Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, December 31, 1994 TAG: 9501050011
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN E. LANE III
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
I don't know him, but I share his dismay. Incidentally, your staff writer did a first-class job writing the story.
You've heard of virtual reality. Welcome to Bedford County, the land of virtual uncertainty. Confusion is king, delay is queen, and expense is the joker. I own land and houses in Bedford County, and have looked at entering several business ventures there that involve buying land and developing commercial activity on it. I've watched friends try to deal with LUGS. As a lawyer, I've had firsthand experience in drafting zoning laws and have seen how they work, which is pretty well. My Bedford County acquaintances voice frustration and dismay with LUGS.
A study of LUGS on paper leads you to think it offers a higher level of review on a case-by-case basis, which is true. LUGS appear to have nice control symmetry to it, and a certain attractive novelty. I commend Bedford County supervisors for trying LUGS. It looked good and was a grand experiment. Case-by-case review sounded good in theory. In practice, though, it's failing miserably due to the 100 percent uncertainty that stalks each land sale and each business enterprise before it gets started. And all for no advantage over a normal zoning system.
The regular system of zoning, in which whole areas are predetermined in particular zones, achieves the first level of scrutiny, and the rezoning process catches any nonconforming uses on an as-needed basis. The result? Remaining properties, whose future uses are included in that zone's permitted uses, are spared the bureaucracy, uncertainty and waste of time that curses Bedford County lands now.
Normal zoning systems give regular homeowners or the potential developer four important advantages that LUGS do not:
Certainty of most uses. Normal zoning affords a landowner the present knowledge of an array of possible future uses. This is a tremendous benefit to landowner and potential buyer alike. LUGS only says there's 100 percent possible restriction of future differing use, and requires time and expense to find out if land can be used for another purpose.
Under normal zoning, a landowner can more easily find a buyer because the buyer has a good idea what the land is useful for besides its present use. This promotes progress and minimizes state interference with privately owned lands. LUGS has a point system identifying land uses and features as point values. In fact, in a normal zoning system, the same process happens much more efficiently on a general level at the outset. Then, any changes sought by particular landowners, which are always necessary to promote justice, are viewed on a case-by-case basis. Much more efficient.
Ascertainable land values. Because normal zoning usually allows a defined array of possible future uses within a zone, a person can more easily value his own property and be more inclined to hold it as an investment, because the land's future value isn't held hostage by the LUGS effect of potential denial for any other use than the exact present use. Therefore, LUGS depresses present and future land values due to total uncertainty of differing land use.
Simplicity. You shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist or a practicing lawyer to weigh the probabilities of a land's future use. LUGS requires a crystal ball to figure out how land can be used, and demands unnecessary investment of time and money to determine any other use than present use. This is overkill government interference.
Prevention of unwarranted intermeddling. This means prevention of useless or mean-spirited meddling by neighbors having no financial interest or minimal aesthetic interest in the property, and who may only want to oppose a neighbor's progress for business reasons, or in spite, or just because they never want to see change - unless they thought of it first. More than a normal zoning system, LUGS favors the mendacious, the naysayers and elitists by exposing every possible differing land use to attack.
Frankenstein's monster looked good on paper; so did LUGS. The supervisors should bury LUGS with a certain pride that in spite of its failure, they'll have a far better understanding of what a properly designed zoning system should do.
John E. Lane III of Roanoke is a lawyer.
by CNB