I am very against this bill which allows conversion of at-large to single-member districts under voting rights court orders. Local Autonomy: This undermines local governance by imposing structural changes without current community input. Voting Rights Act: It might not align with Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) criteria for addressing vote dilution. Representation Impact: Single-member districts could reduce diversity in representation, as seen in Davis v. Bandemer (1986). Shaw v. Reno Precedent: Risks racial gerrymandering, potentially leading to legal issues as in Shaw v. Reno (1993). Erosion of At-Large Benefits: Loses the broad perspective at-large systems provide, contrary to Holder v. Hall (1994). Gerrymandering Risk: Transition could lead to gerrymandering, a concern in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Governance Disruption: Allows current members to finish terms, potentially disrupting governance. Administrative Burden: Redistricting and elections impose significant costs and effort. Representation Principle: Challenges achieving fair representation as per Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Community Cohesion: Might fragment community unity by narrowing political focus. I oppose this for undermining local control, complicating fair representation, and risking community cohesion, advocating for a more inclusive approach to electoral reform.

Please vote for HB1990. I am a voter in Virginia Beach. The transformation of our local elections since moving to single member districts has been amazing. Residents agree that our members of City Council are much more responsive now. People feel a stronger connection to their representative. This has been an extremely beneficial change.

The committee should not lessen the number of days for a second public hearing notice. Community members should have the full seven days which is not much time to begin with. There are numerous reasons why the days should not be shortened including their need to to change their schedule in order to attend or hire a sitter or prepare for the meeting as planning and zoning is complicated and many times impacts a block, neighborhood and sometimes the entire community. The community members are already on the short end as these meetings are not publicized well enough and the developers and lawyers representing them know all details and have already been working with the town in preparation and payment of fees, etc. Further, in many cases the attorneys and sometimes the developers have worked on other projects that have been before either or both boards. Please show the community members the respect they deserve and keep the full seven days as is. It is important that the community does not feel railroaded into irreversible decisions. Thank you.

I am against the change to reduce the public hearing notice period from seven to five days for planning and zoning actions. Here are my concerns: Reduced Public Awareness: A shorter notice period might not give the community sufficient time to become aware of and engage with the proposed changes, potentially reducing public participation in local governance, which is crucial for democratic processes. Legal Precedents: Cases like Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) emphasize the importance of adequate notice in administrative proceedings to ensure due process. Reducing the notice period could be seen as contrary to ensuring fair notice and opportunity for public input. Potential for Misinformation: With less time, there's a higher risk that misinformation or lack of information could spread, leading to public misunderstanding or opposition based on incomplete knowledge of the proposals. Community Involvement: Effective community involvement requires time for residents to review plans, discuss them, and organize if necessary. Five days might not be enough, especially for complex zoning changes that require detailed consideration. Work Days and Weekends Issue: The bill does not distinguish between work days and weekends, which could lead to confusion: If the 5th day before the meeting falls on a weekend or a day when offices are closed, this could mean that the notice might not be effectively communicated if published on a non-business day, potentially excluding those who do not check local government notices regularly outside of work hours. This oversight could undermine the purpose of public notice, which is to ensure broad community awareness. Administrative Burden: While the intention might be to reduce costs, the change could actually increase administrative confusion or require additional steps to ensure notices are published on business days, potentially offsetting any savings. I strongly oppose this legislation due to concerns over reduced public engagement, potential legal issues, misinformation risks, insufficient time for community involvement, and the lack of consideration for non-business days in the notice publication, advocating for maintaining or even extending the current notice period to better serve democratic principles and community interests.

Mecklenburg County supports the amendment to Section 15.2 - 2204.A. contained in HB 1996. While we appreciate the intent of the changes made by the last two sessions of the General Assembly to standardize public notices throughout the Code, we believe, from experience, that this last change to zoning notices (implementing a seven-day end-window) frustrates rather than enhances public notice. In many areas of the Commonwealth, newspapers publish once a week. In our area, our papers publish on Wednesday. With Monday Board meetings, we are unable to publish the second notice in the paper in the edition leading up to the meeting, when people are most apt to be looking for what will be on the Board’s agenda. Since the second notice should be a reminder notice, we believe it serves the public interest to have that reminder notice in the paper immediately preceding the meeting. A reversion to the five-day end-window, as existed prior to 2023, would allow for this in our case. This change still allows for advance notice to be placed in time to put the meeting on one's calendar via the first notice, so it would not reduce the information provided to the public. Rather, the change most meets the public when they need notice.

I am in favor of this bill which updates the charter of the Town of Buchanan in Botetourt County to align with current state laws and modernize town governance. Election Synchronization: By shifting municipal elections to November, this bill synchronizes Buchanan's election schedule with the general election calendar, potentially increasing voter turnout and simplifying the electoral process for residents, enhancing democratic participation. Modernization of Governance: Updating the town manager's residency requirements reflects contemporary standards, ensuring flexibility in hiring the best candidate for the role, regardless of where they live, which can attract more qualified individuals to serve the town. Streamlined Administration: Requiring the town manager to appoint the town clerk streamlines the administrative process, centralizing decision-making within the town's executive branch, which can lead to more efficient town operations. Repeal of Outdated Provisions: The repeal of provisions relating to the appointment of commissioners of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority removes outdated or redundant sections from the charter, simplifying legal frameworks and reducing potential confusion or overlap in governance roles. Legal Compliance: This bill ensures that the Town of Buchanan's charter complies with general state law, avoiding potential legal conflicts or challenges due to discrepancies between local and state regulations. Community Benefit: These updates are likely to benefit the community by aligning local governance with state practices, improving administrative efficiency, and ensuring that town leadership reflects current needs and standards, fostering a more responsive and effective local government. I support this legislation for its alignment with state laws, enhancement of voter participation, modernization of town governance, administrative efficiency, legal clarity, and overall community benefit.

Please stop turning Virginia into another California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois. They are a mess because of leftist agenda. So many people have left Northern Virginia for the same reasons. Why are some of you still using illogical policies? The middle class has been destroyed by the leftist government. Why don’t you stop the hurtful agenda and work with all American citizens and the administration instead of trying to divide us again. This is why many find today’s progressive policies irresponsible. By the way, who allowed our monuments, statues , and businesses to be destroyed? Who wanted to defund the police? It was not the common sense law abiding citizens and leaders. Equality, Liberty for all Virginia.

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 3%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control. [THIS COMMENT CHANGES A WORD IN MY PRIOR COMMENT, TO REFLECT THE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL APPARENTLY MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. THANKS!].

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 7%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control.

Collecting of rent on a working person is a deeply asymmetrical act. We must put a finger on the scales of this asymmetry by legislative wisdom or else risk further corrosion of the load bearing parts of society, the working people, be driven into a corner and abandoned for landlord profit. It's unconscionable to allow the renters to control the market as thoroughly as they do. Anti-rent gouging is an important policy need that we must approve. FOR HB2175

Peace, I am FOR the adoption of local anti-rent gouging ordinances! This would be amazing for thousands of tenants to stop landlords from the ridiculous rent hikes. Year after year tenants that live with same living conditions, or worse off living conditions are being charged more for essentially nothing in exchange. Exspenses are continuously rising & wages are staying the same. It takes more time away from the home to maintain a home that is only half way being lived in so someone else can benefit outside of the home one is taking care of. Its up to the people to look our for the people, you never know when you are going to be the person neededing to be taken care of. Thank you.

I am against this bill which would allow localities to implement their own anti-rent gouging ordinances, as it could lead to several issues: State and Federal Overlap: With existing state and federal price gouging laws, this bill introduces redundancy. Statewide laws provide a consistent framework, whereas local ordinances could create a patchwork of regulations, complicating compliance for landlords operating in multiple jurisdictions. Economic Distortion: Setting a rent increase cap at the lesser of CPI or 7% might not reflect local market dynamics, potentially distorting the housing market by discouraging investment in rental properties or maintenance, leading to a decrease in housing quality or availability. Administrative Burden: The requirement for localities to establish an anti-rent gouging board adds layers of bureaucracy, increasing administrative costs and complexity for local governments, which could divert resources from other essential services. Notice Period: Mandating a two-month notice for rent increases could be impractical in fast-moving markets or for landlords facing sudden increases in their own costs, potentially impacting their financial stability. Exemption Process: The creation of an exemption process through a board could lead to favoritism or inconsistent application of rules, potentially opening the door for legal challenges or perceptions of unfair treatment. Civil Penalties: Imposing civil penalties might deter small landlords or those with limited resources from continuing to rent out properties, reducing the rental housing stock at a time when affordable housing is already scarce. Proposed Amendment to State Law: Given these concerns, I propose an amendment to the existing state price gouging law to address rent increases more effectively: Amendment: Add a provision to the state's price gouging statute that specifically addresses rent increases during emergencies or housing crises. This amendment would: Standardize the Approach: Ensure a uniform state-wide policy on rent increases, avoiding the confusion of local variations. Emergency Triggers: Only activate during declared states of emergency or when a housing crisis is officially recognized by the state, preventing unnecessary regulation during normal market conditions. Cap Based on CPI: Set a cap on rent increases at the annual CPI increase or a fixed percentage (e.g., 5%), whichever is lower, during the specified periods, providing predictability for both tenants and landlords. Notice Requirement: Require landlords to provide at least one month's written notice of any rent increase during these periods, balancing tenant protection with landlord flexibility. Exemptions: Allow for state-level exemptions in cases where landlords can demonstrate significant, unforeseen increases in their operational costs, with a clear, transparent process managed by the state housing authority. Enforcement: Establish state-level enforcement with civil penalties for non-compliance, ensuring consistency and reducing the administrative load on local governments. This amendment would maintain the integrity of the state's regulatory framework, provide protections where they are most needed, and avoid the pitfalls of localized, potentially inconsistent regulations.

My property management company raises rent a minimum of 8% per lease renewal, and I was told that by the manager themselves. I am a social worker working for the state and my annual salary increases have been grossly insufficient. I have questioned whether I will end up homeless because of the increased rent. There is no evidence as to why the rent needs to go up as high as it has; the landlords aren’t required to provide any justification. It is causing families to become homeless; this runs off into increased CPS reports for children, increased mental health and substance use issues, etc. when people lose their homes. I am being “priced out” of the city I have lived in for my entire 27 years of life. Please please consider passing this legislation to protect hard working Virginians who would love to stay here.

This bill is fair to all, landlords and tenants. Providing notice of changes to tenants is practical as well as courteous. In reading the bill, I saw nothing that should keep landlords and all of us from supporting it. I do support it. Thank you.

I am in favor of this bill which allows localities to publish legal notices on their websites, with a proposed amendment to ensure inclusivity. Modern Access: This legislation acknowledges the shift towards digital communication, making legal notices more accessible to those who regularly use the internet for information, enhancing transparency and public engagement. Cost Efficiency: Publishing notices online can reduce costs associated with traditional newspaper publication, potentially freeing up local government funds for other community services or projects. Environmental Benefits: Digital publication reduces the need for paper, contributing to environmental conservation efforts by decreasing the physical footprint of legal notices. Broader Reach: Websites can reach a broader audience, including those outside the immediate locality who might have interests or property within it, ensuring wider dissemination of important information. Proposed Amendment: Dual Publication Requirement: To address the digital divide and ensure that all community members, regardless of their internet or newspaper access, are informed, I propose an amendment that requires: Both Online and Print Publication: Localities must publish legal notices both on their official website and in a newspaper of general circulation within the locality. This dual approach ensures that individuals without internet access still receive critical information through traditional means, while also catering to the digital-savvy population. Inclusivity: This amendment recognizes that not everyone has internet access or regularly reads newspapers, aiming to bridge the gap by providing multiple avenues for public notification, reflecting the diversity in how people consume information. By supporting this bill with the amendment, we ensure that legal notices are accessible to all residents, maintaining the integrity of public notification processes while adapting to modern communication practices.

The City of Newport News supports HB2690.