The above is the title of an op-ed piece in today’s Virginian-Pilot written by associate editor Roger Chelsey.
It’s too bad Virginia lawmakers won’t give local officials similar tools to bring home-builders to heel.
Hm, that pesky Dillon Rule again.
Camden provides an instructive blueprint for what could happen in Virginia. The county will hold a public hearing Jan. 16 to discuss a proposed “adequate public facilities ordinance” to limit new residential subdivisions based on school capacity. It also could be expanded to consider the impact on water, sewer and public safety services.
Now wouldn’t that be lovely if we could do something similar in Virginia? Wouldn’t that help with the transportation problem?
“We’re not going to get [APF] in Virginia,” he [Mark Flynn, director of legal services for the Virginia Municipal League] said bluntly. “That’s too radical. This is a business-friendly state.”
Yes, we are. But how business-friendly will we be unless we do something about transportation? Wasn’t that a part of the reason the Ford plant closed here?
Technorati Tags: Transportation, Dillon Rule
Of course, the more we restrict the home builders, the higher the housing prices become.
Posted by Jack | Saturday, January 6, 2007, 4:48 pmTake your pick, Jack. Higher housing prices or higher transportation costs. Either way, we pay.
Posted by vjp | Sunday, January 7, 2007, 4:45 pmYup. The basic mantra of most homeowners is, “I’ve got mine now, I don’t want any more people to move here.”
Posted by Jack | Sunday, January 7, 2007, 8:19 pmBut if localities have more leeway homeowners could get additional tax relief the current law does not allow Jack….I believe the more bottom up government the better….
VA needs to become as “citizen friendly” as it is “corporate friendly.” Business friendly is not entirely accurate….the favors are to large corporations not local smal business.
The big land developers aren’t happy that localities want to consider the standard of living when okaying new projects and they are fighting this…with their big money
Personally, I’m sick of my tax dollars subsidizing large corporations feeding at the public trough like pigs in a feeding frenzy….
buzz…buzz
Posted by mosquito | Monday, January 8, 2007, 6:37 amI’m not talking about real estate taxes. I’m talking about the ability of people to buy houses in the first place. The fewer houses that are built, the more expensive the current stock is. This is great for the homeowners — it raises the value of their investment, and there are fewer people on the roads.
As for the big businesses, I think they provide far greater benefits to a region than they get in tax breaks and subsidies.
Posted by Jack | Monday, January 8, 2007, 8:51 amMosquito – you and I are on the same page here. Business-friendly is why we can’t get rid of the Dillon Rule.
Jack – repeat a lie often enough & it becomes a truth. We’ve been told over & over that businesses provide all these benefits to a region but I have yet to see that backed up with any stats. The one time I did the research on it – as it related to a professional sports team – I found the opposite to be true.
Posted by vjp | Monday, January 8, 2007, 10:32 amYou are correct in the case of professional sports teams, but they can hardly be compared to “normal” businesses. If such businesses do not provide benefits to the locals, why are you so upset that the Ford plant is closing?
Posted by Jack | Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:46 amAh, but the loss of the Ford plant can be partially attributed to the Dillon Rule (and its effects on transportation). See, it’s not as simple as it looks, Jack. The Dillon Rule is touted as being why we get jobs, but no one wants to talk about when it costs jobs.
And, your comment above referred to tax breaks and subsidies, none of which the Ford plant got.
Posted by vjp | Monday, January 8, 2007, 11:56 amWould you be willing to give them and such subsidies to stay? The question is one of benefit vs. cost. Obviously, the Ford plant is some benefit to Norfolk. How much is Norfolk willing to pay Ford for that benefit?
Posted by Jack | Monday, January 8, 2007, 12:06 pmYou have a bad example here, because no matter what they are offered (and they have been offered quite a bit by both the City of Norfolk and the Commonwealth of VA), Ford won’t be staying.
Posted by vjp | Monday, January 8, 2007, 1:05 pmOK, I’ll modify the question. How much is Norfolk going to lose when the Ford plant is gone?
Posted by Jack | Monday, January 8, 2007, 1:26 pmUse the search function on this blog. I’ve linked to the various reports that have come out about the loss of jobs and the economic impact.
The Dillon Rule is touted as being what makes it easy to attract businesses, but in the case of Ford, it contributed to its loss. Providing incentives for businesses to locate in VA – and sports teams are businesses, too – is outside of the scope of the Dillon Rule, anyway.
Posted by vjp | Monday, January 8, 2007, 1:57 pmWe did get away from the issue of growth vs. transportation, didn’t we?
I was responding to Mosquito’s annoyance with her tax money going to big companies. I contend that companies such as Ford contribute more to the local economy than they are given in incentives to locate in Virginia.
As for the Dillon Rule, it sounds like the localities cannot sneeze without asking the state for a tissue first. That does sound almost as dumb as the No Child Get Ahead law and federal abortion laws.
Posted by Jack | Monday, January 8, 2007, 2:15 pmYep. That’s what I’ve been saying over in this thread and throughout this blog.
Posted by vjp | Monday, January 8, 2007, 2:30 pm