Remarks to the Prince William Planning Commission: October 12, 2022

My name is Bill Wright and I live in Gainesville.  I oppose the conduct of the Planning Commission, specifically as demonstrated during your public hearings of September 14^th and 28^th.

I am not complaining about a difference of opinion, which you are entitled to have.  I am taking issue with suppression of evidence, an abrogation of due process and a disregard for public input.  I also believe it is probable that your decision-making process is unduly affected by political considerations which override factual ones.

On the subject of suppression of evidence, I supplied verifiable information to the commissioners and the Planning Office on multiple occasions that the county was reaching the upper limit of the forecasted demand for data centers without the Prince William Digital Gateway.  With Stack Infrastructure’s recent announcement to develop a total of four million square feet of data center capacity at Hornbaker Road, Prince William County now has more than 49 million square feet operating or under development.  That’s more than the Camoin report said was needed for the next twenty years.  Why do you refuse to acknowledge such facts?

On the subject of abrogation of due process, on the morning of September 15^th, one of the Commissioners referenced a letter in the motion to recommend the Prince William Digital Gateway that had not been made previously available to the public and was not until eight hours after the hearing and vote concluded.  Notably, this letter contained the recission of proffers which had been touted in the Planning Office presentation only hours before.

On the subject of disregard for public input, at the September 28^th public hearing on the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan update, public sentiment was almost unanimously in favor of deferring the decision.  Yet a minute after public comment concluded, a commissioner made a motion to approve as though no public hearing had ever been conducted.

I was present at the Historical Commission meeting on October 3^rd where two members of the Planning Office staff were present.  On two occasions, I heard staff members cite “supervisor priorities” when rationalizing a Planning Office position dismissive of historical preservation concerns.  I heard these same explanations during the Planning Commission work session on the Prince William Digital Gateway on July 20^th and in other meetings.

The Supervisors are elected officials and perfectly empowered to vote as they choose when a proposal reaches them.  However, it is the duty of professional government staff and reviewing bodies like the Planning Commission to make fact-based assessments, free of political influence, when preparing their recommendations.  When Supervisors extend their reach into what is supposed to be an impartial review process, it corrupts the integrity of that process and undermines the credibility of the outcome.  The predictable result is public skepticism and acrimony.

If the Planning Commission becomes a rubber stamp for their supervisor sponsors, what value are you adding to the process?  I see one of your colleagues has resigned.  Could it be he found being a rubber stamp unfulfilling?