By Roger K. Lewis
Saturday, January 21, 2006

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), in his first address to the General Assembly, this week proposed controls on growth and development in the commonwealth. To slow urban sprawl and relieve traffic congestion, the new governor intends to introduce legislation that, for the first time in Virginia, would empower county and municipal governments to block residential development if transportation network capacity is deemed inadequate.

Many landowners and home builders in Virginia, a strong property-rights state, consider this proposed policy radical, perhaps even immoral. But many residents welcome it. In fact, although the legislative aims reflect worthwhile intentions, they seem overly reactive and insufficiently proactive. The risk is that they will end up stifling rather than shaping growth.

Kaine's proposal would require developers to submit traffic impact analyses when they seek rezoning. New measures also would include bolstering state oversight and management of transportation planning and spending.

The governor was on the money when he spoke about initiatives to "better link land use and transportation planning," initiatives that would not "allow uncoordinated development to overwhelm our roads and infrastructure."

"Over the long term," Kaine told the General Assembly, "the most important single change we can make is to reform the way we plan at both state and local levels." He added, "Our current system, in which local governments make land-use decisions and the state follows behind with transportation planning and funding, creates a situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing."

This is potentially good news. Growth management -- call it smart growth -- undertaken jointly by state and local governments is long overdue, especially in Northern Virginia.

The bad news is that, while the governor's diagnosis is generally correct, his solution focuses too much on what not to do. The language about development and growth is not about wisely directing it, but rather about slowing it, curbing it, even halting it.

In advocating more investment in transportation projects, especially adding lanes or building new roads, the governor has missed the opportunity to tie transportation investments much more explicitly to state, county and municipal land-use policies and practices.

Why not do more than just curtail growth and widen roads? Experience has shown that the former drives up housing prices while the latter may relieve traffic problems only temporarily.

Why not undertake statewide initiatives that will genuinely promote managed growth, that mandate comprehensive, integrated land-use and transportation planning at both local and regional levels?

Unlike Maryland, where the state charter grants substantial governmental autonomy to local jurisdictions, Virginia retains considerable authority over localities, more strictly limiting the regulatory powers of counties and municipalities.

But this presents Kaine with a special opportunity. Under its constitution, Virginia could adopt the kind of bold legislation required to achieve what the governor cited as the most important and necessary change: planning reform at both state and local levels, linking land use and transportation planning.

Half the battle could be won if the state simply insisted on timely cooperation and coordination among land-use and transportation planners within a region, and also among regions. To further this effort, the state could craft and continually update long-range, region-wide plans to help local governments manage growth pressures and accommodate new development.

New growth management tools also could be created. For example, The Post reported that Virginia home builders, and the governor as well, might support legislation enabling use of transferable development rights. In such a system, developers can purchase density rights, granted under existing zoning to a property in a "sending" area, and transfer those density rights to a property in a "receiving" area, where increased density is desired but not permitted under long-standing zoning. Local jurisdictions designate areas for receiving higher density, usually because of available infrastructure capacity and public services.

Of course, the most effective tool will still be comprehensive land-use and transportation plans that clearly show where and how future development should occur -- or not occur -- and where and how infrastructure and other public services will be provided. Plans must map out not only transportation networks, but also places for housing, education, health care, shopping, employment, recreation and, equally important, environmental conservation.

Most Virginians realize that the governor's new initiatives will require new spending, but most also oppose tax increases. Therefore, much of the political discourse in Richmond this week has focused on sources and methods of transportation financing.

One financial strategy in particular, employed in other states, seeks to pay for growth-related, off-site transportation improvements and other public services by taxing developers that undertake new projects. Because such charges are a cost of doing business for developers, new homeowners and tenants really shoulder the tax burden.

This strategy sounds appealing, but it is basically unfair. It forces new-home buyers, tenants and businesses to pay a disproportionate share of the costs of off-site public infrastructure improvements that are part of a community-wide system serving all citizens, not just the newly arrived.

A more equitable approach, recognizing that the community at large should share in both the costs and benefits of all public infrastructure, would be to invest tax revenue, collected from all taxpayers, to support the growth the community wants.

As Kaine's proposed legislation moves forward, perhaps it will evolve in ways that let Virginia demonstrate the true meaning of smart growth: wisely planned, well-coordinated, fairly funded development.

Roger K. Lewis is a practicing architect and a professor of architecture at the University of Maryland.