Top Supe sick of $13-million ’sharing’
by Hawes Spencer
Revenue sharing, the annual bribe Albemarle County gives Charlottesville in exchange for safety from land annexation, came under public fire yesterday from the man who’s will watch over $13 million of his budget be handed over next year. Ken Boyd, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, ripped into the so-called “Revenue Sharing Agreement” yesterday, as Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Daily Progress report.
Boyd, a property rights advocate, now joins fellow Supe Lindsay Dorrier in publicly questioning the arrangement, but other Supes asked him to pipe down yesterday.
What does Boyd want: the city of Charlottesville to turn into a slum? The county can’t have its cake and eat it too. The city could have gained more by not signing the agreement. Now the city is also locked in by not having the option of annexation. The city is also being put upon as it handles the through-traffic from the county. Boyd/Dorrier are responsible in many ways as they encouraged the out of control development in the county. They are approving too many subdivisions without building roads IN/AROUND THE COUNTY to handle the flow. It is time for the city fathers to put their foot down and not give an inch. I for one am tired of waiting in line as too much county traffic funnels through Charlottesville. The city should not agree to build more roads within, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE COUNTY.
It is my understanding that Fashion Square could have gone where the Giant supermarket is now and would have been within the City limits, but the City was not interested at the time. And now the City claims they could have annexed additional land and it is hurt by not being able to grab the land after it was developed? What a specious argument!
And, although I am not crazy about the amount of development that is occurring locally (especially without additional roads or transit planning), restricting development simply drives it further out, to places like Greene County. Then people will have to drive further to meet their needs, clogging U.S. 29, while housing costs in Charlottesville and Albemarle rise further out of reach for regular people. Housing scarcity drives up prices. It is happening all over California where people pay high prices for houses that require long commutes. And research has shown that when housing is expensive, unemployment rates go up because people can’t afford to move to places where they can find jobs. There is a cost no matter which path is taken.
Boyd isn’t much of a “property rights advocate” if he feels as a land owner we, the citizens of Albemarle, must endure the constant barking of dogs from those who have little class or regard for other’s space/land. Perhaps Boyd is a closet liberal who wants the few to decide what is best for us because we don’t have the sense to appreciate constant barking.
Charlottesville needs to stand their little 10 square mile ground on this one! So far Dave Norris is holding firm and hopefully the rest of them will too.
These words of Norris’ don’t seem like “holding firm” to me: ““If they develop a counterproposal and say, ‘Here’s a better way of working together,’ certainly we’ll entertain any ideas they have,” he said.”
The County could make a better case if it would move it’s County seat (offices and courts) and traffic to, say, Ivy or Keswick.
Cville-You are right on. My hunch, Norris & council will be easily swayed-and finally bought off by the county. The county was successful in finally convincing the city to bend to the Meadowcreek Parkway. Now it is the city that is losing big because of a former buyout. McIntire Park and the irreplaceable land is being carved away by politics. Mr. McIntire would turn over in his grave. What individuals in the city inked that deal?
It is the County that won here. The county also won when they gained the County Office Building-Burley School. Come on city-cville WAKE UPPPPPPPP.
Will the county win again? Yes, unless the public-city puts a BIG foot down!
I applaud Mr.Boyd and Mr.Dorrier for their (now in the minority) attempts to protect individual landowner’s rights and for questioning this outdated arrangement(bribe)that the county was coerced in to by the city many years ago. I hope to see new faces on the BOS with similar constitution after the next election.
Those that make it a personal choice to live in the city and be willing to pay the higher tax rate in order to take advantage of the added services should be content. Think of all the gas money you save compared to the county folks. If you happen to work for the U and can walk or bike to work then there are the significant parking fees to be saved.
Too bad that if you can no longer afford to live in the city the current BOS has passed new ordinances that make it more difficult to purchase property with division rights in the county and give a portion to your family member so they can also have a home.
Why should the county subsidize the city to the tune of 15% of its tax revenues?
I hate to admit that I would agree with Cville Eye on anything but the idea of taking the lost .10/100 and using it to build a county administration building sounds like a good idea.
Mr. Farmer, sorry to tell you, I think this may be Dorriers last run for the board. He does well in his own district, but he is questioned and eyes roll in all the other areas of the county. i hear Boyd was almost defeated this time. It will be a stretch for him to accomplish another win now that the others have hold. The other board members present themselves very well for the most part. The two of them stand out, in comparison.
The county made the revenue sharing agreement. Boyd will have a hard time even convincing the other members of BOS to break the contract now.
Country Farmer, I believe one of Mr. Boyd’s points was that the County is now providing more urban services than when they made the agreement in 1982, which is true. When I said, move the County seat, I meant everything, especially the courts. The City should stop subsidizing the County’s fire service, water, sewer,gas, and transit. The County should be providing fire service to UVA, not the City. Let’s get County land back on the tax base! Just kidding.
Slicker, the traffic woes that you lament over are UVA generated. Why don’t you look to UVA to kick in to solve them and leave the county alone.
No,NOT UVA- The traffic problems We all see every day are from Boyd/Dorrier districts: 250 EAST/Pantops to Downtown. I hear more new subdivisions are in the works Glenmore-Glenoaks area 250. Boyd has complained to media about sitting in traffic-free bridge area. Let him SIT!
Oh, and throw in Burley Middle, too.
Cville-
Burley middle, Murray High, County office build. —-ALLL county generated—through the city
slicker, this tax bill is getting higher and higher. I forgot the recreation subsidies. Those County school buses certainly do clog up traffic, too.
I forgot about the county buses clogging the city streets-YUK
County Farmer,
I don’t think they made it harder. They just require that if you give a family member land, that it stays in the family longer rather than using the family-division as a loophole to flip a parcel for a quick profit under the label of family-subdivision. If you sincerly subdivide for family there is nothing wrong extending the holding period. Just like the NRA raising gun rights ever time some type of gun restriction is attempted the same is of property issues. ALOT is hype and overblown w/fear of socialism, gov’t control BS.
To TheTruthInLies: I believe that extending the time one must own the land from 2 years to 4 years prior to being allowed to subdivide for a family member constitutes making it harder.
CF
Do you think the extended period is to reduce abuses and the temptation to build and flip? The family subdivision is for just that, family. It was not meant as a way for some to sneak another parcel where one was originally not planned or zoned. Time is money. I think we can agree the intent is to discourage abuses. If a person is committed to their land, they should be willing to wait it out unless they are looking for a quick buck.
As I recall, part of the argument against this provision at the BOS was after an extensive analysis of family division parcels in the past there was almost no flipping that had occurred. End of story. Why change something that was working well. Now if you please I must get to work.
For those of you who have never read the actual revenue-sharing agreement, we’ve posted a copy from the County archives to our site:
http://www.albemarletruthintaxation.org/blog/2008/03/citycounty-revenue-sharing-101.html