Developing news
Lillian Mezey’s “Opinionated” column [May 6] was right on. The bottom-line is—where is the real protection for the rural areas? The County admits in its 2006 Annual Report to the Community that diversion is their strategy. “The success of our protection efforts depends on our ability to concentrate growth, including new homes and businesses, in our established urban areas.” The report also says “rural area protection is receiving increased focus in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.”
Concentration and focus aren’t getting the job done as Dr. Mezey indicated.
In 1997, building permits for 272 dwelling units were issued in the rural areas. In 2005, there were 296—that’s an increase of nine percent. For development areas, 1997 permitted units totaled 633 compared to 534 in 2005, a decrease of 16 percent. Don’t like 1997? Try 2002—rural areas 316 units, development areas 1,404. Compared to 2005—rural areas down six percent, development areas down 62 percent. Average for the nine years—291 units in the rural areas, 631 in the development areas. Development in the rural areas has continued unabated within a narrow range, not lessened one bit by building in the development areas, and the development areas are below average. Why is that?
As an aside, the revenues lost to land use taxation (59 percent of the County) are totally wasted in the face of development pressure—50 years of history throughout the US have proven that “use valuation, by itself, has done little to stem the conversion of farmland on the urban fringe.
Without assurance of long-term preservation, use value assessment can become simply a method of untaxing open space, with all its concomitant potential for perverse land use and distributional consequences.” That’s the Lincoln Institute’s think-tank-speak for exactly what Dr. Mezey observed on Ivy Road, Garth Road, Morgantown Road, etc. By the way, the County recently deferred looking at its land use taxation policy until 2008.
If the County really wants to protect and preserve the Rural Areas, they’d better find the political will to do what really needs to be done—rezone/downzone the rural areas to restrict development to sustainable levels and end land use taxation unless it limits development rights or provides for substantial penalties upon sale for development.
Don’t hold your breath…
Lynda Harrill
Charlottesville, VA
When good plants go bad
The one issue that your article on nuclear power plants [“The greening of nuclear power,” May 6] didn’t touch on is the decommissioning of the plants. When they were built, the engineers said the plants would be good for 30 years and then they’d have to be decommissioned (without a clear plan for how this would be accomplished). After that point, the core becomes too radioactive to safely control the reaction.
Lo and behold, more recently, electric companies assure us that their plants are good for 60 or even 90 years. No need to worry about the problems they predicted when they originally designed the plants.
Yeah, right. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe that the profit of continuing to run the plant and the extreme cost of decommissioning them has nothing to do with this updated estimate of power plant life span. They want us to trust these companies without suspecting any conflict of interest in their determining how long a nuclear power plant is safe.
It’s enough to make you want to go solar.
Will Martin
Charlottesville
CORRECTION
Due to an error introduced in the editing process, it was implied that Dave Sherman, the subject of last week’s On The Record ["Sherman’s march," May 16] lived and worked in Staunton. In reality, both he and his employer, Back Alley Disc, resided in Charlottesville.