|
|
||
County attorney says a special service district to pay for the Harrison Road Connector is a fair path for supervisors to take Date published: 8/3/2009
BY DAN TELVOCK Spotsylvania County Attorney Jacob Stroman says the path the Board of Supervisors wants to take to pay for the Harrison Road Connector is fair to all property owners. Stroman was responding to a letter sent last week by Gifford Hampshire, an attorney representing resident Susan Tait, who is suing the county over this road project. The 1.5-mile road begins at the back of Spotsylvania Towne Centre off State Route 3 and ends on Harrison Road near Hazelwild Farm. The road is just west of Interstate 95. The crux of the argument is whether it is fair to include residential properties in a proposed tax district to help pay for the road--if the residential property is rezoned to commercial or industrial. Stroman says it is. Hampshire says the county should exclude the residential properties because that is what was promised years ago when supervisors approved the mall rezoning. The issue will take center stage on Aug. 11, when supervisors hold a public hearing on whether to scrap the Community Development Authority for a Special Service District as the funding mechanism for the connector road. Hampshire says state law allows properties to be excluded from the service district to ensure that only commercial property will pay the extra real estate tax within the district's boundaries. Supervisors have said that only commercial property in the service district will pay for the road unless residential property is rezoned to commercial. However, the ordinance says the terms of the ordinance can be changed from "time to time." That instills fear in residents who own land in the district that they could eventually be forced to help pay for the road. Some residents who attended a July 21 Waverly Village Homeowners Association meeting accused supervisors of trying to pull a bait and switch, saying the service district doesn't provide much protection for residents. "Before the board passes any substitute funding vehicle, it should ensure that those commercial properties are, in and of themselves, sufficient to repay the bond debt such that there is no need to hold out the option for residential properties to be included at a later time," Hampshire said.
Read more stories about Spotsylvania Date published: 8/3/2009
The "residents won't have to pay" is only a verbal promise. In the Code of Virginia, all that has to happen is that property be rezoned by the BOS, and then they are zapped with currently something like $1.35 and a tax lien if they sell; the buyer having to pay all back taxes. So you think it would be easy to sell and reap the bennies?
The back up is on Rt. 3 going east-west. Misinformation #4) I know of NO residents who want to gain financially by rezoning their land commercial. We want to protect our property and quality of life. This road will only benefit one man: Mr. Cafaro., who, BTW, will pay NADA. He has withdrawn all his proffers. 5) This SSD, to create a "funding mechanism" is unlike the others that have been created in the county in that this one includes residents in the boundaries. . . .
3) Ahh, CougarDad, there IS a conspiracy. To develop Hazel Run and Hazelwild. And you think traffic is bad now? 4) To Thankyouvets, If you think it's bad going 8 mi. out of your way to escape I95, do you think it will be better traveling to Carriage Hills, only a stone's throw from Salem Church Road? That is where you will have to access this connector. Not much time saved, eh? Check the map. Not to mention low speed limits, bumps, and stops. Not a viable alternative to "increase mobiltiy" in my mind.
1) We are not a "vocal few". Over 300 signed the first petition, more petitions are ciculating, and not all signers live in the affected area. 2) Becky Golden did say, (I was there) that the plan has been all along for future development in the Hazel Run area (like we need more development?? And doesn't more development = more roads?? We are already saturated here) We were first told that the road was to the mall; now it's for "increased mobility" within the county. I, for one, see Rt. 3 as a bigger problem
in today's editorial. First, Trippletap is right; the county does not have a plan for this road, but they want to have a way to pay for it, hence the SSD. They don't have a cost, nor a "vision" of a speed limit, stop signs, lights, off and on streets, etc. So we are being asked to pay for something unknown to start with. I am a resident in the affected area, but this is not a case of NIMBY, but of property rights and eminent domain, and if it can happen here, it can happen to YOU!
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
