I agree with the letter writer in the June 13 Daily Progress that we need a “factual discussion” about revenue sharing and a replacement of “one-sided” narratives (“County gets revenue advantage”). That why I must respond.

The letter suggested that a one-sided narrative fails to show how Albemarle County benefits from revenue sharing and Charlottesville loses. However:

» Don’t try to convince folks that Albemarle County has “gained” revenue when its citizens had given Charlottesville nearly $3 million since 1982 through 2018. That figure is based on the cumulative amount paid as of 2017 plus the then-expected payment for 2018. The total will be even higher once the 2019 payment is made to Charlottesville.

» Please don’t try to sell me on the idea that Charlottesville has lost tax revenue from the county’s urban ring. How do you lose something you never had?

» Why is it called revenue “sharing” when Charlottesville has never given Albemarle citizens a penny?

» Why, when our county supervisor listens to her constituents and asks hard questions about revenue sharing, is it called a “false narrative”? I commend Supervisor Ann Mallek for her work and questions on this issue and would hope that other supervisors will take up the cause.

Yes, the agreement was approved by Albemarle voters — but they knew that if it did not pass, county land would be annexed by the city. And anytime revenue sharing is discussed, it also should be pointed out that in 1987 the state installed a moratorium on annexations.

The more that new folks moving to Albemarle County learn about this agreement, the more voices will call for ending it.

William Schrader

Albemarle County

References:

page 19

Get Breaking News Alerts

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
Load comments