County to continue study of possible special tax district for Kincora
Thu., May. 5 | 10:14 AM
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/county_to_continue_study_of_possible_special_tax_district_for_kincora898/

Loudoun County leaders will continue to study the potential for a special tax district to help pay for the construction of road projects surrounding a major mixed-use development in Ashburn.

When supervisors approved the Kincora project in July 2010, its developer, Norton Scott, was proposing a Community Development Authority (CDA) to help pay for the extensions of Pacific Boulevard, Russell Branch Parkway and Gloucester Parkway over the Broad Run river.

However, supervisors and some county staff were opposed to the idea, saying it was too risky in the current economic climate.

Now, however, it seems some county leaders may have had a change of heart, partly because Norton Scott has proposed a scaled-back CDA that would not include financing for Gloucester Parkway and portions of Pacific Boulevard.

Instead, the developer has said it plans to pursue a $32 million loan through the Commonwealth’s Transportation Infrastructure Bank to build the Gloucester Parkway extension from the Nokes Boulevard interchange to Loudoun County Parkway and make improvements to Pacific Boulevard.

Supervisors, in agreeing to continue discussions on a CDA, said they believe the project is worth it.

“It is no easy task for them or us in looking at a CDA. It is worthwhile I think that this shows that they’re committed to putting in the road and infrastructure improvements in this area that really would be a significant economic engine in the Route 28 corridor,” Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) said May 3 during a board meeting.

Kincora Village, to be built on 424 acres on Routes 7 and 28, will include up to 2.7 million square feet of office space, as well as commercial retail, two hotels, a performing arts center and 1,400 multifamily residential units. At least 228 of the residential units will be designated as affordable housing.

The board approved a separate application for the 5,500-seat accompanying baseball stadium in July 2009 that will be home to the Atlantic League professional team, the Loudoun Hounds.

However, not all supervisors are on board with the idea of a CDA.

Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) who said he was concerned a CDA could harm the county should it fail, provided board members on May 3 with a list of similar special tax districts throughout the state that are unsuccessful.

“The majority of you on this board who voted for Kincora must have believed that it was a financially viable project or you wouldn’t have voted for it,” Burton said. “If it truly is a good project financially, then the developer should have no problem at all obtaining private financing.”

Comments
Fri, May 06 at 08:54 PM by AICP:


byright-

This is why the county should have had a “good” Comprehensive Plan in place. You set your zoning based on the plan, and then that is it. Hence the term “planning”. The only development allowed is by-right.

The way it is done in Loudoun, with its parcel by parcel rezoning, absent of any sort of master plan for the county (there is one, but what good is it really?), is a large part of why our roads are clogged and we have a development approved for construction at the intersection of two clogged artery roads. Not to mention all of the other projects rezoned over the years that are just sitting on the shelf.

Let us make a real Comprehensive Plan, that is not up for debate after its adoption, that takes into account the reality of our transportation situation and funding projections. Maybe we can avoid post rezoning “Oops, we need money for roads” dilemmas like this in the future.
Fri, May 06 at 02:47 PM by mr. b-ball junkie:


Folks… I just want to kick back at this new fancy stadium, drink my cold beer, eat a dog, and enjoy some of America’s favorite pastime. I really do not care about all the tax issues…blah blah blah.
Fri, May 06 at 02:37 PM by byright vs rezoning:


actually, there is no defensible reason for the board to NOT approve a rezoning, JUST because there is not an ironclad means to pay for improvements like roads. IF the developer proffers (ie, promises, commits) to paying them, in teh manner the proffer says it will (ie, it’s always triggered at some point of development, meaning, after 500 homes are built, because, voila, the profit off those 500 homes is what the developer uses to pay to build the roads). And so, economy tanks, no homes get built, no roads get built. Simple. The state can ALWAYS swoop in and pay for and build a road that is needed, and the proffer SHOULD have a clause for cash in lieu of building by other.

But, back to the main point, the Board CAN deny any rezoning because there is always the byright land development opportunity, they aren’t stopping the owner from his right to develop according to the zoning of the property. Rezoning is asking for more than is currently allowed…it’s tit for tat. You give me more, I’ll give you this. The problem is it’s an upward spiral, the more you give them (density, intensity), the more you need back to offset the rising impacts…and so it’s hard to ‘get ahead’ of the game, as the developer of course is always going to try to get the best of the deal, and the County tries the same, but only one can truly win…and there’s the rub. The conspiracy theorist believe the Board is on the take when they view the developer getting the sweetheart deal. It’s always gravy for the developers, why do you think they seek rezonings? for the betterment of Loudoun? HA.
Fri, May 06 at 12:59 PM by corrupt politics at its best:


Wake up Loudoun, what’s there to study? Part of purchasing the land and building this development is planning and paying for roads. There is no way in He!! the BOS should have agreed, if this developer didn’t have the plan to pay for the roads.
Fri, May 06 at 12:08 PM by by-right vs. upzoning:


what the public doesn’t understand (note I didn’t say “know”, because it’s all public information that anyone interested can easily find out) is that all land/property has certain development rights - that’s the base level of development, better known as the “by-right” development options. All land is zoned for some uses, there is no ‘un-zoned’ land in Loudoun County. The lowest and most basic zoning would be agriculture.

Now, the uproar we always hear about is when a developer comes forth with a “rezoning”, where he’s proposing some development that needs a zoning district higher and more intense than what the land currently has. This is an upzoning, and with this comes what are called “proffers”, or committments and contributions meant to offset the higher impacts of the more intense development being proposed. This is where the County gets commitments to get $$ for road improvements, sites for schools and parks, etc.

So, the BOS has to then consider, do we like the new proposal and all the things the County would get ($$ for roads vs. far more car traffic due to the new intensity), OR, do we prefer the ‘by-right’ development and the impacts that will brring, but understanding that the developer could go and do that development tomorrow, and the County would get NO money, no school sites, no extra anything.

So, when I hear you folks b*tching about the Board allowing run away development, it sure doesn’t sound like you understand that it’s a question being posed to teh Board (and the county as a whole, in fact) of what do you want - the current by-right (let’s say it’s basic one-story office buildings, blah) or do you want a dynamic mixed use town center with parks, trails, water features, and millions in contributiosn for road improvements, parks, schools, environmental preservation, etc.

Many people think Loudoun is pretty ‘cookie-cutter”, but if all the rezoned and planned communities (Ash Village/Farm, Brambleton, Lansdowne, Belmonts, etc.) had instead been developed per the base existing zoning, then THAT would be cookie cutter. You actually don’t know how good the development pattern has been, compared to what it could have been w/o the vision of higher level development. Yes, this brings more traffic, and I’m teh first to agree that the road network has not kept up w/ the development….but recall, roads are a VDOT function, and all the roads that HAVE been built by developer proffers, those otherwise would have had to been built by the state…yes, they all wouldn’t have been needed w/ less intense development, but there would have been by-right development none the less…so, please keep all this in mind when you blame everyone else for what you feel is the end of civilization.

Travel around the US to some other rapidly growing areas, see if they are doing any better, and be sure to recognize their tax structures and so forth before making the comparisons. If NOVA got the % of tax money to have the roads built by VDOT that it should, well, our world would be a lot ddifferent, for the better. but NOVA is the cow feeding the rest of the state, and until that is cured, behind the curve we’ll be on the roads.

hope that helps
Fri, May 06 at 10:47 AM by waya:


Is there no end to businesses getting tax breaks while year after year, us peons are told we need our property taxes to go up!?!? I’ll vote for anyone who agrees to hit these businesses with the taxes they deserve to pay! Any candidate who sides with them. . .can get kicked to the curb.
Fri, May 06 at 10:41 AM by West Ender:


@Laugh-

I’ll look into this - thanks for the heads-up. Anyone who is strongly pro-development will not get my support… period.

It’s not that I’m opposed to all development in this county - it’s that I believe we need to have a balanced approach that places citizen input and impact far above developer wants and needs. I don’t think that’s happened very often in this county during the past several years.

I think much of what we have seen has been all about developer greed, and what secret, smoky-back-room deals our BoS has been able to get away with at taxpayer expense. While I don’t have proof, I’m far from doubting that more than a few developers have provided “contributions” and other “offers” that have wound up in the back pockets of some people who have been instrumental in putting together these deals. Something isn’t right when the interests of citizens and residents are ignored while developers are given the green light to make millions.
Fri, May 06 at 09:45 AM by Curley:


I like teepees and bicycles.
Fri, May 06 at 06:29 AM by Sterling:


Great, $4.10 gas and now more taxes if you live near Kincora. Do they ever stop raping the middle class around here?
Fri, May 06 at 06:22 AM by Laugh:


If posters like West Ender has a shred of honesty, West Ender would be attacking Ken Reid, the out of control pro-developer member of the Leesburg Town Council, who is running for the Board of Supervisors. If Ken Reid gets on the Board, we will see him voting for every developer project, while taking their money.
Thu, May 05 at 08:40 PM by escortbrisbane:


Hi! I’m Jenny from Australia. Can anyone here tell me what this is all about in simpler terms? Thanks!
Thu, May 05 at 07:15 PM by Tim D.:


Do the handouts to the developers ever end in this county?

The rezoning never should have been approved in the first place if these clowns weren’t pledging to make the necessary transportation improvements. I mean look where it is. That area needs improvements now. Let alone when you add more vehicles to the load. The Planning Commission staff who recommended the application be approved should resign.

Now, yet again, the tax payer will be called upon to clean up the mess after the wealthy folks take what they need. Absolutely disgusting.
Thu, May 05 at 02:44 PM by West Ender:


@AshburnMan -

Just the opposite. I’m opposed to all sorts of government waste - whether it be hand-outs to lazy welfare recipients or hand-outs to large greedy companies.

At the end of this entire Kincora mess, public taxpayer money will be used in a manner that solely benefits a greedy few at the top of a development company that couldn’t care less about the standard of living or lifestyles of Loudouners.

I would find it very difficult to believe that Norton Scott would give a care about how much traffic, pollution, or over-development his monstrosity creates. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how much more money is made. Why do you think that the developers want to push costs into special tax districts for us to pay instead of spending their own money?

If Kincora is going to be so profitable, then let those who are going to make the profits pay 100% of the costs to offset the negative impacts their actions will have on the community. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable position to take, unless one is in favor of mass corporate welfare.

Baseball teams and stadiums are fine amenities to have, provided that they act as good neighbors and pay their own way. Historically that has not happened with any sports team - professional or otherwise. And our Board of Supervisors certainly hasn’t taken adequate action to ensure that it happens here - with either the Loudoun Hounds or Kincora. These entities are bad neighbors looking to sit down and gorge themselves at the public trough, and I for one am opposed to letting them take those types of actions.

We’re seeing an alarming trend toward the over-development of Loudoun County and have been for years.

We see Bob the Builder out in Purcellville, who tries to pimp out the Town to developers like a cheap whore at any opportunity… while the citizens suffer the destruction of green space and endure increased traffic on roads that are already well above capacity during rush hours.

We see the Board of Supervisors who appear to welcome useless developments and have an apparent desire to allow developers to foist their costs upon the public. We see inadequate roads, poor planning, rising taxes (sure, the rate went down this year only after it had gone up in previous year)... All of this points to failed leadership (and likely some very large “contributions” to some on the Board from developers).

Kincora should not have been approved without a plan in place for the developer to build the infrastructure to 100% offset the negative impact of his development using private funds (no taxpayer money) obtained from private sources (not funded by taxpayer-money-backed loans). It’s just that simple.

With the viscousness of your personal attack and apparent lack of understanding and perspective on the situation, I’m left wondering exactly who you are. Are you one of the developer’s representatives, or just the guy who wants to be in the Hounds costume to pee on the patrons?
Thu, May 05 at 02:44 PM by Newbie:


@AshburnMan. WestEnder may be everything to say he is but I had to laugh out loud
Thu, May 05 at 02:37 PM by Jarhead:


It’s outrageous! Traffic is already bumper to bumper!

Get real the county or the Private Developer doesn’t have the funds to pay for all of this.

It’s a disaster and we all will pay and suffer the extra traffic, etc…

I am moving to the South as Soon as I can!
Thu, May 05 at 01:32 PM by AshburnMan:


West Ender is a sick green activist that would prefer we live in teepees and ride bikes instead of cars. His last comment exposes the vulger mind of a liberal.
Thu, May 05 at 12:40 PM by West Ender:


The Loudoun Hounds… The only professional baseball team whose mascot will come pee on your shoes and hump your legs during the game. Perhaps then the public will understand through those actions what the developers of Kincora and those who support them think of the public.
Thu, May 05 at 12:26 PM by Sad State of Affairs:


You might as well just change the name of this paper to The Casey Group Times. You keep pushing all of their clients- Lexington Seven, Kincora and the Loudoun Hounds (nice shot of the stadium again, how many times have we seen that). Oh yeah, they also shill for your part owner Bill Dean.
Thu, May 05 at 12:26 PM by West Ender:


@nothing is ever free:

Spot on analysis.

The only thing I would suggest, though, is that if these roads are paid for by the developer who passes these costs along to tenants there is a way for the public to avoid getting hit with them. Simply don’t patronize the shops that choose to build there. That’ precisely what I plan to do with businesses that inhabit this monstrosity.
Thu, May 05 at 12:15 PM by nothing is ever free:


Burton gets ripped, justifiably so, for many things, but he’s spot-on w/ concern over this. I hope the open discussion of this CDA proposal puts to an end to the myth that Kincora ever was going to pay for these roads itself. There plan was always to use either residential homeowners or commercial tenants to pay for these roads…that’s not “free” folks, that’s someone else paying them. If commercial tenants, then they simply pass off those costs to all of us in their products. And, if they should get this loan from the TIB, that’s US, the taxpayers, paying for it upfront.

Now that the kum ba ya moment has long faded, the dirty little facts come out for further scrutiny. And of course, opposition to this CDA will be deemed a waste of the prior time and efforts on all parts, and a ‘standing in the way’ of promised economic development. Only the no-votes on Kincora, like Burton, have the ability to say “I told you so” now…and he’ll ride it for all it’s worth.
Thu, May 05 at 12:12 PM by tim:


How about studying how screwed up traffic is going to be instead? I love waxpool, 28, and 7 now. Can’t wait till this thing is built and an extra 5000 cars hitting those roads.
Thu, May 05 at 12:12 PM by West Ender:


So let’s see…

A developer is going to get a low interest loan from the state using taxpayer funds to build this development.

The same developer is asking that a special tax district be created to collect even more money from taxpayers to help him offset some of the costs of building this development.

And this very same developer is going to make a killing with sales and lease agreements, putting even more money into his pocket at the public’s expense by creating additional sewer, water, electric, transportation, etc. needs.

Sounds like a great deal… for the developer, that is.

The developer should face all of these costs on HIS OWN, without the use of special tax districts, low interest public funding loans, or anything else of the like. Say what you will, but Burton has this spot on—if the project is profitable enough for the developer to do it, he shouldn’t have to rely upon taxpayer funds. No welfare for an unwanted and unneeded development.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at moderator@timespapers.com.