Supervisor Emmitt Marshal Pushes For Rural Growth Again

“The only other way to divide land is to file for a rezoning.”

The above sentence is copied directly from Dan’s post. What is wrong with that approach? Why do we need special consideration for every doggone piece of property in this county? Why the special treatment for the Lake Anna area?

Simply said, if we don’t know what Supv. Marshall has in mind for the Lake Anna area or any other rural area, and he refuses to say or support his reasoning for advancing more sprawl in rural Spotsylvaia County what does Supv Marshall want us to believe or even understand about his postured position? The same thought occurs when Supv. Waddy wants $2.9 million or more, to pave his unpaved roads with 2005 referendum money. Back then it was $144 million dollars that was voted into transportation funding, and months after passage was discovered to be 45% short of what it should have been. Anyone ever read the Free Lanse-Star? If not, you might ask Dan Televock to pull this information up from the FLS archives.

t was an interesting session to watch… and clearly – there are two solid votes against allowing more by-right density/subdividings and clearly 2 votes that would do it in a heartbeat and 3 votes sort of in the middle that can swing …depending..

i don’t think Lake Anna growth is “sprawl” though as classically defined auto-dependent growth with twice a day commuting to/from work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

There are a ton of resort/retirement communities that are primarily inhabited by kidless retirees empty-nesters living in upscale homes who drive around 5000 miles a year – most of it locally.

they quite often own their homes outright and pay taxes far in excess of the services they need.

That be said, I’m in general agreement with those that say if a subdivision is required, let’s do the rezone where the development will likely be better capitalized and much more likely to be a quality development with amenities rather than farm/forest cut up into ad-hoc lots that inevitably result in future complaints about roads and other facilities.

not sure how this plays into the issue but it sure seems like a good approach .. if it is still an active plan….

http://www.tjpdc.org/pdf/rep_envi_lakeAnna.pdf

Of course Marty will probably see this as more nefarious scheming on the part of govt.. but…he’ll have to expand his suspicious cast of characters to include Louis and Orange BOS and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District…

took 4 days to get my previous comment approved for release, I’m told because I supplied a link. (the Lake Anna Development Plan)

I guess that’s water under the bridge but if links are going to result in 4 days for approval.. I guess.. I won’t do many.. though I did ask why that same policy does not apply to other FLS blogs where I have supplied links …without delays in the comment appearing…

At any rate – the point I was trying to make was that growth is going to happen.

If we don’t plan for it .. then it will happen in ways that may not be the best and actually in ways that end up with negative consequences.

We’ve been there and done that.

So I stumbled across this multi-county Lake Anna Development Plan done years ago when Mr. Griffith was Planning Director – and it’s an interesting document because it recognizes that an area plan for Lake Anna is necessary if you’re not going to end up with the different counties taking actions that may be a cross ends to each of their interests.

I thought the idea of putting together a plan to deal with the growth was better than not planning because it’s going to happen as long as there is land available… anyhow.

(or perhaps the folks who live there think the cow has already left the barn).

I don’t know what Louisa’s subdivision policies are – but perhaps it would not be a bad thing to know and if different then understand and recognize some of the consequences …. i.e planning

I simply do not think that Spotsy is any better or worse than the surrounding counties and MPOs and Planning Districts on the whole.

There’s good, bad and ugly but it seems that some of us spend most of our time on the latter two.. speaking in conspiratorial terms about FAMPO, Mr. Connors, the county Focus Group, etc, etc.

I’m not all bent out of shape about the Focus Group.

I think it can actually be a good thing if it leads to better county policies – like service districts for commercial development, more effective TDRs/PDRs, etc.

I just don’t ascribe nefarious motives to any/all of these kinds of things.

I think FAMPO is a needed group. I’d like to see them direct elected and will advocate for that but in the meantime, accusing them of bad conduct is not going to do anything productive in my mind.

That’s why I asked if you thought Louisa or Orange or the Thomas Jefferson Planning District was particularly better or worse than Spotsylvania/FAMPO in the way they do business.

I truly don’t know… but I’m not going to assume – without some evidence that virtually everything that Spotsy/FAMPO/Focus groups/BOS is up to no good.

That’s all.

I basically believe in our governance.. good, bad and ugly and seek to encourage “better”.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be elected to the BOS and have all these so-called “plans” thrown at me? I think it might not be very pleasant, considering the import of the decisions I might partake.

As Marty has so vocally expressed, I, as an elected official, would be troubled by this “Focus Group” closed meeting policy. As an elected official, I think I might be tempted to insist that some “sunshine” be cast on their activities. I think that might be in line with Commonwealth law.

In line with my “elected” responsibility, however be it lowly local, I think I might find some difficulty with the fact that the general asembly has found it necessary to “stack the deck” by creating entities like FAMPO (and others) with governing boards consisting of only local elected officials. That does seem incestual on it’s face.

Alas, I am not an elected official; nor am I likely to ever be one. However, as a tax payer; a status from which no one has suggested I should be exempted, I would like to suggest that our current elected officials pay attention. Spotsylvania County has grown beyond the bounds that only require “part time” governance at it’s highest level.

Yes, planning is good as is apple pie and ice cream. Just because a plan has been prepared does not automatically make it a good plan. Good plans require input from all sides of the street. And that is where the current focus group closed sessions run afoul in my thinking.

The problem with FAMPO, as I view it, is that it is governed by the same folks that govern the localities FAMPO is supposed to serve. That tends, IMHO, to open the door for stagnant thinking.

However, I bow to wiser heads; I only wish they would use their wisdom more effeciently.

Bill – planning is simply thinking ahead … planning means looking at your finances before signing up for more debt – if in doing so, it hurts your credit rating.

When I see the budget people sit down with bond counsel and start going through the numbers – that’s planning Guy.

FAMPO leadership is incestuous – yes. I’ve lobbied for direct-elected and i’ll continue to and if enough of us do that – sooner or later, we may have an impact. Who knows…

it’s better to advocate for those changes than to curse them for their current condition.

By the way, I’ve also encourage them to get the answer to the gas tax question.

One more thing – do you remember when the county looked at UTSDs – where the state would turn over local roads and pay them money (like they do with cities like Fredericksburg) and what did the county do?

As I recall, the county said that they got a better deal with VDOT doing the roads.

Tell me how they decided that. do you think they had an analysis that showed the costs ?

Let me ask one more. If they did not have an analysis that showed those costs – how did they know it was a worse deal?

I think they know. I’m pretty sure an analysis was done by a company called TischlerBise and William Allen but I can no longer find it.

So Larry, why are you asking me what my goals are when, when you don’t even read what I write? So my approach is negative, and your not knowing what the other half of the story is OK with you?

My goal is really very simple an straight forward. You prefer circles and polite conversation, and I just want answers to questions that are really basic and often times quite simple. You prefer not to know. My preference is knowing what’s going on. If you want to make a mud pie out of that, I’ll supply you with all the dirt and water you will ever need, except for the fact you don’t like to get your hands dirty.

I’m not looking for anyone in the County to come up with answers to my questions. I know, because for the past 5 years I’ve been showing up and the BOS just sits there, wondering when I’ll stop and go away. They even tried to legislate me out of my monthly presentations by changing their By-Laws.

Anti-County agenda? Who are you trying to kid. I didn’t see you showing up for BOS scheduled meetings. I attended all FAMPO meetings, from policy, to technical to your Transportation Advisory Committee, and found myself being one of the few citizens who showed to find out what litlle WE knew of FAMPO’s working agenda, and what part of that ever made its way back to the the public forum in Spotsylvania County. What would you want to know about the Agri/Forestry Committee or the PDR Committee and how it impacts land acquisition by the County? Don’t recall you ever attending anyone of their meetings.

So, what, if anything, do you know about the county’s business ethic or business practices?

You’re OK that the County’s FOCUS GROUP, without minutes, permits no one, even the press, from attending their meetings and impacts all matters of business and business judgements in Spotsylvania County.

So, what you describe as mean spirited, biased and full of vitriol, is really more about your satisfaction with half measures, half the story and a willingness to turn your head, when the answer is really sitting under your nose, but your not telling. You would rather pull up a 10 year old planning strategy from cyberspace that hasn’t been looked at for 10 years and try to pass it off as a template for progress that Supv. Marshall wants for his rural Lake Anna Community.

I’m not using rhetoric as the foundation of my conduct, or what I have said in the past or present. I’m just calling them as I see it, from both sides of that line you continue to draw in the sand. The point of the matter is, no one has ever returned to the podium claiming I didn’t KNOW what I was talking about, or the truth about what and who I was describing, in public,and without reservation.

If I’m wrong, you should be first in line to tell me so. If not, lets move on to the next bump in the road OR better define what half a story gets you on the open market of public opinion.

This county is not the worse county in Va by a far, far stretch by any standard one might wish to use.

They’ve got issues, yes.. but they have done in the past and continue to do a number of things – right – IMHO.

My view – if you want ANY organization to get better – you have to be able to point out the areas that need improvement in your opinion AND the county folks have to be wanting to listen to your critics.

If all you are is a non-stop critic of everything wrong – not only are they not going to listen – but they’ll even ignore what might be good thoughts… because you have made yourself an enemy and they perceive you as one.

I believe, as anyone who read me, in hard-hitting but honest and fair criticism ALONG with kudos and credit for what I think are things that deserve praise.

BHAAS, I have no problem with your “both sides of the street” approach. I applaud it and I am encouraged to emulate it.

If you still have the TB Study, how about sending it.? Did we look through it to see if it had financials – especially comparing VDOT maintenance and operational costs compared to how much money the county would get i they took over that task?

The thing about the UTSDs – and THIS particular thread is that the county COULD have created a UTSD for Lake Anna and then because they then had the ability to levy comprehensive impacts fees – any/all growth at Lake Anna – regardless of the subdivision issues – could – with the right calibration of fees – pay for itself.

In fact, for the entire county – it looked like it had promise.

There was an implication (was it reported as such) that there were some issues that held the county back but as far as I know they did not ask for relief on those issues by putting them on their legislative agenda that goes to our State elected.

There’s some different ways of discussion this issue and issues like this.

You can approach them from the point of view that there were some honest concerns and it led to the county turning down the opportunity…

or we could talk about just how wrong and bad the BOS was to not do more about growth…

an then sweeten it with veiled accusations of conspiratorial wrongdoing/potential skulduggery of specifically mentioned BOS members… focus groups and FAMPO, etc, et all..

I think staying on the issue and leaving out the bad thoughts is a better approach.

and no, I do not think such an approach is going around in circles or refusing to get one’s hands “dirty” (whatever that means).

My involvement in FAMPO is selfish. I simply won’t to know and understand more about how MPOs work (or not) … and to lobby for what I think are things that will help the public better understand their role … and other improvements like direct-elections.

I’ve not given up on the gas tax… I see it as a continuum – where one continues the advocacy – and who knows.. someone like Edd Houck or Mark Cole may be willing to submit legislation to require it. Bob McDonnald, the govt is doing yet another review of VDOT and who knows, that issue might become involved.

Having been around when developers were running the county – and the FBI circling for apparent wrongdoing… and then watching new elections bring in new people who were interested in things like Balanced Scorecards and citizen satisfaction survey’s …as well as brokered deals to save historic land.. and an agreement to use a 2% goal for growth – I saw these things as major improvements – and they came about because enough people in the county wanted it.. and when enough people want something.. elections lead to changes.

I am a bit troubled of late by the BOS and County penchant for secrecy – justified for some things but in my view.. it’s becoming more of a practice – not justifiable.

so the long and short of it is that if you want your opinions, complaints, criticisms PERCEIVED to be CONSTRUCTIVE then you do the in that way and if you don’t care if your views have absolutely no impact on those you direct them to, then you just sling as much mud as you can muster.

that’s my 2 cents… I don’t care for approaches that walk and talk the latter way.

If you want any of the BOS to read what you write – your first job is to get them to WANT to read it… no?

I’ll assume “moderation” is another way of saying Larryg has earned more points than I have and that his No. 7 deserves as much consideration as my attempt at No. 22 and we thought no one was reading.

Two things this is not about. It’s not about what Marshall advocates and it’s not about growth that will never occur no matter what.

What this is about is this. Growth is going to happen. Decisions about growth may or may not come from folks like Marshall but at some point, decisions will be made and the question is will those decisions be incremental, AD HOC without regard to longer term planning or not?

Growth is not something you can stop but rather something that is going to happen and will have impacts to infrastructure and thus taxes.

Growth that is planned for in terms of infrastructure and how it will be provisioned and paid for is going to be Managed and better than growth that happens because we continue to believe we can stop it.

In that regard, the TB study was a blueprint for planning for the infrastructure that will be needed in the future EVEN WITH – ONLY a 2% growth scenario.

It’s true, it does not deal with maintenance and ops – only new and improvements designed explicitly as detailed in that report – ONLY TO MAINTAIN the existing LOS – not improve it – as that would be a legitimate tax on all of us.

but what it does most importantly in my view – it accommodates growth without degradation of the LOS – which is the problem that we have seen and will continue to see in the future if we continue to have fantasies that growth will not occur.

The conclusions of the TB study.. that were sobering.. were that impact fees alone for the roads would not fully pay to maintain LOS and higher taxes would probably still be needed – but less so than no plan.

But the UTSDs would also have allowed impacts fees for schools and other facilities – county-wide for all growth, including by-right and not just rezones and would have removed one of the bigger sticking points for by-right growth (that it does not pay for itself).

I don’t pretend to know the answers but I do very much support these analysis, including the Lake Anna approach in taking the hard looks at likely future scenarios and developing action plans NOW that anticipate growth rather than believing it can be stopped and planning is not useful.