Letters to the Editor

 

Plan ‘legitimizes what is undesirable’

 

To the Editor:

Thank you for your front-page coverage on Sept. 30  of the “Zoning Amendment to Restrict the Parking of Vehicles on Unpaved Surfaces and Limit Paved Parking Surface Areas Within Yards in Certain Residential and Planned Development Housing zoning Districts,”  which is before the Planning Commission. 

That title is a mouthful, and Jason Jacks was absolutely correct to report that I voiced concern that the ordinance may prove ineffective. The title gives the impression that the excessive number of vehicles on residential properties will disappear after adoption, but that is not the case. Read the proposed language carefully, and you’ll find that it does not eliminate a large number of vehicles and RVs from parking on the side and back yards. For example, in Sterling Park you could have a 40-foot paved parking lot running across two residential lots, without any green space between lots.

My reasons for insisting that this item be deferred to a work session for further discussion two-fold:  to give Loudoun residents the opportunity to read and respond to the Ordinance amendment as it is currently proposed by staff, and to request that another notification be sent out to the Potomac-Sterling Outreach participants given that the first notice was only sent one week before the public hearing. (It appeared rather strange that only two residents spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing, given the huge malcontent exhibited at last year’s Potomac-Sterling Outreach meetings.) 

I was glad to have the commission agree to schedule a work session on the item, rather than rush to adopt it immediately after the hearing. Since then, a more diverse and representative response has been received from the public. The question remains, should Loudoun’s citizenry be afforded another opportunity to voice its opinions, either at a community input session or a second public hearing?

The problem of over-parking on residential lots is a very serious one. With it come health and safety concerns and the ability of fire and rescue to access property where gallons of gasoline are parked all over front lawns or where boats, pontoons and other RVs block the line of sight. Residential communities were not planned to have front, side and backyards serve as parking lots. Green space is necessary not only from a visual and marketing perspective but an environmental one as well. 

Something to consider is whether any additional green space should be converted to parking area and whether residents should have to obtain a permit to put down more impervious surface. Permitting would allow some oversight that design and construction are acceptable while at the same time provide a new source of tax revenue.

And should the ordinance apply only to residential communities or be extended to the A-3 districts of Eastern Loudoun, as a Broad Run resident suggests, where there are no HOAs? There are additional problems in the proposed amendment such as inconsistencies in the length of time, 24 or 48 hours, for “temporary” parking on unpaved surfaces, and what constitutes temporary parking. Enforcement questions persist also.

But the most problematic part of this proposed ordinance, as I see it, is how the zoning staff perceives it. In their own words, “Staff does not recommend limiting the number of cars that should be permitted to park in the front yard. Staff has not considered paving limits based on the house footprint . . . the proposed regulations, as currently written, do not limit the amount of paving that can be provided in the side and rear yard.”

Was the intent of the citizens to transform front, side and back yard green spaces into more asphalt, concrete and gravel so that vehicles and RVs could be more easily and legally parked there? 

That’s not what I heard when I attended the Potomac-Sterling Outreach meetings.

After waiting for over a year, meeting participants have been tricked by the title of the proposed amendment (and maybe that’s why so few people came to the public hearing) to believe that it will solve a lot of problems whereas it legitimizes exactly what is undesirable.

While I understand the community’s rush to have an ordinance in place, my job is to scrutinize these proposals so that unintended consequences have been weeded out. More work needs to be put into this proposal so that when it goes before the Board of Supervisors, it’s a smart law, and one with enforcement capability.

 

Helena Syska

Sterling District Planning Commissioner

 

 

Shafted Again

To the Editor:

Having lived is Sterling for over 30 years, I am well aware of the history of the Dulles Toll Road. Before the Toll Road was built, many Fairfax and Loudoun commuters would take the Dulles Access Road to the airport, turn around and drive on into Washington via the Access Road. Technically illegal, but with an underutilized highway in their backyards and traffic jams galore on Route 7, who could blame them?

Then the politicians got a bright idea - they would build s commuter road parallel to the Access Road, but unfortunately, it would have to be a toll road in order to pay for its construction. At the time, the politicians promised that once the tolls collected were enough to pay for the construction of the road, the tolls would be eliminated - that was part of the "deal" put to the voters in Fairfax and Loudoun.

Well, the Toll Road was such a success that it paid for itself ahead of schedule. Did the tolls come off? No. They decided to widen the Toll Road, which was not really a bad idea, and the tolls remained. At the time the toll at the Route 28 entrance (the only one in Loudoun) was 35 cents, the toll at all the Fairfax County entrances was 25 cents, and the toll at the Main toll gate was 50 cents. And this money was sufficient to cover widening of the Toll Road. Again, did the tolls go away? Again, No!

Recently, the Toll Road was turned over to the Airports Authority, which immediately raised all the tolls - all entrances now 50 cents, and the Main toll gate 75 cents. The money now is to go to build Metro out to Dulles. The people got shafted again.

And now along comes Fairfax Supervisor Cathy Hudgins objecting to the use of some of this money to improve Route 606 in Loudoun. "What's collected in Fairfax should stay in Fairfax," she says. What Hudgins is intentionally ignoring is the fact that a significant percentage of the tolls collected in Fairfax (especially at the Main Gate) are collected from residents of counties other than Fairfax, principally folks from Loudoun, but also some from as far away as West Virginia.

As to all the politicos who promised to remove the tolls once the Toll Road paid for itself, I only can wonder if they ever heard of the word "conscience." They have proven themselves to be a bunch of liars.

Lou Alfano

Sterling

 

Geurin Supports Tom Rust for Delegate

To The Editor:

I recently received some misleading propaganda from the Democratic Party of Virginia criticizing Delegate Tom Rust, who has worked hard for eight years to improve Virginia’s education funding.

The Loudoun County School Board commended Mr. Rust in 2004 for “his vision, leadership and perseverance” in voting to provide additional state funding to Loudoun County.” Loudoun County schools received $6.8 Million in additional funding, which helped us compliment local funding of the school budget. Tom Rust has directly lessened the burden that falls to Loudoun property tax payers by supporting the most far-reaching education financing reform of a generation in 2004.

The most egregious statement is where Tom Rust’s opponent claims he will get “our share” of school funding”. He fails to mention that he voted to cut schools by $34.2 million in local transfer just seven months ago. So, one should ask — who really supports our Loudoun schools?

Since 2005, Delegate Rust’s actions have brought a 97.8 percent increase in state funding to Loudoun County schools, while our enrollment grew by 38 percent The positive changes to our school system balance sheet total $98.2 million over a five-year period.

The idea that we are not receiving our “fair” share or that Tom Rust has cut funding to local schools while in Richmond is factually incorrect. The truth matters. It matters more than partisan politics.

Tom Rust is a strong advocate for Loudoun County parents, their schools and our efforts to improve student achievement. His support for improved state funding of education is a hallmark of his service as our delegate. Tom knows our Sterling Park schools, he knows our community. He is not a stranger to us. Tom will continue work to help us meet the challenges to improve student learning and prepare them for a bright future.

The Loudoun Education Association, the Fairfax Education Association and the Virginia Education Association have each endorsed Tom for re-election. These three teacher associations recognize Tom’s value to education.

I have worked closely with Tom Rust since he was first elected as our delegate. He deserves the support of all voters who are truly interested in schools.

J. Warren Geurin

Sterling District

Loudoun County School Board

Poisson has Achieved Nothing in Richmond

To the Editor:

Lately, I’ve been pounded with negative campaign fliers from Delegate David Poisson. Not recalling that Mr. Poisson was prone to go negative, I thought a glance at what he did last session might help me understand why he isn’t talking about his legislative or voting record.

Well, it didn’t take long for me to find out why Poisson has gone negative. It appears he holds the distinction of being the only legislator in the House who did not pass ONE bill to benefit his constituents over the past two years! Rather than a record of success, I’d categorize this as an abysmal failure by a caboose politician who seems still to be searching for his office in Richmond.

Things got worse when I reviewed Poisson’s voting record. He voted multiple times for the Abuser Driving Fees, a centerpiece of a bill ruled unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court. These were fines of up to $900 for offenses such as running stop signs – but only on Virginia residents, not out-of-towners. In addition, Mr. Poisson pushed legislation to mandate that government-issued mileage readers be attached to our cars so he could tax us by the mile.

Further research demonstrated that Mr. Poisson has supported any and all increases to your taxes, levies, penalties, surcharges, fees, fines, etc. In short, Poisson’s dirty secret – one he is now attempting to hide behind a barrage of negative campaigning – is that he wants nothing more than to get his hands on your hard-earned money!

I guess this revelation shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since Poisson has campaigned passionately for the public option and government run healthcare, “cap and tax” legislation and other far-left policies designed to extract your property for the collectivist ideal. Thanks … but no thanks!

I ask Poisson, to take me off your negative campaign mailing list; I get enough junk mail as it is. I’d rather spend my time working to elect a leader who will actually represent us and influence positive change to create jobs and ease traffic instead of growing government. Which is why I’ll be supporting Tag Greason for Delegate this November.

Jack Ryan

Ashburn

Home-based Businesses Add Value to a Community

 

To the Editor, 

The Countryside Proprietary has existed for 25 years as a "home business friendly" community, in sharp contrast to other local HOAs.

In that time, very little, if any, enforcement action has been needed, and in general, the County home business laws have been the governing rules here, in spite of an ambiguous clause in the Countryside guidelines.

Recently, the Proprietary Board of Directors (BOD) has embarked on a campaign to strictly limit the definition of an allowable home-based business. Please note that this development is not due to a single homeowner complaint. This is apparently an attempt to further define the existing rules. In other words, just more regulation that virtually nobody, outside of the current BOD, has asked for.

This capricious action will put many, if not most, of the well-established and responsible Countryside home-based business owners into a non-compliant condition. Many of these businesses are located in Countryside, due to the tolerance of the Proprietary in the past.

Let's take a look at what a responsible, county-compliant home business brings to the community. The advantages outlined below are usually and conveniently ignored by those who want to impose further arbitrary limits on home business owners.

Other homeowners in the Countryside community (and elsewhere) who are not home based business owners should look at ALL of the facts, before jumping on the bandwagon of the anti-business crowd.

INCREASED SECURITY: Home businesses are the "eyes and ears" of the community during business hours. Home business owners keep watch on the activities of solicitors, contractors, and other community traffic. Their movement during the day lets other people know that there is someone around. I have stopped teenagers from breaking into my neighbors house, simply be being here and aware of the noise. A "commuter" community is empty during business hours, and much more vulnerable. 

TRAFFIC REDUCTION: Home businesses keep cars off the road. For each full-time home business owner in Countryside, that's one less car on Algonkian Parkway/Route 7/Route 28 during rush hours.

GOING GREEN: Less traffic means less pollution, less energy used, less time wasted, less environmental impact, less demand for road construction, less demand for office space. The Countryside BOD is wholly out-of-step with society at large. 

HOME VALUES INCREASE: By being home business friendly, we increase the pool of prospective home buyers, some of whom specifically need to have a tolerant HOA environment. They may even be willing to pay a premium to get it. According to news reports, we've already lost one sale to a frustrated home business owner. How many more? Add the reduction in crime aspect as it affects home values, and overall, we are all better off with "county compliant" home businesses in our neighborhood.

LEGAL COSTS: With regulations also comes the time and money spent enforcing them by the BOD and the Proprietary staff. Home business owners who rely on their businesses to survive will push back legally. As such, they will be requiring the Proprietary to allocate REAL resources to an issue that has not been a problem in the past, and has not generated complaints, cost or work. It will now.

Maybe some of the "legal freedom" foundations, many head-quartered locally, would relish the opportunity to pursue this as a restraint of trade issue. There is also the issue of arbitrary and selective enforcement. Is the Proprietary willing to underwrite the attorney costs in these kinds of legal battles and then pass them on to YOU? Further, what might be the cost of losing such a suit? It's an open-ended risk that we do not currently have (or need) as a community.

RESPONSIBILITY: Most home business owners take pride in their homes.

They have to. That's where they work. That's where they meet clients.

They are part of the responsible fabric of the community.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: If we start forcing out the home based businesses that are already here, then who will be your new neighbor? Maybe an offsite landlord that wants to "apartmentalize" the house next door, then rent it to half a dozen or more un-related adults, against all county codes and regulations? That's already been happening here.

ENFORCEMENT: What kind of community do you want to foster? One that is so intolerant that it would drive away well-established home based business owners who have never once generated a single complaint in many years of doing business here? Again, to what end with all of this?

Lastly, we have not heard one word from the Countryside BOD with respect to enforcement process or penalties. One curious question is this: Exactly who is willing to begin the harassment and shut down process against home based business owners who are an established part of this community? The person who is willing to do that is certainly not a person that I want representing me on the Countryside BOD.

Therefore, with Countryside BOD elections on the horizon, many of us would like to know just exactly where the candidates stand on this issue, and if the candidate is willing to take on that exact role, as these new regulations would require. What kind of community do we want to foster?

As a 19-year resident of Countryside, we have found this to be a well-run, pleasant community that is quite tolerant and even supportive of home-based businesses. We understand that serving on the BOD is a huge commitment of time, on behalf of the rest of us. I sincerely thank all those who have served.

Yet, substantial assumptions have been made about what is needed here, with no input from the home business community, or the community at large. Instead, we've suddenly been presented with "proposed" regulations that are, to put it mildly, onerous. As Countryside residents, we really do not have to mirror what's been done in Cascades and Landsdowne. Countryside can take the tolerant lead here.

No damage has been done yet. We can easily continue the status quo that has worked well for 25 years, by simply stating that our own home based regulations will mirror those of the county. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what we've had until now as de facto enforcement, very successfully. Anything more threatens many established businesses, many of whom are afraid to come forward and speak out during this review period, lest they expose themselves to enforcement action later.

This is not the Countryside that I've lived in for 19 years. Why now, and to what end do these proposed rules accomplish? Nobody is complaining. And just exactly who wants to enforce these new and onerous rules against their neighbors, putting the out of business or out of the community?

 

Dirk Johnson

Countryside