Supervisors Approve Flood Protection Bond Referendum
A $30 million bond referendum for Huntington flood-protection will go to voters in November.
Photos
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved Tuesday a plan to put a $30 million bond referendum for flood prevention measures in Huntington on ballots this November.
The 6-3 vote to approve came a month after Huntington residents formally urged the board for flood protection improvements after last September’s severe flooding forced 200 people to evacuate the area.
Mount Vernon District Supervisor Gerry Hyland drafted the resolution to allow voters to decide whether to add the $30 million bond to a $155 million package of bonds that would fund parks, public safety and library improvements, bringing the total package of $185 million.
Hyland said that the area had been waiting 40 years for protection from floods and still hadn’t received any.
“[In 2011] the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee dumped seven inches of rain in September, killing four people in Fairfax County,” reads Hyland’s resolution. “It was a miracle that no one died in Huntington, though some people came close.”
The board’s three Republican supervisors – John Cook (Braddock), Pat Herrity (Springfield) and John Frey (Sully) – voted against the resolution.
The supervisors also debated the idea of raising the bond amount to $50 million, $30 million of which would still go to flood prevention while the other $20 million would go toward other stormwater projects.
But the motion to amend the resolution failed in a 5-4 vote after drawing sharp criticism from Frey, Cook and Herrity. Providence District Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth also voted against the motion.
Herrity said that the county needed to further explore private sector redevelopment in the area, as it should have done over the last few months.
“I clearly think we need a solution for Huntington,” he said. “I’m fully in support of trying to find a solution. I don’t believe we as a county have fully explored a private solution to this problem. The idea of this bond has not been completely thought through.”
Cook applauded Hyland’s continued efforts to help his constituents, but said the resolution wasn’t ready for a vote yet, and called the proposed addition of $20 million “fiscally reckless.”
“Do we really want to go to the voters with something that isn’t fully vetted yet?” he said.
Frey and Cook also argued it wasn’t a good idea to borrow money after telling the school system there was no bond money for renovating schools.
The bond package, to which the $30 million in flood prevention would be added, already includes $75 million for parks, $55 million for public safety and $25 million for libraries.
For more local news and information, fan Huntington-Belle Haven Patch on Facebook and sign up for the free Patch email newsletter.
T Ailshire
6:03 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
They took the easy way. Fairfax County voters have seldom met a bond referendum they didn't like -- since it will be the next generation that pays for it.
Ray N.
7:30 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Do we know what the bond will cost us each year in repayment? This generation has been paying for past bonds, and I don't think we went broke yet.
Private sector development is an acceptable solution, but here are a few facts:
1. There hasn't been any private interest! How many more times would Huntington need to flood while waiting for a private sector solution?
2. Without flood protection, there is no private sector solution! NO ONE could redevelop the land as is because it would still be a flood zone without flood protection.
3. Is there a private entity willing to pay the cost of flood protection, cost of buying residents out, and cost building? No.
People look to our government for solutions to problems they can't solve, not pass the responsibility off to someone else. Supervisor Herrity's house does not flood. His district does not flood. I can understand his position, but where has he been in the past 5 years with the private solution?
T Ailshire
10:02 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
If there is no private sector interest, it is because there is no market. Why should the government spend tax dollars where there is no market?
I believe looking to the government for a "solution" is the absolute worst method. It encourages bureaucracy, overspending, and a "do something, even if it's wrong, to be re-elected" mentality. Obviously, you disagree, but we do appear to agree the supervisors haven't "solved" anything.
Ray N.
2:40 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
There is no public interest, because the land is a flood plain. Of course there is no market to buy land in a flood plain that can't be developed.
"Why should the government spend tax dollars where there is no market?"
Because government spends tax dollars to protect people's lives and property that no one else can. That's why we have an army. That's why we have a police department. That's why we have flood walls. What is your solution?
Kathleen
9:19 am on Monday, October 15, 2012
Why should the tax payers spend $30 million on 200 people? Pay them off, remove the houses and let the land be the flood plain it was meant to be. Fairfax County has a $100 million shortfall for 2013, this seems very short sighted in light of the many pressing problems in this economy. And yes, my townhouse row has flooded, we dealt with it without involving the county and millions of dollars. The median price of our homes then was $150,000 so we weren't rich either.
Ray N.
10:30 am on Friday, October 26, 2012
Yes, that would work!! "Pay them off, remove the houses." Total cost = $60,000,000 without demolition. Brilliant.