
The Arlington County Board meeting last night (Nov 27) ran until after 12:30 AM to get to this item, but the visitor can watch it on the web. It's about fifteen minutes of pretty interesting viewing, and would make a good "DC Short" for a film festival. The link is this. Click on Consent Item 39 (it is underlined with an obvious hyperlink) and the 15 minute video of the discussion and vote will start.
The Board did approve this item, 5-0. But several interesting and somewhat disturbing points came out. The first speaker, a male (I did not get the name) raised the most disturbing questions. He asked "where are the boundaries" and asked if (1) non-profits leasing space in commercial buildings would be affected (there are many associations in Arlington), and (2) could residents of homes or apartments, if they telecommute or run their own home-based businesses in a manner otherwise legal under the Arlington zoning codes (which are generally pretty reasonable) cause the property to be classified as "commercial" and lead to an escalation of tax. It's easy to imagine that this could be a sensitive matter of a renter caused an increase this way, although it's also hard for me (personally) to imagine a law being applied this way. The speaker noted that the county wants to encourage telecommuting as a way of "going green"; it's also possible that there could be speculative political problems involving self-owned businesses v. working for someone else.
In fact, however, if you go to the PDF document (link here) you find the wording "The tax would involve only commercial properties and excludes residential properties such as single-family homes, townhouses and multi-family properties." That, to me, would appear to answer that speaker's concerns, but I hope that visitors who disagree will comment here. Because the Board placed this document online recently and it seems clear, I found it unnecessary to go to the meeting, wait for many hours and speak.
Admittedly, some of this speaker's concerns might be semantic in nature. The proposed ordinance 20-6 (on the file above) mentions "all commercial and industrial real property in Arlington County declared by the General Assembly to be a separate class of real property for local taxation pursuant to Virginia Code..." as if that class were externally defined somewhere in a potentially ambiguous manner. The board member (below) seemed to address this possibility.
A second "general public" speaker was Brian Gordon, who represented commercial and apartment property owners. There was some indication that a like rate could be just a ten cent increase, however Alexandria (a city) and Prince William County have elected not to use the tax, and Fairfax County has elected to use it. A Mr. Kevistsky (I did not see the spelling) also spoke. There is concern that the tax would be passed on to commercial tenants in the form of higher rents, and that after a Homestead Exemption is considered in another year, even more tax could be levied on commercial properties.
A Board member noted that local governments pressured the Virginia General Assembly to write the residential property exemption in the law; the original bill might well have included apartment buildings and rental properties if this "liberal Democrat" pressure had not been present in the legislature from some northern Virginia jurisdictions. It appears that be board member means that the definition of "commercial and industrial real property" (phrase referred to above) is still restricted to its ordinary meaning in real estate zoning administrative law.
Philosophically, one can imagine an issue for bloggers or Internet businesses operated from home (within zoning parameters) that gain an "advantage" over larger businesses with lower taxes. This kind of argument actually came up a couple years ago in the debate about blogging and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform issue. However, to create the problem, the county (or any jurisdiction in Virginia that perceived an issue like this) would have to also change its zoning rules or add other language to tax legislation that what appears here, as far as I can tell. One would simply have to stay tuned.
The County Board has not set the tax rate (or even said that there will definitely be an increase at all), and as of yet I don't know when the meeting to debate it is scheduled, or when it could take effect. I will check into this soon and update here. Visitors who know should comment.
(This item was previously discussed on this blog Nov. 13, 2007; see archives)
Update: Nov. 30, 2007
A Washington Post story today by Sandhya Somashekhar "The Immigration Debate: Full Coverage: Sterling Areas Targeted for Stiffer Zoning Enforcement" gives a good picture of issues that come up more frequently in zoning issues; the link is here.
Update: Dec. 14, 2007
I spoke to a board employee by phone today after looking at the agendas for the Dec 15 and 18 Board meetings. The commercial tax increase is not scheduled on the agenda and no action has been taken yet. It does not appear that the issue can be addressed before January 2008.

Update: Dec. 28, 2007
Although the ordinance allowing the commercial property levy was adopted Nov. 27, there seems to be no evidence from Dec. 15 and Dec 18 board meetings that a specific additional assessment has yet been adopted for 2008 (starting Jan 1). There was an unrelated small sewer tax (Item 31) and a transportation plan and local corridor issue (Item 17) but no actual additional tax levy mentioned.
Here is a link for the ordinance as adopted Nov. 27.
Update: Jan. 1, 2008
Kirstin Downey has a story on p B1 Metro of The Washington Post, "Alexandria Weighs Tax Hike, Legacy of Va. Transportation Bill," here. She says small businesses are very concerned about adverse impact of the tax compared to large businesses, that can pass on costs because of economies of scale. "In Fairfax and Arlington counties, officials are proceeding with plans for the new tax, but in the face of widespread opposition from business groups, officials in Prince William County have decided not to enact it."

This topic is continued on Jan. 19 2008 on this blog.


















