How Swift Growth Can Undermine Local Government Ethics

The highest median income in 2005, and the fastest-growing county in the United States between 2000 and 2005. How does that translate in terms of local government ethics?

Sadly, not very well. The county is Loudoun in Virginia (principal town: Leesburg), not far from Washington, D.C. Although the issue politics is all about the pace of development (sold as "property rights"), the people politics has been all about connections with developers and realtors. Loudoun County provides an excellent way of examining what to look for, ethically, if your city or county is growing fast. Below are questions to ask, and what appear to be the answers in Loudoun County.

(Federal prosecutors recently began to investigate for potential public corruption in Loudoun County, but I will assume that no criminal activity has occurred. In any event, whatever criminal activity there may have been arose from ignoring basic ethical rules and values.)

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

1. Who's in charge and what's his or her job? The chair of the Republican County Committee (6 of the 9 county supervisors are Republicans, 1 a Democrat, 2 Independents) is a land-use attorney. How would someone specializing in the county's busiest industry have time for such a position, unless somehow, directly or indirectly, he could use it to benefit his clients?

2. Who's the big hitter behind the scenes? The former chair of the board of supervisors, who, according to one of several investigative articles in the Washington Post, runs a consulting firm, works for a real estate company, and joined with builders, lawyers, landowners, and the county's biggest developer, Greenvest L.C., to successfully campaign for a return to political clout after she and her pro-development supervisors were thrown out of office in 1999. She was a key organizer of Citizens for Property Rights, a lobbying group that targeted supervisors with attack ads and sharply criticized them at public meetings. She was also a top strategist for three supervisor candidates in 2003; two of them were elected, the one that did not make it through the primary was appointed to the Planning Commission on the nomination of one of the other two (and there, as chair, he voted favorably on projects brought by companies with which he had business ties). The third became vice-chair of the board of supervisors (see 6 below). The big hitter did get a position of her own, on the Board of Equalization, which is involved in the valuing of property. And yet she continued to advise Greenvest and work closely with supervisors on development issues.

3. How much did development interests contribute to supervisor campaigns for the 2003 election? Over $490,000, more than seven times the figure of the prior supervisor election period in 1999.

4. Was anything done to specially benefit the big hitter soon (but not too soon) after the election? Six months after taking office, the board of supervisors boosted the number of homes that could be built on the big hitter's family farm (and, the following month, her family sold the farm for four times its assessed value prior to the zoning decision). That same day, the board authorized the county to purchase a parcel of land for two million dollars more than another buyer had contracted to purchase it for. Who was the real estate agent for the deal? None other than the big hitter, who was the natural choice for agent since, as a supervisor, she had engineered the prior purchase of this property by Islamic Saudi Academy, Inc. (three years earlier, at a price about a quarter of the county's purchase price).

5. Were any of the major contributors directly helped by the board's first major development decision? The board's decision to allow central sewer and water lines in an undeveloped 23,000-acre part of the county helped Greenvest, a big contributor that had purchased thousands of these undeveloped acres, and now could develop them. But this was only the beginning. The board voted at least two dozen more times for projects that directly benefitted people or companies that helped them get elected.

6. Has anyone done anything ruthless, showing that they feel they can get away with anything? Loudoun County residents vote directly for the chair of the board of supervisors. In 2003, they elected an Independent. The Republican supervisors elected a vice-chair and then stripped the chair of his authority and power and gave it to the vice-chair. A bloodless coup.

7. Is the group in power closed, does it expect loyalty from its members, and how does it treat those who oppose it, especially former supporters? The group in power is not closed in terms of party affiliation (the big hitter's boss is a Democrat, for example), but in terms of priorities. If you do not toe the line (which often means following agendas and sometimes even scripts written out for them), then you are ostracized and attacked, even if (especially if?) you are a Republican. The principal enemy appears to be a supervisor who is the former executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schafly's 'pro-family' organization), who felt that home building in rural Loudoun was going too fast. 'We need to ostracize her,' another supervisor wrote in an email back in 2004. 'She is anti-growth and anti-property.' The response was that the big hitter will 'get her,' and the big hitter has been known to shout at her at public meetings.

Any closed group in power will get out of control. They tend toward paranoia, seeing others (that is, citizens) as obstacles or opponents. They tend to create ideological justifications for their actions (we're protecting property), as well as leadership justifications (we're doing what's best for the county). They create a myth about their victimization (we were thrown out by liberals who don't respect property, and we showed them that we were on the side of good).

8. What's the campaign theme and is it truly the issue? Property rights, which appeals to wealthy homeowners, is the nice way of describing zoning variances and waivers that give development rights to large landowners and developers, at the expense of homeowners' property values, schooling, etc. Property rights is certainly an issue with respect to eminent domain, but developers buy property knowing the zoning restrictions on it; these are taken into account in valuing the property. Giving developers zoning variances is about gifts, not about rights.

9. What happens if and when someone suggests improvements in ethics laws? A proposal to prohibit supervisors from accepting campaign contributions from groups with pending development applications before the board led to emotional debate and a narrow victory (5-4), even though the measure requires approval from the state, so that it won't affect the 2007 election. The measure was also amended to include contributions from any special interest group taking a position on development applications.

Opponents called the rule a restriction on political speech and the disenfranchisement of property owners. One supervisor accused those in favor of the rule of trying to score political points, currying favor with the Washington Post, criminalizing policy differences, and demonizing the development community "in a way reminiscent of McCarthyism and the Spanish Inquisition." Strong stuff in response to a limited ethics provision.

What can one do about this? Improve the ethics laws. Insist on full disclosure of all contributions and business relationships, ownership as well as clients. Insist that anyone doing business in, say, real estate does not sit on any body that deals with real estate. Insist that campaigns be fought on the rate of development, not property rights. Insist that governmental changes (power from chair to vice-chair) be approved by voters. Insist that anyone who wants to serve in government be allowed to, even if he or she is not a member or friend of the group in power. Insist that zoning decisions be handled by a separate body, on which no one involved, directly or indirectly, in real estate serves.

It's a lot of work and, of course, there isn't much money on the line for anyone who participates. That's what makes it so difficult. But it's a worthwhile investment for the long run of the city or county.

Any other ideas about what to look for and what to do in a situation such as this?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics