Why does the Tea Party oppose a law that saves taxpayers money?
VIRGINIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, COALITION FOR SMARTER GROWTH, PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
January 24, 2012
Contact:
Stewart Schwartz, CSG, 703-599-6437
Lisa Guthrie, VALCV, 804-240-1976
Trip Pollard, SELC, 804-318-7484
Why Does the Tea Party Oppose this Law?
Bipartisan Urban Development Areas Law of 2007 Designed to Save Taxpayers Money But Tea Party Members are Pushing for Repeal
At least six bills are before the General Assembly to repeal the Urban Development Areas (UDA) requirement for localities: SB274 (R-Smith), SB291 (D-Lucas), HB92 (R - R. Marshall), HB794 (R- Rush), HB869 (R -Rust), HB729 (R-Dudenhefer, exempts Stafford).
"The bipartisan UDA statute of 2007 is designed to reduce the costs of infrastructure and the burden on taxpayers. That's why we are astounded that Tea Party members would campaign so hard to repeal this fiscally conservative planning tool," said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.
In spearheading the legislation on behalf of Speaker of the House William Howell (R-Stafford). Delegate Clay Athey (R -Front Royal) called the legislation essential to rein in the "unfunded mandate" placed on state taxpayers for transportation infrastructure due to poor local government planning and inefficient land use patterns. Governor Kaine made the initiative a cornerstone of his legislative agenda that year, and conservationists joined the Homebuilders Association of Virginia in supporting the law.
"The wish list for transportation projects has become simply unaffordable. Experience has shown that it is more costly to taxpayers and more damaging to farmland and forests to provide roads and other infrastructure for scattered development than for more compact, traditional neighborhoods. UDAs reduce transportation costs to the state and also save on water and sewer, police and fire, school busing and other costs," said Trip Pollard of the Southern Environmental Law Center.
"The traditional neighborhood development envisioned by UDAs is reflective of the beloved, historic towns of Virginia and our best older suburbs that engender a sense of community that we have lost as development has become more scattered," said Dan Holmes of the Piedmont Environmental Council. "This should be something that the Tea Party supports."
"The Virginia Department of Transportation has supported UDAs because they offer 'transportation efficient development' and summarized the benefits in this memo, and in another longer VDOT report which is soon to be released," said Schwartz. The State funded planning assistance to help 32 localities implement the statute; 27 have adopted UDAs and the remaining 5 are scheduled to do so by March. This work should not be wasted.
Tea Party members claim that UDAs are a threat to property rights. UDAs become part of Comprehensive Plans that are considered guides to development in localities. They do not change the zoning of any parcel or extinguish the property rights of any landowner.
"These bills would take away a valuable tool, and would increase costs to taxpayers and damage to farms, forests, and the environment. We are urging the General Assembly to retain this cost-effective planning tool," concluded Lisa Guthrie of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters.
###
