The race for the 21st Senate District Republican nomination heated up over the weekend as Tea Party candidate Tripp Godsey hit Christiansburg Del. Dave Nutter for his earlier support of HB 3202.
The omnibus transportation bill, passed by a Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed by Democratic Governor Tim Kaine in 2007, was wildly unpopular with movement conservatives–especially the unconstitutional regional transportation authorities–and has become a frequent campaign issue (for Republicans and Democrats) in the years since. The Godsey campaign, however, is taking a unique line of attack against HB 3202.
Tripp Godsey’s complaints are three-fold. First, based upon an interview Del. Nutter gave to Roanoke NBC-affiliate WSLS in 2007, the Godsey campaign alleges that Del. Nutter did not read HB 3202 and thus was insufficiently aware of the bill’s contents before voting for it. After the furor that erupted when members of Congress admitted to not having read the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last year, this has the potential to be a potent issue in a Republican primary.
Second, Godsey takes issue with the bill’s abuser fees:
…creating abusive fees for traffic violations that only apply to Virginia citizens in an effort to keep from dealing with road funding in a reasonable manner is unexcuseable [sic].
(The Godsey campaign has not elaborated on how it would have “reasonably” funded transportation improvements.)
Third and perhaps most contentious, the Godsey campaign argues that the Urban Development Areas (UDAs) required by HB 3202 for localities with a designated growth rate and/or population was an attempt by the General Assembly to implement the United Nation’s sustainable development action plan “Agenda 21.”
Third, requiring Virginia local governments to create ”Urban Development Areas” in their comprehensive plans rather than let local communities decide for themselves how to manage their land resources is beyond unexcuseable. And to make matters worse these UDAs mirror the mandate that the United Nations has been trying to impose on communities with the help of the United States government all across the country for almost 20 years.
Del. Nutter was quick to defend his record on property rights to The Roanoke Times:
“…[C]oncerns have arisen recently by some that this legislation could be used by international organizations to deprive property owners of their rights,” Nutter said. “I oppose any effort like Agenda 21 to deprive Virginians of their property rights and have voted to put into the Virginia Constitution limitations on local governments from taking personal property under eminent domain.”
Nutter noted he voted for a bill earlier this year that would make urban development zones optional instead of mandatory. Although that bill passed the House, it died on a party-line vote in a Senate committee.
Tripp Godsey’s campaign manager Greg Aldridge challenged Del. Nutter’s defense, saying Del. Nutter’s behavior in the House of Delegates was “abhorrent” by allowing legislation to pass that is “an absolute abuse of Virginia citizens.”
How abusive the UDAs are to Virginians’ property rights seems unclear. At the time of HB 3202’s passage, the UDA provision was largely overshadowed by the bill’s more dubious provisions, like the abuser fees and the unconstitutional taxing authorities. The basis for requiring UDAs was that by clustering development, the Commonwealth’s taxpayers would not get stuck with the bill for improving substandard rural roads servicing a new commercial, retail or residential development or adopting privately constructed roads in newly built subdivisions. HB 3202 also appears to have mitigated the stridency of the enforcement of UDAs in the affected localities by including a provision stating:
Localities that establish Urban Development Areas may not limit or prohibit development in compliance with existing zoning nor refuse to consider a rezoning application for property outside of the Urban Development Area.
If anything, it appears that the affected localities’ existing zoning ordinances could pose a greater threat to individual property rights than the UDAs mandated by HB 3202. Either way, setting aside theories about the involvement of the UN or other multinational bodies, the debate over HB 3202’s UDA mandate is an important discussion for us to have on the future of property rights and the direction of development in Virginia. Expect it to ignite a primary race that has been–heretofore–relatively quiet.
