County zoning decisions: who is being selfish?

By John Ellis

In their zoning decisions, some County supervisors seem to apply a double standard that puts the interests of developers above the interests of citizens who are impacted by development.

When developers apply for re-zonings and “special exceptions” that allow them to super-size their projects, supervisors have no concerns about the developers’ motivations.

But when citizens raise concerns about the negative impacts on their safety, quality of life, and tax burdens, they are accused of being “selfish.”

There is a false narrative about “selfishness” that goes like this: some citizens, whether they’ve lived here their whole lives or moved in last year, supposedly want to make sure they’re “the last one in” — preventing everyone else from enjoying the wonderful surroundings and quality of life they already enjoy. 

What this story overlooks is that there are always vacancies in the existing housing stock. New families move in all the time and no one objects. The real objections aren’t about new neighbors, they’re about developments that fundamentally change our surroundings and quality of life, making it impossible for both current and new residents to enjoy what they enjoy today.

When the Board of Supervisors recently approved an application to increase the number of residential units in the “Villages at Clear Springs” project on Evergreen Mills Road from 50 to more than 1,000 (supervisors Tekrony and Umstattd dissenting), supervisors knew that the project will increase traffic congestion, that students in the neighborhood will have to be bussed long distances because the closest schools don’t have enough room for them, that there will be fewer trees and open spaces in the County’s “Transition Policy Area,” and that the County will have to increase spending and taxes to fix those problems.

They are aware that the same things will happen if they approve applications for the “Greenfield Farm” and “Arcola Farm” subdivisions on Evergreen Mills Road and the “Tillett’s View” subdivision in Ashburn. Citizens’ “selfish” desires for traffic safety, effective schools, access to open spaces, and reasonable tax burdens will again be sacrificed to developers’ wishes to pack as many houses as possible into Loudoun’s increasingly tight spaces.

As a result of the “Clear Springs” development alone, the County will need to spend an additional $100-140 million over the next ten years to expand roads and school capacity. It may need to spend even more for parkland, to replace the open spaces destroyed by the development. Of course, it will need to raise more tax revenue to pay for all of that.

Developers and supervisors claim that citizens need to make these sacrifices in order to solve the nationwide affordable housing crisis. We are supposedly doing that by requiring that 15 percent of the housing units in these super-sized new developments be “affordable” to teachers, firefighters, plumbers, restaurant workers and others who make less than the County’s median income.

Of course, this standard means that 85 percent of the new units will NOT be affordable to median income families. It also means that 85 percent of the costs that County taxpayers will have to pay to build more roads, schools and parks will be the result of increasing the number of unaffordable units. In the case of the “Clear Springs” development alone, that will require $85-120 million more in County tax revenues. In other words, our taxpayers will be subsidizing the construction of much more unaffordable housing.

The County has established a goal of providing 16,000 more affordable housing units by 2040. The “Clear Springs” developer has included 196 affordable units in that project, which will move the County a whopping one tenth of one percent toward its goal. Construction of the 881 unaffordable units in this subdivision, of course, will make no contribution at all.

The affordable housing goal, in fact, will be a fantasy as long as 85 percent or more of new residential housing continues to be unaffordable. The actual proportion is higher than 85 percent because nearly 100 percent of new “by-right” housing is also unaffordable. So, from this perspective at least, the sacrifices citizens are being asked to make to accommodate super-sized developments approved by the Board of Supervisors and by-right rural developments approved by no one will be in vain.

To be fair, our supervisors have offered a few more reasons for dismissing the concerns citizens raised about the “Clear Springs” project. Two supervisors said they supported it because it included a regional tennis center that would help diversify Loudoun’s economy. Another said that the project, like the others he has supported, was “a good design.”

The proper questions in evaluating this and other re-zoning applications are: 

• Do taxpayers want to pay even more for bigger roads, schools, and other public infrastructure so that developers can build more unaffordable housing?
• Do citizens want to endure increased traffic congestion, over-crowded schools, and longer school bus routes while they wait for the new infrastructure to be built?
• Do citizens want to get rid of their communities’ green, open spaces?
• Do the benefits of a professionally adequate subdivision design and a private amenity like a tennis center fully offset all those other burdens? 

But these questions will not be considered or addressed if citizens’ concerns are summarily dismissed as simple “selfishness.”

The priorities of the citizens and taxpayers who are impacted by upscaled development should matter. The quality of life for existing and future residents is as important as developers’ profitability. It’s time for supervisors to start taking this more seriously.

______________________________________________________________________________

John Ellis lives near Hillsboro. He is a co-founder and current President of Save Rural Loudoun and serves on the board of the Between the Hills Conservancy.