THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 9, 1995 TAG: 9507070699
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
LENGTH: Long : 112 lines
Following are excerpts of remarks made Wednesday by City Councilman Alan P. Krasnoff to the Chesapeake Council of Civic Organizations. His topic was a proposal to ask city voters whether they support the idea of holding up some future development until the city has enough public facilities, such as schools and sewers, to support it. City Council will consider Tuesday whether to call for a November referendum on the question. The state General Assembly would have to approve the concept before it could be put into practice.
...If City Council agrees to put an advisory referendum on the ballot, you will be asked to vote for or against a concept which has the potential to change, in a very fundamental way, how Chesapeake approaches land use.
Called adequate public facilities, the concept links Chesapeake's growth to the capital budget and our ability to provide basic municipal services.
The idea is very simple: before any rezoning is approved, it must first be shown that the new use will not outstrip the city's ability to meet the needs it generates, whether for classroom seats or water or police protection or any other city service.
And if those adequate public facilities aren't or can't be provided for, then one of several things will happen: either the developer will help fund them or the rezoning will have to wait until the city can meet those needs without creating an undue burden on other areas and already existing services.
A careful reader of the city's comprehensive plan will know that a similar concept is already contained in that blueprint for Chesapeake's growth, but with one critical difference.
As it stands now, only the proposed rezoning site is reviewed to see if adequate public facilities exist to meet that property's needs.
The problem with that approach is that it does not include already approved zonings as part of the planning equation.
This concept - and this is the key difference - would go further, and calls for a review in context of proposed rezonings, as well as a review of proposed but not yet approved site plans.
When that review occurred, it would take into consideration already existing needs, the needs the site would generate, and the potential needs of vacant but developable inventory surrounding the site.
And if you think not much property falls into that category, think again.
Right now, the potential exists for the development of 21,000 to 23,000 new units on vacant but residentially zoned property, not to mention the preliminary approval for an additional 1,924 multi-family units and 3,065 unbuilt single-family units.
Clearly, the stakes are high, and I am sympathetic to the positions of those who believe their interests might be adversely affected by voter approval of adequate public facilities. In no particular order of importance, here are their arguments against the concept:
First, they say this concept ignores the idea of vested property rights, that it would constitute an illegal taking, that it devalues land and would throw the building and investment business into turmoil.
In fact, there is no taking, there would be no change in the property's status or zoning, and there would be no devaluation.
All the approach would do is create a time line, driven by the city's ability to fund capital projects and provide essential services.
Second, they say adequate public facilities would severely limit economic development.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Specifically excluded from this application would be areas already designated for industrial or business development, and for very good reason.
The tax dollars these kinds of developments generate exceed the cost of providing services for them, and they go a long, long way toward helping to pay for the kinds of essential services Chesapeake's residents have a right to expect.
Third, they say adequate public facilities would result in a bureaucratic nightmare - a maze of rules and regulations understood by no one.
Of course it could.
Then again, we could take a different approach.
We could decide we wanted rules which say not what you couldn't do but what you could do. If we did that, wouldn't the rules be simpler, wouldn't they be easier to understand?
I think so.
Fourth, they say it's not their fault that Chesapeake's schools are overcrowded; that our roads are fast becoming clogged; that we need more police and fire protection, but can't afford it; and that we need more recreation facilities, but can't fund them.
Candidly, they're right. It's not their fault.
Just as candidly, the blame for the situation falls squarely on the shoulders of this and every councilman who's preceded him. We are the ones who should have long ago seen the problem. We are the ones who long ago should have done something about it.
We are the ones who didn't.
But just because past councils have failed to take action to stem the tide and avert the crisis, does that mean this council shouldn't?
I don't think so, but that leads me to their last argument.
They say we shouldn't change the rules because the situation we face is unique. They say it's just temporary. They say that market forces will take care of everything and that, in a few short years, there will be more than enough revenue available to meet the needs.
Once again, they may be right.
Then again, they may be wrong. So that it comes down to this: given the stakes, do we really want to gamble on the outcome?
I pose this question: If it's a unique and temporary problem, shouldn't we consider a unique and temporary solution?
Isn't it possible that applying a concept called adequate public facilities might give us breathing room we desperately need?
I think so, because until we get a grip on the kinds of often costly residential growth which threatens to bankrupt the city and cause wholesale flight on the part of overtaxed residents, Chesapeake's near and long-term financial future is bleak. . . . ILLUSTRATION: Krasnoff
by CNB