States are basically divided up into either what is known as> "home rule" or "dillon rule". Virginia is the latter which is> set up in some ways similiar to the Fed/state govt powers in> that the State reserves all power not explicitly delegated> to localities which includes taxing and property rights.

John Lansford wrote:>> http://www.washingt­onpost.com/wp-dyn/ar­ticles/A5480-2005Mar­3.html>>

Yup.. and here is the other headline:>

More Lanes, Exits Planned for Greenway>Expansion Sparks Fears of Worsened Loudoun Sprawl

"Larry Gross" <gross.larry@gmail.­com> wrote:> > John Lansford wrote:> >

I saw that one this afternoon, and one question immediately jumped> into my mind:>

Did the private owners of the Dulles Greenway fund the anti> slow-growth lawsuit, or did they actively campaign for the regulations> being relaxed and/or removed completely?

After all, more houses in Loudoun County equal more customers for> their road. I found that their announcement for more lanes and more> entrances to the toll road was more than coincidental as well,> considering it came the same day the court overturned the slow-growth> regulations.

The Virginia Supreme Court yesterday threw out Loudoun County's> slow-growth regulations that had blocked home building on vast swaths> of open space in the nation's fastest-growing county.>

The ruling on scores of challenges filed two years ago by property> owners, developers and others opens the western part of the county to> new growth. More than 50,000 additional houses could now be built in> an area formerly closed to massive development.>

The court did not rule on the rights of property owners. Rather, it> found that Loudoun officials had not given proper public notice for> hearings before slashing the number of homes that could be built on> 300 square miles of semirural land covering two-thirds of the county.>

Jurisdictions across the region, including Southern Maryland,> Montgomery County and other parts of Northern Virginia, have sought

control rapid development through zoning restrictions and other> measures. Loudoun's limitations were among the broadest.>

The Supreme Court did what some on the pro-development majority on> Loudoun's Board of Supervisors have wanted to do since taking power> last year. Supervisors who have long slammed the controls as an> infringement on property rights appeared delighted with the court's> ruling, and there was no indication yesterday that it would be> appealed or that Loudoun officials would try to reinstate the> regulations. Last night, supervisors were planning a special meeting> on the decision.>

...>

The ruling represents a forceful victory for property rights

fields, small towns and scattered subdivisions of upscale homes in> western Loudoun.>

...>

A new crop of pro-growth officials took power last year after an> election underwritten by unprecedented campaign contributions from

development industry. Although officials have been pushing for> increased home building near Dulles International Airport, the> politically charged question of what they would do about their> predecessors' strict limits on growth in western Loudoun remained> unanswered.>

Then, yesterday, Virginia's highest court invalidated the county's> toughest slow-growth rules in a 19-page opinion.>

The most far-reaching change from the decision could come on the> question of rural zoning in the county's west. Advocates of slowing> growth changed zoning law in 2003 to require 10, 20 or 50 acres per> house, depending on a property's location and whether homesites were> clustered together to protect open space. For decades before that,> Loudoun required three acres for the construction of every home in> that part of the county.

John Lansford, PE> --> The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:> http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/

I don't get how building houses on 10 acre lots makes growth any> slower. When you build 1000 houses, instead of having those 1000> houses take up 3000 acres of land, they much take up 10000, or 20000,> or 50000? That seems like sprawl gone crazy....

The approach was to direct growth to areas where denser development was>encouraged and to restrict density in areas where they didn't want>dense growth.>

It was never about stopping growth but instead to direct it to where>infrastructur­e>existed and was planned to be upgraded. Schools and roads.>

Virginia, 'by-right' zoning allows development to occur without regard>to available infrastructure and without regard to how those facilities>are planned or paid for.>

The primary means for localities in Va to generate reveneue for schools>and>other infrastructure is through the property tax. They cannot assess>income>or sales taxes.>

Loundoun County has to build a new school every year because of growth.

Consider also that every new home generates 10 auto trips a day

The Virginia Supreme Court yesterday threw out Loudoun County's>slow-growt­h regulations that had blocked home building on vast swaths>of open space in the nation's fastest-growing county.>

"Larry Gross" <gross.larry@gmail.­com> wrote:>

Which just conveniently announced new lanes and new entrances the day> the courts overturned the slow-growth initiatives.

It would not> surprise me one bit if they weren't a major player in getting the> lawsuit organized and funded to get the growth restrictions lifted.

Here's a follow-up article on this issue:>

http://www.washingt­onpost.com/wp-dyn/ar­ticles/A8484-2005Mar­4.html>

Advocates of controlling growth in Loudoun County yesterday denounced> what they said was laughable logic used by Virginia's Supreme Court to> jettison strict limits on home building, and they pledged a political> fight aimed at getting the slow-growth policies reinstated.

It was never about stopping growth but instead to direct it to where> infrastructure> existed and was planned to be upgraded. Schools and roads.>

Virginia, 'by-right' zoning allows development to occur without regard> to available infrastructure and without regard to how those facilities> are planned or paid for.>

The primary means for localities in Va to generate reveneue for schools> and> other infrastructure is through the property tax. They cannot assess> income> or sales taxes.>

Loundoun County has to build a new school every year because of growth.> Other facilities such as fire/rescue, libraries, roads, etc are also at> issue.>

So Loudoun - and other counties such as the one I live in - 50 miles> south> of Washington are struggling with growth and their problem has to do> with> the RATE of growth, not just growth. It's how FAST growth is ocurring> and> how to keep up with the infrastructure needs and to pay for that> infrastructure.>

To give a good example: A new student seat costs about $10K and the> locality share of educating that student is about 4K annually Even> with the costs of housing skyrocking, the average new homeowner pays> about 2K in taxes leaving a 2K gap - per household with kids.> And this is just schools.>

Consider also that every new home generates 10 auto trips a day - and> there> are thousands of new homes every year and the Toll Road is but one road> -> there are dozens/hundreds of other roads that were designed decades ago> for 1/10th the traffic counts they now see.>

The 200 folks who were part of the lawsuit want to develop their land -> even> in rural areas. They want the unfettered right to do so regardless of> where> infrastructure exists - including roads, water/sewer, and schools.>

And folks who buy these homes don't care that it will cost a lot more> to> build infrastructure to service them - and they expect others to pay> for> this infrastructure - including the roads to get them TO the toll road.>

Okay.. so lets take the opposite tact. Instead of one house per ten> acres, let's> make ALL land developable to say 20 units per acre and let the> marketplace> decide where development occurs.>

So a question. Is this approach going to create sprawl also?>

So.. in rural areas of the county, we'll have 2000 unit subdivisions> that> will generate 20,000 car trips a day on rural roads where there are no> schools, libraries or other facilities and everyone, including kids> will> have to use autos to get to these facilities.>

So.. the approach - ruled illegal by the courts - was to allow dense> development> close in to where infrastructure exists and to restrict dense> development in the> rural areas. Remember, this does not stop development in the rural> areas. Any> owner or developer can seek a more dense rezone - BUT they will then> have> to negotiate with the county over how much they will have to kick in to> help> pay for infrastructure (called proffers in Va). Remember in Va,> localities> cannot impose mandatory impact fees but instead must seek 'voluntary'> proffers from developers.>

Alright, so the entire upshot of all of this is that the County was not> seeking> to stop growth or development but to require developers/landowne­rs to> help> pay for the necessary infrastrucuture - and developers/landowne­rs don't> want to have to pay for infrastructure - just development their land,> get> a profit, no matter what the consequences are to taxpayers and others.>

I don't pretend to know what the answer is but the use of the 'sprawl'> argument> is bogus because the bottom line is that no matter what scenario one> chooses> that people WILL live in the rural areas if land is available for sale> - and it is.>

And to a certain extent if density is restricted, then 'build-out' will> occur> with 1/10 the density .. AND 1/10 the amount of schools and roads> needed to serve that development - 1/10 the infrastructure needs.>

Some folks will say this is inefficient. I'd agree but dont' tell me> that allowing> unrestricted and unfettered dense development throughout rural areas is> 'efficient' either. In the end, it's not about efficiency - it's about> where the> infrastructure will come from for new residents and who should pay for> it.>

What needs to be changed more notably than anything is that > counties in fast-growing areas need the ability to impose mandatory impact > fees. Would this be a magic solution that solves all problems? Most likely > not. However, any money that could be gained from mandatory impact fees to > improve roads would be incredibly beneficial and slow the congestion of the > roads and highways.

On 2005-03-05, John Lansford <jlnsford@bellsouth­.net> wrote:>> Bingo. Another example. Buncombe County, home of Asheville, has no>> zoning restrictions whatsoever outside of the city limits. If someone>> wants to put up a strip club next to a church, that's their right.>> Every time a zoning restriction comes up for a vote, it gets shot down>> in flames, all in the name of "property rights". Except the people>> funding the vote-down are developers and real estate companies, who>> see any restriction on where homes can go as cutting into their profit>> margins.>

Houston does not have, and has never had, zoning. I grew up there, and it>simply wasn't a problem. There are places in this country where the>government does not presume to tell someone what they can or cannot do with>their property. There should be more.

Yes, and?>

"Sprawl" is not a dirty word to everyone.

Houston is also considered one of the most sprawled cities in the> country.>

John Lansford, PE>

Sure it is. Sprawl makes the cost of living increase for everyone, not> just those in the suburbs. You have the increased cost in the> maintaince and construction of roadways; increased cost in running> water lines, sewer lines, fiber optic lines, etc. for those who live> out in the boonies where the homes are on one acre lots, resulting in> huge inefficencies; increase cost for fire departments and police> departments who must build new stations to service fewer and less dense> developments; the list could go on. The National Geographic magazine> has some excellent articles on this about Cary, NC and sprawl north of> Cincinnati.>

Then you have envrionmental impacts. You rob rich agricultural soils of> productivity; you bury streams and mangle lands for flat development> lots; you build roadways and massive parking lots that are IMPERMEABLE> and thus you have runoff issues; and you increase albedo levels,> raising temperatures by considerable amounts.>

I could go on, but sprawl is a dirty word, especially as suburbs become> rundown and people search for exurbs.>

On 2005-03-06, John Lansford <jlnsford@bellsouth­.net> wrote:>> Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.­conmicro.cx> wrote:>>>Houston does not have, and has never had, zoning. I grew up there, and it>>>simply wasn't a problem. There are places in this country where the>>>government does not presume to tell someone what they can or cannot do with>>>their property. There should be more.>> Houston is also considered one of the most sprawled cities in the>> country.>

Yes, and?

"Sprawl" is not a dirty word to everyone.

and it also has one of the worst air pollution problems in the nation.> Coincidence? I don't think so.>

Not to developers it isn't.>

John Lansford, PE>

I think you just contradicted yourself.>

Your demography is really weak. The middle of the country is not losing> population. It is gaining.>

Oh well. There is no dealing with factual ignornance on your