Letters
Letters to the Editor: July 30, 2008
By
Jul 30, 2008 - 10:16:31 AM

Kingsland Residents Speak Out

To the Editor:

All county residents should be concerned about the proposed rezoning of agricultural land for commercial development and the creation of a sewer assessment district in a pastoral, tranquil neighborhood on Kingsland Rd. in Dale District. In your June 18 edition, Roger Habeck, who represents developers, and Will Davis, Director of Economic Development for Chesterfield, gushed breathlessly about a plan to ram an unneeded and unwanted sewer line down the throats of Kingsland Rd. residents while forcing them to pay for it.

Habeck is quoted as saying that commercial development is practically impossible in an area still using septic systems. He goes on to say that if hundreds of acres of this area’s undeveloped property “is built out for uses we envision . . . the economic development revenue would be just huge.” How presumptuous! As Kingsland Rd. residents, my family, neighbors, and I are appalled at the audacity of those who look at our green fields, crops, woods, and gardens and apparently decide they have God-given rights to them!

Under this plan, some homeowners living on the south side of Kingsland Rd. (my family included), who own land adjoining Reedy Branch Creek, would have to pay an unbelievable $100,000 to $300,000 for the sewer line. Apparently, this idea is the brainchild of some county officials and a group of developers who own adjacent property on Rt. 10. Historically, developers have had to absorb the cost of installing utilities to their developments. In this case, however, the county would allow a free sewer connection to the Rt. 10 developers by sticking the cost to the Kingsland Rd. residents. Given the fact that some county officials wholeheartedly embrace this concept, this scheme reeks of extortion.

Once the sewer line is in place, Chesterfield officials would, at will, rezone our property to commercial. The resulting astronomical real estate taxes, in addition to the sewer line cost, would cause us significant emotional and financial ruin. We would be forced to sell our homes and surrounding acreage. (This would be the land grab the developers are counting on.)

The coerced sale of our properties would also negatively impact the remaining homeowners in the neighborhood. They would no longer be living a quiet lifestyle surrounded by fields, pastures, and woodland. Their lives would be forever devastated as strip malls, gas stations, fast food joints, and motels smother them.

Our land has been in my family for almost 100 years. Others in the neighborhood are the third and fourth generations on their property. Still others have lived in this area of Kingsland Rd. for several decades. Many of us are over 55 years old; some neighbors are in their 80s. We all have a deep emotional, physical, and financial investment in our homes and have no desire to be uprooted, only to be forced to start over. Most of us have planned to live out our lives here.

It is inconceivable that these individuals have the arrogance and impudence to intrude on our lives and well-being. If the Board of Supervisors approve these proposals, they will be setting a dangerous precedent. Developers will realize they can set their sights to confiscate anything they want – and get it – while forcing the average, hardworking family to pay for it.

This scenario should scare all Chesterfield homeowners as they wonder, “Who will be next?”

Sandee Cosby

Chesterfield Infrastructure is Problematic

To the Editor:

Last week, in Julia Hicks’ letter (Too Much Development), there are questions many folks have been asking and complaining about for years. We agree with her on most of the situations she noted. But, Julia this is going on all over our county. I’ve lived here 62 years (third generation on this place) and have seen big changes during these years. Some are good (288 and Village Green), some I’m indifferent to, and then some are bad  (all these subdivisions on inaccurate roads, over-crowded schools, small business having to jump through too many hoops.)

We in the eastern part of the county live in what’s referred to as “the infill area.” (per Chesterfield County Development Strategy chart). It seems to me that local government is committed to putting a house on every ¼ acre you wrote about.

Branner Station has been controversial for many reasons and everyone knows the list by now. The two most egregious reasons are: the developer convincing a few in Chesterfield government to help them take land & homes to build “us” roads, and the vote by our Planning Commission 3-2, and then 2-1 by B.O.S., with two supervisors abstaining. Very questionable, going forward with a project that three on the BOS didn‘t vote for.

There’s more, Julia, to be added to your list of grievances. The north/south connector road from Branner Station will increase traffic on Chester Rd., the intersection at Centralia Rd., and up to 288. Remember crossing the double railroad tracks 300 feet west of this intersection? There is a proposed subdivision of 151 (R7, R9 & R12) homes, on the south side of Centralia Rd. The proposed main entrance will be about 600 feet from the RR tracts and at the back of this subdivision, a cut through road into Wellington Farms. This new intersection will be a nightmare for people who use Centralia Rd., if approved in August. Plus several new subdivisions off Salem Church Rd. will add even more congestion. (Most traffic bound for 288 and 95 comes to that Centralia / Chester Rd. intersection from Salem Church. Rd. and a little on Hopkins Rd. & Old Ln.).

I’m not exactly anti-growth. But somebody is asleep (make that dead) at the wheel, not recognizing the collective impact that approving all subdivisions is having on Chesterfield infrastructure. Centralia Rd. is especially problematic because of these double rail crossings. So good luck in the coming years on Chester Rd., and just detour Centralia Rd. if possible.

Tom Tennille

© Copyright by Village Publishing LLC