Backlash to Rapid Growth Extends to New Services and Infrastructure



Article Tools

By Sandhya Somashekhar (Contact)

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Advertisement


All Advertisers

Call it growth fatigue.

Across Loudoun County, residents weary of the intense growth that has gripped their community over the past decade are fighting back, not against housing developments or shopping centers, but against schools, cellphone towers, a sheriff's substation, even a hospital.

Gone are the days when developers proposed building tens of thousands of houses on former farmland, angering residents who said the county's population was expanding too much and too fast. Instead, county officials are engaging in an ambitious and expensive effort to build infrastructure and services to catch up to the population boom. But they, too, are encountering opposition.

"Everywhere we pick to put a school or a substation or a firehouse or whatever, we run into resistance. It's very frustrating," said Board of Supervisors member James Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who criticized the pace of growth.

Loudoun's population has more than tripled since 1990, to about 270,000. In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau named the county the country's fastest-growing jurisdiction of its size. Since then, though, construction has greatly declined with the housing market, and population growth has eased off.

INTERNET ENHANCED

Related Stories

Related Blogs

Related Coverage

Related Letters

Still, hard feelings linger among longtime critics of the rapid expansion, who say the county's crammed roads, crowded schools and rising taxes are a direct result.

Steve Hines, a longtime slow-growth activist who has raised concerns about two proposed school sites off Route 50, said the policies that allowed the county to expand so rapidly were a wake-up call to residents, who will not stand by again as their community transforms around them.

"You can't afford not to be vigilant," Hines said. The developer-friendly policies of previous county leaders "pointed out the fact that it is the responsibility of the electorate not to give up the reins of responsibility to elected officials. You want to trust them, but you can't."

Loudoun's education system, in a flurry to build enough facilities for its burgeoning student population, is finalizing plans to construct schools at three sites around the county. The three face resistance from the community, partly over fears that they could generate traffic or that the empty desks could prompt more growth.

That attitude has frustrated district officials, who hope to begin construction on as many as 18 schools in the next six years.

"It's really backward," said Sam C. Adamo, director of planning and legislative services for the school system. "We mitigate the growth. We are the solution for the growth that is there."

This year, a majority of the Board of Supervisors, elected on a promise to slow the county's growth, voted against building a set of cellphone towers in western Loudoun. The towers had the potential to expand cellular coverage and Internet access in the rural reaches, but county officials denied them in the face of intense opposition from residents who said they would be an eyesore.

In Ashburn, a group is campaigning against a proposal to build an HCA Broadlands hospital because of traffic and noise concerns. Farther west, a small group of residents is challenging the proposed location for a sheriff's office substation in Round Hill, saying there are better sites elsewhere in town.

In each case, critics say the projects are wrong for reasons that have little to do with growth. Tax-wary residents have accused the county of paying too much for land for schools and the sheriff's substation. The opposition to the HCA hospital is in part driven by rival Inova Health System, which is seeking to build a medical center nearby and has donated money to the group lobbying against HCA's request.

Part of the problem might be that the county is trying to build the infrastructure after people have moved in, setting up inevitable fights about what goes up in their back yards. Another problem, Burton said, might be the county's reliance on "cookie-cutter designs" to save money. The sprawling design for a sheriff's substation in suburban South Riding, for example, might not be appropriate for Round Hill, population 500.

Gem Bingol, a Loudoun field representative for the slow-growth Piedmont Environmental Council, said the county lacks a clear and logical process for buying land that keeps residents in the loop. She said residents are traumatized after years of waking up in the morning and finding green space suddenly paved over and buildings rising out of what just months ago were open fields.

"Too much change too fast, that's what we've had," she said. "If it was a slower pace of growth, then the community can handle it. But it is shocking when you go down the road, and you drive down six months later and there's a building there. It's like, what just happened?"

Stephen J. Snow, a former Republican supervisor who represented the populous Dulles district, said too many residents want to preserve the "fantasy" that Loudoun is still a sleepy, far-flung, rural community. He blames environmental groups such as the Piedmont Environmental Council and the majority on the Board of Supervisors for perpetuating that notion.

"Tell me what business wants to come here if you have no roads, you have no fire stations, you have no fine restaurants," said Snow, who supported Loudoun's population boom during his term. "It's silly. It's juvenile. It shows a gross lack of understanding of how building a community works."

Tagged: growth

Comments:

Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy

Why would a Steve Snow vote be relevant for this article? Voters sent him, and his soon to be commenting sidekick packing last November.

We don't want to hear what blow Snow has to spew. Come to think of it- I don't really want to hear from Barbara either but it's better than having her on the Planning Commission.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good morning to you too, aff.

It's funny that Steve Snow is considered relevant whenever criticism is raised over new policies by the current power structure and their contributoprs, and the usuals need to trot Snow out and say "FBI!" to change the subject.

What is not funny is the Dulles District rep to Parks, Rec and Open Space getting more airtime to protest schools, rec facilities and roads.

Mr. Hines was quoted in Leesburg2Day back in February, on the Braddock Village application (gee, which had a middle school site, but he didn't like that one either):

"Steve Hines,
the Dulles District appointee to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board told supervisors that
different options were being explored to get fields
for the sports program.

"We have identified several fields in Lenah that are
available and are not being used and open space that
could be used for fields," Hines said. He also said
that the fields behind the old Arcola Elementary
School on Goshen Road that is currently being used as
a community center are being looked at as an option
for creating three fields."

Aside from the fact that "open space" isn't always appropriate or even available (they are usually someone's property after all, usable or not) to play sports leagues on, was he serious about bringing hundreds of kids to "open space" in Lenah to play, if he finds it so objectionable for them to play AND LEARN there? I doubt it.

The old Arcola school was the subject of many semi-secret meetings, which never included the property owner, and oops! the property got sold, and how much time and money was wasted scheming on that, for the personal benefit of other contributor/appointees, while the land changed hands?

LCPRCS is charged to work WITH LCPS on shared facilities.

Sandhya, please do credit Mr. Hines with his title. This is a personal vendetta for him, and in direct conflict with his position.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've lived in Loudoun County for 8 years now. In those 8 years there's been at least one constant: "insiders" in Loudoun County politics and government use public forums to hold private discussions using acronyms and insider-speak that the rest of us residents have to pick through to try to understand what's taking place in the community. It would be nice if some of the information being conveyed could be written in a way that does not throw up barriers to understanding on the part of the members of the community who read the weekly paper or view online articles in the little free time we have between working and commuting.

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Call it bullsh*t fatigue - Loudoun residents are sick and tired of having a government that bends over backwards for business under the guise that it will be better for the county, only to have higher taxes and worse roads.

Loudoun didn't grow; it was exploited.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hoqenishy, in a by-right state (rachelfriend: in VA land can be administratively approved for building according to the zoning for the land. So, if the land is zoned for one acre residential lots, no approvals or public process is necessary to build homes--and only homes, no schools, parks, road improvements, commercial, retail, etc--on the land. This is how 2000 homes under the previous "smart" growth Board added impact in Dulles South with no reservation of land to be used to mitigate that impact in any way) growth is ongoing.

In by right development there is no integrated planning because each use is specific to the parcel under development with the accumulated spot zoning in the county.

The current Board supports by right development, and the only businesses likely to receive support are primarily large lot tax shelters.

Opposing services is a hallmark of realtime "smart" growth, because services acknowledge the population.

Rachelfriend, LCPRCS = Loudoun County Parks, Recreation and Community Services, charged under the Comprehensive Plan to work with LCPS (Loudoun County Public Schools) on the shared facilities that each public school IS in Loudoun. After school hours, each school facility becomes a sports venue, classrooms for adult education, community meeting and program space, performance venues, the whole nine yards.

Mr. Hines and another protester, Ms. TeKrony, were appointed as citizen representatives to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Board, which is supposed to provide a forum and representation for recreation needs and concerns.

Here are the referral comments from LCPRCS regarding the Lenah site Mr. Hines and Ms. TeKrony are protesting:
"Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Comments dated May 6, 2008

Comment: 1. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services has enjoyed a long-standing collaboration with Loudoun County Public Schools that allows the use of certain school facilities for PRCS programs. We appreciate that cooperative agreement and hope it continues since it is clearly consistent with the Revised General Plan policy that states school sites should be “community assets and the focal point for active recreation and after-school programs”.

Response: Loudoun County Public Schools likewise desires to continue the cooperative agreement with Parks and Recreation."

Continued in next post

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Referral comments cont.

"Comment: 2. PRCS supports the School Policies under the Fiscal Planning and Public Facilities of the Revised General Plan in which, “School - related open space and athletic fields will be planned, designed and coordinated with the County’s parks and recreation programs and facilities through a referral process.”

Response: Loudoun County Public Schools will continue to coordinate with Parks and Recreation.

Comment: 3. PRCS strongly supports any efforts to protect and preserve wetlands, trees, and native vegetation because these contribute directly to protecting the health of surface water, groundwater, air quality, and aesthetics – all of which contribute to the health of the community’s residents. We recommend that any substantial “tree save” area has a Forest Management Plan that addresses the use, maintenance, target vegetation, wildlife management goals and methods, and other aspects of sustaining a functional and attractive natural area. The management plan should address how multiple layers – overstory, understory, shrub and herbaceous layers – will be maintained to ensure the health and functionality of the vegetated open space.

Response: The site has been designed to protect and maintain environmentally sensitive areas of the site, specifically in the northeast portion of the property which includes limited areas of moderately steep slopes, wetlands and potential tree save areas. In accord with the County’s Facilities Standards Manual a Tree Conservation Plan will be provided for on site tree save areas."

It appears Parks and Rec have no objections. Unfortunately, two representatives to the Advisory Board are pursuing a personal agenda, and opposing the sites.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My tax payments build new schools, trails, parks and roads for future development in Brambleton. My tax payments do not built schools, trails, parks or roads near my home.

This is the growth agenda.

Posted by dfhaines (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your tax payments may build schools, but the only county taxes approved for road building are on the interchange bonded as part of One Loudoun, which the developer had been willing to proffer.

All roads in Brambleton and adjoining trails are being built by Brambleton.

Park sites in the subruban policy area are proffered too. PDRs were payments to private landowners to keep land private--no parks there.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
You missed the point. In ten years, our property taxes have tripled but our quality of life has not changed.

We're being taxed off our land. Or should I say, we're being planned off our land?

Posted by dfhaines (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have had an approximately 1% tax rate since I've lived here--11 years now.

Value went sky-high during the boom, and has ebbed little.

I know the opinion that value is only a benefit to those who are selling.

The other side of the coin is that rollback taxes are only a burden to someone who is selling, too.

I'm glad to hear you say your quality of life has stayed the same--many people (who have been here one or two years) have much to say about their quality of life deteriorating (since the people who moved in last month got here).

Has the cost of energy or food gone up in ten years? Those are big quality of life indicators too!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BarbaraMunsey: Can you provide more of an explanation regarding your "approximately 1% tax rate" comment please. Thank you.

Posted by Handyguy (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, handy guy: $1.00 is 1% of $100.00. A tax rate running from ~.80 to ~1.20 per $100.00 of assessed value over the last ten years is an average of a 1% rate. The rate has been about a dime either side of a dollar since I've lived here. It's gone up and down--.89, .96, 1.03, 1.11 (under the 99 BoS), .92, etc--all of which are spitting distance from that 1%.

New England masks their atrociously high rates by assessing per $1,000.00, in tens of dollars; i.e. $40.00 per $1,000.00 of assessed value, which makes it look small, until you look at the fact that it is a 4% rate.

I know one township in MA, with 67% of its land in conservation, nature preserves, national seashore, dirt roads, a few quaint villages, low population of artists, writers, pedigreed retirees with sailboats, horses and antiques...and a 17% rate.

We are very lucky with our rate here.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)

Only 1% eh? Property tax is our highest monthly expense. More than food, family health insurance, mortgage interest, property maintenence or gas.

1% property taxes make open land unaffordable for most and creates sprawl, which is why we left Fairfax County.

Posted by dfhaines (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dfhaines, look around the country: the places with the most restrictive land use have the least affordability.

Restrictive land use in the face of demand for housing (driven by job growth) creates lack of affordability in housing.

Restrictive land use creates lack of affordability on open land.

People who lost land value through downzoning saw their loan-to-value ration change too. The "200,000 Acre Solution" was supposed to be about finding uses that would allow rural landowners to keep land open, by allowing the land to pay for itself.

Ever gone up to the BoS when someone wants to put a 10-dog kennel on 65 acres, or have three weddings a year at a B&B?

Good Lord, the world is ending!

So much for an actual rural economy.

As for leaving Fairfax, lots of the most rabid anti-everythings came from Fairfax, apparently not realizing (or not caring, because they themselves are somehow different) that in doing so they too swelled the growth in Loudoun.

We are in the Metro area of the capital of the last superpower on earth. We aren't going to get much smaller!

Open land for the sake of open land, in the face of growth, and without an actual means to pay for itself, will pay the ever-increasing value of the basic commodity--the land itself.

I'm sorry that its true, but it is.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey, is it your belief that members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are not supposed to speak out on their own behalf when their interests directly conflict with the stated direction of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board? Are these representatives under some mandate that restricts such behavior? If they were to openly state that the opinions they are expressing are their own, and not those of the Advisory Board, would that be acceptable? I'm not quite sure why Steve Hines' status as a board member would be relevant in this article if he was not speaking on behalf of the Advisory Board when he made the public statement quoted in the article. Am I missing your point completely? Although I agree that the writer of the article should probably have included this information, I don't think there was much to gain from including it either. I have not had a great deal of time to do research on this issue, and apparently there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than is being conveyed in the local media, but I will be doing so over the next few days.

Posted by rachelfriend (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Note the typical Barbara Munsey comments laced with distain for land preservation, nature preserves, dirt roads, antiques, quaint villages, sailboats (who the hell hates sailboats), wealthy retirees and horses. Pave it all she says- the free market will provide for your children.
.
.
Stay tuned for more rants against quality food, small farms, any aspect of a rural economy in Northern Virginia (uh, yeah Lady- that "unused open space" that people you know, grow stuff on) any member of the LC BOS that is not Steve Snow and Barrack Obama.
.
.
I can't want till Babs starts talking national politics

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rachelfriend, it is my opinion that it is newsworthy if members of county advisory bodies (read "accepted a public service position") advocate for private issues that conflict with the duties of the position they hold. Their titles should indeed be listed along with their action.

Protesting schools in advance of the staff report on the application, filing paperwork on county property to attempt to contravene county policy, these actions are newsworthy.

Do you think these individuals would be getting such constant airplay for their personal agenda if they did not have county titles?

A senior staffer in planning was terminated for attempting to circumvent the staff review process. Do these individuals get a pass because they are citizen volunteers rewarded with positions of some power for their campaign contributions?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

aff3, as usual the rant includes your distorted perception of my words.

The only thing I see in your rant is what appears to be a raw nerve that I have somehow attacked you by describing a high-tax township in MA. My point was that a seemingly utopian world of preservation apparently does not guarantee low taxes.

As for "open space", the only unused portion I have referenced is Mr. Hines quote in Leesburg2day that "unused open space" could be used for playing fields, which I think is hooey. The man took a rec position, and campaigns against rec facilties.

The "open space" land use deferral requires only that the participant have 5 acres, and that the land be in an agricultural district. Being in an agricultural district does not require that one farm--it only means that the land is kept in suitable condition to be farmed

In other words, people can NOT pay taxes on land that is not agriculturally productive in any way. The language promoting this references the "clean air shed" this land provides (your cue to say "Barbara Munsey said she wants everyone to breathe poison air!").

If the beneficiary of this policy that costs us millions in lost revenue each year has a 50 miles commute, how much are they doing for the clean air that we all need to breathe, exactly?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dont have an account? Sign up!

Post a comment

Username:
Password:
(Forgotten your password?)


Comment:

Deal of the Day

$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!

Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.

• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals

Latest Deal

• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09

Search Deals and Business Directory

Your Thoughts...

Are you happy that the school year is over?

View results

Most...

Viewed
Commented
E-mailed

  1
Reader Gallery: 2009 Snow Flurries (Photo gallery)
Posted at 1:22 p.m., January 27, 2009
  2
Cheerleaders Compete at District Finals (Story)
Posted at 9:34 a.m., October 24, 2007
  3
  4
Black Friday Hits Loudoun (Photo gallery)
Posted at 5:59 p.m., November 23, 2007