THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, October 21, 1994 TAG: 9410210022
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A20 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 41 lines
Disney's white flag has saved Northern Virginia from the threat of ``ticky-tack'' development. But now it is not Disney that some rural Virginians want to put a stop to, but Joe Developer, and the retirees and residents with dreams of country houses in the mountains.
Roanoke County officials are debating whether or not to use property restrictions such as conservation easements, restrictions on building above a certain elevation, density regulations, open-space tax breaks and a myriad of other tools in order to deter further development. Many other areas with ridgelines and mountains have successfully used such techniques to restrict what property owners can do with their land.
Such moves face fierce opposition from property owners, who often have invested much of their capital in the land in hopes of one day building a retirement home or getting a share of the rural lifestyle current owners enjoy. Property owners already face a plethora of restrictions, including wetlands and endangered species protection and other laws that take property or restrict its use without compensation. Such efforts have spawned a nationwide property-rights movement.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve open space, be it for aesthetic or other reasons. Suddenly informing landowners that the property on which they invested their money is to be greatly reduced in value, however, hardly seems fair. A land-use policy that appears arbitrary or liable to drastic and unpredictable change might preserve the views that attract tourists, but also repel the jobs and residents the area needs to grow.
If preservationists are serious about restricting land use, they have an obligation to own up to the reality that such a policy has a price tag. Land owners should be compensated for the reduced value of their land. by CNB