Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

I’m starting to think some General Assembly members want to reset the factory setting way too much. In decision after decision so far this year, we’ve seen bills filed with the direct intent to override local control, to resurrect solar projects after they’ve been vetoed and now we even have one that would force towns and counties to build more housing, regardless if it’s needed or wanted by locals. 

This isn’t how government is supposed to work. I realize for some lawmakers, this is hard to hear, but communities don’t always need state officials to come swooping in and override the decisions made. What fits in a city doesn’t always work in a rural area. At some point, what local residents want needs to be taken into account. After all, they’re the ones who live here. I think that gets lost too often. A lawmaker from Virginia Beach rolls out a bill that might benefit them, but it makes no sense in Prince Edward County.

Someone from Alexandria is used to a lack of space between homes, whereas farms in Cumberland can stretch for hundreds of acres and nobody wants that to change. These are different areas, with different needs and different wants. (I would say it’s hard to guess the wants of a community, but that’s not true for Cumberland. Those folks hold up signs clear as day saying they want a grocery store and do not want a massive landfill moving in.)

The latest concern stemmed from HB2641, which got fast-tracked through the General Assembly before being finally shut down late last week. I’ll give it’s patron, Del. Dan Helmer credit. He was very clear about what it was meant to do. The bill said it “authorizes the Housing Approval Board to overturn local decisions and approve applications under certain circumstances.” I don’t know how you can get confused about that one. Helmer clearly doesn’t like what some communities have done, when it comes to housing and wants to “fix” the concept of local control over housing. As I mentioned, it got voted down and killed in committee late last week, but the fact this popped up at all raises concerns beyond the bill itself. 

What’s wrong with local control? 

In many ways, this bill was worse than the solar proposal that got shot down earlier this year. Just as a refresher, that solar bill, HB2126, would have created a state board with the authority to overrule the decisions made by towns and counties. If you rejected a solar project, developers could have gone running to the state board and got that decision overturned. Fortunately, that bill also died in committee. This would have created the Housing Approval Board, another state group that could override local control, but to me, that’s not the worst part. 

The biggest issue is the alternative. If you didn’t want the approval board to overturn your decision, then your county or town needed to follow at least three of the “housing growth strategies” in the now defunct bill. What are these strategies? You need to either eliminate all lot size requirements or at least reduce them by 25%. Second, increase building height limits for housing properties by at least 25%. Third, streamline the permitting process and shorten the time to get approval by 25%. Fourth, take land currently zoned for single-family homes and allow high-density housing, including multi-family units. 

So let’s stop right here. This reads like a developer’s wish list already. Get rid of your lot size requirements. Build apartments wherever you want, regardless if it’s zoned agriculture or not. And streamline the process to get these permits. After all, how dare we ask developers so many questions. Here’s my question. How does this help existing residents at all? I’m serious. How does a bill designed to overrule what local residents have decided benefit them and their lives? I get the argument from Helmer, that magically “if you build it, they will come” but he’s not Kevin Costner and this isn’t Field of Dreams. So much more goes into growing a population than just building more homes. And who’s to say folks in Lunenburg want larger, city-style populations? I know several who are quite content to live in a rural community. 

An awkward conversation

At some point, people who create bills like this also need to have the awkward conversation of price points. Can people afford to buy the homes you’re offering? Do the jobs available in an area provide enough income for someone to afford a house? Is there a strong enough housing market to attract a developer? If the answer to any or all of these is no, then those houses are just going to sit empty. 

And even if the houses do sell, this bill doesn’t take into account the impact those additional homes would have on an area. This means more children in school than planned for. Does that mean having to speed up renovation or rebuilding plans for classrooms? Are there even enough classrooms to fit the new children being brought in. Is there enough capacity in the water and sewer systems to accommodate the new homes? All of these things are addressed and planned for years in advance on the local level, not through the latest state mandate. 

It’s simple. The concept of growth and how fast or slow it’s paced should be a local decision. The community should have the ability to make those choices through their local officials, not a board in Richmond that’s never stepped foot outside of the city, let alone in Farmville, Rice or Pamplin.