Another Bad Bill That Should Die

By: Lowell
Published On: 2/14/2008 3:25:50 PM

Courtesy of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, this is another bad bill (there are so many this year!) that should die a quick and painless death.

A Sweetheart Deal for Developers
Because of our phone calls and emails, the Senate narrowly passed Senate Bill 768, the "Dollars for Developers" bill, with a 21-19 vote -- much closer than the developers wanted.

This bill, despite recent amendments, is a backdoor tax increase on Virginians. It is a blatant effort by developers to shift the cost of growth away from themselves and onto us, Virginia's taxpayers. It would end the proffer system and make developers pay far less for infrastructure and other service needs generated by new development.

Let's Kiss This Bill Goodbye
We have a good chance at killing SB 768 in the House of Delegates. Send a valentine to your delegate and tell them:


  1. SB 768 is a major threat to local growth control for our communities.
  2. It would severely cut developer contributions to affordable housing, parks, trails, libraries, schools, historic preservation, transportation, and public safety.
  3. The proffer system isn't perfect, but we should all have a say in how to fix it. This bill and its financial impacts should be extensively studied for at least a year.
  4. It would shift even more of a burden for infrastructure to existing taxpayers. This is a back-door property tax increase on Virginians and will also lead to higher state taxpayer costs for transportation.
  5. Recent amendments to the bill that increase the impact fee amounts are not nearly enough. Impact fees of $12,000/new house in Northern Virginia and $7,500/new house in the rest of Virginia don't come close to covering the full costs caused by new development.

If you're really mad about developers' influence in Richmond, join us for Lobby Day on Monday!

Thank you for your continuing support,

Stewart Schwartz,
Executive Director

P.S.  Senators voting "no" were Barker, Blevins, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Edwards, Hanger, Herring, Houck, Locke, Y.B. Miller, Newman, Obenshain, Petersen, Puller, Quayle, Stuart, Ticer
and Vogel.  Senators voting "yea" were Howell, Hurt, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, McEachin, J.C. Miller, Norment, Northam, Puckett, Reynolds,
Ruff, Saslaw, Smith, Stolle, Stosch, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, and Whipple.

Comments



Raising Taxes (Jack Landers - 2/14/2008 5:05:07 PM)
I would run against any of those who voted 'yes' with strong attacks against them for having voted to raise taxes. In fact, you could do the math on how the total value of all proffers in a given district last year weighed against the total county budget and then come up with a handy percentage to use. Say it's 10%.

"John Doe voted to raise your taxes by 10% in a single year! He has not gotten the message that Virginia's working families are already stretched to the limit. John Doe wants to raise your taxes by 10% - unless we stop him on election day."

[Middle-aged woman in faux-hushed voice]: "Senator Doe is trying to raise our taxes by 10% when we're just trying to keep our homes out of foreclosure. We can't send John Doe back to Richmond - he would be a disaster for our families!"

Seriously, a vote like this is a challenger's dream come true. I would attack these guys without mercy and spin them around in circles as they try to explain why it's a distortion to call it a 10% tax hike.



Further attack imagery... (Jack Landers - 2/14/2008 5:10:23 PM)
I just had to add that in commercial #2 with the woman's voice-over, the video would be first a shot of a piece of paper with 'TAX BILL' printed on it in a woman's hand, followed by images of a bunch of houses in slightly grainy black and white with bank foreclosure signs out front.

Oh, it would be brutal. I'd air it in the final week of the campaign so he couldn't even fully respond. I would have such a ball with this. However, my Senator is Creigh Deeds (praise the Lord!) so I don't have a local campaign against a Senate incumbent to work for. Oh well.



I fear people really do not understand the reality (Alter of Freedom - 2/14/2008 5:51:17 PM)
In the business climate we are in currently with Virginia being one if not the best place for business we seem to somehow forget about exactly what it is that makes us so lucrative of a State to do business in, and in this case, build or develop in. many of these developers are doing business elsewhere in the country and repeatedly quote Virginia has one of the best markets to develop in both residentially and commercially. The reason? We have local BOS and a General Assembly that favors the business community over that of individuals. They do so by way of passing many of the things on to developers that they fear blowback should they ask constituents to pay for it by raising taxes or creating ala "transportation districts" or taxing authorites outside of local/state government.
People complain about the cost of living as it relates to home values but when developers in places like NVA have to pay 46,000 in cash proffers for a lot exactly who do you think gets that passed onto in the end, the home buyer. Its a vicious cycle of increased proffers to increased home prices to increased home assessments resulting in higher property taxes.
Living in the fourth largest growing locality of Chesterfield our proffers are 15,600 much less than NVA and our BOS is opposed to "impact fees" and yet the biggest proponent of impact fee legislation in (R) State Senator John Watkins of Powhatan with much of his district constituency residing in Chesterfield. Should his bills/measures pass I cannot help but believe it will put in jeopardy any success the current Chesterfield BOS will have at addressing smart growth as the BOS was turned upside down going from 5 Republicans in 2007 to now 2 Rep./2 Independents and 1 Democrat. These bills threaten the very platform that challengers used to defeat incumbants who could not manage the growth of the County....the end result with this is now that BOS will almost undoubtedly have to raise taxes in order to keep paying for the growth as the cash proffer system would be terminated and an impact fee garnering much less revenue would be implemented.