|
|
|
| Wed, Dec. 02 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Brito is 'Saving Stafford' from whom?
Date published: 10/26/2009 Brito is 'Saving Stafford' from whom? As I was driving to work one recent morning, I saw I would like to know whom Mr. Brito is saving Stafford County from--himself? Is he saving Stafford from some of the lame decisions that the present board has made? Is he getting ready to lower taxes? As a resident of the Hartwood District, I think it is time for a change in leadership of Stafford County. It's time to get some supervisors who will listen to the people and who are willing to help our county get out of the mess. Please think it over before you go to the polls. Tom Comuntzis Stafford
Date published: 10/26/2009
re: can't put the cost of fixing what's already broken on the back of every new homebuyer
(posted by
larryg
, Oct. 28, 2009 1:38 pm)
I agree! but we need to turn around the system that created
this by charging what it takes for new development to
mitigate ITS impacts WHILE the other taxpayers pay via
referendum to fix the prior degradation that was not done
properly.
You HAVE ALWAYS had the chance to "do something"
and you do now but it will take proffers, impact fees, special
transportation districts, and referendums to do it.
you do have a choice. stand off to the side and blame
others or work to fix what is broke and keep it fixed.
Has there ever been a proffer collected in Stafford?
(posted by
Bumpy
, Oct. 28, 2009 1:12 pm)
Proffers are not a fair system of paying for the infrastructure, nor are traffic impact fees, you can't put the cost of fixing what's already broken on the back of every new homebuyer. We had a chance to build a new road that would have helped traffic in many neighborhoods, but killed it out of ignorance. Now there will be no new roads built. We had a chance to do something, but did nothing. Stafford and it's traffic will continue to stagnate under it's current leadership, we are being sold short.
I agree Larry
(posted by
Lespaul
, Oct. 28, 2009 12:56 pm)
The OC would have just made matters worse. You put in a new road and you just have MORE development.
If WE are going to have GROWTH and we ARE
(posted by
larryg
, Oct. 28, 2009 10:52 am)
Then we need REAL FUNDED PLANS for upgrading the roads to accommodate
the growth. When we support growth and don't provide for the road needs - that's
irresponsible IMHO.
this is not "anti-growth" .. we're going to have the growth..
what's irresponsible is to favor and promote the growth but ignore the road issues.
we don't need folks like that in office...IMHO
we need growth that IMPROVES and BENEFITS
(posted by
larryg
, Oct. 28, 2009 10:23 am)
our area not growth that overloads the roads and schools.
we need a fair system of paying for the infrastructure that is
needed.
The PRO OC folks didn't care where the money would
come from or the fact that the OC would cause more
development that did not pay for itself and further stressed
already overloaded local roads that the pro-growth folks
would divert money from to build the OC.
It's a totally corrupt and irresponsible approach to growth.
anyone who thinks this way needs to be not a BOS ...
|
 |
|||
|
|||
