Say no to Avendale
Elena Schlossberg
2010-01-07 23:01:25
Once again, developers are proposing to solve our transportation problems by building more houses. Once again the target area is the Rural Crescent, where the Avendale development would increase residential densities from 12 to 295 homes if approved by supervisors.
Let’s do a recap of the recent financial bloodletting in the real estate market for Prince William County. With thousands of homes still in foreclosure and more than 30 THOUSAND approved new homes still unbuilt, it’s fair to say that a lack of housing is NOT an issue for Prince William County.
Adding insult to injury, these unneeded new homes are proposed for the county’s “protected” rural area. Why is the Rural Crescent the most valuable land use tool this county can claim? Because it establishes a rural area with lower population densities, reducing the need to invest precious limited tax dollars for infrastructure.
Every citizen benefits, from west to east, by NOT having to invest tax dollars to build new roads, new schools, new hospitals, etc. in areas far from the county’s population centers. Instead, the county should invest our resources in areas where we get the biggest bang for our buck – the
development area.
However, developers have asked the Board for special consideration to build MORE homes in areas that don’t make sense. Considering the county’s current housing glut as well as the economic climate (both the county and the state are broke), you have to ask yourself, WHY would Supervisors approve this proposal.
This logic would be the same as going on a diet by eating MORE fattening food. Ah, if only, that could be true (audible sigh) However, living in reality, I realize that eating MORE food will not help me lose weight … just as I understand that building more homes and dismantling an effective land use tool, the Rural Crescent, will NOT solve the county’s infrastructure deficit.
Chairman Stewart and Supervisors May, Principi, and Stirrup understood these concepts when they all signed the Rural Crescent Pledge during the last election cycle. Now, two years later, citizens are depending on them to follow through and honor their campaign promises.
When supervisors vote on the Avendale proposal on Jan. 12, I am hopeful they will vote to support effective long-range planning and limit future, unnecessary costs to taxpayers by voting to deny Avendale.
Elena Schlossberg
Haymarket