Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Bill could expand damages in land use suit; County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
Posted by:
Nova Politics
()
Date: February 01, 2014 03:46AM
Bill could expand damages in land use suit
County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140130/NEWS/140139863/1117/bill-could-expand-damages-in-land-use-suit&template=fairfaxTimes
Fairfax County officials are concerned about proposed legislation that would expand the situations in which plaintiffs can be awarded damages and attorneys fees in land use cases that go to court.
While the bills sound like they would cover rare cases, as they are focused on land use cases that include “unconstitutional conditions,” the county’s legislative and legal staff believe that the language would broaden landowners’ rights to sue the county.
“We are very concerned about this bill,” said county legislative director Claudia Arko.
The legislation is a top legislative priority of the Home Builders Association of Virginia, which Arko said is a powerful lobbying force in Richmond.
The bill stems from a Supreme Court decision on a case from Florida last year, Koontz vs. St. Johns River Water Management District.
That case expanded the definition of an unconstitutional “taking” of private property to include conditions in which a landowner is asked to provide money as a condition of a redevelopment permit — something that is relatively common in land use cases.
Such conditions must be “closely related” and “roughly proportional” to the impact of the applicant’s development, otherwise they can be deemed unconstitutional.
In Florida, state law allows the applicant to be awarded damages, attorneys fees and court costs in cases where a development condition is found unconstitutional, but such a law does not exist in Virginia.
The Home Builders Association wants to extend these rights in Virginia with the goal of pressing localities to keep proffer requests and other conditions within the limits Koontz and a related, prior ruling, according to the association’s legislative position paper.
The language in the proposed state legislation takes the concept even further than the situation in the Koontz case, Arko said, potentially allowing an applicant to agree to a development condition and then later challenge that condition in court.
An impact statement conducted on the House of Delegates version of the bill states that it is virtually impossible to estimate the potential fiscal impact on localities because it would have to assume that unconstitutional conditions are being applied, but states that it could be severe.
“The bill language exposes local governments of the Commonwealth to a new liability,” the report states. “Financial hardship from awards of damages could be crippling.”
The analysis also suggests that the bill may require that local government attorneys spend more time reviewing land use cases to ensure approvals are constitutional.
The House version of the bill passed out of a subcommittee on Wednesday on a 5-4 vote. It was amended in subcommittee, but the amended bill language was not posted to the state legislative website as of Thursday afternoon.
A narrower version of the bill, which does not include as many types of land use permits and waivers as the House bill and places a 60-day time limit on filing legislation, passed out of a Senate committee on Monday with a 14-1 vote and was awaiting a vote in the full Senate.
County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140130/NEWS/140139863/1117/bill-could-expand-damages-in-land-use-suit&template=fairfaxTimes
Fairfax County officials are concerned about proposed legislation that would expand the situations in which plaintiffs can be awarded damages and attorneys fees in land use cases that go to court.
While the bills sound like they would cover rare cases, as they are focused on land use cases that include “unconstitutional conditions,” the county’s legislative and legal staff believe that the language would broaden landowners’ rights to sue the county.
“We are very concerned about this bill,” said county legislative director Claudia Arko.
The legislation is a top legislative priority of the Home Builders Association of Virginia, which Arko said is a powerful lobbying force in Richmond.
The bill stems from a Supreme Court decision on a case from Florida last year, Koontz vs. St. Johns River Water Management District.
That case expanded the definition of an unconstitutional “taking” of private property to include conditions in which a landowner is asked to provide money as a condition of a redevelopment permit — something that is relatively common in land use cases.
Such conditions must be “closely related” and “roughly proportional” to the impact of the applicant’s development, otherwise they can be deemed unconstitutional.
In Florida, state law allows the applicant to be awarded damages, attorneys fees and court costs in cases where a development condition is found unconstitutional, but such a law does not exist in Virginia.
The Home Builders Association wants to extend these rights in Virginia with the goal of pressing localities to keep proffer requests and other conditions within the limits Koontz and a related, prior ruling, according to the association’s legislative position paper.
The language in the proposed state legislation takes the concept even further than the situation in the Koontz case, Arko said, potentially allowing an applicant to agree to a development condition and then later challenge that condition in court.
An impact statement conducted on the House of Delegates version of the bill states that it is virtually impossible to estimate the potential fiscal impact on localities because it would have to assume that unconstitutional conditions are being applied, but states that it could be severe.
“The bill language exposes local governments of the Commonwealth to a new liability,” the report states. “Financial hardship from awards of damages could be crippling.”
The analysis also suggests that the bill may require that local government attorneys spend more time reviewing land use cases to ensure approvals are constitutional.
The House version of the bill passed out of a subcommittee on Wednesday on a 5-4 vote. It was amended in subcommittee, but the amended bill language was not posted to the state legislative website as of Thursday afternoon.
A narrower version of the bill, which does not include as many types of land use permits and waivers as the House bill and places a 60-day time limit on filing legislation, passed out of a Senate committee on Monday with a 14-1 vote and was awaiting a vote in the full Senate.
Re: Bill could expand damages in land use suit; County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
Posted by:
Don't Tread on me
()
Date: February 01, 2014 04:11PM
They should worry, these people need to remember our motto, "Don't Tread on me".
Re: Bill could expand damages in land use suit; County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
Posted by:
G. Washington
()
Date: February 05, 2014 03:03PM
This is so typical of them. Tax and spend, and take away rights. What's next?
Re: Bill could expand damages in land use suit; County’s legal staff ‘very concerned’ about proposed legislation
Posted by:
aging debbie does dallas fan
()
Date: February 05, 2014 05:45PM
it's a SERIOUS claim taking another land by force (threat of police force invoked as facists outside the law, who have weapons: is what your saying)
you didn't say who's land.
you didn't say what complaint of mis-use there was, if any.
you didn't say what the claim of land use is.
all you said was they might
--------------------------
dipshit
"That case expanded the definition of an unconstitutional “taking” of private property to include conditions in which a landowner is asked to provide money as a condition of a redevelopment permit — something that is relatively common in land use cases."
if they inserted their own definitino it's illegal. we all know ones insertions are not law unless passed.
-----------------------------------
at law civil people work together and do not act against civility or one another illegally
---------------------------------
(1) right to take land means "in the public interest". there's no right otherwise. this definitely means being able to find a random person who IS interested, otherwise it's a lie.
(2) with just repayment. there is no ability to take w/o repayment
------------------------------
improper use is a different story. for farms one thing. for carpet storage another.
-----------------------------------
a municipality can borrow money in your name and CAN be sued, under state and federal law, directly as a person
note also that if the municipality borrows in the towns nmae they are legally liable to collect taxes (meaning fairly) to recover the loans: it's illegal for them not to do so upon a beleivable schedule
the rules for suiting a State or the USA are different and stiffer
----------------------------------------
i think i'm hearing "they are boon-doggling using zoing" or attempting to steal park land or attempting to steal land from a white guy who's legally unaware
but i'm unsure what i hear
you didn't say who's land.
you didn't say what complaint of mis-use there was, if any.
you didn't say what the claim of land use is.
all you said was they might
--------------------------
dipshit
"That case expanded the definition of an unconstitutional “taking” of private property to include conditions in which a landowner is asked to provide money as a condition of a redevelopment permit — something that is relatively common in land use cases."
if they inserted their own definitino it's illegal. we all know ones insertions are not law unless passed.
-----------------------------------
at law civil people work together and do not act against civility or one another illegally
---------------------------------
(1) right to take land means "in the public interest". there's no right otherwise. this definitely means being able to find a random person who IS interested, otherwise it's a lie.
(2) with just repayment. there is no ability to take w/o repayment
------------------------------
improper use is a different story. for farms one thing. for carpet storage another.
-----------------------------------
a municipality can borrow money in your name and CAN be sued, under state and federal law, directly as a person
note also that if the municipality borrows in the towns nmae they are legally liable to collect taxes (meaning fairly) to recover the loans: it's illegal for them not to do so upon a beleivable schedule
the rules for suiting a State or the USA are different and stiffer
----------------------------------------
i think i'm hearing "they are boon-doggling using zoing" or attempting to steal park land or attempting to steal land from a white guy who's legally unaware
but i'm unsure what i hear
Fairfax Board should support ESI land use application
Posted by:
Jim Corcoran
()
Date: February 07, 2014 06:50AM
Fairfax Board should support ESI land use application
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140207/OPINION/140209689/1065/fairfax-board-should-support-esi-land-use-application&template=fairfaxTimes
In a large and constantly growing county like Fairfax, construction is a daily way of life for thousands of Fairfax County residents. Right now, though, the future of the construction industry and the ability of Fairfax County to compete with our neighbors is at risk because of something we don’t think about very often: construction debris. Every worksite generates it, and in a county as large as Fairfax, it’s a major issue.
Fortunately, we handle all of Fairfax County’s construction debris right here in Fairfax County, at a local facility in Lorton operated by EnviroSolutions Inc., a regional company based in Northern Virginia. At this facility, all the material from our construction and redevelopment activities is sorted for recycling before being landfilled. The site has decades more life left in it, but the current application for operating the site runs out in December 2018. Right now, ESI has an application pending before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to extend the life of that facility through Dec. 31, 2040. It is critical for our environment and for our future economic development needs to keep this facility open and to extend this contract.
ESI’s application isn’t just to maintain the existing facility. They’ve also included, as a condition to the extension, a commitment to build a renewable energy park to demonstrate the practical application of solar, wind, methane conversion and geothermal energy in a major urban municipal center — one of the first of its kind in Virginia. ESI has also pledged to contribute over $18 million to community development, bringing a total investment by the company of over $32 million right here in Fairfax. Extending the life of this facility is a critical long-term solution that ensures that the county can dispose of its construction debris responsibly. This is a win for the environment, a win for economic development and a win for the taxpayers.
What happens if the board doesn’t grant the application? Nothing good. Closing the local construction debris landfill will create a need to open at least two new transfer facilities where construction debris can be processed before being transported to landfill sites in central Virginia. The added cost of processing the will increase costs of construction and revitalization, put even more trucks on an already clogged Interstate 95 and burn tons of diesel fuel adding to air quality issues in the region. It also hurts our competitiveness because LEED certifications and other environmental certifications include a limitation on the distance traveled for debris as a condition to be certified. With the focus on environmental stewardship that is a keystone of modern corporate social responsibility campaigns, not being able to relocate to a LEED or environmental friendly facility could be a deal breaker for some of our biggest potential relocations.
We strongly urge the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to grant ESI’s application so we can build a better economic and environmental future for Fairfax.
Jim Corcoran
The writer is president and CEO of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140207/OPINION/140209689/1065/fairfax-board-should-support-esi-land-use-application&template=fairfaxTimes
In a large and constantly growing county like Fairfax, construction is a daily way of life for thousands of Fairfax County residents. Right now, though, the future of the construction industry and the ability of Fairfax County to compete with our neighbors is at risk because of something we don’t think about very often: construction debris. Every worksite generates it, and in a county as large as Fairfax, it’s a major issue.
Fortunately, we handle all of Fairfax County’s construction debris right here in Fairfax County, at a local facility in Lorton operated by EnviroSolutions Inc., a regional company based in Northern Virginia. At this facility, all the material from our construction and redevelopment activities is sorted for recycling before being landfilled. The site has decades more life left in it, but the current application for operating the site runs out in December 2018. Right now, ESI has an application pending before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to extend the life of that facility through Dec. 31, 2040. It is critical for our environment and for our future economic development needs to keep this facility open and to extend this contract.
ESI’s application isn’t just to maintain the existing facility. They’ve also included, as a condition to the extension, a commitment to build a renewable energy park to demonstrate the practical application of solar, wind, methane conversion and geothermal energy in a major urban municipal center — one of the first of its kind in Virginia. ESI has also pledged to contribute over $18 million to community development, bringing a total investment by the company of over $32 million right here in Fairfax. Extending the life of this facility is a critical long-term solution that ensures that the county can dispose of its construction debris responsibly. This is a win for the environment, a win for economic development and a win for the taxpayers.
What happens if the board doesn’t grant the application? Nothing good. Closing the local construction debris landfill will create a need to open at least two new transfer facilities where construction debris can be processed before being transported to landfill sites in central Virginia. The added cost of processing the will increase costs of construction and revitalization, put even more trucks on an already clogged Interstate 95 and burn tons of diesel fuel adding to air quality issues in the region. It also hurts our competitiveness because LEED certifications and other environmental certifications include a limitation on the distance traveled for debris as a condition to be certified. With the focus on environmental stewardship that is a keystone of modern corporate social responsibility campaigns, not being able to relocate to a LEED or environmental friendly facility could be a deal breaker for some of our biggest potential relocations.
We strongly urge the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to grant ESI’s application so we can build a better economic and environmental future for Fairfax.
Jim Corcoran
The writer is president and CEO of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce.