Stewart Slams Stimpson For Doing What He Did On UDAs

Lt. Gov. candidate / Pr. William County Board Chairman Corey Stewart’s latest campaign email was an attempt to appeal to the TEA Party as their endorsement in the LG race is coming up at the end of the month. The majority of the email was a shot at Del. Scott Lingamfelter, state Sen. Steve Martin and fmr. state Sen. Jeannemarie Davis for having voted for legislation that brought Urban Development Area laws into play.

However, Stewart then takes it one step too far in taking a swipe at Stafford County Board Chairman Susan Stimpson on the UDA issue at local level. Counties of a certain population were required to adopt UDAs. Stafford did so according to state law, but Stewart is trying to say Stimpson supported UDAs.

One problem with this line of attack. Stewart has, too. Furthermore Stimpson spoke up in opposition to UDAs with the General Assembly arguing that localities should not be forced to plan with UDAs. The General Assembly ended up making UDAs optional, but Stewart appears to have been MIA in that battle.

Stewart stated in this email:

Never have I gone along with supporting any type of resolutions or changes to the Prince William County code that called for “Sustainable Development” or “Urban Development Areas”. Unfortunately in Virginia, that is not always the case.

How does that square with his vote in favor of adopting UDAs (just like every other affected jurisdiction, as required by state code)?


3 thoughts on “Stewart Slams Stimpson For Doing What He Did On UDAs

  1. The repeal of the UDAs was a recommendation of the Governor’s Task Force for Local Mandate Review. We can all thank the Goochland Tea Party for hammering that one home, and making UDAs optional in Virginia.

    All that having been said, Stimpson and Stewart had no choice but to impose UDAs. The real test is whether or not — now that they are optional — will they be repealed in areas where UDAs make no sense. For that, folks would be wise to understand that in some cases, UDAs are OK as a planning tool… but to blame a sitting supervisor for not repealing all the UDAs? Yeah… try downzoning that… see what happens.

    All in all, it’s a dumb move. Agenda 21 is a nightmare for localities, but thankfully with some preambles (we adopted one in Fluvanna) it can tide a locality over until a new Comprehensive Plan is drawn up to strip out all the sustainability language. Rob Stuber tried this in Spotsylvania and got hammered by the liberal press… so for anyone that believes such talk is rumor and conspiracy, gauge the reaction of the liberals and planners when you try altering it.

    Pay attention folks… the Agenda 21 and sustainability stuff is very, very real — and not to your benefit.

  2. The repeal of the UDAs was a recommendation of the Governor’s Task Force for Local Mandate Review. We can all thank the Goochland Tea Party for hammering that one home, and making UDAs optional in Virginia.

    All that having been said, Stimpson and Stewart had no choice but to impose UDAs. The real test is whether or not — now that they are optional — will they be repealed in areas where UDAs make no sense. For that, folks would be wise to understand that in some cases, UDAs are OK as a planning tool… but to blame a sitting supervisor for not repealing all the UDAs? Yeah… try downzoning that… see what happens.

    All in all, it’s a dumb move. Agenda 21 is a nightmare for localities, but thankfully with some preambles (we adopted one in Fluvanna) it can tide a locality over until a new Comprehensive Plan is drawn up to strip out all the sustainability language. Rob Stuber tried this in Spotsylvania and got hammered by the liberal press… so for anyone that believes such talk is rumor and conspiracy, gauge the reaction of the liberals and planners when you try altering it.

    Pay attention folks… the Agenda 21 and sustainability stuff is very, very real — and not to your benefit.

  3. Corey went above and beyond simply comporting with the requirements of the State Code. He (and Covington and Nohe) used the UDA requirements to craft their own “Centers” plan to the benefit select parties and had the PWC Chief of Long Range Planning testify in favor of UDAs before the House committee. Similarly, its my understanding that he instructed the former lobbyist for PWC to lobby in favor of the legislation that established the UDA’s.

Comments are closed.