Sometimes I think we have our political system upside down.
We think of state or federal government as “higher office” and local government as something lower on the political food chain, yet the hardest jobs in politics might well be in local government.
Local governing bodies — boards of supervisors, city councils, town councils — often have to deal with complex issues first, before they percolate up to Richmond or Washington.
However, local governing bodies also have fewer resources with which to gather the information necessary to make an informed decision about those issues — and fewer tools at their disposal to fix those problems.
This year is a big one in Virginia’s election cycle. Yes, we’re electing a governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and all 100 members of the House of Delegates. However, we’re also electing lots of local officials. Before we get too wrapped up in who the next governor will be, and which party will control the House, let’s take a moment to look at the issues that will be driving some of those local elections.
As soon as the Department of Elections released the list of who had made the ballot — this was back in July — we sent a questionnaire to every local candidate in Southwest and Southside Virginia. It had just two questions: “What’s the biggest challenge facing your county and how do you propose to address it?” and “What else would you like voters to know?” We’ve also repeatedly emailed those candidates we hadn’t heard from to try to prod them to reply. Many of them, we never heard from — and voters in those communities can decide what to make of that lack of responsiveness. Dozens of others, though, did reply. We’ve posted all those answers — or, in some cases, non-answers — on our Voter Guide. You can look up your locality, see who’s on the ballot and how they responded (if they did).
For today’s column, I read through all the responses of candidates for supervisor and council seats to see if there were any common themes. There are — and they highlight why these jobs can be so challenging. Not surprisingly, many candidates in rural communities cited the need for attracting more jobs and attracting (or retaining) more young adults. Those two things often go hand-in-hand, but they also run smack into another concern that often comes up — maintaining the rural character of the community. I also saw another issue pop up repeatedly that overlaps with all this — the lack of affordable housing. This is an issue that’s gained traction in recent years as housing prices have shot up. The lack of affordable housing may seem an obvious problem in high-growth suburban areas; it’s less so in rural areas. How can a community that’s losing population have a housing crisis, yet the problem is there nonetheless?
Here’s how to visualize that: Imagine a community with just one house. At one point, that house was occupied by a family of four. Time goes by, the kids grow up and move away — so the population of four drops to two. More time passes, and so does one of the adults. Now that community’s population is down to one — but the house is still occupied. If a couple, or even a single person, wants to move into that community (perhaps in a health care position to help care for that aging adult), those new residents need a place to live, but where? That’s how a community losing population can still have a housing crisis. Someone can build a house, but that new house takes land, which makes the community a little bit less rural.
These are the competing issues rural local governments must reconcile — attracting jobs, attracting people, making sure there’s a place for them to live, all while keeping the community rural. And, of course, all that has to be balanced against those who see the world primarily through their tax bill — and we had many candidates reply who said their top concern was taxes.
That’s another reason why I think local government is a tougher job than state government. The state has multiple ways it can raise revenues; local governments have limited ways, mostly property taxes. Rural localities can try to reduce that tax burden by encouraging commercial growth — that produces other tax revenues along with more jobs — but that commercial growth also runs the risk of making a community feel less rural.
The complexity of the issues came up in many of the answers candidates gave.
Take, for instance, B. Boyd Brown II, one of two independent candidates for the open seat in the Kerrs Creek District in Rockbridge County. “Our biggest local challenge is a growing retired population and a shrinking workforce,” he said in his answers. “You don’t have to look far to see that a lot of businesses are short-staffed and that many of our local kids leave after high school because of limited job options … and the problem is only getting worse.”
Brown’s answer set off multiple bells in my mind. Last year, a board member for a business in Rockbridge County contacted me. She said the business was having trouble finding enough workers (its workforce tends to be mostly young women). She’d read my columns on Virginia’s changing demography and asked if I’d put together a presentation for her board on the population trends in Rockbridge. I later turned that presentation into a column. What the statistics show is that, like many rural counties, Rockbridge has an older population — but also one that is aging faster than most other places in the state. More people are moving into Rockbridge than moving out. However, based on the “age pyramid” from the U.S. Census Bureau, it appears that Rockbridge is going to continue to grow older — because the county can’t attract enough new, younger residents to make up for all the aging.
Rockbridge is projected to gain population, ever so slightly, over the next 25 years, according to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. Other rural localities, though, are expected to lose population, and that’s a theme that pops up in some of the candidate answers. “Population loss is a top concern, which ultimately translates into lack of job availability and the need for more economic development,” said Randy Carter, an independent candidate for the District 1 seat in Wise County.
Carter’s answer jumps ahead to one obvious way to reverse population declines: Rural localities in Southwest and Southside need more jobs. (The focus here is rural because the major cities in this part of the state don’t have city council elections this year.) This is hardly new; it’s something we’ve heard for years now — but it still comes up.
A few of the candidates had specific ideas on how to do this.
Ronnie Collins, the Republican who holds the Fancy Gap seat on the Carroll County Board of Supervisors, used his answer to call for the county to hire a full-time economic development director. That highlights a problem rural communities have: Some are simply not well-staffed for the thing they need most.
Calling for more economic development in a rural area is easy; nobody’s ever against that. The difficulty comes in how to attract more jobs and attract or retain people, yet maintain the rural character of the community. Claudia Duck Tucker, the Republican supervisor in Amherst County’s District 2, addresses this challenge of keeping taxes low and attracting new jobs, all while preserving the rural character of the community in her answer: “Our tax base is mainly comprised from real estate tax. While we are home to some large companies and are thankful for the jobs they create, the tax burden is carried mainly by our citizens. Recruiting businesses and creating a “Look at Amherst County!” narrative for the emerging energy and data sectors is key. While we are VERY protective of our farmland, I would say that we are dang near perfect for energy companies looking to invest in nuclear and complex technology.”
(For those outside the region whose eyebrows are going up at the mention of “nuclear,” remember that Amherst is just across the James River from Lynchburg, which has two major nuclear companies, BWX Technologies and Framatone.)
Taxes and jobs, and the balance between economic growth and rural preservation, are issues that have all been around a long time. What seems new to me is how many candidates cite housing issues. We’ve seen housing prices skyrocket in recent years. In some ways, the solution seems a simple one — build more houses. When there’s high demand, prices will go up if there’s low supply. Unfortunately, that solution is only simple in theory. Neighbors often object to the rezonings that might be necessary to create more housing. There’s a shortage of tradespeople to build houses quickly. Developers may see more profit to be made from high-end housing than “affordable” housing. And we won’t even get into the impact of tariffs — about 80% of nails are imported.
Mike Meredith, an independent for the Boone District seat in Franklin County, and David Radford, a Republican seeking reelection to the Windsor Hills seat in Roanoke County, gave the most extensive answers on housing. Both candidates are also unopposed, which gives their views more weight since they are destined to be in office in January.
“The biggest challenge facing Roanoke County today is housing affordability,” Radford said. “As the demand for housing continues to grow, many residents find it increasingly difficult to secure affordable options that meet their needs. This issue not only impacts individuals and families but also affects our community’s overall economic health and vitality.
“To address this challenge, I propose reducing government restrictions that can hinder the development of new housing projects. By streamlining zoning regulations and simplifying the permitting process, we can encourage more private sector investment in housing. This approach will foster a more competitive market, allowing developers to respond more effectively to the demand for affordable housing. I also want to incentivize senior housing. The more senior housing that can be provided will open up the older homes in established neighborhoods for new families to buy lower cost homes.”
Meredith had a proposed solution I haven’t seen elsewhere: “Affordable housing can be achieved by building single-family homes and selling them to first-time home buyers. Including a clause in the deed that prevents them from being purchased and then rented out will help make them more accessible to buyers.”
There’s a final reason why local government may be harder than state or federal government: The governing bodies are smaller. On the one hand, that makes it easier to get something done. On the other hand, though, it increases the responsibility for each board member. Legislators who are out of their depth can disappear into the ranks of a 435-member U.S. House or a 100-member U.S. Senate or House of Delegates or even a 40-member state Senate. However, most local boards have five or seven members. That also increases the responsibility on voters, too. Think of it this way: You’re electing 1% of the House of Delegates but maybe 20% of your local governing board.
If you want to know more about where the candidates in your county stand, see our Voter Guide. And if you don’t see them there, you might want to ask them why.
Where the candidates stand
All six candidates for statewide office, and many candidates for the House of Delegates and local offices, have responded to our issues questionnaire. You can see their answers on our Voter Guide.
For even more political news, sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter: