Virginia to crackdown on cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

So what you're saying is that if I bought the land next door to yours and used it to store toxic waste, you'd be cool with that? Of course not.


Meh, I'm biased here though. I prefer grids. They appeal to my sense of functional aesthetic. I also don't like the way developers over the past couple decades use the cul-de-sac development as an excuse to not pay for the impact of their own development. Nothing like a giant subdivision with a single entrance/exit that dumps onto an unimproved farm road. And who pays to fix that? Everyone else who lives outside the new subdivision. So you're hardly protecting property rights here, Spidey...

Somehow, property on a cul-de-sac and toxic waste storage don't seem to be related.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO


Somehow, property on a cul-de-sac and toxic waste storage don't seem to be related.

It's more related than you think. A big reason there's no more oysters in the bay, and crab/fish population has dwindled, is because of suburban sprawl, and the pollution that accompanies it. Retards move out to the cornfield subdivisions, dump a bunch of shit on their lawns so they can look like southern plantation owners, and it runs into the streams, and bay. Everybody's against corporate pollution, but one of the biggest polluters is the suburban home owner.

 

[lupi]

If the answer to all these problems would be voting to integrate nova into dc, I'd happily support that measure.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: Ns1
that's uh exactly what he means. Too much space taken up by too few people.

Around here alot of the zoning requires minimum 3-5 acre lot size per dwelling.

Requires? WTF? why?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Property rights? Really? 😕 We're talking about public streets here, which are the government's responsibility.

The reason why people want to live in these neighborhoods and a cul-de-sac in particular is because of low traffic. So yes, forcing developments to link everything together does go against property rights. I understand zoning but this is stepping over the line.

Emergency services? It's my fucking choice to live in an area with inaccessibility and the state has no reason to intrude on that.

I guess I have too much personal dog in this fight as I live on a corner (T intersection, one end of the top of the T was a cul-de-sac that was joined to a large neighborhood). Once linked to the adjoining neighborhood it's like a drag strip around my once quiet house where I wasn't afraid to wander into the street to talk to my neighbors.

MUGS
Regarding your edit. I'm fine with that.

You have a simple solution to that actually, make your entire neighbourhood unassumed road. Essentially you are not part of the public road network. You can do whatever you want at that point.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: txrandom
If they got rid of the cul de sac on my street, they'd have a road into the woods. That sounds like a bigger waste.

I don't think they are talking about your kind of cul de sac.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
This isn't a necessary law. Just as there are advantages to not having cul-de-sacs in terms of traffic flow, there are advantages for those who live there. Why should it be regulated for one set of advantages instead of the other?

Because public money is paying to maintain those roads.

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: Ns1
that's uh exactly what he means. Too much space taken up by too few people.

Around here alot of the zoning requires minimum 3-5 acre lot size per dwelling.

Requires? WTF? why?

My parents live in a town with the same requirement. It's intended to prevent development and keep the town rural.

 

[Linflas]

They have not "banned" cul-de-sacs. Any development that wants them can still have them but they will have to maintain the roads and provide snow removal services rather than turning the streets over to VDOT upon completion of the development. I have no real issue with this since all it will do is make the value go up on those of us that have houses located on cul-de-sacs. 🙂

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Normally, you know I'd agree with this argument. However, the fact is, the public will bitch and yell for their services and entitlements.

It does cost money to provide emergency services, widen roads b/c of choke points, etc.

It's a tradeoff, especially in Northern VA. Trust me, it's really, really liberal here. People want their government services, but they don't want higher taxes to pay for them. Something has to give.

The sprawl as you go west in Northern VA is simply amazing. The entire area basically feeds off of I-66, which is a parking lot in the morning. The neighborhoods are built like smaller versions of that, so every traffic light is an eternity.

Through streets help a lot. I live in Arlington, which has very few, if any cul de sacs, and its a lot easier to get around. We have traffic from sheer numbers; it'd be horrible if two or three main roads fed everything.

That's why NOVA should be given to Maryland. Y'all are ruining this state.

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: lupi
If the answer to all these problems would be voting to integrate nova into dc, I'd happily support that measure.

Jesus H. Christ no. If you say that again I am going to get Chuck Norris to kick you in the face. 😛

I'm no fan of the VA state government, but the DC government is about eleventy billion times worse.

Originally posted by: JDub02
That's why NOVA should be given to Maryland. Y'all are ruining this state.

No, not that either. Not quite as bad as DC, but still pretty bad. Fuck Maryland.

 

[PingSpike]

I drive through neighborhoods/developments that wind all over the place to avoid traffic whenever it makes sense. The neighborhoods are designed to go indirectly from one place to the other so that through traffic like me won't go there. The developers underestimate how awefully backed up the intersections on the clogged roads get though...its still faster. I'm sure the people that live in them aren't crazy about through traffic, but to bad for them. They won't close the other exit though: Then all the people that lived in the neighborhood would be forced onto the clogged up road I'm trying to avoid as well. 😛

I love more options though, there's a lot of places around here where if there's an accident or roadwork you have to drive like 20 minutes to get around it because of the lack of adjacent roads....so everyone just waits in the mess and gets backed up so far that people who aren't even going that way get stuck in the mess.

 

[dabuddha]

That's a shame :/ We just bought a house in January in a cul-de-sac in Virginia and we love it. Every afternoon and weekends theres lots of kids playing outside in the street.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Aren't most cul-de-sacs usually part of a home owners association? They are around here. They didn't have any real property rights to give up in that case.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Not every law is bad. There are legitimate concerns in play here and excessive traffic affects everyone in a community, not just those who live along that road. As much as I support limited governmental interference, this is actually a good example of an area where regulation is necessary.

ZV

This isn't a necessary law. Just as there are advantages to not having cul-de-sacs in terms of traffic flow, there are advantages for those who live there. Why should it be regulated for one set of advantages instead of the other?

Because one benefits many people, the other benefits few. Spock said it, so it is true.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Normally, you know I'd agree with this argument. However, the fact is, the public will bitch and yell for their services and entitlements.

It does cost money to provide emergency services, widen roads b/c of choke points, etc.

It's a tradeoff, especially in Northern VA. Trust me, it's really, really liberal here. People want their government services, but they don't want higher taxes to pay for them. Something has to give.

The sprawl as you go west in Northern VA is simply amazing. The entire area basically feeds off of I-66, which is a parking lot in the morning. The neighborhoods are built like smaller versions of that, so every traffic light is an eternity.

Through streets help a lot. I live in Arlington, which has very few, if any cul de sacs, and its a lot easier to get around. We have traffic from sheer numbers; it'd be horrible if two or three main roads fed everything.

That's why NOVA should be given to Maryland. Y'all are ruining this state.

Actually we should make a deal that they can take Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax along with DC and make a new state in exchange for the return of the stolen western counties to Virginia. 😉

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
This isn't a necessary law. Just as there are advantages to not having cul-de-sacs in terms of traffic flow, there are advantages for those who live there. Why should it be regulated for one set of advantages instead of the other?

Because public money is paying to maintain those roads.

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: Ns1
that's uh exactly what he means. Too much space taken up by too few people.

Around here alot of the zoning requires minimum 3-5 acre lot size per dwelling.

Requires? WTF? why?

My parents live in a town with the same requirement. It's intended to prevent development and keep the town rural.

I guess if you are in rural area it makes sense. I am a city boy 🙂

 

[GCS]

Originally posted by: dbk
cul-de-sacs are awesome for bball hoops

Unless they bring a$$hole kids who vandalize your neighborhood and refuse to move to allow you, the homeowner, to get to your own house.

Greg

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Around here alot of the zoning requires minimum 3-5 acre lot size per dwelling.

Requires? WTF? why?

To keep the areas from becoming over developed.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: lupi
If the answer to all these problems would be voting to integrate nova into dc, I'd happily support that measure.

Jesus H. Christ no. If you say that again I am going to get Chuck Norris to kick you in the face. 😛

I'm no fan of the VA state government, but the DC government is about eleventy billion times worse.

Originally posted by: JDub02
That's why NOVA should be given to Maryland. Y'all are ruining this state.

No, not that either. Not quite as bad as DC, but still pretty bad. Fuck Maryland.

See, you're failure here was in not realizing I live below the beltway and the suburbs feeding it 😉

 

[RedArmy]

Residents of cul-de-sacs unite!

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
That's a shame :/ We just bought a house in January in a cul-de-sac in Virginia and we love it. Every afternoon and weekends theres lots of kids playing outside in the street.

Text

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Aren't most cul-de-sacs usually part of a home owners association? They are around here. They didn't have any real property rights to give up in that case.

There are plenty of fairly old developments around here with them, and not a one with a HOA. Most of them are the fairly small 1 lane type which I don't think this ruling would apply to as it seems they are referring to those developments which pretty much wall off the entire development. Of course knowing how well lawmakers do their job, i'm sure they'll be able to successfully screw up the language.

 

[91TTZ]

Basically the government doesn't want to spend its public money maintaining the streets of what is essentially a private community. If the private community wants roads that the public traffic can't use (because the roads don't go anywhere) then they should pay the maintenance costs themselves.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: spidey07
And the erosion of property rights continues. It's for your own good though.

Aren't most cul-de-sacs usually part of a home owners association? They are around here. They didn't have any real property rights to give up in that case.

There are plenty of fairly old developments around here with them, and not a one with a HOA. Most of them are the fairly small 1 lane type which I don't think this ruling would apply to as it seems they are referring to those developments which pretty much wall off the entire development. Of course knowing how well lawmakers do their job, i'm sure they'll be able to successfully screw up the language.

Used to be that way up here as well until the camels nose got under the tent first with Reston, then Burke Center. From the article it seems this came from that asswipe Kaine, not the General Assembly. I suspect there will be some discussion of it at the next session so this may not be the final word on it.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: dbk
cul-de-sacs are awesome for bball hoops

This!!!!