Many of our Republican Senators and Delegates are strongly supporting House and Senate legislation to reform the proffer process enacted by our local counties. I believe many of our Republican representatives may mean well, as many counties abuse the proffer system for their own corrupt purposes, artificially raising the cost of housing and pocketing proffer profits for general use unrelated to Residential Development.
However, this is an issue that should be taken up with the local Board of Supervisors. If your BOS is corrupt, vote them out and put better representation in – but do not take away the leverage of responsible counties! Developers have been throwing money at Richmond for years, desperately trying to find a way to put off their costs on the taxpayers in the counties themselves and this legislation is designed to do precisely that. If your county cannot acquire just compensation for the cost of new housing (infrastructure costs including fire, ems, police, schools (all costs which increase with new housing)) from the wealthy developers, they will be forced to acquire that revenue from the poor and middle class families already living in the County.
That’s a terrible idea.
While I recognize that many of our Republican Representatives in Richmond are all too aware of the corruption within their county Board of Supervisors and can claim that this legislation is designed to stop that corruption, what evidence do we have that our State Government isn’t simply transferring the corrupt donations from the local county governments to themselves? How do we know that this isn’t their way of getting more direct donations from developers for their own campaigns, as opposed to Developers petitioning members of local governments?
If our local BOS can be corrupted by proffer negotiations, then so can our State Representatives. So I’m not sure what these reforms actually intend to fix, unless this is just another power grab by the State Government.
More importantly, on principle, residential development is a local issue. All of the costs and consequences associated with development are felt by the localities and not the State Government. These negotiations and contracts should remain a local government issue. Richmond should not be deciding who’s on the hook for what in Hanover, Roanoke, Virginia Beach, and Loudoun. Let local government govern itself. If our State Government believes that we think their motives are pure as the driven snow, but our local governments are not, then they are living in a fantasy world of their own design and Virginia Residents know better.
I do not believe that all Republicans supporting this legislation are necessarily doing so out of malicious intent, but I do believe that many of them simply do not understand how local government works, or why proffers are necessary, or how fed up local residents are with paying for development that enrich the developers and merely serve to increase costs to local tax payers.
Please, call your State Senator and your Delegate and talk to them about Proffer Reform. Don’t attack them. Just explain to them that you don’t believe that Richmond should be interfering in local government on behalf of powerful special interests. It’s really that simple.
Here are links to the legislation. Please, act today. Republicans in the House and Senate are already hearing from their constituents and they are ready to pass this legislation at a moments notice. If they do, you can expect your local taxes to go up, but fast. Please reach out to your Representatives and ask them to reconsider.
4 comments
This proposed legislation is a good thing, and it’s been a long time coming. A few facts about cash proffers that should be aired:
1) Cash proffers are a hidden regressive tax. Cash proffers are not measured or calculated as a percentage of the cost of the home, they are supposedly created through a formulaic assessment of the impact the new development will have on a specific public utility or service. If the combined cash proffers for a single family residential unit is $50,000 (as in some counties) that applies to a new home selling for $100k as well as one selling at $1mil.
2) Cash proffers are passed on to the consumer. This idea that local governments are getting money from “rich developers” is nonsense. Unless market conditions suddenly go down and the developer is forced to sell houses at a lower than expected price point, these proffers are almost completely passed on. That means there are only two winners here…local governments and the banks. Why the banks? The banks are able to collect more on interest from mortgages that are artificially inflated due to the passed on proffer.
3) Cash proffers, as they exist today, are facially unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has already said essentially what this legislation proposes…that is, monetary exactions (read “cash proffers”) must have an “essential nexus” to the development, and be “reasonably proportionate” to the impact. Using a cash proffer for school impact to increase the general education fund violates the “essential nexus” test, because, as the proposed legislation says, it does not address the “specific and unique” impact.
You title is backwards. Limited government activists should be SUPPORTING this. It is rare that I am on the side of developers, but this is one of those times. What the local yocals have been doing is legalized extortion. It is government run amuck. It is government taxing developers to get their own pet projects done that have little to no relevance to what is being developed. Once again, we see government take an initially good idea (proffers to build things that impact the immediate area) and use that and corrupt it into something that is just plain wrong.
Here is the actual language. It is worth reading.
“Provides that no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application, including an application for amendment to an existing proffer, for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based on an applicant’s failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer. A proffer shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically and uniquely attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for. An off-site proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to the above unless it addresses an impact to an off-site public facility, such that, (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment, and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial. The bill also provides that certain conditional rezoning proffers related to building materials, finishes, methods of construction, or design features on a new residential development are prohibited.”
The proposed language sounded good until the last sentence. What does that mean?
I don’t know for certain, but it sounds like local governments are requiring builders to use certain kinds of materials in their construction for the development to get approved and are calling it a “proffer” to squeeze it through the legal definition.