All this talk of “phasing” and “clustering” and “mountain overlay” has many residents of the rural areas in a real lather. Those folks need to look at the other side of the coin.
Development in the growth areas is well underway. Infrastructure and amenities are needed to fulfill the goals of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and meet the needs of the growth area residents. Someone has to pay for infrastructure and amenities. Some folks think it should be the developers who pay. Others think taxes should be raised for all property owners in the county and we all should bear the burden of development to “protect” the rural areas. I propose another financial solution that would be tied directly to protection of the rural areas.
The Board of Supervisors will soon decide whether the rural areas will be “protected” from rapid and potentially harmful development through phasing and clustering or they will decide to “protect” the existing property rights in the rural and leave things alone. Regardless of what’s being “protected,” the rural areas should pay the cost of protection whatever form it takes.
The residents of the growth areas have already given up much in the way of property rights and quality of life to “protect” the Rural areas from development. They have received little in return because the County doesn’t have the money for the needed infrastructure and amenities that were “promised” for growth areas. Our growth areas are supposed to be attractive places that attract development away from the rural areas. Growth area residents get no tax break for being “sacrificed” to preserve the rural areas. They do get traffic, congestion, construction, noise and interconnections they don’t really want—all in the name of preservation of the rural areas.
The Board of Supervisors will be reconsidering the County’s Land Use Taxation Program in the near future. I propose that unless land is put into conservation easement, it should not qualify for Land Use Taxation. Land put into conservation easement would be protected from future development and the property owner who gave up his development rights should benefit from greatly reduced property taxes. Further, rural area land not in conservation easement should be taxed based on the fair market value of the land plus the value of the development rights. Property owners, who opt to retain their development rights by not putting land into conservation easement, should be taxed accordingly.
Last year the County lost over $13 million in tax revenues due to Land Use Taxation, while development continued at a good clip in the rural areas—about 300 dwelling units per year. Based on real fair market values, the “lost” revenue was probably closer to $40 million. Land Use Taxation has really done little to slow development in the rural areas, is not a permanent solution and no longer makes sense in the face of the development pressures we face today. Those “lost” revenues could be used to help fund the needed infrastructure and amenities in the growth areas and expand the purchase of conservation easements for the County’s ACE program thereby protecting portions of the rural areas permanently. The rural area property owners should not have it both ways (development rights and Land Use Taxation) any longer and they should not continue to benefit to the detriment of the growth areas.
As an aside, there is another problem with the County’s Land Use Taxation Program. There is subsidization of land in the growth areas. What a travesty! It’s hard to believe, but the land on Route 29 North being developed as North Pointe benefits from Land Use Taxation. Over 182 acres of the 269 acres being developed receive Land Use Taxation treatment. The fair market value for the 182 acres is over $5.5 million according to the County Assessor. They’re being taxed on $43,500. You do the arithmetic. If conservation easement were a requirement for Land Use Taxation, then land being held for development in the growth areas wouldn’t qualify.
Rethinking Land Use Taxation needs to be a priority at the Board of Supervisors’ retreat this month. It’s time for subsidization without any strings attached to end. Conservation easements are the only way to truly protect the rural areas. All County policies should be structured with that in mind.
Lynda Harrill is a former resident of a growth area who now lives in Ivy. Earlier this year, she started a group known as Growth Areas Demanding Services(GADS).
PQ:Regardless of what’s being “protected,” the rural areas should pay the cost of protection whatever form it takes.