving heartburn.  As we suggested regarding the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) survey, any such instrument is only as valuable as the respective cohort who responds.  Unlike the TJPDC survey, it does go out to all city residents (via utility billing).  It is understood that all who receive the instrument will not fill it out and those who do fill it out could also fill it out online and fax in an additional response.

To be clear, the Free Enterprise Forum firmly endorses the city’s vision for citizen involvement:

our decisions are informed at every stage by effective communication and active citizen involvement. Citizens feel listened to and are easily able to find an appropriate forum to respectfully express their concerns.

But, we also believe such surveys provide an “easy way out” for councilors who are simply looking to determine which way the wind is blowing.  Just as elections should be about choices of different perspectives (which Charlottesville has lacked for some time), budgets should also be about informed choices and decisions.

Understanding that these decisions have consequences, we are appreciative of the concept behind the last three survey questions:

13. You support City services through a portion of real estate, personal property, sales and other taxes and user fees. Considering all of our City services on the one hand, and taxes on the other, which of the following statements is closest to your view?

• I believe we should decrease taxes and services (if chosen, go to Q14)
• I want to keep taxes and services where they are
• I believe we should increase taxes and services (if chosen, go to Q15)

14. If you feel services should be decreased, which services should be decreased?

15. If you feel services should be increased, which services should be increased?

The Free Enterprise Forum is appreciative of being asked to voice our opinion but this is not a true democracy.  As a republic, we elect folks to make these decisions, if we do not like the decisions they make, we have the opportunity to remove them. 

So should Charlottesville citizens fill out the survey?  The short answer is Yes. 

The longer answer is the same as we gave for the TJPDC survey:

So now the Free Enterprise Forum finds itself between a philosophical rock and a hard place; do we encourage participation in a survey that has flawed methodology or sit on the sidelines Monday morning quarterbacking?

After significant thought time, we are encouraging everyone to fill out the survey.

After City staff tabulates the responses, we challenge the City Council to accept the inherently flawed survey data as one of the many pieces of information to be used to evaluate the FY2014 budget.

That’s the reason City  Council was elected, to make decisions, not conduct surveys.

Respectfully Submitted

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Proposed US29 Western Bypass Extension is Too Short – and Too Long

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is discussing a conceptual plan to extend the US29 Western Bypass.  This concept is being presented at their September 26th meeting and will be discussed as a part of the Long Rage Transportation Plan for the next couple of months.  Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Sean Tubbs has the story in this morning’s Daily Progress

The Free Enterprise Forum believes that this is a great topic for long term discussion but the project is both too long and too short.

The core benefits of this proposed extension are two fold.  First it would provide improved access to one of our economic development assets the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) and it would ease congestion on North US29.

To accomplish the first benefit the road is too long.  A singular project connecting the existing airport to the federally funded Western Bypass [with the ability to later be extended] would be significantly less expensive and, considering the economic development benefit,  would be more likely to be competitive for the ever decreasing transportation funding dollars.

To accomplish the second task of truly easing traffic on US29, the proposed extension is too short.  As any one who drives this stretch of US29 regularly knows, congestion starts north of the Greene County line.  A wider lens is required to see the potential of a longer Western Bypass Extension that would rejoin US29 somewhere north and/or west of the US29/US33 intersection.

While the current MPO is limited by the geographic boundaries of Albemarle County’s growth area, it seems clear that in the next census, Greene County will be forced to join the MPO.  Such an MPO Expansion will most likely take place long before the US29 Western Bypass Extension would be full funded.  Prudent planning would suggest the MPO factor this reality into their planning.

The Free Enterprise Forum calls on the MPO in considering their long term transportation planning to consider the potentiality for both a shorter AND a longer US29 Western Bypass Extension.

Sometimes two projects are better than one.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

TJPDC Livability ‘Joint Vision’ Needs Glasses

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Free Enterprise Forum has highlighted concerns with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) livability project since the first media release describing the nearly $1,000,000 grant hit our inbox.

On Tuesday, September 18th the Planning Commissions from the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are holding a joint meeting on the Joint Vision and Goal Language of the project.

This meeting is a fairly high level of “wonkiness” the Joint Vision does not have any legal standing but will be used as these independent jurisdictions work on their specific comprehensive plans.  To further muddy the waters, the state mandated Comprehensive Plan does have legal standing but only as a “guide”.

To date much of the discussions at the livability work sessions has been talking about what they want to talk about when they get the two Planning Commissions together.

Much of the language that has been drafted is at such a high level of thought that it is too vague to criticize.  For example the Economic Development strategy is “Continue to coordinate staff efforts to support regional economic development.” It is difficult to find anything in that sentence to be opposed to. 

The vague ‘Vision’ is true throughout the document with three glaring exceptions:

• Environmental interventionism in neighborhood design
• Mandated Historic Preservation
• Declared War on Automobile (and by extension independent mobility)

It’s not easy being “’Green”- Under the Environment heading the ‘Joint Vision’ seeks to “Create a community of green neighborhoods, healthy waterways, clean air, and sustainable natural resources”. 

Why is green given such prominence? 

It could be argued that cars are not green.  If cars are not green should the neighborhood provide infrastructure for them? Do streets even exist in a truly “green” neighborhood?

If streets do not exist how are emergency services delivered?

Isn’t health and safety of our citizens at least as important as greenness of our neighborhoods?

With all due respect Mr. Kermit T. Frog, the Free Enterprise Forum prefers a more balanced word than ‘green’ in the Joint Vision.  We like the language regarding healthy waterways as striking a balance within a system to focus on the goal of health.  We believe either use the word “healthy” to describe ideal neighborhoods or choose other language that describes a proper balance between environmental demands and human needs (health, safety and welfare). 

Historic Persecution – One of the challenges planners face is the City of Charlottesville has a Historic Preservation ordinance and Albemarle County does not.  In a gross generalization, planners tend to like historic preservation ordinances because it provides a planning control.

While the Free Enterprise Forum believes voluntary historic preservation by property owners is a good thing and can often result in an increase in property value, we have held firm for over ten years that a Historic Preservation ordinance would be punitive and would diminish individual property rights.  We have held firm if you want to preserve it – buy it.

It is with this philosophical backdrop that we take issue with the ‘Joint Vision’ statement that reads “Build upon the historic character of the region by protecting and promoting existing historic and cultural resources”

We believe the statement should read “Respect historic property owners’ rights and the historic character of the region by encouraging historic property protection and by promoting existing historic and cultural resources”.

War on the Automobile – Under the Transportation heading the ‘Joint Vision’ calls to “Promote regional multi-modal transportation options that reduce auto dependency”. 

This is a great example of planner vision seeping into a policy document.  Is the elimination of auto dependency really a goal of either Charlottesville or Albemarle?

It is interesting that in the section of the ‘Joint Vision’ document speaking of housing it articulates a need for housing to be connected to “facilities, parks, trails and services” but fails to mention roads. 

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I firmly believe this war on the automobile is not the true will of the community or even a majority of either planning commission.

In reality any war on the automobile is, by extension, a war on mobility.  For as Joel Schwartz, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute wrote:

There is no realistic alternative to automobile-based transportation that would not require large reduction in people’s autonomy, prosperity, and quality of life…Nevertheless, for the past couple of decades, policymakers and activists have focused their efforts on finding ways to override people’s individual choices and impose their own plans for how they believe people ought to live and travel.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes that alternative forms of transportation should be encouraged and supported.  We call for the passage regarding Transportation be changed by dropping the language about the war on the automobile.  It would instead read “Promote regional multi modal transportation options.”

While we understand this is well intentioned, well funded, attempt at coordinating the locality comprehensive plans, we believe the regional ‘Joint Vision’ is in need of glasses to better represent the community user rather than the prescriptive planner perspective.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credits: Children’s Television Workshop, Virginia department of Historic Resources

Greene BOS Discusses MPO Membership

By. Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

Stephen Williams, Executive Director for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)  came to Stanardsville to sell the Charlottesville – Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)  to the Greene County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 24^th.

Every 10 years, in coordination with the national census,  the MPO looks to reorganize/expand to include areas greater than 50,000 population, which now includes portions of Greene County.

Williams outlined the benefits of MPO membership:

• MPO looks to upgrade transportation ahead of demand
• MPO offers technical assistance to communities
• MPO works with VDOT and advocates for projects
• Offer demand model to review new/future traffic flows
• No cost to Greene
• Have input on Route 29 flowing from Albemarle into Greene

Several issues of concern were raised  by the supervisors:

• Greene may not become a voting member for several years
• Federal funding has to go through MPO, if Greene becomes a member
• Requires staff time to prepare for and attend meetings
• If Greene elects to join, must remain for 10 years
• Requires a commitment to do the will of majority of MPO
• Give up working directly with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Mr. Williams invited the Greene BOS to the September meeting of the MPO Policy Board which will be held somewhere in Greene County in order for the BOS to become more familiar with the organization.

The Greene County Board of Supervisors agreed to consider the proposal.

While it seems nice to be invited to the party, the fact that Greene most likely wouldn’t have a say in the decision making process is a strong strike against joining. Greene would also give up the ability to work directly with VDOT – strike two. A ten year commitment for the test drive – strike three!

The Free Enterprise Forum believes it is important, and good government dictates, that  the BOS consider all the costs and benefits.  On balance, we continue to believe Greene (and Fluvanna) should Say “No” to the MPO.

———————————————–

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

Photo Credit: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission

Who is Askin’ Who – The TJPDC Community Priorities Questionnaire

By. Neil Williamson, President

In an incredibly unscientific methodology, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) 1-Community project is conducting a resident survey regarding the community priorities.  The survey, which is available as a pdf, is being circulated by various advocacy groups to their members. 

Worried about an organization stuffing the ballot box?  Got it covered – Each and every anonymous survey will be require to initial a box that indicates to the best of their knowledge they have only filled out the survey once.

The Free Enterprise Forum is a very lean organization of modest means but when we conduct a survey we utilize outside professionals to guarantee an accurate and representative sample.  We are disappointed that given an almost one million dollar grant the TJPDC choose to conduct an unscientific citizen survey.

In addition the TJPDC choose not to select a survey instrument that could be easily submitted electronically (and possibly limit duplicative surveys) but instead requires respondents to print out the survey and then submit it to them either by mail or hand delivery.  A Senior Vice President in a direct response agency once told me, “The harder you make it to participate, the lower the number of responses”.

So before we even get to the survey instrument itself, we have made clear our questions about the methodology.

Interestingly, we actually like the survey document.  Citizens are required to rank their top ten issues in order and only 10.  There are an array of options including: Protect Property Rights, Diversify Regional Economy, Consider Economic Feasibility of Goals and many more.

So now the Free Enterprise Forum finds itself between a philosophical rock and a hard place; do we encourage participation in a survey that has flawed methodology or sit on the sidelines Monday morning quarterbacking?

After significant thought time, we are encouraging everyone to fill out the survey ASAP.  We know the answers will be suspect and we have questioned the validity of much of the public input the TJPDC has put forward as a part of this process. 

Nonetheless as the Canadian rock band Rush sang in their 1980 hit Freewill — “Choosing not to choose you still have made a choice”.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credit: Serene Musings Blog

Chloramines Controversy Could Cost Millions

By. Neil Williamson, President

What’s the cost of changing a Water Board decision?

How about 25% – 35% increase in your monthly water bill.  How will that impact those on a fixed budget? 

Should economic impacts have equal standing with scientific data in the discussion?

Please let me explain.

Let’s start with a given that everyone wants a sufficient, clean safe, drinking water supply.

To that end, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates requirements for disinfection of drinking water as well as limits on the presence of byproducts.  The EPA first developed these regulations in 1979 and has regularly been updating (and tightening the regulations).  The most recent change in the EPA requirements caused the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to approve the use of chloramines as a secondary disinfectant.  While the RWSA Board has approved the use of chloramines, with no public comment, the implementation of this action has not yet occurred.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been troubled by several individuals who have suggested that our water is just fine as is and we do not have to do anything.  An independent analysis by Hazen Sawyer conducted in July 2011 found:

Sampling sites for the Stage 2 DBP Rule were selected through the Initial Distribution System Evaluation process as required by the DBPR. The Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) found that compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR would be a challenge without water treatment plant (WTP) modifications to reduce DBP formation.

Beyond the knowing violation of federal law, the EPA also reserves the right to fine violators up to $25,000 per day of violation.

While one may not agree with the specific numbers in the federal requirement, the place to argue this is at the federal rather than local level.  So doing nothing is NOT an option.

Interestingly, neither the EPA nor the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) dictate specifically how a municipal water authority disinfects their water.  They simply provide guidance regarding approved options. 

Prior to selecting chloramines as a solution, the RWSA considered several of the EPA/VDH approved options.  In his March 9th Memo to the RWSA Board Executive Director Tom Frederick laid out the capital facility options as:

1. Granular activated carbon filtration
2. Magnetic Ion exchange
3. Chloramines
4. Membrane nanofiltration
5. Ultraviolet light

The least costly (about $5 million dollars capital and $102,000 annual operating) was chloramines.  The next least costly option, granular activated carbon, capital costs are $18.3 million dollars and annual operating cost is $980,000.

Not surprisingly, the RWSA Board of Directors supported the staff recommendation to use chloramines to attain the unfunded federal mandate regarding disinfectant.

It is important to note, many municipal water systems nationwide have been successfully using chloramines as a disinfectant.  In fact,  76% of all Virginians today are drinking water disinfected by chloramines; including drinking water in Fairfax County, Norfolk and Richmond.  In fact, Richmond water works has been using chloramines for over fifty years. 

Our research has resulted in uncovering many heart breaking stories regarding potential chloramine impacted skin rashes and diseases. While we feel for those impacted negatively, we have not seen any  statistical evidence linking increases of such diseases between those communities using chloramines and those not.

If a change is made today to reverse course and move to granular activated carbon filtration, sources have indicated that the wholesale rate for water may increase by 25% to 35%.  This fact is under reported and must be a part of the public discussion.

Choices have economic consequences.  

Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

US 29 Roadway Rope-A-Dope

By. Neil Williamson, President

This morning’s Daily Progress banner headline touts a letter sent by Supervisor Dennis Rooker on behalf of the self selected Jack Jouett Bypass Advisory Committee requesting an additional public hearing on the US 29 Western Bypass; a road that the a majority of the “Committee” members oppose.

This is a classic example of a vocal minority utilizing a Rope-A-Dope strategy to delay a popularly supported statewide transportation project.

Please let me explain.

The Rope-A-Dope boxing strategy was most famously used in the 1974 fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, known as the Rumble in the Jungle.  In that fight, Foreman was favored due to superior punching power.  During the bout Ali taunted Foreman and withstood a firestorm of punches.

However, far from being brutalized, Ali was relatively protected from Foreman’s blows.  When Foreman became tired from the beating he was delivering, Ali regrouped and ended up winning the match.

Outside of boxing, rope-a-dope is used to describe strategies where one seems to be accepting a losing position (i.e. actually designing the US 29 Bypass) only to delay the action and eventually overturn it.

When considering this concept first the casual observer must ask why would the task force letter be sent now, dated April 24th.  If the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) almost immediately accepted this request for a public hearing the “Committee” has specific demands regarding timing:

This includes notification to the public at least 30 days in advance of the hearing, project information being made available to the public at least 30 days in advance of the hearing and the draft Environmental Assessment being made available at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.  The public should be allowed to submit written and oral comments at the hearing as well as written comments afterwards for a reasonable period of time (at least two weeks). [emphasis added-nw]

Even if VDOT had all of this information at its fingertips (which it does not), the soonest such a public hearing could be held would be June 1st.  But June will not work for Mr. Rooker’s “Jack Jouett Bypass Advisory Committee”.  Per the letter:

“We also request that the public hearing not be scheduled during June, July, or August since the community’s participation may be limited during these months due to vacations and community events.”

This is most interesting as Supervisor Rooker had no such issue in scheduling Albemarle County Board of Supervisors public hearings on the US 29 Bypass during the summer months last year, in fact, he strenuously advocated for such hearings.  The turnout at these summer meetings was strong with hundreds of attendees, banners, and leaflets.

In this morning’s paper, Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Sean Tubbs article explains the current public input process.

To comply with Federal Highway Administration regulations, VDOT is conducting an assessment to determine whether previous federal approvals of the bypass are still valid. VDOT spokesman Lou Hatter said earlier this month that that process will consist of a citizen information meeting, but not a full public hearing at which comments would be entered into the public record.

“Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comment during the citizen information meeting and during the draft environmental assessment review period,” Hatter said in an e-mail. “Public comment and questions have already been received through the two community task forces that looked at the northern and southern termini.”

Considering the turnout at last summer’s hearings, including one in Richmond, one can only surmise the true purpose of this  “Committee” request to postpone any proposed public hearing is yet another in a long string of delay tactics.

Charlottesville Tomorrow’s recent survey confirmed the results of the 2004 Citizen Survey conducted by the Free Enterprise Forum.  The public wants a US29 Bypass.  The opponents, while vocal, organized and well funded have not won the hearts and minds of the citizens.

To extend the boxing metaphor a touch further, the US 29 Western Bypass bout is clearly in the middle rounds and can still go either direction.  From this point, it looks like it will come down to the judges.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo/Graphics Credit: guardian.co.uk, boxingmemories.com, Charlottesville Tomorrow

Comprehensive Planning or California Dreaming?

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

by Neil Williamson, President

California dreamin’
On such a winter’s day –John and Michelle Phillips, © 1966

Under the guidance of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC),  Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia are utilizing a nearly one million dollar grant to coordinate their respective comprehensive plan updates in support of a sustainable, interrelated, community. 

The Free Enterprise Forum has gone on the record several times in opposition to this additional level of bureaucracy (see TJPDC Institutional Arrogance Exposed, Programming the Livability GPS, Livability Grant Metrics and Methods).

It is important to recognize that Comprehensive Planning is a critical part of local government’s responsibility.  Virginia State Code mandates each locality prepare a Comprehensive Plan for its jurisdiction:

§ 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.

The local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.

In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The comprehensive plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement, shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.

The Code makes it clear that the plan is to be “general in nature” but we have repeatedly seen localities, including Albemarle County and Charlottesville, creating very specific goals in their comprehensive plans.  While we applaud specific goals because they provide clear metrics, our concern is that the comprehensive plan process is too far removed from the budgetary process that might make these goals a reality.

Now with the new “One Community” planning paradigm that includes a 76 page report on Performance Measurement System, it is clear to us that this process is completely removed from the very real decisions that must be made for such plans to come to fruition.

Back in August, Charlottesville Tomorrow covered a PC  meeting where Albemarle Planning Commissioner Don Franco (Rio) was quoted:

“What I see happening is that we’re creating this performance measurement system and I’m not sure what we know what we’re measuring yet until we know what our goals and objectives are as a community,” Franco said.

Based on our experience, we continue to see goals that have been set under the auspices of the Comprehensive Planning process [even to TJPDC’s Involvement] die at the Board of Supervisors or City Council due to a combination of a lack of funding and/or widespread public support. 

While the 1-Community plan does not set the Comprehensive Plan for the localities, we anticipate significant pushback if the approved Comprehensive Plan is not in significant accord with the document the TJPDC publishes.

Six months after the August Planning Commission presentation, Mr. Franco’s question still resonates and if such goals are clearly established by the governing bodies, will they be supported in budgets and action items? 

If not, just as the 1979 movie poster above suggests, we are “California Dreaming – a state somewhere between fantasy and reality.”

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org