September 9, 2019
Subdivision age restriction deliberations will continue
The board of supervisors in 2015 approved the Alwington Farm development with 217 homes restricted to buyers 55 and older. Most of the homes would stand behind Home Depot.
When you let one sector get too big, everything else suffers. And, Fauquier has always been about balance across the board.
— Supervisor Chris Granger
• Topic: Requested changes to previously approved rezoning, including removal of the 55-or-older age restriction for 217 homes on the planned Arrington subdivision site along James Madison Highway (Route 29) at Warrenton’s southwestern edge. The project allows 228 homes.
• When: 2:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 12.
• Where: Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel St., Warrenton.
• Agency: County board of supervisors.
• Applicant: Alwington Farm Developers LLC
• Landowner: Alwington Farm LLC, W. Boyd Laws.
• Next: After an Aug. 8 public hearing on the request, the supervisors delayed action on the request for further study. The board could continue the hearing and act on request Oct. 10.
The Marshall District supervisor remains unconvinced that a 55-and-older age restriction should be lifted from 217 planned homes at Warrenton’s southwestern edge.
“Until I see some compelling reasons to change it, I’m not for it,” said Mary Leigh McDaniel, whose district includes the 434-acre Arrington project along James Madison Highway. Providing housing “for over 55 is one of the things we’re trying to accomplish.”
The subdivision allows 228 homes.
The board of supervisors in November 2015 approved a rezoning, special exception permits and other requirements for the subdivision. Alwington Farm Developers LLC wants the restriction removed.
> Documents at bottom of story
The supervisors Aug. 8 conducted a public hearing on the developer’s request to remove the age restriction and make other changes to the project. Four speakers objected to dumping the age restriction and two, including the developer, backed the request.
The board kept the public hearing open and delayed action on the application so that Ms. McDaniel could learn more about it and speak with developer Russell Marks.
Removing the age restriction “will encourage a broader range of homebuyers/residents to populate the community, which enjoys a close-in location and excellent access to the Town of Warrenton and nearby county amenities,” the developer explains in a one-page statement seeking the change.
It also “will not change the interesting and varied farms and sizes of housing types which are governed by the (project’s) existing code of development,” according to the developer. “Based on the current county impact model, this change will not trigger any capacity capital impacts.”
Erasing the age restriction for the Arrington project would generate 167 additional students, according to the county school system.
The supervisors Thursday afternoon will conduct a work session on the project at the Warren Green Building in Warrenton.
Nothing about the project or the kinds of homes that would be constructed at the Arrington site would change with removal of the age restriction, according to the developer.
As justification for the requested change, Mr. Marks cited a town analysis based on U.S. Census data that points to the significant aging of Warrenton’s population.
Between 2010 and 2017, Warrenton’s 55- to 74-year-old population increased by 39.2 percent, according to a town report cited in a county community development analysis of the Arrington project.
That group climbed from 1,605 to 2,234 people, according to the Census Bureau.
During the same period, the number of residents age 25 to 54 dipped about 2 percent, from 4,008 to 3,930.
Warrenton’s 2017 population stood at 9,875, the Census Bureau estimated.
After last month’s public hearing, Ms. McDaniel and Mr. Marks met to discuss the project.
They talked about the possibility of removing the age restriction from some dwellings, the supervisor said.
“Maybe something like splitting it,” Ms. McDaniel recalled. “Maybe some over 55, some not. But the bulk stays over 55.”
Ms. McDaniel declined to say whether she could support that.
If she did, “it would probably have to be a pretty minimal reduction,” she said. “We’re not talking about a significant reduction.”
Ms. McDaniel also questions whether young families and young people could afford homes at Arrington. In discussion with Mr. Marks, she suggested the homes would cost $500,000.
“He didn’t dispute me,” Ms. McDaniel said.
Mr. Marks couldn’t be reached for comment.
Reluctant to overturn the previous board’s decision, Ms. McDaniel said that “a lot of time and effort was put into negotiating this, and everybody agreed it was the best thing. Because the market’s changed, the county simply can’t take responsibility for applicants’ financial decisions.”
Board Chairman Chris Butler (Lee) worries that removal of the age restriction could have a negative effect on the school system and the provision of fire and rescue services and utilities. The project will be served by town water and and the developer will build a sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Butler recognizes that circumstances change over time and plans to enter Thursday’s work session with an open mind.
But he doesn’t think the seniors’ home “market has that strongly changed in four years. I don’t want to speculate, but maybe the 55 and over was an easier sell four years ago, with a different board.
“And, now that some zoning already exists, it would easier to change it.”
Mr. Butler also spoke skeptically about the extent to which lifting the age restriction would offset the graying of Warrenton.
“I don’t totally buy that argument,” he said. “If you watch the news and listen to some of the stuff on the news, millennials aren’t buying houses.”
Millennials remain at home longer and prefer communities “where they live overtop where they work and play,” Mr. Butler added. “They don’t want to be single-family homeowners and raise kids.”
He wants to hear what Mr. Marks thinks conceptually about removing the age restrict for some Arrington homes.
Supervisor Chris Granger (Center) favors scrapping the age restriction requirement.
“We have a declining population,” said Mr. Granger, explaining his support. “We have a lack of moderately-priced housing in Warrenton.” He questions whether homes at Arrington would cost $500,000.
Warrenton and Fauquier’s “school-age parent” population also rapidly has declined, “leaving behind a lot of empty school seats.”
But those empty don’t warrant shrinking “the size of schools and classrooms etcetera to gain savings from it.”
The planned phased, five- to seven-year development of Arrington wouldn’t put a dent in Warrenton schools’ enrollment, Mr. Granger stressed.
“It wouldn’t even replace the loss of students that’s going to occur by the schools’ own projections” during the community’s construction period, he said.
Citing a community development staff report on Arrington, the Center District supervisor said removing the age restriction would have no “financial impact” on the county.
Fauquier’s comprehensive plan seeks to “maintain a healthy economy,” protect rural areas and accommodate a sustainable population growth rate, Mr. Granger said.
“We’re not accomplishing those goals if we completely age the population out,” he added.
An excessively older population would hamper Fauquier’s ability to build a diverse labor market and to deliver some government services, including public safety, Mr. Granger suggested.
“When you let one sector get too big, everything else suffers,” he said. “And, Fauquier has always been about balance across the board.”
He has no illusions that removing Arrington’s age restriction would dramatically alter Warrenton’s aging trend.
“One development isn’t going to do that,” Mr. Granger admitted. “But, we have to stop skewing the population in one direction, or we’re going to be grappling with issues of unintended consequences.”
At the earliest, the board could resume the public hearing and make a decision on Oct. 10, according to Ms. McDaniel.
Contact Don Del Rosso at Don@FauquierNow.com or 540-270-0300.
Arrington Rezoning Amendmen... by Fauquier Now on Scribd
Please, be polite. Avoid name-calling and profanity.
For credibility, sign your real name; stand behind your comments. Readers will give less credence to anonymous posts.
DonkeyFarmer · September 13, 2019 at 10:22 pm
For the record Jim Griffin- I do not think you engaged in any "cyber bullying." Any insults do not bother me. You are one of the more informed posters here on this forum and even though I don't agree with everything you say at least you have some basis to your opinion.
I just got my tax bill for personal property. It is $2,000+ for my cars. I have a few old trucks and a newer Subaru. This tax bill is on top of property taxes and state income taxes. This is why I am weary of new developments that will tax our schools and roads. I'm not an anti-growth by any stretch. I just can't afford any more tax increases
Jeffersonian American · September 13, 2019 at 3:25 pm
I second the concerns expressed by Virtus and the good gentleman Farmer below- and I will add that Fauquier taxpayers continue to suffer new outrages each year, both at the hands of our elected Board of Supervisors and the unelected, appointed, County Boards who seem determined to approve and expedite projects and spending which continually raise our property taxes annually to meet the needs of an expanding County Government (and despite the rapidly dwindling public school enrollment primarily due to better home schooling education alternatives and outcomes). Fauquier Taxpayers have been and are continually ridden hard by their local Big Government Spending- a direct result of the votes taken brazenly by their Board of Supervisors. The County Board as a group have shown absolutely no respect for saving money, reducing County spending, cutting services, consolidating and closing public schools as the public flees these Agenda 21 Institutions and Government Indoctrination Centers- and all of the other proactive tasks of governing to provide relief to the Taxpaying Citizens. Why is it our County elected officials never LOWER OUR TAX BURDEN through more efficient, effective, less government? Clearly, we need to stop allowing the kinds of development projects which add to the County Taxpayers' already heavy burden. Lest we end up very quickly like the urban wasteland Virginia counties to our north over the past half-century that have done so much to destroy our former quality of life for millions of Virginians across the entire State.
As for the Closet Liberal posters who make personal attacks and do not keep to the subject at hand, it's not the responsibility of Limited Government and America First nationalists to change the minds of Democrats - the exception being young voters. It is our responsibility to conquer these modern era Rabid Democrats Run Amok at the polls, in our public schools and universities, and in our culture in defense of those nobler historic and timeless ideals and Judeo-Christian values which made America a good and great nation. This sense of urgency has never been more visible than as seen and heard in the large group of Democrats seeking the U.S. Presidency this year.
Jim Griffin · September 13, 2019 at 7:23 am
Best we part ways here. I'll limit dialogue to those I respect.
No intent to cyber bully and even according to your link there is none present save for your tag team ad hominem attacks.
Virtus · September 13, 2019 at 6:28 am
Good morning gentlemen,
To set the record straight, Virtus in this case is a woman who is proud to continue the 1776 charge to protect liberty and challenge tyranny.
Additionally for the record, I'm good with preservation of rural lands nor do I need to be lectured to. I've had enough of liberal professors trying to tell me how to think. Cyberbullying is something posters should avoid as it does not lead to productive discourse.
Regarding the studies I cited, please note that there are 2 studies - the County's above capital impact study and the UVA study. If there is another reference the county should use in determining capital impacts, why not share it with the county rather than berating the "committe" ?
Feel it is time to "Light tomorrow with today" - Elizabeth Barrett Browning - and see how we can create a better tomorrow.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 10:12 pm
"Substitution of judgment" "revisit our principals." Just really hard to take you seriously when you blame Republicans and Russians for Fauquier County issues. You are a joke.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 10:07 pm
Oh wow! Classic Jim! I never said he does not have the right to ask for a change! You just tried to change the narrative... Not going to work with me Little Jimmy. Try to keep up, I said he got approval for a 55+ community and is trying to change it. Fine. Let him be heard. Submit a new application for his development with new studies on traffic and schools and let the board rule on that. But no way are we goumg to let him submit an application on a 55+ then get approved and change it later.
Jim Griffin · September 12, 2019 at 9:01 pm
I ask you the same questions: What is so complicated about realizing this guy has the right to ask for a change to the plan? He has a pretty good argument about the difference in county demographics then and now, and discrimination on age -- even in a housing deal -- feels wrong.
Besides, as I've explained, we should rethink our substitution of judgment for the market, revisit our principles and do our level best to earn a changed reputation, that we become known as a business-friendly county. Currently we have the opposite reputation and we are balancing county revenues on homeowners as a result.
This guy needn't continue building. He is asking for a change to respond to the market for housing. It is a new decision properly before us. As we consider our response, we should remember our core principles, most of which stand against govt amassing and shelving county development rights and tightly controlling what people can do with their real property.
A quarter of the county and growing is acquired by govt and transferred to centralized committee control at taxpayer expense, both when it is purchased and when it sits altered on the tax rolls.
How does age impact traffic? I understand it is designed to constrain school growth, but there is a decline in school enrollment planned after the next few years. Business relocation and home valuations like good schools and a strong customer base. Cows are fine, but they need workers, schools for their kids and customers for their products and services.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 8:23 pm
I don't know if you are intentionally being obtuse or what is going on... I'm all for people being free to use their land. The issue here is this developer got approval for their 200+ development based on the "promise" it would be for 55+, thus not impacting our traffic and schools as an unrestricted development would. Now they want to change it. What is complicated about that? And what does that have to do with republicans or with Russians?
Jim Griffin · September 12, 2019 at 8:05 pm
As I wrote, it is and was an attempt to inject humor into the discussion. As I wrote, I admire the way Angry Bob brings a smile with the discussion.
Of course he's not a Russian troll (as far as I know)! I presume in writing the line that it might make the person rethink their position to realize the county controls a quarter of the agricultural and real property means of production -- and counting, as they buy more with our cash.
Likewise the notion that the central committee knows best. Free enterprise means the opposite -- letting a free market decide. Telling someone what they can do with their land -- the ages and behavior of buyers, for example -- is an extreme imposition by the state on par with fixing prices centrally or imposing terms and conditions.
What might be your reaction if the county simply imposed a price restriction on certain permissions? A requirement they be occupied by govt employees? Requiring they have pools?
I have no idea if Trump colluded/colludes with Russia, but this is an attempt to bring humor to the discussion, though I am very serious about the issue.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 8:01 pm
Jim- instead of blabbering on and on in circles and riddles, why don't you just say you support the non-restricted development? Why the need to attack Republicans? You support the guy in Marshall that wants to build a hotel on his farm too... Just say it. No need for several paragraphs of bluster.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 7:58 pm
Yes I said "listen up Jimmy." I apoligize. My intent was to bring you down a notch from your high horse of being the intelectual leader of this forum. It's like when Trump gives a nickname to his critics. The first rule of Saul Alinsky is ridicule.
DonkeyFarmer · September 12, 2019 at 7:51 pm
Jim- why do you keep refering to Virtus as "comrade?" Are you implying he is a Russian troll? As if the Russians would bother with a local news site in one of thousands of Counties in the U.S.? Maybe you are one of those guys that still believes Trump colluded with Russia?
Jim Griffin · September 12, 2019 at 10:16 am
Cyber bullying? Really? I read falsehoods that falsely claim I hate all Republicans, that I simply regurgitate NPR/CNN talking points and am told "Listen up Jimmy" and you think what I thought was a humorous comment that home was "cyber bullying"? You must be joking.
I'm not joking. And neither is it my logic. Republicans declare the market a better judge than government. So I say let's try that -- let the market for real estate decide, and while we're at it, let's stop collectivizing the private property real estate rights in this county.
I trust in the good people of this county to maintain and balance its splendor through market forces. You think these decisions better made by committee and collectivization. Speaks for itself, eh?
What's wrong with the study? I read it numerous times, mapped its evidence, reasoning and conclusions and realized its assumptions are those of the Rockefeller-based American Farmland Trust, a lobbying group that has a particular (favorable to them) result in mind.
It doesn't fully account for the assets contributed by residents, but it more than fully enumerates their costs. It was funded specifically to draw the conclusion it presents. If formulated to prove the opposite, it would. It is simply lobbying fodder to advance the point of view it is funded to advocate.
In fact, residents are assets to a community in both financial and civic terms. Even if you take the middle ground -- business investment -- it relies upon workers and customers, neither of which are populated by cows.
In other words, sure, they don't dial 911, but neither do they contribute to the financial growth of the county in ways that citizens do, and they contribute nothing to the county's political clout. The study doesn't delve into these factors and specifically warns in writing that it depends on a unique methodology (that of Rockefeller's American Farmland Trust) and that its conclusions are limited as a result.
Notice I didn't touch what? An $8 million capital impact? Of course I am addressing that -- the methodology is flawed from the basic premises of the study, which fails to properly record and enumerate the financial pluses and minuses.
But let's dispense with that for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting a "study" written by one person at UVA based on AFT guidelines should outweigh market forces and free enterprise? Really?
I guess the committee knows best, eh? Best it decide and not the market. The committee has studied the problem and issued its answer, which is to substitute its judgment for that of the market. What does a market economy know? And why should free enterprise and markets rule over a UVA B-school "study" writer? Whose idea was that?
I'll tell you who: It's the first principle of the Virginia Republican creed.
Virtus · September 12, 2019 at 9:06 am
Thanks Jim for the much anticipated personal cyber bullying attack. Interesting to note that you took my comments personally - my comments were addressed to the BOS/general public not you. Only your views matter so no surprise.
I am far from being a communist (see below definition). I value the Constitution and do not believe in goods being owned in common or elimination of private property.
Definition of communism:
1a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
From Webster’s https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
So following your logic, we should let pell-mell development occur and subsidize development via increased taxes until we are Loudon County.
How does my point of view fit the communist doctrine? For someone who moved to Fauquier County to enjoy its rural landscape, it is amazing that you embrace unbridled growth. Can’t wait to hear your views when your rural views are gone or if an abattoir or an industrial plant is approved next door to you. Why don’t we just remove all zoning restrictions/rezoning approvals and pay unfettered taxes?
Here’s the missing study link – pardon me for forgetting to add it after being up since 4 AM:
I would be interested to hear why you feel this study completed by the UVA Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service is rigged. The $8M capital impact cited in the county’s study is rigged too –right? Notice you didn’t touch that.
It is often leftists/Marxists who throw chaff out there, hoping something will stick.
Jim Griffin · September 12, 2019 at 6:34 am
Thank you, Comrade Virtus! It's your kind of thinking that keeps communism alive in otherwise good places like Fauquier County.
Let the number sink in: A quarter of our county -- over 107,000 acres -- is now under collective control, the development rights (our county's principal means of production) transferred to a government committee that buys and keeps forever more (over 2,000 acres last year) annually with taxpayer dollars.
Why? In part due to the rigged study to which Comrade Virtus refers (link NOT provided) based on faulty assumptions dictated by the Rockefeller-controlled American Farmland Trust, a lobbying organization mandated to serve the interests of big farms.
How is it rigged and faulty? It makes citizens the problem, counts all of their costs and none of their assets to "prove" the theory that "cows don't call 911."
Neither do cows start and run businesses or shop in stores or generate revenue from work. They can't vote, but that won't keep the Rockefeller's American Farmland Trust from speaking (read: lobbying) on their behalf.
If you believe the (unlinked) study, Fauquier shouldn't be doing anything to grow property values or attract citizens or even businesses (which require customers and workers). Why invest in broadband? It will only draw those expensive people to a place that would rather have cheap cows.
Remember: People are the problem. Citizens, like you and me. The answer: Collectivize our land under committee control. Marx and Lenin will be proud.
As for taxpayers paying for the developer's request, we pay every day that the county balances its books on our backs in the name of substituting its judgment for market forces.
Virtus · September 11, 2019 at 9:42 pm
Balancing demand for non-age restricted housing, developer's need to make a profit, and how much taxpayers are willing to subsidize services not covered by proffers - this is the BOS' challenge.
Regarding the $8M capital impact (see county staff report) resulting from the developer's change to non-age restricted housing, another way to put this impact into perspective, is the fact that for every $1 of residential development revenue, $1.17 in county services is incurred (see below link). Until the current VA proffer laws change, this situation will not be alleviated.
The BOS should VOTE NO!
Taxpayers should not have to pay for the developer's change.
Jim Griffin · September 11, 2019 at 5:45 pm
Your opinion is every bit as valid as my own and I assume your goals are no less noble than mine. I present my POV as best I can, but make no pretense it is in some way "correct" or "the truth." It's my opinion, neither more nor less. You don't like the way I write, fine with me, it's the way I write and speak. None of this is about me -- it's about the issue -- but you turn it into an ad hominem attack on me because that's what you seek. It's your nature. As you note, you actually agree with me -- but who'd guess?
Besides, I am a professor. This is not my classroom, but everyone's style is informed by their work, practice and nature. Teachers teach.
I agree with Angry Bob every time I read the words he writes (and they make me smile) and I think Linda is on the right track to look at the proffer debate in Richmond, at which the same argument is made about property rights and government's need to respect them. The silliest way to look at it in my opinion is to declare a deal a deal and refuse to consider this fellow's petition for change. His request makes this a new decision before our county. There is no bait and switch apparent.
I bring free enterprise and the conservative commitment to it as a reminder for those making this decision that we're better off with less restrictions than more. This land owner is requesting a variance from the prior deal, one with less restrictions. Specifically on age.
No deal should be carved in stone. And frankly this applicant can walk and build no more. Up to him. We should want him to exercise his decision in favor of commerce and build more homes for all.
I lean towards less restrictions and I think he makes a good argument: Times have changed, our demographic composition in the county is changing in a way that supports changing the deal.
Republicans make it the core of their creed: Free enterprise. Republicans dominate among our local office-holders, so it should be a persuasive argument for them. Isn't that why it would be Point One in a creed?
I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but I can quickly think of many local Republicans I support and for whom I vote: Mosier, Webert, Vogel, Trumbo, Riggleman, and more. I neither hate Republicans nor oppose them any more than I do Democrats.
I could not possibly care less in 2019, thinking it relatively simple to decide on a candidate to support when confronted with the quantity and quality of information available to us today. Middlemen of all kinds are losing ground and that includes party politics.
It's an important reminder. This county's approach to attracting business is peculiarly slanted towards preserving the status quo, preserving the past, and growth-oriented business sees this as impediment. If we want this fellow to invest and build more, let's help get government out of his way. Giving him what he wants isn't such a bad idea in light of the evidence he presents on his behalf.
Plenty of reason to draw Virginia Republican creed into this discussion, which is naturally local and *not* (despite your claim) a CNN/NPR talking point. Perhaps an emphasis on free enterprise and less local restrictions will bring the better business environment we need to attract the sort of investment that can alleviate property tax rates.
DonkeyFarmer · September 11, 2019 at 5:08 pm
Jim, you talk in riddles and in circles because maybe you think it makes you sound smart. "Linda has a clue" "Angry Bob delivers without slant." You treat this forum like your classroom and you are the teacher with the correct answers. The truth is it's just your opinion and it's just as valid as mine. Believe it or not I mostly agree with you, but you brought the Republican party into this for really no reason. What does the Republican party have to do with this?
This has nothing to do with "substitution of judgment." Do you understand this developer got approval for this based on an application that said it would be 55+? Now they want to change it. It's a bait and switch. 55+ do not impact our schools and traffic like a non-restricted development would. 55+ is also usually cheaper housing. So the board approved the 55+, why is it a problem that they would deny changing it, and again what does that have to do with Republicans?
Jim Griffin · September 10, 2019 at 10:26 pm
As usual, DF, you're wrong, but never in doubt! I like Republicans and often vote for Republicans. I do not focus on a candidate's political affiliation. My favorite commenter is Angry Bob, delivered without party slant, and most often draws my agreement.
I want less, more focused government that delivers on its priorities.
Yes, this is a local issue but no less the hand of the state (or did you mistake that for the State of Virginia?). Do we believe in free enterprise as we say, or ought we interfere as we do?
Linda has a clue, and she's correct to review proffer laws, which increasingly ask the same question: Where should govt substitute its judgment for others, especially as regards important personal property like real estate? Surely we can practice free enterprise with land, but we do not, most especially in this county.
Telling some they can sell to all ages but others to limit their sales/rental to those 55+ is substitution of judgment, as is presuming development rights are better off in the hands of govt. I submit that each is antithetical to the Republican creed.
What does this have to do with NPR/CNN talking points? Despite your claims, nothing at all. But it is important to hold people to their free enterprise claims and compare them to reality. This county holds the rights to land development and exercises them in place of otherwise free enterprise, not trusting the market at all. Some call that socialism or worse.
DonkeyFarmer · September 10, 2019 at 10:04 pm
Jim Griffin- We get it man! You hate Republicans! You hate so much that you will post some nonsense that has nothing to do with the article. Orange man bad! Meanwhile your Democrats are running Virginia.... The Governor dresses in either blackface or KKK clothing, who knows, nobody asks! ... The lieutenant governor is a rapist and the attorney general.... Wow! He is a blackface racist as well... All democrats! What do you know? And Jim Griffin just trods along with the NPR/CNN talking points.... He must get them emailed to him every morning over his faulty T1 line.
Listen up Jimmy... This is a local issue, the developers got approved for a 55+ development that would not impact schools and traffic like an unrestricted development would. Now they what to change it. It will impact schools, traffic, congestion, etc. What does that have to do with Republicans?
Virtus · September 10, 2019 at 8:03 pm
If the BOS approves the developer's request, is a $8M capital impact, which will impact taxes we pay, in the best interest of Fauquier County?
brandonj · September 10, 2019 at 4:47 pm
Let them develop, after they build a fancy new school.
Linda Ward · September 10, 2019 at 3:37 pm
"NOTES: Fauquier County and Warrenton fall in the IA category:
* = Localities not required to report cash proffer activity. 2003 revisions to § 15.2-2303.2 limited the requirement for the reporting on the acceptance of
proffered cash payments to only those localities with a population in excess of 3,500 persons or more. Thus, only 35 of the 177 eligible towns are required to
report proffered cash payments.
I. Eligibility for acceptance of cash proffers under § 15.2-2298 (High-growth localities):
A. any locality which had a decennial Census growth rate of 5% or more;
B. any city adjoining another city or county which had a decennial Census growth rate of 5% or more;
C. any towns located within a county which had a decennial Census growth rate of 5% or more; and
D. any county contiguous with at least three counties which had a decennial Census growth rate of 5% or more, and any town located in that county."
Jim Griffin · September 10, 2019 at 10:07 am
The Virginia Republican first principle from its creed: "The free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice."
The definition of free enterprise: "An economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control."
How do we justify the state telling this person how they can use their property, to whom they can sell/rent?
Isn't doing so inconsistent with the Republican creed? Isn't this sort of restriction precisely the sort of government regulation so many decry? It is unrelated to health/safety and serves only to interfere with the otherwise competitive market for real estate, much as do conservation easements substitute their judgment for market forces by placing the property development rights in the hands of government, outside the market's reach.
Or can we surmise that when it comes to free enterprise and Republican principles, Virginia politicians say one thing and hypocritically do another?
Bonnie C. · September 9, 2019 at 4:24 pm
I have totally lost count of the number of developers who start out getting approvals for some "noble" & responsible form of development, & then down the road do a "bait & switch" to what they had actually wanted/planned in the first place. And far too many times the powers that be fall for this & approve it.
Pull up your adult panties folks & DENY this blatantly transparent nonsense!!
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, November 15
Average home sales price, race for charity results, tons of food for needy and services for substance abuse
Friday, November 15
K-9 Unit played significant roles in two high-profile criminal investigations last week
More Fauquier news
Thursday, November 14
Two of the three defendants appeared in general district court on Thursday afternoon