MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just sounds like a free for all chaotic mess not a well planned out area such as Reston Town Center. Who are the council members involved and ok with this? It feels like a bait and switch. I’d say the majority of my neighborhood is unaware of what is on the horizon.

Hand out flyers to all the homes in your neighborhood. Put them on the porch.

The actual details are sufficiently unclear to actually make a flyer. Is this intentional?

Of course it is.

You can still make a flyer to try to get the point across why it's a bad idea to make people upset about it. Title: " Proposed Zoning Changes Will Eliminate Single Family Neighborhoods in MOCO".
County is planning on pushing through significant zoning changes that will increase the zoned density of out neighborhood by 4x. ..... Please contact the planning commission and and our county supervisor to voice your opposition to these proposed zoning changes... List emails for people to send complaints to and provide a link with an email template for people to copy.

My neighbors (some blindly liberal) won't care about any of this. What they will care about is changes to storm drainage, water runoff rules, lot coverage, height restrictions, historic preservation, and tree preservation. Are these all planned to be overridden by this policy, or do we not know?

Rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not change the regulations about stormwater runoff, historic preservation, or trees, because these things cannot be changed through changes to the zoning code. In addition, rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes by itself will not change the regulations about height, setbacks, or lot coverage, although these things can be changed through changes to the zoning code.

The county literally said they are waving setback and lot coverage requirements. They also mentioned during the meeting yesterday, that zoning codes are currently silent on triplex and quadplex units. This means that they will have to write new codes for it and there is no reason to believe that MOCO can be trusted to enforce the same standards on the plex units. Also the recent state changes in law create a loophole for by-right waivers of development standards. Once single family zoning is eliminated the state laws that override local zoning authority will apply to the entire county!!

Can you point to where they said this? The document itself says that they will be retained. I haven't been able to find a recording of the meeting yesterday, but I'm willing to watch all of it to find this statement. I'm skeptical.

They will not be retained, multiple locations in the report suggest otherwise. Page 4 of the report
Development Standards: The Planning Board recommends a series of development standards for small scale attainable housing that generally follows the development standards for detached houses. The Board further recommends that:
o Substandard-sized lots that currently allow single-family detached homes should not have restrictions placed on them prohibiting duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This means they will waive setbacks and lot coverage requirements for undersized lots. The r200 zoning district has 72% undersized lots, so setbacks will no longer apply to most properties if they build plex units.

They are suggesting that the development standards won't apply if it prevents people from constructing a multiplex unit.

I don't think that is a reasonable read of those two things at all.

Development standards includes setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. Should not interfere indicates that planning office (which will write the administrative standards for the by-right zoning ordinance) does not want development of mulitplex units to be prevented due to setbacks or lot coverage requirements. If the standards are not waived, many if not most of these lots will be unable accommodate multifamily units to setback and lot coverage rules.

This is what the report actually says, full quote only:

"Compatibility concerns: The Planning Board heard concerns about the compatibility between existing single-family detached structures and the new attainable housing typologies. The Planning Board
believes the pattern book can serve as a key tool to encourage the physical compatibility of these structures. The Planning Board’s recommendations would allow the creation of duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes by-right only if they follow the contents of a Planning Board-approved pattern book, which when completed, will give guidance on building massing, placement, height, door placement,
parking, and other building features. Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing
types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes."

[Anonymous]

Wow. That is a LOT of power, and a lot taken out of local control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is making money off this and who is pushing this through at such a slam dunk pace?

The first sentence of the report indicates that this process started over three years ago in March 2021.
It also indicates that it will take another year or so before anything is effective.

With no details to be able to evaluate it appropriately, as evidenced by the debate on this thread of what this will actually entail.

My point was that this is not being "pushed through" at a "slam dunk pace." It has been in the works for three years and we are just now at the point where a final report is finalized. There are still multiple opportunities for community engagement. Take a look at pages 54-59. Multiple press releases, outreach to specific neighborhoods and stakeholders, websites, social media campaigns, etc.

It is totally fair to disagree with the report's recommendations. But to say it is happening fast and without opportunity for feedback and engagement is just false. There have been, and continue to be, multiple opportunities to provide feedback, and change the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just sounds like a free for all chaotic mess not a well planned out area such as Reston Town Center. Who are the council members involved and ok with this? It feels like a bait and switch. I’d say the majority of my neighborhood is unaware of what is on the horizon.

Hand out flyers to all the homes in your neighborhood. Put them on the porch.

The actual details are sufficiently unclear to actually make a flyer. Is this intentional?

Of course it is.

You can still make a flyer to try to get the point across why it's a bad idea to make people upset about it. Title: " Proposed Zoning Changes Will Eliminate Single Family Neighborhoods in MOCO".
County is planning on pushing through significant zoning changes that will increase the zoned density of out neighborhood by 4x. ..... Please contact the planning commission and and our county supervisor to voice your opposition to these proposed zoning changes... List emails for people to send complaints to and provide a link with an email template for people to copy.

My neighbors (some blindly liberal) won't care about any of this. What they will care about is changes to storm drainage, water runoff rules, lot coverage, height restrictions, historic preservation, and tree preservation. Are these all planned to be overridden by this policy, or do we not know?

Rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not change the regulations about stormwater runoff, historic preservation, or trees, because these things cannot be changed through changes to the zoning code. In addition, rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes by itself will not change the regulations about height, setbacks, or lot coverage, although these things can be changed through changes to the zoning code.

The county literally said they are waving setback and lot coverage requirements. They also mentioned during the meeting yesterday, that zoning codes are currently silent on triplex and quadplex units. This means that they will have to write new codes for it and there is no reason to believe that MOCO can be trusted to enforce the same standards on the plex units. Also the recent state changes in law create a loophole for by-right waivers of development standards. Once single family zoning is eliminated the state laws that override local zoning authority will apply to the entire county!!

Can you point to where they said this? The document itself says that they will be retained. I haven't been able to find a recording of the meeting yesterday, but I'm willing to watch all of it to find this statement. I'm skeptical.

They will not be retained, multiple locations in the report suggest otherwise. Page 4 of the report
Development Standards: The Planning Board recommends a series of development standards for small scale attainable housing that generally follows the development standards for detached houses. The Board further recommends that:
o Substandard-sized lots that currently allow single-family detached homes should not have restrictions placed on them prohibiting duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This means they will waive setbacks and lot coverage requirements for undersized lots. The r200 zoning district has 72% undersized lots, so setbacks will no longer apply to most properties if they build plex units.

They are suggesting that the development standards won't apply if it prevents people from constructing a multiplex unit.

I don't think that is a reasonable read of those two things at all.

Development standards includes setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. Should not interfere indicates that planning office (which will write the administrative standards for the by-right zoning ordinance) does not want development of mulitplex units to be prevented due to setbacks or lot coverage requirements. If the standards are not waived, many if not most of these lots will be unable accommodate multifamily units to setback and lot coverage rules.

This is what the report actually says, full quote only:

"Compatibility concerns: The Planning Board heard concerns about the compatibility between existing single-family detached structures and the new attainable housing typologies. The Planning Board
believes the pattern book can serve as a key tool to encourage the physical compatibility of these structures. The Planning Board’s recommendations would allow the creation of duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes by-right only if they follow the contents of a Planning Board-approved pattern book, which when completed, will give guidance on building massing, placement, height, door placement,
parking, and other building features. Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing
types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes."

Yes the pattern book section says standards should be "comparable:, which means they do not need to be the identical. Comparable is a very ambiguous term and allows for significant reductions setback/lot coverage requirements. They have not even made the pattern book yet, and this by-right process give the planning department too much leeway to determine standards without transparency on what they will end up being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just sounds like a free for all chaotic mess not a well planned out area such as Reston Town Center. Who are the council members involved and ok with this? It feels like a bait and switch. I’d say the majority of my neighborhood is unaware of what is on the horizon.

Hand out flyers to all the homes in your neighborhood. Put them on the porch.

The actual details are sufficiently unclear to actually make a flyer. Is this intentional?

Of course it is.

You can still make a flyer to try to get the point across why it's a bad idea to make people upset about it. Title: " Proposed Zoning Changes Will Eliminate Single Family Neighborhoods in MOCO".
County is planning on pushing through significant zoning changes that will increase the zoned density of out neighborhood by 4x. ..... Please contact the planning commission and and our county supervisor to voice your opposition to these proposed zoning changes... List emails for people to send complaints to and provide a link with an email template for people to copy.

My neighbors (some blindly liberal) won't care about any of this. What they will care about is changes to storm drainage, water runoff rules, lot coverage, height restrictions, historic preservation, and tree preservation. Are these all planned to be overridden by this policy, or do we not know?

Rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not change the regulations about stormwater runoff, historic preservation, or trees, because these things cannot be changed through changes to the zoning code. In addition, rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes by itself will not change the regulations about height, setbacks, or lot coverage, although these things can be changed through changes to the zoning code.

The county literally said they are waving setback and lot coverage requirements. They also mentioned during the meeting yesterday, that zoning codes are currently silent on triplex and quadplex units. This means that they will have to write new codes for it and there is no reason to believe that MOCO can be trusted to enforce the same standards on the plex units. Also the recent state changes in law create a loophole for by-right waivers of development standards. Once single family zoning is eliminated the state laws that override local zoning authority will apply to the entire county!!

Can you point to where they said this? The document itself says that they will be retained. I haven't been able to find a recording of the meeting yesterday, but I'm willing to watch all of it to find this statement. I'm skeptical.

They will not be retained, multiple locations in the report suggest otherwise. Page 4 of the report
Development Standards: The Planning Board recommends a series of development standards for small scale attainable housing that generally follows the development standards for detached houses. The Board further recommends that:
o Substandard-sized lots that currently allow single-family detached homes should not have restrictions placed on them prohibiting duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This means they will waive setbacks and lot coverage requirements for undersized lots. The r200 zoning district has 72% undersized lots, so setbacks will no longer apply to most properties if they build plex units.

They are suggesting that the development standards won't apply if it prevents people from constructing a multiplex unit.

I don't think that is a reasonable read of those two things at all.

Development standards includes setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. Should not interfere indicates that planning office (which will write the administrative standards for the by-right zoning ordinance) does not want development of mulitplex units to be prevented due to setbacks or lot coverage requirements. If the standards are not waived, many if not most of these lots will be unable accommodate multifamily units to setback and lot coverage rules.

This is what the report actually says, full quote only:

"Compatibility concerns: The Planning Board heard concerns about the compatibility between existing single-family detached structures and the new attainable housing typologies. The Planning Board
believes the pattern book can serve as a key tool to encourage the physical compatibility of these structures. The Planning Board’s recommendations would allow the creation of duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes by-right only if they follow the contents of a Planning Board-approved pattern book, which when completed, will give guidance on building massing, placement, height, door placement,
parking, and other building features. Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing
types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes."

Yes the pattern book section says standards should be "comparable:, which means they do not need to be the identical. Comparable is a very ambiguous term and allows for significant reductions setback/lot coverage requirements. They have not even made the pattern book yet, and this by-right process give the planning department too much leeway to determine standards without transparency on what they will end up being.

I agree with you that nothing has been finalized. The report indicates that the pattern book will take a year and include a lot of opportunity for community input.

Where I disagree with you is the conclusion that the planning department will eliminate lot coverage and setback requirements, when nowhere does it say that. Rather there are a lot of indications that they will be retained.

Earlier in this thread, somebody asserted that they affirmatively made that statement in the hearing. That did not happen.

[Anonymous]

Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just sounds like a free for all chaotic mess not a well planned out area such as Reston Town Center. Who are the council members involved and ok with this? It feels like a bait and switch. I’d say the majority of my neighborhood is unaware of what is on the horizon.

Hand out flyers to all the homes in your neighborhood. Put them on the porch.

The actual details are sufficiently unclear to actually make a flyer. Is this intentional?

Of course it is.

You can still make a flyer to try to get the point across why it's a bad idea to make people upset about it. Title: " Proposed Zoning Changes Will Eliminate Single Family Neighborhoods in MOCO".
County is planning on pushing through significant zoning changes that will increase the zoned density of out neighborhood by 4x. ..... Please contact the planning commission and and our county supervisor to voice your opposition to these proposed zoning changes... List emails for people to send complaints to and provide a link with an email template for people to copy.

My neighbors (some blindly liberal) won't care about any of this. What they will care about is changes to storm drainage, water runoff rules, lot coverage, height restrictions, historic preservation, and tree preservation. Are these all planned to be overridden by this policy, or do we not know?

Rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not change the regulations about stormwater runoff, historic preservation, or trees, because these things cannot be changed through changes to the zoning code. In addition, rezoning to allow duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes by itself will not change the regulations about height, setbacks, or lot coverage, although these things can be changed through changes to the zoning code.

The county literally said they are waving setback and lot coverage requirements. They also mentioned during the meeting yesterday, that zoning codes are currently silent on triplex and quadplex units. This means that they will have to write new codes for it and there is no reason to believe that MOCO can be trusted to enforce the same standards on the plex units. Also the recent state changes in law create a loophole for by-right waivers of development standards. Once single family zoning is eliminated the state laws that override local zoning authority will apply to the entire county!!

Can you point to where they said this? The document itself says that they will be retained. I haven't been able to find a recording of the meeting yesterday, but I'm willing to watch all of it to find this statement. I'm skeptical.

They will not be retained, multiple locations in the report suggest otherwise. Page 4 of the report
Development Standards: The Planning Board recommends a series of development standards for small scale attainable housing that generally follows the development standards for detached houses. The Board further recommends that:
o Substandard-sized lots that currently allow single-family detached homes should not have restrictions placed on them prohibiting duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This means they will waive setbacks and lot coverage requirements for undersized lots. The r200 zoning district has 72% undersized lots, so setbacks will no longer apply to most properties if they build plex units.

They are suggesting that the development standards won't apply if it prevents people from constructing a multiplex unit.

I don't think that is a reasonable read of those two things at all.

Development standards includes setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. Should not interfere indicates that planning office (which will write the administrative standards for the by-right zoning ordinance) does not want development of mulitplex units to be prevented due to setbacks or lot coverage requirements. If the standards are not waived, many if not most of these lots will be unable accommodate multifamily units to setback and lot coverage rules.

This is what the report actually says, full quote only:

"Compatibility concerns: The Planning Board heard concerns about the compatibility between existing single-family detached structures and the new attainable housing typologies. The Planning Board
believes the pattern book can serve as a key tool to encourage the physical compatibility of these structures. The Planning Board’s recommendations would allow the creation of duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes by-right only if they follow the contents of a Planning Board-approved pattern book, which when completed, will give guidance on building massing, placement, height, door placement,
parking, and other building features. Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing
types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes."

Yes the pattern book section says standards should be "comparable:, which means they do not need to be the identical. Comparable is a very ambiguous term and allows for significant reductions setback/lot coverage requirements. They have not even made the pattern book yet, and this by-right process give the planning department too much leeway to determine standards without transparency on what they will end up being.

I agree with you that nothing has been finalized. The report indicates that the pattern book will take a year and include a lot of opportunity for community input.

Where I disagree with you is the conclusion that the planning department will eliminate lot coverage and setback requirements, when nowhere does it say that. Rather there are a lot of indications that they will be retained.

Earlier in this thread, somebody asserted that they affirmatively made that statement in the hearing. That did not happen.

The state laws that override local zoning and require waivers of development standards will kick in if this zoning change is passed. So it does not matter whether the county actually changes them or not, the state law changes passed this year create a backdoor waiver of lot coverage requirements and setback requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

I absolutely have a problem with it regardless of what the organization is advocating for. Unfortunately, the builder / contractor / construction trade groups have too much influence over this process because they benefit the most from zoning changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This just sounds like a free for all chaotic mess not a well planned out area such as Reston Town Center. Who are the council members involved and ok with this? It feels like a bait and switch. I’d say the majority of my neighborhood is unaware of what is on the horizon.

Hand out flyers to all the homes in your neighborhood. Put them on the porch.

The actual details are sufficiently unclear to actually make a flyer. Is this intentional?

Of course it is.

You can still make a flyer to try to get the point across why it's a bad idea to make people upset about it. Title: " Proposed Zoning Changes Will Eliminate Single Family Neighborhoods in MOCO".
County is planning on pushing through significant zoning changes that will increase the zoned density of out neighborhood by 4x. ..... Please contact the planning commission and and our county supervisor to voice your opposition to these proposed zoning changes... List emails for people to send complaints to and provide a link with an email template for people to copy.

Emphasize with bullet points in flyer, that it will worsen traffic, increase school overcrowding, create parking issues for residents, etc.

Here is a image picture for your flyer to get message across that it will be disastrous.
https://flic.kr/p/2pZpdb7

All of the houses have the wrong number of fingers.

Also, whoever used AI to make that image missed an opportunity to blame bike lanes. I hope they do better next time.

And yet shockingly realistic compared to the YIMBY fanfic presented to the council. They mostly just need to photoshop in a bunch of empty buses and cars sitting in traffic.

If that's what you think, no wonder you are not effective at persuading elected officials to your point of view.

In combination with the state level zoning changes. It’s definitely possible to that there will be incompatible development like this.

"incompatible" meaning what?

Means a density that
does not fit with the infrastructure capacity of the community or creates a significant burden on nearby properties. Eg. A 50ft tall 19 unit apartment building, with insufficient setbacks that significantly reduce the sunlight to an adjacent property and creates basement flooding due to increase impervious surfaces and run off. If this development creates a significant impact on the existing neighbors use of the adjacent single story bungalow, it is incompatible.

Since when does a building have a right to not be shaded by an adjacent building?

If a building causes basement flooding in an adjacent building, that's not incompatibility, that's grounds for a civil suit for damages.

Access to sunlight is very important for both physical and mental health. You are basically saying that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless if of how much it harms anyone else. Under your logic, people should people to turn their neighbors house into a practically windowless basement because people have absolute property rights.

If moving into a SFH-zoned neighborhood, people had a reasonable expectation that a new development would not entirely block their sun like this. People's homes for the most part are their single largest investment.

The County Council is not proposing to change the zoning code to "do whatever the hell you want."

If people had an expectation that the zoning code would never change, then that was not a reasonable expectation.

As for blocking the sun, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're having a heat wave. The climate is warming. Shade is a good thing, not a bad thing.

So your rebuttal to this concern is that who care about having natural light because ... climate change. That is the most ridiculous YIMBY response to community concerns I have seen in a while.

Climate change is happening, whether or not you think it's a ridiculous response. Natural light is good, but shade is also good.

I didn't say climate change is no happening. All I said was sunlight is important to public health and it inflicts real harm on neighbors if you significantly reduce their access to sunlight due to your giant building that blocks it,

Maybe? Or maybe it actually benefits them.

^^^Also, speaking of so-called giant buildings, how big do you think a fourplex is? Chances are, it's smaller than any "single-family" McMansion.

With layering of the state laws, it sounds like significantly more (up to 19 unit bldg), or at least an 8 unit bldg could be added in some currently SFH areas.

Why stop at alarmism about 19-unit buildings right next door to your house, when you could instead be alarmist about 190-unit buildings right next door to your house?! Or 1,900-unit buildings?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

[Anonymous]

Could someone point to the state law changes. I am not sure why I didn't hear about these as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you looked up campaign donations for your elected officials?

I'm not in MoCo but the reps where I live were all bought and paid for by various builder / contractor / construction trade groups.

So if Group A made a campaign donation to Elected Official A, that means Group A bought and paid for Elected Official A?

How about me, if I made a campaign donation to the elected official, does that mean I bought and paid for them?

Are the financial contributions affecting public policy? Well, yes, of course that would be an issue.

You don’t have any problem with the gun manufacturers buying politicians through NRA lobbying and political donation?

Well, are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening in Alexandria also.

See you can't trust these ideological zealots. They will use the administrative process to create a backdoor by-right waiver of development standards once the county gives them legal authority to do it.

Assuming that state law authorized it, how would it be a backdoor waiver?

Well it is very dishonest to for planning office to present this as a duplex-quadplex zoning ordinance, without changing setbacks or lot coverage standards when they know that is not how it will actually work. Setbacks will no longer apply in many circumstances due to the numerous exceptions created by recent state law changes.