Gloucester considers law change to at...

Gloucester considers law change to attract developers

There are 31 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Jun 2, 2009, titled Gloucester considers law change to attract developers. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

But critics complain that a proposed law change will line the pockets of home builders instead of homeowners.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
gloucester resident

Gloucester, VA

#1 Jun 2, 2009
Who the ___ would want to move to Gloucester!! The system is so screwed up. Cops here won't even arrest an adult beating up on a child!!!!
STOP

Gloucester, VA

#2 Jun 2, 2009
Don't we have enough vacant homes and half built deveolpments in Gloucester already! Do we need more empty homes to lower the existing home values even more than what they are now?
bravo

Hampton, VA

#3 Jun 2, 2009
A trailer park doesn't constitute as a subdivision.
Traffic

Hampton, VA

#4 Jun 2, 2009
You can all the vacant houses out there that you can muster, however, if they still cost upwards of $300,000+, far too many people in Gloucester can't afford them. Not everyone wants to pay that much for a home and not everyone should, evidenced by the current real estate market: too many people purchased homes they could not afford, and that equals foreclosures.

Gloucester could use a neighborhood of homes in the 1200-1600 square foot range, but builders don't want to build those homes, not enough profit per house. However, if you build homes that the averagae resident could afford to buy, you can build them faster, thus reducing the cost to builder by cutting the time the builder is in possession of such homes.

It would be nice to pass this change in law if it would get builders building homes that would sell in this market, but if restrictions are not applied to this proposed change in law, then they will pocket any addiition savings (profit) and the buyer will not benefit.

So, maybe the change in law should be that the builder would not hav eto pay the fes until th epermit is taken out if, and only if they are building homes within a certain value/size range.
longtimeresident

Norfolk, VA

#5 Jun 2, 2009
Attract more developers? Why would we want to do that, to many now. If they can't afford to pay the fees maybe they should find a new profession. They just pass the cost along to the homeowner anyway.
former cop

Norfolk, VA

#6 Jun 2, 2009
bravo wrote:
A trailer park doesn't constitute as a subdivision.
I moved from there in 2006 and if I remember correctly there are only 3 trailor parks.
Disgusted in Hayes

Hayes, VA

#7 Jun 2, 2009
Since the Gloucester Mafia's pet developer is no longer, is this an attempt by the Queen and her court to attract political capital?
hesabird

United States

#8 Jun 2, 2009
Disgusted in Hayes wrote:
Since the Gloucester Mafia's pet developer is no longer, is this an attempt by the Queen and her court to attract political capital?
would you expect any less from them? they probably don't have many Gloucester residents willing to bankroll their campaigns so they are having to court the developers.

And did they really think the public would sit still and let them pass this without an uproar? Talk about transparent government, We can see right through them! Geeeeesh!
Whats Up

Gloucester, VA

#9 Jun 2, 2009
Go take a look at their agenda... The vote is the second item in the Consent Agenda..... isn't that the thing they pass at the beginning of the meeting (usually a whole bunch of items at once) with no discussion?? talk about no openness and transparency.... there won't even be any discussion at this rate!! What gives??
Traffic

Hampton, VA

#10 Jun 2, 2009
longtimeresident wrote:
Attract more developers? Why would we want to do that, to many now. If they can't afford to pay the fees maybe they should find a new profession. They just pass the cost along to the homeowner anyway.
Maybe attract developers who would build homes that Gloucester residents could afford instead of million dollar homes that will only attrct individuals who want more services yet not want to pay for them. Not everyone wants to live in a trailer or McMansion.
hesabird

United States

#11 Jun 2, 2009
Whats Up wrote:
Go take a look at their agenda... The vote is the second item in the Consent Agenda..... isn't that the thing they pass at the beginning of the meeting (usually a whole bunch of items at once) with no discussion?? talk about no openness and transparency.... there won't even be any discussion at this rate!! What gives??
I understand that one of the supevisors will bring up the topic and vote to discuss it first then a vote in the open will happen.
Da Plane

United States

#12 Jun 2, 2009
Wouldn't it be wise to amend the current issues with the BOS before moving onto larger scale issues that will impact the citizen's? It just appears items are piling up on the BOS/PC that should be put on the back burner until this current mire is dealt with.
amen

Gloucester, VA

#13 Jun 3, 2009
STOP wrote:
Don't we have enough vacant homes and half built deveolpments in Gloucester already! Do we need more empty homes to lower the existing home values even more than what they are now?
You are so right! The county is a MESS already, and they want to attract more developers?? When will it end?

Oh how I wish all 4 of the mafia were up for re-election in November. Gloucester County cannot be done soon enough with that group of conniving individuals.

All I could think about while watching the meeting on tv was...here they all sit pretending they give a hoot about Gloucester...and they are trying everything they can think of to make us pay their legal fees!!

That shows you how much integrity they have.
dragonfly

Belford, NJ

#14 Jun 3, 2009
And so it is done.
they will have the taxpayers pay the utilitie fees for the developers and crewe, pastorvisor and ressler will get lots of "donations" for their next campaign. 2 more years of those idiots. Like the current federal administration, they can do an inordinated amount of damage to our county that can't be undone and put us in the hole financially when and if we have to pay their legal fees.

But the one blessing is that altemus will be gone come next January.
get real

Gloucester, VA

#16 Jun 3, 2009
you said it. there s too many come heres as it is now too. not so much like gloucester anymore at least the gloucester i know
longtimeresident wrote:
Attract more developers? Why would we want to do that, to many now. If they can't afford to pay the fees maybe they should find a new profession. They just pass the cost along to the homeowner anyway.
come here

Norfolk, VA

#17 Jun 3, 2009
I am a come here. I was brought by the great Sheriff Stanaway (may he RIP)
Preying Mantis

United States

#18 Jun 3, 2009
dragonfly wrote:
And so it is done.
they will have the taxpayers pay the utilitie fees for the developers and crewe, pastorvisor and ressler will get lots of "donations" for their next campaign. 2 more years of those idiots. Like the current federal administration, they can do an inordinated amount of damage to our county that can't be undone and put us in the hole financially when and if we have to pay their legal fees.
But the one blessing is that altemus will be gone come next January.
I agree, this county is in such a mess, adding salt to the wound with this revelation is unreal.
Preying Mantis

United States

#19 Jun 3, 2009
#16 The entire nation has comulative "come heres". Now, you would agree on that wouldn't you, not singling out Glo.& other counties/cites.
Silly

Hampton, VA

#20 Jun 3, 2009
Preying Mantis wrote:
#16 The entire nation has comulative "come heres". Now, you would agree on that wouldn't you, not singling out Glo.& other counties/cites.
Oh now, he/she can't control themselves.
BAFFLED

Newport News, VA

#21 Jun 3, 2009
I too am a "COME HERE" brought to you by the Navy and liked it here. I didn't come here for all this needless construction by developers. I don't see a need for for all these sub-divisions. If someone wishes to build or have built a home here in Gloucester, so be it. We DO NOT need sub-divisions as such. You go into a house in a development and you also learn your way around your neighbors' house because they're laid out pretty much the same. I say NO to DEVELOPERS.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gloucester County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Applebees bar tonight 8/22/16 Mon BlueskysBlueeyes 1
News Investigators seize moonshine still in Gloucester Aug 18 meh 2
News Deputies search for suspect who decapitated dog... Aug 13 meh 5
News Court Orders Virginia School Board to Let Trans... Jun '16 Sneaky Pete 2
News U.S. court denies motion to reconsider transgen... Jun '16 Gay Peace on Earth 6
News Transgender teen wins bathroom case May '16 Time again 4
News ACLU: Gloucester transgender lawsuit comes at c... (Jan '16) Jan '16 meh 2
More from around the web