|
|
||
|
Gov. Kaine, step in now and help the working man buy a home Prince William's moratorium on building is a recipe for disaster Date published: 1/3/2007
GIVEN THE VIRULENCE of the Pretending that this harsh action was forced upon them by the state government's transportation policies (or lack thereof), the county's clever contrivance will largely serve to (1) further enrich those of its constituents already lucky enough to own their own homes, (2) add immeasurably to the hideous traffic problem that burdens Northern Virginia, and (3) severely limit the economic opportunities for families of moderate means. Over the past decade or so, Northern Virginia's more distant counties--Loudoun, Stafford, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and Fauquier--have attempted to slow their growth by adopting land use regulations that have the effect of excluding from their communities low and moderate income households. Of course you can't do this directly--a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1930s ruled that it was illegal for communities to exclude people by income. But as country clubs demonstrate, you can do this indirectly by raising the "membership fee." In the case of Virginia's counties, the implicit membership fee is the price of In an effort to deter growth and upgrade community demographics, in the late 1990s Virginia counties began These higher fees and artificial land shortages caused home prices to soar, forcing families of moderate means into the rental market, or pushing them to the distant fringe of the metropolitan area--where lower land costs and less onerous land regulations provide affordable housing. Forced to move farther away from their jobs, the time they spend on the road lengthens, and traffic congestion worsens. Restrictions = skewed valuesData published each year by the U.S. Census Bureau reveals the adverse impact that Prince William's extant abusive land use practices have caused. In 2000, the median value of a home in the county was $149,600--25 percent greater than the national average.
Utt's commentary underscores the fact that development policies cannot be evaluated in isolation nor only on the basis of their intent. Evaluating with the use of "dynamic scoring" (considering the real world interactive impact) can reveal counterproductive effects of seemingly well intended proposals. In this case a seemingly "green" policy could add to traffic congestion, pollution, and take its greatest toll on those who can least afford it.
|
|
||||||||