Old corruption reform could mean headache for Fairfax County board, citizens

Published October 4, 2007 4:00am ET



A procedural rulethat Fairfax County supervisors say stems from a local corruption scandal four decades ago could cause some headaches this month, as officials gird for a rash of land decisions before a temporary moratorium kicks in. Supervisors won’t touch rezonings and other land cases in the twilight between an election and when the newly elected members take office the following year, which means cases that could be spread out over three months – October, November and December – are all crammed into October’s lone meeting.

The rule was one of the reforms to sprout from a cash-for-rezonings scandal in the 1960’s, in which three sitting or former supervisors and five developers were convicted on corruption charges. As a result, “lame duck” officials were barred from ramming through a series of last minute rezonings, which can cause enormously lucrative spikes in land value, as they prepare to leave office.

“They wanted to make sure that there wasn’t a perception that supervisors on the way out were not giving away gifts to their supporters,” said Sully District Supervisor Michael Frey. “I don’t think it hurts. Does it help a lot? I don’t think so.”

For the 10 supervisors and the long list of applicants looking for any number of change to their properties, that reform could translate into an obnoxiously long night on Oct. 15. Frey, who also faulted the single meeting per month the board holds toward the end of the year, said citizens who come out for a 4:30 public hearing could be sitting long into the evening until their case is heard.

“It’s a horrible way to do business,” he said. “I don’t think that 12 hours days make good for good decisions.”

Some supervisors were lukewarm on the policy. Outgoing Lee District Supervisor Dana Kauffman called the the rush to finish rezoning matters “an unintended consequence of concern over land use and elections.”

Vice Chairman Sharon Bulova, who represents the Braddock District, didn’t have a problem with the temporary moratorium.

“It’s not that long of a period of time between the election, which is early November, and the first part of January,” she said. “I never questioned why it started. It always made sense to me.”

[email protected]