Many citizens may not realize that approval for bonds does not mean that the bonds can or will be issued. Voter approval is only one of many steps necessary before localities issue bonds to finance necessary improvements.
The problem is that debt capacity is linked to revenue. County officials anticipated declines in property values of two percent and four percent for this fiscal year and next. Instead, property values tumbled 4.7 percent and 14 percent, producing a $51 million deficit next year. Revenues from the recordation tax and the sales tax also have declined, Genz writes. - Bacon's Rebellion
First, why did property values decline so drastically in Prince William County? Because Prince William actively persecuted the very population responsible for the growth in demand, and thus prices, of houses: recent immigrants. There is a willful ignorance of consequences on the part of the PWC Board of Supervisors when it comes to their immigration policies. The consequence of reduced revenues could have been easily foreseen with some basic research into the causes of the housing boom. Thus, PWC made a trade-off between managed revenue growth in government (which could have been used to fund new roads to mitigate traffic) and the exploitation and alienation of a source of revenue growth. In effect, Prince William County decided to take an axe to their own tax base.
Second, what are the true costs of disparate, low-density development? In a region where demand for housing is high, the costs of not providing housing should be knowable with a little forethought. If people need houses, and no houses are available, more people will jointly share the houses that exist. That drives housing prices up, but it also drives population density within those houses up.
It is not reasonable to expect people to not come to an area with good jobs at good pay at all parts of the economic ladder. The "illegal immigration" issue in Prince William County and beyond has less to do with immigration than it does with economics. The issue is that lower incomes force pepole to live in more dense groups ("overcrowded townhouses") and that causes other problems, such as cars on streets, trash and sanitation. This is true of any community where the gap between income and the cost of basic necessities gets too wide, regardless of the type of population involved.
Communities cannot have few low-income neighbors (immigrants), low-cost maintenance/human services (landscaping, house cleaning, daycare etc.) and low traffic (more/better roads). Only two of those things can be selected, the third must be allowed to float. (Call it the local government equivalent of the Mundell-Fleming Trilemma) For example, if a community wants few low-income neighbors, but low-cost services (which need to be provided by low-income staff), then the staff will need to commute from farther away to provide those services (since the community wants no low-income neighbors), which means that the community will have more traffic. If a community wants low traffic, and few low-income neighbors, then the costs of many services have to rise so that the people who provide those services can live in the community. And finally, if the community wants low traffic and low-cost services, then the community must tolerate more low-income neighbors (and thus neighborhoods) because the people providing the low-cost services need to live close to where they work to keep traffic to a minimum.
It is the tradeoff choices between traffic, services and population that drive local politics in northern Virginia. There are politicians who are effectively promising to deliver all three, and it is those politicians who are getting their communities in trouble. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and in places like Prince William County, the bill is now coming due.
(Crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow.)
"For example, if a community wants few low-income neighbors, but low-cost services (which need to be provided by low-income staff), then the staff will need to commute from farther away to provide those services (since the community wants no low-income neighbors), which means that the community will have more traffic"
Basic supply and demand economic principles next. This is what many more liberal cities do with the lvinig wage campaign. Incomes rise but costs rise as well. There will always be rich and poor. The poor might have more money but everything will cost more.
"If a community wants low traffic, and few low-income neighbors, then the costs of many services have to rise so that the people who provide those services can live in the community."
This last example doesn't work because of the NIMBY aspect
"And finally, if the community wants low traffic and low-cost services, then the community must tolerate more low-income neighbors (and thus neighborhoods) because the people providing the low-cost services need to live close to where they work to keep traffic to a minimum."
A fourth option is what Arlington (and to Arlingtons defense many other cities do and this it actually is a natural occurence given the impossible task of trying to have all three critieria)
It starts with the fundamental truth that there will always be richer and poorer sections of town. To avoid traffic you create a robust mass transit network. In the Arlington example low-income people living in south arlington can use mass transit to provide services in north arlington.
A final note why did all the immigrants choose Prince William in the first place? It was an area with a lower cost of living because Arlington, Fairfax (heck most communities) are doing their darndest to keep costs low and create environments to attract high-income residents. People were getting priced out of South Arlington as the area has begun to revitalize along with supply and demand principles of real estate better location higher price.
This issue requires much more thought. In the end I think it comes down to what people want and what is the cheapest cost wise
Option one gives high traffic (current situation)
Option two gives higher prices (no win inflation situation)
Option three gives community income divesification (perhaps a noble goal but hundreds of years of settlement patterns show human nature that most individuals choose to be in areas with people similar to themselves and have no desire to be near those in lower economic classes)