Because you’re creating a straw man. I don’t hold my beliefs because I am trying to protect existing homeowners’ property values, which are probably going to vary in accordance with broader economic trends. I simply do not believe that an individual or corporation has the right to damage the lives of thousands or millions of other people around him, whether because it is convenient for him to do so or for profit or for any other motivation.
Here’s an example. Suppose a company buys land with the idea of building a factory on it. It’s not presently zoned for manufacturing use, but they figure that with enough pressure on state and local officials and enough offers of jobs to local residents they can get the zoning changed. But if the factory is going to thickly pollutes the air and water of a large area with filthy, reeking discharges, it won’t get approval for construction. Its owners may argue that they have a right to use their land as they like; they may say that they have the right to operate in order to produce a profit; they may say they’ll lose their investment in the land they may say that property rights are fundamental and that prohibiting them from making money on their land is a government taking. The bottom line is, they cannot damage the health and enjoyment of everyone in the area for their own, and they should have thought of that before they bought land that was not yet approved for their proposed use. If they receive the approvals, build a factory, and it pollutes, they’ll be made to clean it up or close the factory.
The situation with land development in northern Virginia is comparable. The wells of existing homes are going dry because there isn’t enough water for all the houses being built there. Sewage won’t perc anymore and seeps across lawns. Residents spend thousands of hours a year stuck in the second-most miserable traffic in the US. Schools are overcrowded, and the pace of school construction can’t keep up with the pace of home construction. Taxes go up. The quality of life is ruined for everybody. After the new houses are built and the developer has moved on it’s too late to stop him, so people who already live there and see the consequences of too-rapid development are trying to slow it down now. They don’t want things to deteriorate even more.
And if you understand that farmland is not a good investment then why did you suggest the current land should be sold as such and why should you or any other person be able to determine how a tract of land is used that you do not own or pay taxes for?
The developer bought the land as a gamble, supposing that he could have the zoning changed to accommodate his desires. He is gambling on his ability to alter the zoning. His gamble may not pay off. No investment is loss-proof; any investment is a gamble of sorts. If he loses his gamble and can’t alter the zoning to build as many houses as he wishes to, he can either (a) build houses on it at a lower concentration, as the current zoning permits, or (b) sell it as farm land. Horse properties still sell for lots of money in Loudoun County, and the billion-dollar-per-year horse industry is a powerful economic engine in Virginia. At least that way the land just won’t sit on his books forever and he’ll break even, less the holding costs and the money he wasted on his lawyers. That is why I suggest that he could sell it. I’m not suggesting ways for him to make money, only pointing out that he doesn’t have to keep the land forever in the event that he can't build on it.
"Actually this is not true. Statistics show clearly that townhouse developments, for instance, generate far more costs to a community than their owners can possibly pay in taxes. . ."
This is nonsensical. There is an increased tax base so why would a new school required to accommodates the new children cost more than the proportional cost of the existing schools to the number of current children? Why can the town even afford the school they have? Pretend that the new residents are forming their own separate town. The taxes would necessarily support the infrastructure that must be created. When it is all integrated, what changes? If no NEW services are created and only additional people added to the existing services, where is the extra cost?
Because people who buy townhouses are of more modest means and usually cannot afford to pay as much in property taxes as those who can afford single-family houses. Yet the four-person family living in a townhouse uses as much water, as many seats in the schoolhouse, generates as much garbage, and probably requires more police work than the family in the detached house.
I think of my own community, which was built fifteen years ago. About a thousand new houses, including townhouses and single-family units, required a new elementary school. The new families by themselves could not afford the cost of construction, even though the school isn't big or fancy. The cost had to be spread out through the county and thus no one noticed much of a property-tax rise as a result. But if Loudoun County has to build 125 new schools, at millions of dollars apiece, people are definitely going to get a tax hike and they are going to notice.
Also please cite your statistics and include details. I would love to see if there are fluffy new services that are being included.
If I go to the trouble to do some research and find the source for some data, would any of it change your mind? I suspect I’d be wasting my energy, but if you’re truly interested it won’t be hard to find the sources I’ve read. The experience of local governments is that townhouses create more expenses than they generate in taxes.
Doubtless we could all find “fluff” in a budget. All governments have some. But there’s no reason for the residents of a county to have to trim their budgets so that a developer can build the houses he wants to build and create resulting social problems.
Also, around these parts roads are indeed paid for locally, with the exception of state owned byways.
And as I have mentioned, we are about out of places to build roads here without condemning a lot of private property.
You clearly have enormous government waste in your neck of the woods. And I never suggested the infrastructure you listed was among the projects that drain the funding. Conversely, it is programs that most often involve government schools, fancy libraries, parks, and a number of so-called beautification projects.
Perhaps you're right—-our kids don't need libraries. Let’s let them grow up in ignorance without exposure to a broader variety of books than their parents can buy.
"Fine. Tell that to the people whose houses burn down, who are the victims of crime, because they don't "require" such services according to you."
What? Homeowner's insurance. Charity. Law enforcement. I believe that the first one is required with a mortgage.
Homeowner’s insurance doesn’t usually cover a house in an area that has no fire protection at all.
Charity is always an option. . .Should taxpayers be responsible for all victims of everything or just those you deem deserving of such services. Let's let the private sector do what it does best. Government is rarely the most effective option and is often the most costly.
I agree that private enterprise should handle more of our needs and that government is inherently inefficient. But charity is unlikely to replace every house and its contents after it burns down, especially with houses in these parts averaging over half a million dollars for a relatively modest place. People might contribute to the reconstruction of a single house for some unfortunate family, but they’re not going to keep on contributing when a large apartment building or townhouse complex is destroyed because there’s no fire department.
Look, this discussion is descending into the absurd. You can’t really be seriously suggesting that residents should forgo having a fire department so that developers can build whatever they like. There are some things even Ayn Rand would support government doing, and fire protection is something any rational person would support. Private fire companies were tried in the early years of this nation and they didn’t work out very well, which is part of the reason we have so few eighteenth- and nineteenth-century houses still standing.
"Land that is zoned agricultural is taxed at a far, far lower rate than residential land. Near me, 153 acres of farmland generates about half the taxes of my little lot. No, I do not thank developers." In one breath you defend zoning, and in the other you complain about it. Which is it?
I am not complaining about zoning; I am refuting your claim that the developers contribute more in property taxes when they hold farmland. Their carrying costs are not astronomical (and in any case are part of the cost of doing business, part of their gamble).
". . . We can't all move away and live in the middle of nowhere. How do you expect four million people to buy food and heating gas in the middle of nowhere?" Why CAN'T they move too? There ARE schools in the country, you know. And most people who live in the country work as well. And isn't everyone responsible for their own livelihood?
Not enough jobs or schools or hospitals or roads to accommodate the four million people of the DC area at once. The suggestion that they should all just move out to the sticks simply transplants the problems from one locale to another It is absurd to expect millions to abandon their homes, jobs, and the other aspects of a secure life to go adventuring somewhere because some developer wants to make life in their hometown unlivable. And if they did so, who would buy the houses your beloved developers want to build?
"As I say, unless you live here you cannot understand what exactly it is you are commenting on. In general it may be best to refrain from offering advice about issues in parts of the US one is not familiar with." That is foolishness. I can read. Additionally, I have lived in sh**holes in urban settings, I have lived in suburbia and every extreme you can imagine, so do not presume what I do and do not know. I also attend town meetings, read budgets, and participate in town government. I know there is waste. Perhaps you shouldn't comment on anything unless you have experienced it, right? How about political issues? Should you comment on the validity of welfare if you haven't been on it?
Personally, I wouldn’t presume to comment on the political or social situation in, say, Minnesota or Texas or Vermont, places I haven’t lived in or even visited extensively. I assume that people who live there know more about the situation than someone who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away and gains his knowledge only by reading.
It’s interesting that you fault me for criticizing the uses developers put their land to, but you have no hesitation at all in telling Virginians how they should conduct their government, run their schools, and handle their historic lands!
Should you refrain from saying that our water should be clean unless you have experienced contamination in your water? Your premise is ridiculous.
Ah, so you concede that water should be clean? Regrettably the overdevelopment of Loudoun County is causing serious problems with water pollution. So which is it—is water pollution bad, or is it okay because it’s caused by development? A bit of logic is in order here.
Private property rights are important and are universal. Clearly I do not need to live where you are to see that you and many others support the infringement on private property rights while attempting to protect your own interests. Developers purchase property that you or anyone else could have bought had you created the financial self-sufficiency to do so. So you attempt to divide and conquer politically because you are less successful. Envy is uglier than greed. Try putting as much effort into creating your own happiness as you do into spewing hatred for "the rich". After all, you are on Free Republic.
Since I come from a background that rather precludes me feeling envy or hatred for the rich, you’re mistaken about the reasons I hate overdevelopment. That’s a pop-psychology explanation. In fact just one of the reasons I hate it is that I see some of the most beautiful and historic land in the United States being destroyed. I hate it for the same reason I would hate to see a Jiffy-Lube in Yosemite, a Walmart at the edge of the Grand Canyon, or a long series of strip malls on Big Sur. There are some things so beautiful that they should not be defiled. There are some areas that are important because, like Gettysburg and Antietam and Valley Forge, they are the places our country was made. The woodlands and rolling pastures of Loudoun County form a crucial part of our joint heritage as Americans. There is almost no piece of real estate in Loudoun County that was not the site of a Civil War battle or skirmish. Every crossroads saw a scene in this struggle that helped us establish our nation. But most of these crossroads and fields are now beneath strip malls. We are trying to save the small portions of Loudoun County that haven’t been developed yet. One of the reasons I am a conservative is that I believe some of the ways of the past were wise. I believe in preserving the good and valuable things our ancestors knew. And I do not believe in tearing up what is good and beautiful and replacing it with ugliness. The Devil loves ugliness; it’s his signature.
What I find extraordinary is that any effort of a group of people to govern themselves is termed “socialism” by those who, like you, favor mass development. There’s no reason the people of Loudoun County should be made miserable to accommodate the desires of a few, and they have the right to decide this. They did so by vote a few years ago. Sadly, the big government of Richmond—notably the Virginia Supreme Court, which attempts to legislate from the bench—struck down the decision Loudoun residents made to limit new development (in the western part of their county only). It is a presumption of the highest degree that outsiders should dictate to the people of Loudoun County, or any other area, and tell them that they must live in circumstances that are onerous to them just in order to accommodate the desires of a vanishingly tiny minority of developers.
I cannot continue this discussion. There is no point--you are not moved by any argument except that of profit, and I begin to think you must either be a developer yourself or hope to develop land of your own. I've really been writing for the record more than I've been writing in an effort to persuade you, but now the demands of my own life call me. Thank you for an engaging discussion.