|
Time
to Grow Up
Virginia
can never solve its transportation crisis, says
Del. Clay Athey, until urbanizing counties start
acting like cities -- and looking a bit like them, too.
by
Robert L. Burke
At
the heart of Virginia’s transportation troubles,
says Republican legislator Clifford L. “Clay”
Athey Jr., is a chronic identity crisis. Virginia
still acts like a rural farming state of the
1920s, he says. And the state’s fast-growing
counties are really more like cities – they just
don’t want to own up to it.
The
result is a broken and bloated transportation
budget that can’t be fixed by tax increases,
says Athey, R-Front Royal, who is also a former
Front Royal mayor. From this vantage point comes
the House GOP, which Athey says is laying down a
marker: Either the state will overhaul how it
connects use and transportation or there won’t
be another dime of new taxes to pay for new
transportation.
There’s
no guarantee that ultimatum will stand in the
coming weeks. But it’s clear that Republicans
are reaching for big change in how the state funds
it roads. At the forefront is HB 5094 - Athey’s
attempt to force counties to change their ways –
which would require counties to map out where new
development will happen over the next 20 years,
and then be largely responsible for managing the
transportation network needed to serve that
growth.
“What
this bill seeks to do is say to counties, if you
want to be urban, act like a city or town,”
Athey says. “You can’t have the best of both
worlds.”
What
he means is, be ready to think about what it will
cost you when you approve new development.
Virginia is one of just three states with a
state-run transportation network. Only a few
counties in Virginia build and maintain their own
roads, the rest depend on state dollars. Cities
and towns get some state funding but have to
decide themselves how to use it.
Athey
says counties have for decades been approving
scattered, sprawling development without worrying
about how the state would pay for the needed
roads. That’s an approach that won’t work
anymore, he says. Last year alone the state had to
take over maintenance for 350 new lane miles of
subdivision roads.
The
“urban development areas,” or UDAs, that Athey
proposes would have higher density than the
surrounding land. “It’s much easier and much
more affordable for a locality to provide services
to constituents if those constituents are in more
livable and compact communities,” he says.
Frederick
County has had a similar approach for years, he
says, and it has helped discourage scattered
development outside the UDA. “We’re in effect
creating an area where we’re saying to the
development community, ‘If you buy land in this
area you’ve got a damn good chance of your
rezoning being approved.’”
Other
legislation would give counties new state dollars
for new roads inside designated “urban
transportation service districts” – presumably
overlaying the UDAs – and counties would be
given the facilities and equipment how used by the
Virginia Department of Transportation. Counties
would also get their long-sought authority to
impose impact fees on development outside a UDA,
and the right to deny a rezoning if it would
overwhelm the existing road network.
What’s
more, the bill would require localities to adopt
New Urbanist development concepts, such as
mixing commercial and residential, walkability,
and interconnected road networks. Injecting
"new urbanism" into the state code is
unheard of in Virginia. But increasingly,
populist GOPers like Athey are tired of kneeling
to development interests and paying them what they
consider a public subsidy.
Stewart
Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for
Smarter Growth, is unsure about two things: the
legislation’s fuzzy language about things such
as “quality of life,” and the challenge of
codifying New Urbanist principles. Also, as a
practical matter, the bills have to get past
developer opposition in some key committees.
Still,
he calls it “a very good start and an important
concept” and expressed some optimism at the
convergence of both Republicans and Democrats
behind anti-sprawl initiatives. Democratic Gov.
Timothy Kaine was elected last year in part by
pushing hard for land-use reform in fast-growing
suburbs. And Schwartz notes that Republican
leaders such as Speaker of the House Bill Howell,
D-Stafford County, “used very clear words to
describe sprawl in Virginia.”
Daniel
K. Slone, a partner with McGuireWoods in Richmond
with broad experience in land use and New Urbanist
principles, also has questions. Athey’s bill
urges “predominately undeveloped” areas be
targeted for UDAs, but that ignores the potential
for infill development or redevelopment of older
urban cores “that are typically considered to be
of higher priority,” he says.
What’s
more, Slone says, getting projects approved with
the densities needed to make New Urbanist projects
work is difficult without public support.
Oftentimes local residents raise concerns about
the impact such projects have on roads and
schools. “Whether legitimate or not, [those
concerns] often drive down the densities so that
the projects do not achieve the desired effect.”
From
some county leaders there is outright scoffing at
Athey’s proposal and the House GOP plan. Scott
K. York, chairman of the Loudoun County Board of
Supervisors, responded to the GOP package of bills
by writing a sarcastic letter last month to
Howell, applauding House GOP leaders “for seeing
the light” and recognizing the costs of
residential growth.
But
York raised the core suspicion of county leaders,
writing that the “‘new’ House solution…
serves only to shift the burden of costs from the
state to the counties.” York also criticized
Athey’s bill for ignoring the impact of by-right
development outside the UDAs, which counties
can’t stop. And, he expressed doubt that the
state can afford to give localities the money they
would need.
“For
a state that today does not currently have money
to maintain roads it is difficult to imagine that
this promise can be kept,” York wrote. Instead, he
called for approving an
adequate public facilities ordinance, which
wouldn’t require any state funds, and a 100
percent impact fee for capital improvements and
roads. Neither would require any state or local
tax dollars, he says. It is “interesting to see
the sudden shift of blame to counties that have
had to deal with a development-controlled
legislature for years.”
Athey’s
response: The position of county officials
“seems to be, ‘Give us additional tools that
we can control but don’t give us any additional
responsibilities.’”
That's
not fair, says Michael L. Edwards, deputy director
for legislative affairs for the Virginia
Association of Counties. Counties have long
supported linking transportation and land use, he
says. But they are extremely wary of anything that
looks like an unfunded mandate from the state.
“We have a significant transportation funding
problem that goes beyond any problems resulting
from local land use,” he says. “VACo’s
longstanding position is, we have to resolve our larger transportation funding problems
today.”
That’s
part of the standoff today – each side wants the
other to go first. Athey says any compromise will
have to have land-use reform, VDOT reform, and
revenue for new construction – not just roads
but mass transit and rail too. He expects his
legislation, if successful, will look at lot
different at the end of the session. But he’s
not willing to compromise on the demand for
reform. “What we fear the most, and what we will
not do, is agree on the revenue side but not get
real reform of the entire system. Because if we do
that we’ve done nothing but kick the can down
the road.”
--
January 11, 2007
|
