Criteria Used to Rate Supervisors: The table below is based on supervisors’ voting records, public statements, and other political activity related to balanced growth issues. Numerous newspaper articles, e-mails from supervisors, and other information on this website document the supervisors’ positions. (Click this link for more information on supervisors’ positions.)
The table below applies only to supervisors’ positions and votes on balanced growth issues and are in no way an attempt to evaluate their records in any other way.
Relative to the last column to the right, we indeed believe that residential developer campaign contributions influence politicians’ behavior in the long run and are thus germane to a discussion of balanced growth issues. If that were not true, why would donors contribute? On the other hand, we consider it even more important to judge the politican’s actual political behavior.
|Chairman Mike May||Supervisor Peter Candland||Supervisor Maureen Caddigan||Supervisor Frank Principi||Supervisor John Jenkins||Chairman Corey Stewart||Supervisor Marty Nohe||Supervisor Wally Covington|
|Stone Haven housing development, latest incarnation of the unpopular 2005-06 Brentswood plan (2012-14):||Voted against Stone Haven||Voted against Stone Haven||Voted against Stone Haven||Voted for Stone Haven (allowing county to continue to consider it)||Voted for Stone Haven (allowing county to continue to consider it)||Voted for and has actively lobbied for Stone Haven||Voted for and has actively lobbied for Stone Haven||Voted for and has actively lobbied for Stone Haven|
|Preservation of Rural Crescent by keeping out development and sewer lines, which make high-density housing possible:||Strongly supports; signed pledge to preserve Rural Crescent.||Promises to support Rural Crescent, but did not sign pledge to preserve.||Usually supports; signed pledge to preserve Rural Crescent.||Apparently supports; signed pledge to preserve Rural Crescent.||Has consistently supported expansion of sewer lines and other development into Rural Crescent.||Has increasingly supported efforts to expand development into Rural Crescent, including supporting review of Rural Crescent policy, which is most likely to result in looser restrictions on residential development there.||Has consistently supported expansion of sewer lines and other development into Rural Crescent, including proposing and actively campaigning for review of Rural Crescent policy, which is most likely to result in looser restrictions on residential development there.||Has consistently supported expansion of sewer lines and other development into Rural Crescent.|
|Building of north-south Bi-County Parkway/Tri-County Parkway (which is likely to open rural areas to residential development) despte the fact that traffic congestion is primarily east-west:||Actively opposes||Actively opposes||Actively opposes||Strongly Supports||Supports||Strongly supports||Strongly supports||Strongly supports|
|Actively supports increasing developer proffers, which partially offset cost to taxpayers of infrastructure costs of residential development (road, schools, water, sewer, polic & fire protection, etc). Prince William’s proffers are lowest of major northern VA counties:||Supports higher developer proffers||Recently began suggesting need for higher developer||Claims to support higher developer proffers in principle, but has not voted for or actively supported increasing them.||Position unknown||Opposes higher developer proffers||Passively supported higher developer proffers in 2007, but has made no serious effort since to increase them.||Opposes higher developer proffers||Opposes higher developer proffers|
|2011-14 minimizes dependence on developer campaign funding (<30% or under $50K) to avoid conflicts of interest:||Yes||Yes||Yes||No||Yes||No; has strong conflicts of interest||No; has strong conflicts of interest||No; has extreme conflicts of interest|