If the voters of Albemarle County elect Ann Mallek and Marcia Joseph to replace David Wyant and Ken Boyd on the Board of Supervisors on November 6, then this is what would happen: Developers will be asked to pay more to develop here. Albemarle will be considered less business-friendly, even if nothing really has changed. Property rights folks will be fuming mad when the county passes rural "protection" ordinances and puts time delays on development rights. Water and sewer issues will get a lot more lipservice. Your taxes will probably go up, though low-wage county workers will probably get paid more. Split-grade interchanges will end up in the Places29 plan, to the chagrin of the North Charlottesville Business Council. The Board might even downzone the rural area, reducing the number of buildable lots by several thousand. If they do, the Board’s run will probably end in two years’ time—when voters take it out on incumbents David Slutzky, Dennis Rooker and Sally Thomas.
There is no guarantee that all these things will happen. But this is what seems likely to this reporter to be the outcome if Joseph and Mallek are elected to replace Ken Boyd and David Wyant. This assessment is based on time watching the Board of Supervisors, talking with the candidates, poring over campaign material compiled by development watchdog Charlottesville Tomorrow, and conversing with those who closely follow county politics.
  The Rivanna District pits incumbent Ken Boyd, who runs a financial services company, against Marcia Joseph, a landscape architect. Boyd has been consistently pro-business and property rights while on the Board. Joseph has given developers tough scrutiny while on the Planning Commission. |
In electoral terms, this is an off year, with no federal offices up for grabs. Typically, voter turnout is particularly low in Virginia during odd years like these, when there’s not even a governor’s race to push the masses to the polls. To see that, we can look at 2003, the last year a Board of Supervisors race was held without a governor’s race: Of 54,000 registered to vote, only 17,500 came out—32.5 percent. This time around, the Board of Supervisors race will probably come down to 10,000 to 12,000 voters. With the seats divided up by district, that means each seat will be decided by 3,000 to 4,000 voters.
With so much at stake, this has shaped up to be one of the most meaningful races for the Board of Supervisors in recent memory—the perfect referendum on the path the county has been taking lately, particularly as concerns development.
Plenty of locals are happy with the way growth is progressing, or even say that we’re not growing enough: There aren’t enough high-paying jobs. A shortage of moderately priced new housing has created an affordable housing crisis. Without more housing to bring down the prices, assessments have gone up, meaning that older homeowners on fixed incomes are having to think about selling the family house. More growth is necessary to provide a place for the middle class and keep the area from becoming a playground for the filthy rich.
But plenty of locals say that development has gotten out of hand: Too many people have moved here. Too many subdivisions are going up. There’s not enough water. The roads are clogged with traffic. Property taxes are going up because the county hasn’t forced developers to pay their fair share. A place of rugged beauty is becoming Loudoun-ified, its bucolic fields filling with McMansions instead of cattle.
For those who think Albemarle County has reached its tipping point, the perception has as much to do with proposed building than with actual population growth. A recent county economic development report indicates that annual population growth is only about 1.1 percent. The county’s growth rate was significantly higher in the ’80s and ’90s, when annual growth was around 2 percent.
 |
In some measure, the perception of unprecedented local growth comes because of the thousands of housing units recently approved in rezoning: Albemarle Place, 650 units; Belvedere, 775 units; North Pointe, 900 units; Hollymead, 1,500 units; Old Trail, 2,300 units; and, of course, Biscuit Run, 3,100 units. And those are just the big ones.
These projects sprang from developers’ willingness to bet on the hot local housing market. The area median sales price in 2001 was around $157,000. This year, it’s $275,000. This was partly driven by the glut of money available from the lending industry, partly from the market security provided by a growing university, partly from an influx of Northerners and retirees who could sell their homes, buy here and pocket a tidy wad of cash, and partly from county changes that put a premium on more dense, pedestrian-friendly development—which signaled to developers that the county was more willing to approve the "right" kind of proposals.
 What would happen if Joseph and Mallek are elected depends on several variables, among them—whether David Slutzky would join a new majority or play an opposition role on the Board. |
Many have looked to the Board to take action. But that the Board is composed of six members is not incidental. Six means that to take any action, at least four Board members need to agree. There is no tie breaker, unlike City Council with five members, or even the U.S. Senate, with the vice president casting the deciding vote if all else is even. No. The Board of Supervisors needs consensus or compromise to get anything done.
Even when the Board agrees in principle that something should be done—say, that the rural areas should be protected from development, a major part of its comprehensive plan—it doesn’t agree what "something" should be. Take the rural areas: The Board has split 3-3 on just about every meaningful vote that would limit building there, with Dennis Rooker, David Slutzky and Sally Thomas arguing that this is the only way to stem the tide and Ken Boyd, Lindsay Dorrier and David Wyant saying that the measures would unfairly restrict the property rights of rural landowners. Some votes of the past two years: phasing and clustering, 3-3; the Mountain Overlay District, 3-3; rural "protection" ordinances, 3-3.
Another part of the policy to discourage rural building is to encourage development in designated growth areas. But there has been conflict on the Board about what growth to accept. The biggest example was the North Pointe rezoning, which passed 4-2. Dissenters Thomas and Rooker didn’t think it truly fit the model the county wanted for growth and didn’t pay enough to offset the costs the community will suffer.
This year, three supervisors are up for re-election: Ken Boyd, Lindsay Dorrier and David Wyant. As it turns out, those three have been the three Board members most lenient on developers, most adamant about property rights and least willing to raise taxes.
All of these seats are contested, but Dorrier is a good bet to win re-election. He has represented the Scottsville District on the Board already for three terms (one in the late ’70s), and he served for 10 years as County Commonwealth’s Attorney. His challengers, Kevin Fletcher and Denny King, running as independents, are likely to split any opposition vote.
The race for the other two seats in the White Hall and Rivanna districts should be much closer. Wyant and Boyd are facing challengers who are taking on their records, principally on growth issues. And neither incumbent, both finishing their first terms, won convincingly in 2003. Wyant eked out a margin of 360 out of 4,017 votes cast, and Boyd won by just 178 out of 3,482 cast.
Considering this election is such a referendum, here are some likely outcomes if Mallek and Joseph are elected to replace Wyant and Boyd. Whether you love this vision or hate it, you’ll have your chance to make your choice on November 6.
With Mallek and Joseph in, Wyant and Boyd out:
What would change
Developers would have to pay more to rezone
Background: It’s an accepted assumption that residential development doesn’t pay for itself with property taxes, what with all that’s needed to upgrade schools, hire more police and improve the roads. This year, the Board significantly raised the amount of money it expects from developers to pay for each residential rezoning to around $17,000 per single family detached unit from around $3,000 per unit. The Board has some discretion about what it charges, thanks to recent state legislation—proffer amounts in Northern Virginia localities get up to $50,000 per unit.
Why the change: During discussion of the policy change, Boyd wasn’t comfortable going to a figure around $22,000, and originally argued for a number closer to $14,000. He expressed concerns that the county was asking for an unreasonable amount and not taking into account the commercial tax revenue residents generate. Joseph and Mallek have both publicly said they want developers to pay more.
What it would mean: While a Board with Mallek and Joseph probably wouldn’t go as high as NoVa’s $50,000 per unit, expect it to be higher than what is now—at least $20,000 for a single family detached unit. If developers don’t think the market could cover that cost to them, that would mean fewer residential rezonings—adding up to less new housing and/or more by-right housing.
Already approved projects would get closer scrutiny as they build out
Background: It’s improbable that the county will get many rezoning requests in the next two years, at least not big ones. But thousands of new units have already been approved—Old Trail, Belvedere, Hollymead, North Pointe, Biscuit Run—and are in the site plan and build-out stages. The Board doesn’t have a lot of direct control over this, but it can make developers’ lives harder or easier with more or less oversight about whether plans and proffers are what developers promised.
Why the change: As Planning Commission chair, Joseph has kept a pretty close watch over developments coming through, and hasn’t been shy about calling them out when they don’t deliver on promises (most recently the expansion called for next to the National Ground Intelligence Center). And part of Mallek’s platform is making sure that development pays as it goes.
What it means: Gaylon Beights (Old Trail), Chuck Rotgin (North Pointe) and Hunter Craig (Biscuit Run) had better be on their toes. If that oversight ends up costing them money—because of delays or because it means a more expensive product—then expect that at least some of it will be passed on to the eventual home buyer, though how much will probably depend on the market.
Sewer and water infrastructure would get more scrutiny
Background: The county is going through a drought that could screw us next year, a water supply plan is awaiting approval to meet local needs for the next 50 years, and the sewer and stormwater systems need some serious upgrades.
Why the change: This has been probably the biggest talking point for both challengers during the campaign. Joseph has been particularly forceful in asking about it when projects have come before the Planning Commission, and making Gary Fern, executive director of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), speak at length about whether the infrastructure is in place to support the proposed plans.
What it would mean: Both will be more likely to push hard to have more joint meetings with the city, the ACSA and with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. That would mean more public dialogue. It also means that developers had better work out issues with the ACSA well before they get to the Board of Supervisors. But it’s unclear if it will actually make a difference in the water plan or with sewer interceptor improvements.
Rural "protections" ordinances would be passed
Background: The county has been talking about protecting streams and steep slopes from development for decades. But because doing so often involves forcing restrictions on what rural landowners can do with their property, the county hasn’t been able to find a wording of such ordinances that it likes. As recently as October 10, supervisors split on a package of ordinances that would have increased buffers around intermittent streams to keep building at least 100′ away, and would have limited what can be built on steep slopes.
Why it would happen: Both Boyd and Wyant wouldn’t support the ordinances because of property rights concerns. Joseph voted for the protections at the Planning Commission level, and Mallek spoke in favor of the measures during the public comment.
What it would mean: Some rural landowners won’t be able to develop as much of their land, though it’s unclear how much that will affect property values. Those opposed say that property values will drop; those in favor say they will stay the same or rise. Streams will have less sediment in them, though how much less is also unclear.
The county would pull out of the Chamber of Commerce and decrease business spending
Background: In January, the Board voted 4-2 to rejoin the Chamber of Commerce after a 28-year hiatus. It also joined the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) and put aside $250,000 for a jobs fund. The reasoning was that the county, despite a low unemployment rate, doesn’t have enough quality jobs—think of the proverbial table-waiting Ph.D. The money itself isn’t much in the scheme of things, but supervisors Sally Thomas and Dennis Rooker didn’t think the investment made sense, given the low unemployment rate and the fact that the Chamber—and other organizations it supports, like the Free Enterprise Forum—advocate for Board policy changes, usually ones that are pro-business. They likened joining the groups to joining an advocacy group like the Piedmont Environmental Council, which pushes for rural preservation.
Why the change: The push to join was led in large part by Boyd, with supporting votes from Dorrier, Wyant and Slutzky. Both Mallek and Joseph suggest that they would support pulling out, which would give the Board the four votes needed to do so.
What it would mean: It’s unclear to what extent belonging to these organizations makes a difference one way or the other. For the most part, it will be a symbolic move, signaling that the county doesn’t want to appear to endorse the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps signaling to local and prospective businesses that the county’s not going to bend over backwards to keep them happy.
What would probably change
Property taxes would go up
Background: Property taxes are currently 68 cents per $100 of assessed value, which comes to about $2,040 on a $300,000 home. That number has nominally come down in recent years, but it has been more than offset by the rise in assessments. For example, the tax rate was 74 cents in 2003, but the same house might only have been assessed at $225,000, making taxes $1,665. During the budgeting process this year, the local Republican Party led a big push to make the tax rate discussion start at 58 cents—which would have effectively matched the rise in assessments—rather than 74 cents.
Why the change: Boyd was one of the supervisors who pressed for a property tax reduction. If there were no Republicans left on the Board to answer to a local party, however, it’s unclear how effective the push would be to keep property taxes from effectively rising. If assessments stagnate, then the nominal tax rate at the very least would go up.
What it would mean: That possibly means more money for police, transit, wages and programs like the Albemarle Conservation Easement (ACE) program, which is part of the rural area preservation plan. Do expect that if taxes rise, the new Board will push for an expansion of tax relief programs geared toward the elderly—though whether it’s commensurate with the increase would be another question.
Phasing would be back on the table
Background: Part of the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan calls for development to be "phased," with the intent to limit building in the rural area. Phasing means that development rights in the rural area could only be used one at a time every so often. The Board looked at a proposal in 2006 that would have instituted a 10-year delay, but after an acrimonious public hearing, the Board split 3-3.
Why the change: Boyd and Wyant have been against phasing, citing the property rights concerns for those who may need to sell more land. Mallek says she’s against phasing for similar reasons, but Joseph wants to look at it. She could give the Board the four votes it needs to pass it, with Slutzky, Rooker and Thomas having supported it in the past.
What it would mean: Developers will have less interest in buying rural land, as they won’t be able to develop it all at once to sell to home builders. Because the economy of scale won’t be the same, that probably means that new homes in the rural area will be more expensive. It’s unclear what that does to the value of the land for the rural landowner who wants to sell—if phasing does reduce supply, then laws of supply and demand suggest the price will go up. On the other hand, those buying the lot might not be willing to pay as much for land since they’ll have to pay more to build.
Places29 would get passed without changes desired by the North Charlottesville Business Council
Background: Places29 is a master plan that looks at land use and transportation needs for the Route 29N corridor over the next 20 years. It still needs Board approval, and the NCBC has been particularly skeptical of the "split grade" intersections, which would turn intersecting roads like Hydraulic and Rio into overpasses going above 29N.
Why it would happen: Boyd has been the chief defender of the NCBC’s viewpoint that the split grade interchanges are potentially bad for their businesses because they would turn 29 into a through-road, and reorient the way locals get to the property so that some businesses aren’t as obvious to passersby. Neither Mallek nor Joseph have as close ties to the NCBC, which is a branch of the Chamber of Commerce.
What it would mean: With Places29 approved, the Western Bypass—a road that got damn close to getting built through a wealthy neighborhood before environmental opposition got in its way—might die for good. There is an outside chance that if that happens, state legislators from Lynchburg could get so mad that the Western Bypass is dead that they pass a bill in the General Assembly that essentially cuts off funding for Places29. Regardless, all of it is moot if the state continues to underfund roads as it has.
The regional transit authority would come online sooner
Background: The regional transit authority would take the bus system out of just the city’s operating hands and create an agency to operate a transit system in both the city and the county. Right now, it’s in the study phase, with the county having upped its investment in the current system in order to show interest in the regional authority. Slutzky in particular has championed this.
Why the change: Boyd and Wyant support the regional transit authority, but Mallek and Joseph are more likely to push harder for it.
What it would mean: Possibly a more enthusiastic and involved approach to the authority. That may help get it done quicker, or it may not, if the true hold-up is with federal or state government.
What stands an outside chance of changing
Supervisors could downzone the rural areas
Background: This is one of the biggest fears of the property rights crowd. A downzoning is about the most drastic measure that could be taken to keep building out of the rural area. It basically eliminates development rights by increasing the minimum size of a lot, which is currently 21 acres. Discussions of downzonings have looked at making lots 50 to 100 acres instead. The Board of Supervisors did it once, 27 years ago. The measure was challenged in court but upheld by the state Supreme Court.
Why the change: Slutzky has said he would do it if he has the votes. Rooker and Thomas have expressed clear and strong interest in keeping development out of the rural area. Joseph says she’s against downzoning, but Mallek has mentioned how many people she has talked to who think it should be a possibility. Right now, building reports show a reduction in building in the rural area, down to 95 for the first half of this year as compared to 260 total last year. But if that turns out to be an anomaly and not a trend, the Board might think the political fallout would be worth it to keep development out of the rural area.
Why it wouldn’t happen: Mallek’s reason for opposing phasing is that it would hit property owners who might need to sell their land, and by that logic, it doesn’t seem likely that she would support a downzoning. Though a lot of people assume that Thomas and Rooker would go along with it, they’ve not said so publicly. Even Slutzky might have previously used it as a rhetorical extreme, knowing it wasn’t a true possibility.
What it would mean: Suddenly, the number of development rights in the county drops by several thousand. Legions would appear at the County Office Building for the public hearing, at least as many would show up as turned out for the rural "protections" hearing in October, and probably a whole lot more. In the months before the decision, a lot of rural land owners will exercise their building rights—county staff will be flooded with applications. Ironically, downsizing is one of the great fears of some locals most dedicated to rural area protections, who are afraid that it would create such a strong backlash that the 1980 downzoning would get rolled back and it would be truly open season for development in the rural area.
THE VARIABLES
These factors could change the picture entirely.
The Slutzky factor
Many see Slutzky as a kind of X factor. With a shift in the make-up of the board, it’s unclear whether Slutzky will join a new majority, or play an opposition role. He’s provided the key fourth vote for many projects proposed for the growth area, most notably North Pointe, and for other measures proposed by Boyd, like joining the Chamber of Commerce. In order to work toward compromise on the rural area question, Slutzky proposed a transferable development rights program that would jointly downzone the rural area and increase the growth area to 6 percent from 5 percent of the county. That plan has drawn a lot of heat, but particularly from the environmental side, as well as from fellow Board member Dennis Rooker. But all along, Slutzky said he was working on that plan in order to try and get something done to protect the rural area. If he feels like he has the votes to do something else—like downzoning—perhaps he’ll go for that instead. What complicates matters is that Slutzky may have higher political ambitions. It’s unclear how that could shape his votes on a reconstituted Board.
The market factor
Since many of the Board issues deal with growth, it remains to be seen what affect the slumping housing market has. As Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council is quick to point out, the supervisors have already approved 16,000 of the 18,000 housing units in the development pipeline. That doesn’t leave many rezonings for a new Board to tackle. But if the market picks up, that could easily change. The slumping market also affects assessments, which affect property taxes—since the county already is underfunding police and other strategic initiatives, it could create a lot of budgeting problems in 2008.
The insider factor
When you run as an outsider, your view can quickly change once you see things from the point of view of the insider and have to deal with all the headaches and entanglements of the job itself. The supervisors have a lot of power, but they are constrained by a state legislature that must grant authority to any zoning innovation, by a federal government that has its own way of doing things, as well as by an independent city, university and water authority. What will happen with a new board will depend on how much Mallek and Joseph moderate—or radicalize—once in power.
Money raised by Board of Supervisors candidates
| District | Candidate | Raised |
| White Hall | Ann H. Mallek [D] | $27,410 |
| White Hall | David C. Wyant [R] | $37,669 |
| Rivanna | Marcia Joseph [D] | $31,488 |
| Rivanna | Ken C. Boyd [R] | $33,313 |
| Scottsville | Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. [D] | $23,850 |
| Scottsville | Dennis King [I] | $5,350 |
| Scottsville | Kevin Fletcher [I] | $575 |
Source: Virginia Public Access Project. Figures are as of September 30.
