Portsmouth leaders angry bills on blight put on hold

It is quite obvious that Mr. Barret has some stake in the condemnation of private property. Pro-tax, pro-developer, pro-government control Mr. Barret's comments leads me to the understanding that he has much to gain by fouling the rights of legal property owners in the name of blight control. Just where does he get off on claiming that the state has measures in place to "protect" private property owners from government takeover. The law that he professes to abhor protects property owners from city and state governments that want to condemn property to turn it over to developers for more tax base. Eminent domain is not for that purpose but our Supreme Court dropped the bubble on that one.

Well said Mr. Greenmun. As for mixed-use, smaller residential lots and below-average construction quality will come back to haunt. PUDs with too high of a density place a heavy burden on the city's infrastructure and resources. The taxes generated by the development do not equal the burden it creates; overcrowded schools, worn-out streets, secondary road traffic congestion, increased city payroll, etc.

What developers seek is the power to use government to assemble large tracts of land - without having to deal with each property owner. This has resulted in countless abuses of the power of eminent domain whereby non-blighted homeowners are forced to "sell" (surrender) their homes so that developers can tear down a whole "run down" neighborhood and replace them with a more profitable new development. This is what Housing & Redevelopment Authorities are all about. Plenty of laws already exists for local governments to force true blighted property to be returned to code by the owners. Spot Blight abatement for example. Those laws respect the rights of individual property owners.

Does anyone think their may be a person in one of these areas working very hard to improve their property? They may be sitting in the middle of the "blighted" block? Mr. Barrett's statement should be noted as not being based in fact but simply on his opinion. Your motives are in question here sir.

"The main beneficiaries of the redevelopment and/or conservation are that property owners locked in cycle of declining property values, safety in the neighborhood, and further blight and deterioration will finally have a way out of their dilemma. Instead, based on the hysteria of suburbanites, the new law locks these property owners in declining neighborhoods in a continuing cycle of loss of value, and many now will simply lose or abandon their property anyway."

Ask my neighbors how they like being awakened at 4 AM from dumpster trucks and 18 wheelers diesel engines and the beep, beep, beep, blang, wam, thud clackclackclack etc. Your kids can play with the vagrants while they drink beer and throw their empties across the fence. Forget about walking anywhere...too dangerous. Drivers around here will run over their own grandmother to get there five minutes sooner. What else do you want to know about mixed-use? It's just a way for the City to get more revenue because they can pack in more development over top of an existing neighborhood. Who cares about quality of life in a once peaceful neighborhood? Oh, by the way my taxes have already gone up 300%.

Gary,

They want to rezone your residential neighborhood as mixed use. What's wrong with being able to walk to a favorite neighborhood restaurant, boutique or shop rather than being walled up in a walled enclave where you have to drive to a massive sea of parking miles away for all your services.

True, you do have the right to choose to live in sprawl, but I can't see the appeal of that antiquated, failed exercise in planning.

Good point about the failed Soccer debacle. Did you know that Mr. Barrett has been appointed to help provide oversight to our region's worst managed agency? That would be SPSA! Sure, Mr. Barrett craves greater powers of eminent domain. As a developer, he and his fellow developers hope to profit by using the force of government to acquire "blighted properties" at a price they could not reach by dealing airly with the property owners. Like I said, look up the state code for the definition of "blight" - basically most property can be deemd "blighted". Government should exist to protect our property rights, not to enable politically influential developers to force us out of our homes.

Famous words from 1995... When Mr. Barrett was interviewed by the Pilot:

"...What interests Barrett, and where he feels his vision is more intense than other city leaders, is soccer. In fact, the whole question of when - if ever - the city will build a soccer complex counts as the second biggest sore spot with him...."

``The soccer complex will cost about $2 million and we have about $600,000 pledged, most of it from the soccer community. It's amazing that the soccer community had to tax itself to make improvements when council is spending $8 million on an amphitheater. We have to raise the money and they're providing it and yet we're not promising to bring in visitors, we're already doing it.''....

Hmmm... how much of our tax dollars go to keep that eye sore open???? Thanks Mike ;-) (wink wink)

I have had the city of Chesapeake attempt to change my zoning so that my "waterfront" residential property could be replaced by Mixed-Use development. I now have to watch every move the city makes at the planning commission and council meetings. Think that's fun? Don't believe me? Read the Pilot news articles on the Great Bridge Master Plan! The lesson? I have learned how corrupt local governments can be.

Give me a break. You're the one who is the first to strike up fear on ANY PROPOSAL to lower the tax burden. If I believed in everything you said about taxes then I would by default have to believe that a lowering of ANY taxes would mean schools would close, library's would close, fire departments would close, police departments would close, hospitals would close, and general panic in the streets would ensue because the panacea of government would cease to function.

You've said ti time and again about taxes. Fear monger? I think yo ushould look in the mirror.

Give me a break, you live in a glass house yet you have the gall to throw stones, you must be running for office.

That will find more ways to take your money with little to no concern of accountability. I love the class war that Mr Barrett engages in, it's actually kinda funny considering that he's one of those most able to afford higher taxes, higher gas costs, higher costs of living in general. Sorry Mr Barrett, you can open your wallet for the taking, I'll defend mine with more and more requests for accountability and property rights. Just because you served in the Navy does not mean that you're the defender of the "American Way".

Actually, it is quite compatible to believe that Virginia did protect the rights of property owners under previous law and the decisions of courts in regard to previous cases. We not only did not need new law, but we certainly did not need further impediment to clamping down on those who failed to maintain their property. The main beneficiaries of the redevelopment and/or conservation are that property owners locked in cycle of declining property values, safety in the neighborhood, and further blight and deterioration will finally have a way out of their dilemma. Instead, based on the hysteria of suburbanites, the new law locks these property owners in declining neighborhoods in a continuing cycle of loss of value, and many now will simply lose or abandon their property anyway. The urban cities see this first, and so do older suburban cities like Virginia Beach. We need to elect new delegates who will assist in neighborhood revitalization, not prevent it.

You have got to be kidding Mr. Barrett. I bet you can name off a dozen older neighborhoods located on waterfront that in your opinion should be completely razed and redeveloped with absolutely no regard for the property rights of law-abiding taxpayers. Why doesn't developers have the fortitude to negotiate one-on-one with the property owners? If local governments & R&HA did not use bully tactics in the name of private development we would not have this problem. Condemnation for roadways, schools, municipal buildings, etc. is what the intention of eminient domain is.

The changes in eminent domain laws over the last few years by the republican controlled General Assembly were the result of a campaign of fear and hate inspired by suburbanites living in wealthy suburban enclaves. One of the posters herein who attemps to offer an excuse lives in Sandbridge for Pete's sake. However, the power of these frequently anti tax, anti government zealots reached its peaked when they sought this legislation that was neither necessary nor needed in Virginia because the constitution and the statutes already provided the needed protection of the rights of property owners. Now we have bad legislation on the books, and the hope of changing that is little to none. Clearly the older urban areas feel these effects the most, but already the effects are felt in older suburban cities like Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. The solution: stop electing anti tax, anti government delegates who inspire by fear.

I understand what those of you that desire true "blight" are hoping will happen. The problem lies in the lousy way the General Assembly (GA) likes to write bills - in a manner that creates broad sweeping powers instead of tightly controlled language that will prevent future abuses of our powers of eminent domain. Friends, you cannot trust government with the power to force you out of your home. While this bill is marketed as seeking to serve a noble goal, all too often such bills end up as another government "tool" to attack private property rights. Please read the state code; the legal defintion of "blight" in VA is far too subjective. I have tried to make it more specific for many years, but the GA has failed to take action to correct this.

There is no gentrification, commercial development, or rich developers in the areas in question!!! We are talking about older neighborhoods with serious problems. Blight begets blight. We need to weed out these blighted properties in order to encourage home ownership (modest homes, by the way) and strong communities...and get rid of the slum lords.

Could this be Louise Lucas' way of opunishing Portsmouth for not funding her project at Victory Crossing???

When was the last time you went down to Ward's Corner at night to do pick up some groceries? Or might the fact that the Norfolk Police themselves are afraid to patrol this dangerous area deter you?

Would you possibly change your opinion if you knew it was the local policeman on the beat and the residents in these neighborhoods themselves who were crying for blight and crime relief?

Gee, so the P-Town & Norfolk's City Councils are outraged over the move to "study" their pet bill rather than having our representatives in Richmond go on the record and vote? Now they know how we citizens feel when the Senate Transportation Committee decided to "study" Senator Miller's bill to abolish the hated HRTA (all-appointed regional taxing authority). Meanwhile, the gutless House Transportation Committee fails to take any action on Del. Tom Gear's bill to abolish the HRTA. The General Assembly has become the incumbent protection club. That said, these days “blight” is a code word for taking private property by force and giving it away to favored developers.

There wouldn't be an abandoned housing problem. Same goes for Norfolk. I grew up in Portsmouth and I moved so that I didn't have to worry about my kids getting stabbed on the bus or beaten in a school bathroom. Large fines won't work anyway. Ever try to squeeze blood out of a turnip?