Class warfare in Fluvanna

Posted on January 7, 2007 by Jim Duncan

Combined with NIMBY-sim in Fluvanna a few weeks ago. Speaking against a proposed mixed-use development in Fluvanna, a board member of the Lake Monticello Homeowners’ Association stated:

“Townhome developments threaten to become the slums of the future,” Johnson said. (source)

Wow. Arguing against a new development due to increased traffic, necessary infrastructure, environmental impacts is one thing. Arguing from this mindset is totally uncalled for and counter productive.

Affordable housing is a needed product; if more commercial space is needed/wanted, where do the opponents of this development expect the employees to live?

Daniel noted this development a few weeks ago.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

About Jim Duncan

A Charlottesville Realtor who tries to stay on the bleeding/cutting/functional edge of technology and real estate trends. I have been selling real estate for the past 10 years, lived in C'Ville for twenty+ and am married to one of few Charlottesville natives left.
This entry was posted in sideblog. Bookmark the permalink.
  • TrvlnMn

    …where do the opponents of this development expect the employees to live?

    What? They have to live somewhere? What a novel idea. (/sarcasm)

    Give them a quarter of an acre and they think they own the world. (the nimbys)

  • MB

    The author of the Central Virginia article (Nancy Miner) did a good job summarizing the views of the Board members. I hope this gives readers a taste of how myopic views in Fluvanna County are. The same arguments against development get regurgitated at every meeting…traffic, overcrowding of schools, tax burden, etc. My $0.02:

    (1) If the approved amount of commercial space (100,000 sq. ft. I believe) were complete today, there would be 25-50% vacancy. Of the occupied space, 75% would be local mom and pop shops (knick knack shops as the developer calls them) who turn over every 11 months or so.

    (2) Even in its poor health, the commercial space would generate more traffic than 30 townhomes, thereby voiding the traffic argument.

    (3) Citing a general dilike for townhome product is silly, b/c 32 townhomes were approved 0.5 mi away several nights prior, with virtually no opposition from the community, and a unanimous vote by the PC.

    (4) The real travesty of the situation, is the “tax burden and overcrowding of schools” argument. While both would be affected by 30 (final request) townhomes, it’s a drop in the bucket when viewed in light of Fluvanna’s current Cluster Subdivision policy. That is, ANYONE who owns land in the most rural of rural areas in Fluvanna County, may develop it “BY RIGHT” as a residential subdivision. So Southern Development’s Sycamore Square land, which is among the most valuable in the County, was denied residential development. SD can simply buy the cheapest of the cheap, and drop an ungodly number of homes anywhere it wants. The County CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT!!! SD can buy 100ac for $3,000/ac, and put 30-40 sfd homes on it…that’s more than their final TH request (30).

    So yes, townhomes would be a more profitable course for the developer…at least in the short term. But it would have been a much healthier use of land as well. The citizen who predicted townhomes as future slum, can now look forward to kids on skateboards spraypainting boarded-up storefronts. Kudos Fluvanna!

  • Brian

    Has anyone driven through Lake Monticello lately? Much of that area already looks like a slum. I also have no doubt that all of the same arguments were made by long time residents when the lake was developed. Taxes, traffic, crowded schools.