THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 12, 1995 TAG: 9502100224
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 235 lines
As the coordinator of the ad hoc Southern Watersheds Committee, whose members are the authors of the proposed Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program, I would like to respond to Beth Barber's column ``ARP's uncrossed t's'' (Bea-con, Feb. 5).
ARP is a voluntary, market-based program. It is not additional regulation and it does not reduce property rights or values. It is an opportunity presented to a farmland owner that is currently unavailable. He may sell his development rights to the city of Virginia Beach and continue to farm his land with an additional amount of capital available to reinvest in his farm. His only option now is to sell land for development.
According to the 1990 Virginia Beach Study by Robert W. Burchell, ``Infrastructure Costs, Fiscal Impacts and Proffer Charges,'' the average annual municipal cost per resident was $610 and the annual school cost per pupil was $3,962. The total annual public costs associated with a single-family detached home were $5,334.
The report also showed that 94.1 percent of the non-farm parcels in the city are residential - a far cry from our balanced and sustainable target of 70 percent. We are 24.1 percent short of our goal for commercial and industrial uses. Continued conversion of farmland to houses only increases that deficit. Farms are businesses which contribute revenue, jobs and product to the local economy and, as Ms. Barber pointed out, use less in services than they pay in taxes.
A 1992 study by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission showed that the only industry sector in Hampton Roads which earns above its national sector average is farming. In fact, last year in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake more farmers looked for land to lease and farm than there was acreage available.
It is time to invest in our local industries like farming and develop more small businesses related to them. The farmland left in Virginia Beach is the most productive, acre for acre, in the commonwealth of Virginia. It is a profitable resource worth pre-serv-ing.
In 1970, the average tax paid per parcel in Virginia Beach was $223. In 1995, the average tax per parcel is $1,446. These are uninflated dollars. In 1970 there were 53,744 parcels in Virginia Beach; in 1995, there are now 133,308 parcels. Today, frequently our children are in portable classrooms behind brand-new schools, traffic congestion makes it hard to plan travels, and the quality of life that made Virginia Beach so attractive is slipping away. This is what all that unchecked development has wrought.
We have suggested funding ARP at $3.5 million per year. That is a cost of $1.66 per month, or $20 a year, to the average Virginia Beach homeowner. You can't join the rec-re-a-tion center or take your family to the movies for $20. Compare that cost to the new Ocean Lakes High School: $4.5 million per year, $2.5 million in debt service and $2 million in operating costs. After 25 years, we will have to renovate or rebuild Ocean Lakes High School and we will still be paying the substantial annual operating costs. After the same 25 years, the ARP will have preserved 20,000 acres of farmland with no further costs and no future tax burdens.
The results of a telephone voter poll were presented to City Council and any citizen who watched the municipal channel on Jan. 3. Of those asked, 72 percent of the voters said they favored a plan like ARP. They also said they would pay for it because they understood that a successful program will keep their taxes down in the future. They agreed that if we don't act now, farms, open spaces and natural areas will be gone for-ev-er.
The 58,000 acres of water, wetlands and preserved lands mentioned in the column aren't included in ARP, but those resources are protected by the adjacent farm use. Compare the health of the developed Lynnhaven River system, with its condemned oyster beds and scarce vegetation, to the lush North Landing River surrounded by farms. Keeping those lands in productive and profitable farming serves to preserve the other natural resources, another high priority of voters; think back to the successful state referendum to buy parks and natural areas.
Only more development will ``further crowd the north,'' with more cars, more kids, more roads and more taxes to pay for them. ARP isn't a ``government restriction''; it's a voluntary alternative for a landowner and a money-saving investment for the taxpayer. It will preserve family farms, help control unchecked residential growth, protect natural areas, keep taxes down and promote local economic development.
Let's just admit that the developers had their two decades of incredible profit during the '70s and '80s and that it is now time to plan to benefit all Virginia Beach taxpayers for the long term. The future of our community is up to us. Come to the public hearings and support ARP.
Mary M. Heinricht
ad hoc Southern Watersheds Committee
After reading Beth Barber's column, I could not help but fear that a few zealots might create enough political pressure to undo what I am convinced is one of the most farsighted land-use and economic-development policy proposals that Virginia Beach has even considered.
The Agricultural Reserve Program creates what has been missing all these years in our debate over land use in the southern end of Virginia Beach: the marriage of compensation for those landowners electing to participate and the prospect for everyone to have reasonable expectations as to the long-term character of the community.
Focusing on the potential price of the program (over many years) without seriously comparing it to the obvious savings unfairly ``cooks'' a description of its value of Virginia Beach. The view of a small but vocal minority in the city is shaped by their inability to recognize that ``our opportunities are shaped by our limitations.''
We must shape our existing tax base to support the quality of life we desire. If we cut back on services, such as education or sewers, our ability to recruit commercially taxable enterprises will be damaged. Some of our schools are already dangerously overcrowded; yet this is one of the economic-development features over which we have con-trol.
There is a way out of this downward spiral and the ARP is one very important step that can help us shape our future rather than continue down the present course.
The ARP allows us to retain as much as we can of the original resource that did attract businesses here in the past.
It allows businesspeople as well as homeowners to plan based on some confidence that short-term political changes won't change the character of the community.
It allows Council to concentrate infrastructure resources to make sure our schools, roads, etc., are as competitive as they can be.
It offers farmers the opportunity to cash in on their equity and still maintain their pres-ent lifestyle.
It is a truly conservative program in that it does not use government power to take away rights in the land, but is totally voluntary. The shrill contention that this is another case of government reducing property rights and values is an example of fueling the fires of public debate with rhetoric which has no foundation in fact.
It allows us to protect the swim-mable/fish-able waters which are the lure for so much of our tour-ist/recreation industry.
It minimizes the negative tax pressure created by current rural home development which needs more in infrastructure than it pays in taxes. Despite the contention that ``pricy houses on large rural lots can, like farms, be net contributors to the city kitty,'' at least one councilman has stated that the value might need to be $250,000 before that happens; and that is not what is happening now. At the same time, the ARP leaves the present zoning in place, which more than meets the needs of the current demand without stimulating large-scale de-vel-op-ment.
Who is opposed? Those who profit from buying farmland for development do not wish to see the ARP competing for this land. It might force them to have to pay more, which would be good for the farmers. Some landowners will join forces with those interests for a while in hope of linking the ARP to changing the present zoning to allow for a greatly expanded number of houses and thereby raising the price - a shrewd strategy, but there is no linkage. Where there is now only one choice, there will be two choices. The taxpayers win. The farmers win.
Jan Eliassen Mr. Eliassen is a member of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission. This article reflects only his personal opinion.
Virginia Beach has been used by urban planners in other areas of the country as a model for how not to plan development.
The Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) currently being discussed by City Council is a welcome contrast to past development policies. It is a means of preventing urban sprawl in the southern part of the city. It will preserve the rural characteristics and natural resources that have attracted many individuals, businesses and industries to our area. It will provide a way of compensate the farmers and property owners so they are not forced to sell to developers, supporting agriculture so that it can continue to be a valuable contributor to the city's tax base.
Common to all plans that have been laid out to preserve Virginia Beach's most valuable resource are those who oppose them purely for selfish reasons. This vocal minority who have much to gain if they are permitted to build, sell and speculate this land are these programs' constant hurdles.
The column by Beth Barber failed to mention one key detail: The ARP is a voluntary program, and therefore allows the farmer to judge its success, not those who will benefit by its failure. Ms. Barber needs to take another more open-minded look at this program, unless, of course, she has aspirations of becoming a Realtor.
Tom Shearer
Virginia Beach
(Following are excerpts a letter to Mayor Meyera Oberndorf, dated Feb. 9, and copied to The Beacon.)
Since early last summer, our organization has carefully followed and studied the proposed Agricultural Reserve Program.
Following the most recent analysis and evaluation of the proposal this (past) week before our Executive Committee, it was the Executive Committee's determination that the proposal contained a creative and in many ways an appealing approach to implement and help maintain a consistent long-term and perhaps permanent land-use policy in the city's southern area. However, there was doubt as to the program's ability to ensure the future viability of the agriculture industry in Virginia Beach. The free market will ultimately determine that.
It was also our opinion that it would be premature for the City Council to hastily adopt and fund an estimated $3.5 million per year concept - which would require an additional tax increase for citizens throughout the city - without first having satisfactory answers to certain questions and concerns.
Among them are the following:
(1) The independent-appraisal process to be used in determining fair-market value to be paid for development rights must be detailed at the outset. It should specify who will hire and select them - at whose expense - and the methodology used in calculating ``agricultural'' and ``land use'' value.
(2) Sample appraisals for three farms of approximate size and distinctly varying soil classifications could be provided as a means of determining perhaps the most accurate cost estimate for this program to taxpayers.
(3) Does the ARP propose purchasing development rights on properties in Soil Areas 3 (generally unacceptable), 3A and 4 - land defined by the Comprehensive Plan as unacceptable for development? If so, why should taxpayers purchase the development right to property that is by definition ``unacceptable for development''?
(4) Will farmland in the northern part of the city be eligible for participation? If not, why not?
(5) Is there a detailed procedure for future reacquisition of development rights? Is the methodology to be the same (as for acquisition of development rights)? Under what circumstances would reacquisition be possible?
(6) What are the various means of payment available to the landowner for conveyance of his development rights? Will all available options be detailed in the proposed ordinance?
(7) What are the specific means by which the city would fund this proposal? Is there a dedicated source for that revenue?
(8) Are there assurances that participation in the ARP by landowners will be truly voluntary? Will the implementing ordinance clearly ensure the retention of present land-use options, and a commitment to initiate no further downzoning restrictions or modifications to the current land-use valuation programs which would, in effect, force reluctant landowners into the ARP?
(9) Will the deed of conveyance of the development rights preclude the city from later condemning the remaining property rights retained by the landowner for another use, such as a school site?
(10) What is the amount of property necessary - the critical mass required - to make the ARP successful and provide for the future economic viability of Virginia Beach's agricultural industry? How many landowners plan to participate and where is their land located?
(11) Will the ARP be evaluated and a recommendation provided to the Council by the city manager prior to a decision to Council?
(12) Will a specific ordinance detailing appraisal methodology, land valuation, funding sources, payment options and legislative intent - generally the concerns cited above - be presented for public hearing prior to a vote by Council to appropriate taxpayer funds to the ARP proposal?
(13) Will City Council seek an opinion relative to the impact of this proposal from its bond counsel prior to a vote?
Our organization feels that answers to these issues nad concerns relative to the ARP proposal are necessary to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place for landowners and taxpayers alike. We believe that citizens and members of Council both should be adequately informed in this regard prior to approval of the plan.
Patrick L. Standing
President, Virginia Beach Vision Inc. MEMO: Related comments on page 6. by CNB