|
Tks, Laurie, for the statements below from county Planning Staff.
Appreciate you taking the time to ask them to respond and sharing their
response with me.
It's interesting to see Planning Staff repeating almost verbatim the
same mantras that I've heard over and over again from developers.
That
only helps confirm my worst fears. It's also interesting how
transparent many of the Planning Staff rebuttals below are; very
obviously leaving out important information and in some cases making
blatant distortions -- either unintentionally out of ignorance or
intentionally to obfuscate. (Neither possibility is very
comforting.)
For example:
"The
[Planning Staff's plan] does not increase the number of new homes
planned for Prince William County." OR "The BOCS
is considering the staff version of the Land Use chapter that proposes
2
Centers of Commerce, 2 Centers of Community, and 2 study areas for
future
centers. The 4 centers reflect planning already approved by the
Board
and
would result in no additional residential development in these
areas." Say what? If this is true, if there
will
indeed be no
additional residential development in Planning Staff's overall plan,
then why is it proposing centers of community (the old LUAC euphemism
for high-density housing)? If there will be no new residential
development in the centers of community, then why are they being
proposed as development areas? Development of what? And NO
ADDITIONAL
residential development means what exactly: in addition to what?
But it's most interesting of all to see the Planning Staff directly
rebutting Chairman Stewart's own Planning Commission Chairman Gary
Friedman. (All four points below are his, not mine.)
Do you remember
the following e-mail you sent me below in Dec 2008 [see passage between
line of asterisks immediately below] in which you said
Chairman Stewart strongly supported Chairman Friedman's plan (which is
represented in the four points rebutted by Planning Staff below)?
Your
e-mail from today has a very different tone and apparent direction than
that one from 14 months ago. I'm getting the eerie feeling that
Chairman Stewart has changed his mind and decided to no longer support
his own Planning Commission Chairman, and instead support (or at least
move much, much closer to) Planning Staff parotting the developer party
line? Is that true? If so, why? Please say it ain't
so. Ralph
Stephenson
************************************************************************************
Mr. Stephenson [summary of
message from Stewart Chief of Staff Laurie Cronin to Ralph Stephenson
20 Dec 2008]:
Thank you for your e-mail I
wanted to send you an
article that recaps what Chairman Stewart's Planning Commissioner, Gary
Friedman has implemented, Chairman Stewart is supportive of the changes.
Prince
William land use changes in the
works
By
Cheryl Chumley
Published:
December 10, 2008 http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/prince_william_land_use_changes_in_the_works/26050/
************************************************************************************
Cronin, Laurie A. wrote:
Ralph,
Thank you for including me in
your e-mail, I did want
you to be aware of a response that I got from PWC Planning:
County's
future:
1.
Provides no
incentives for focused, major development in the two areas of the
county
identified by the Planning Commission as most in need of redevelopment
and
revitalization, which already have the basic public infrastructure in
place and
are the most likely locations for future metro rail expansion from
Fairfax into Prince William County: North Woodbridge and
Yorkshire.
Staff
has proposed designating North Woodbridge a “Center of Commerce,”
giving that
area the highest level of focus and attention for redevelopment and
revitalization. This is on top of the fact that North Woodbridge
has
already been the focus of planning as part of the Potomac Communities
effort. Yorkshire has also been recommended by staff to be
studied for
consideration as a “Center of Community,” recognizing that it is in
need of
redevelopment and revitalization and has existing infrastructure.
2. The “centers”, as proposed by staff, have been
best
described by a fellow planning commissioner as allowing “anything,
anywhere,
anytime”. There is no limit on the number of these centers
that
could be advanced and the Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) located a
large
portion of them in the Brentsville District. Planning staff
proposes
these “centers” comp plan amendment initiations be allowed without
form,
format, or defined content, other than a vague “mixed use” requirement,
and
without any major investment in the county or the process by the
applicant,
whenever a proposal is submitted. It would then be left to staff
to
work
out the details along the way, thus allowing unprecedented
“flexibility”.
In this scenario I am sure staff would do the best job possible to
“work out
the details”. But any such effort will, of necessity, be
constrained
by
resources and staff availability. Due to budget restraints and
numerous
department vacancies, planning staff is already stretched to its
limits.
Does it make any sense to add what would surely become dramatic new
burdens on
an already overburdened department? And if so, what would be the
likely
result?
The BOCS
is considering the staff version of the Land Use chapter that proposes
2
Centers of Commerce, 2 Centers of Community, and 2 study areas for
future
centers. The 4 centers reflect planning already approved by the
Board
and
would result in no additional residential development in these
areas.
Any
request for an additional center would, if initiated by the BOCS, have
to go
through a planning process that engages the community in development of
a
“Centers Plan” that would define the unique characteristics of the area
and would
prescribe the limits on the appropriate amount of development in the
Center. You are correct that such a Centers Plan would require
significant resources.
3. Provides no phasing structure on mixed use
projects.
We’ve been down this road before. How many times have mixed use
projects
been approved in the past, the residential component installed, then
the
commercial component left waiting for “the market to catch up”?
This
scenario always results in more rooftops, more congested roads, more
overcrowded
schools, and less revenue for the county to meet its obligations
because the
commercial component either never happens or happens to such a minimal
level as
to fail to offset the budget burdens the new homes create.
The
proposal includes a requirement to phase the infrastructure of a
project rather
than the timing of the various uses.
4. Fails to include the Planning Commission
safeguards
designed to protect the rural areas from encroachment. Anyone who
cares
about advancing smarter growth principles knows encouraging and
concentrating
growth in the development area, and protecting rural areas from sprawl
development, are key features. While the planning staff text
mentions
smart growth principles, and makes plentiful use of smart growth
language, the
proposed details tell a very different story.
The
proposal does not propose any changes to the protections currently
afforded the
rural area. The rural area continues to be a critical element in
the
county’s efforts to concentrate growth and development in the
development areas
of the county, and to preserve the rural character of the rural area.
We do not need 50,000 new homes in our community. We do
not
need supervisors who are allied with builders running the county
government. We already have a glut of homes, overcrowded schools
and
overcrowded roads. Do not add to this by ignoring the residents
who
vote
for you and lining your pockets with big builders bribes. Please
do
the
right thing for us, our children and all the people of Prince William
County.
The
proposal does not increase the number of new homes planned for Prince
William County. Rather, the plan would focus on improving the
quality
of
development by focusing development in high quality mixed-use, walkable
centers
with access to transit and trails.
I
hope this is helpful.
Laurie
Laurie A. Cronin
Chief of Staff
Chairman Corey
A. Stewart
Prince William
County Board of Supervisors
(703) 792-5626
/ (703) 792-4640
lcronin@pwcgov.org
From:
Ralph Stephenson [mailto:stephenrk1@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday,
January
31, 2010
6:47 PM
To: Stewart,
Corey A.
Cc: Cronin,
Laurie A.;
Friedman,
Gary
Subject: Re: CPA
Land
Use & Transportation Updates
Corey:
Thanks for getting back to me. Appreciate all that you do to
serve the
county. Per your request below for ideas for the comp plan,
numbered
below are the things that we would most like to see in it.
Ralph & Kathy Stephenson
1. No more residential development at all until the county has
worked
off
its current surplus/glut of residential housing. Why would we
build
something that we not only don't need, but that is economically
harmful?
A possible rule of thumb might be that until the county's total of
empty/foreclosed houses and approved-but-not-yet-built houses drops
below
7,000 or 10,000 at most, no more new houses can be
approved.
As has been said and proven so many times before,
more
residential housing over the next few years will further
crowd schools and roads,
subsidize residential developers yet again with our taxpayer dollars to
create
unneeded housing in a still-extremely-glutted housing market, and thus
further
damage the property values and long-term viability of older
neighborhoods. (At last count, there were still 25-30,000
approved,
but
not-yet-built homes in the county.) More
residential
housing will also damage the county tax base, which is currently about
85%
residential (higher taxes for all of us) and only 15% commercial.
And
It
will further harm the environment of beautiful (?? or
soon-to-be-formerly-beautiful) western Prince William County.
It's
ironic that the county is considering making it even easier to build
residential housing at the very time that the U.S. is trying to recover
from
its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought
on by,
among other things: massive housing industry overcapacity and
oversupply
(probably the single biggest cause); political shenanigans by local and
federal
government officials allied to the housing industry, trying to keep
demand
artificially high to match the artificially high housing supply;
dishonest and
predatory lending practices by many mortgage lenders to people who
couldn't
afford the homes they were being sold; and the financially toxic effect
of
these millions of now-non-performing (or bad) loans on the books of
banks and
other investors.
2. Please stress commercial development, not residential
development
--
especially focused commercial development: i.e., the Centers of
Commerce
concept, EXCEPT totally or mostly without residential housing.
The 85:
15
residential-to-commercial tax ratio is untenable, shows very poor
and/or improper
past planning by the county, and needs to be greatly improved.
Other
than
extreme cases like the Vulcan Quarry in Nokesville and the asphalt
plants right
next to housing, schools, GMU, and the county's new arts center, when
have
citizens strongly protested commercial development? Commercial is
far,
far more likely to receive a receptive audience -- especially if it
doesn't
severely impact traffic congestion or the environment -- than
residential
development, which always has all the negative impacts discussed above
and
should only be built when it is actually needed. Building housing
only
when we need it: Isn't that simply a matter of the most basic
economic
common sense? Otherwise, the immutable laws of supply and demand
will
have their revenge on the county's economy. (I'm forwarding
separately
to
you an economic analysis of the housing market, in line with other
analyses
I've seen and heard recently, that argues convincingly that housing
demand is
about to drop further in the coming months -- upon expiration of a
number of
temporary federal government economic stimulae that have artificially
propped
it up for awhile.)
3. I urge you to reject the Planning Staff and
Land Use
Advisory Committee, or LUAC, recommendations on the Land Use Chapter of
the
Comprehensive Plan. As you may recall, the LUAC recommendations
are
outrageous, proposing 19 Centers of Community -- 11 in the Haymarket,
Gainesville, Bristow, Manassas area. If each of
these 19 centers builds 3,000 homes, which is about the same density
level as the
infamous 2005-06 Brentswood Project, and assuming the county's average
of three
people per house, that would total 171,000 more people, a 50% increase
in the
population of the entire county.
Since the Planning Staff recommendations on residential housing, on
closer
examination, apparently set no real limits on housing and instead seem
to allow
“anything, anywhere, anytime” -- and thus are not really a plan at all
-- I see
no reason to believe that they will not ultimately move strongly in the
direction of, even converge with the outrageous LUAC
recommendations. On
the other hand, the Planning Commission recommendations actually would
noticeably plan and channel residential growth in more reasonable ways
-- and
primarily in two areas.
4.
The
following, on
schools, we quote from Michelle Trenum because we agree
completely:
Please put some teeth in the school policy. Although it
is lovely to see the BOCS discuss the issue of school
overcrowding, the proposed school policy with the way it currently is
written
doesn't really do anything to address the real issues. It
is
an
empty box that is just wrapped in pretty paper with a nice bow.
That
doesn't change the fact that inside the box is NOTHING.
When
I spoke before the board I showed a colored map of which schools would
be
overcrowded IF Avendale was approved....this policy, even if approved,
does not
change that colored map one bit. All the same schools would still
be
overcrowded.
My concerns with the
policy is
that nothing is different from now but it gives the public the false
illusion
that the board is addressing the problem. I also have issues that
it
only
affects Linton Hall when there are other parts of the county with
overcrowding
as well.
It is the
policy of the Prince
William Board of County Supervisors that, before any new residential
rezoning
in the Linton Hall Geographic District is approved, the developer shall
commit
that no new building or occupancy permits shall be issued unless and
until
(i) two
new elementary schools IN
THE LINTON HALL AREA are fully constructed and opened to new students;
Those schools
were already
on the schedule and will be completed, one by 2011 and the other by
2012 or it
could be moved up to 2011 as well. So nothing is different
because any
rezoning approved now would not have people moving in until 2011
or
2012
anyway.
(ii) a new high school IN THE LINTON HALL AREA (at Kettle Run) is fully
constructed and opened to new students;
Also, it is
on the
schedule to be opened in 2011 so nothing would change there
(iii) the sites for an additional elementary school and new middle
school be
acquired and located IN THE LINTON HALL AREA.
In an amazing
coincidence,
Avendale offered a middle school and elementary school site (although
both are
badly located) so golly gee, if Avendale was approved, then all the
pieces
would fall in place and anything could now be approved.
For the sake of argument,
let's say that the school
policy was actually put into effect last December 2009. Then
Avendale
came up for a vote in January.
Could Avendale be
approved
with this policy in
effect? YES
Would the homes be built and
occupied on the same
timeline as without this policy? YES
Could 10 more developments be
approved with this policy
as long as the homes weren't occupied until 2012 which would have
happened
anyway due to the length of time it takes to go from approval to people
moving
in? YES
Would our schools be equally
as overcrowded with this
policy as without this policy ? YES, THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE.
So the policy does NOTHING until it deals
with the
capacity issue and school locations.
Stewart, Corey A. wrote:
Ralph,
It really depends on how many people show up. If it is lighter than we expect, then I can allow for 5. In any case, please feel free to send me
any specific changes you would like us to consider. I, for one, am not hard set on any portion of the comp plan an am open to suggestions.
Corey
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph Stephenson <stephenrk1@comcast.net>
To: Stewart, Corey A.; Cronin, Laurie A.
Sent: Sat Jan 30 07:11:20 2010
Subject: Re: CPA Land Use & Transportation Updates
Thanks for letting me know. Ralph
Stewart, Corey A. wrote:
Mr. Stephenson,
I spoke to Chairman Stewart and due to the sheer volume of citizens
expected at the meeting Chairman Stewart requested I advise you that you
will have 3 minutes to speak.
Thank you,
Laurie
Laurie Anne Cronin
Senior Aide
Chairman Corey A. Stewart
Prince William County Board of Supervisors
(703) 792- 5626 / (703) 792 - 4640
lcronin@pwcgov.org / cstewart@pwcgov.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Stephenson [mailto:stephenrk1@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:33 AM
To: Stewart, Corey A.
Cc: Pugh, Bob
Subject: Re: CPA Land Use & Transportation Updates
Chairman Stewart: Please advise whether I'll have five minutes to speak
Tuesday 2 Feb during citizens time at 7:30 pm (as a representative of
Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth), or just three minutes.
Thanks for all you do to serve the
county. Ralph Stephenson
|
|
