Your
article "Look,
Ma, No Taxes" (December 16, 2002) about
Governor Warner's new transportation strategy was
right on point. So was your previous article "Handicapping
the Referendum" (October 28), in which you
pointed out that the average commuting times for
most Northern Virginians had not gotten appreciably
worse during the 1990s. You correctly called the
transportation referendum defeat, even though you
welshed out at the end on making a firm prediction,
thus depriving yourself of great credit.
I
agree with your post-referendum analysis that
"in retrospect, the transportation 'crisis' was
a P.R. conjuring trick," and offer an example.
As you are probably aware, the Washington Post
was one of the biggest promoters of the NoVa
referendum. For months prior to November 5, the Post
ran several articles weekly on how horrible the
traffic was, and numerous editorials and op-eds on
how it was imperative to pass the referendum to fix
the traffic mess. Op-eds opposed to the referendum
were virtually non-existent, despite being
submitted, and you could count on one hand articles
which gave more than a brief mention of the
opposition position.
After
the referendum failed, there were a few articles for
a week or two about the dire financial straits of
Metro, the VRE, etc. But, miraculously, the horrible
traffic seems to have disappeared. Or at least the
Post has stopped reporting on it. I have not done a
scientific study as to how many pro-referendum
articles and editorials there were, but I did begin
to wonder if the Post might, just might, have been
whipping up the crisis.
This
thought was reinforced by consistent polls over the
past few years which found that controlling growth
and development rank much higher in voters' concerns
than traffic congestion or transportation funding.
It was also reinforced in an unscientific way by the
Post's own Dr. Gridlock, who from time to time would
ask readers to describe their long commutes. The
letters more often than not ran this way: "I
have a horrible commute, but I commute to a very
high paying job which I love and I live in a house
which cost me much less than anything I could find
near my job. So I put up with it."
Thank
you for your thoughtful and well-researched
articles.
Josephine
de Give
Piedmont
Environmental Council
jdegive@pecva.org
According
to de Give, the Washington Post declined to
publish the following op-ed piece submitted by
Christopher Miller and Stewart Schwartz, leaders of
the "smart growth" forces opposing the
taxes-for-transportation referendum. Bacon's
Rebellion, by contrast, finds their analysis worth
presenting.
A
Vote for Smarter Growth in Virginia
In
the discussion about the election results, pundits
and politicians make a similar error; they assume
that the voters did not understand the implications
of their rejection of the sales tax referenda.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The electorates in both Northern Virginia and
Hampton Roads have access to both information and
direct experience that led them to conclude that
money for road and highway expansion in the absence
of effective land use policies is not a panacea.
The
vote against the sales tax referenda was certainly a
reflection of Virginians’ fiscal conservatism; but
it also is an expression of long standing concerns
about unmanaged growth and a prudent reluctance to
throw good money after bad. The same electorate
supported investment in higher education, parks, and
even local roads.
What
pundits and politicians both ignore is that the
public has consistently expressed concerns about the
obvious failure of the land use policies of Fairfax,
Loudoun and Prince William counties over the past 20
years. Furthermore,
polling going back nearly a decade has consistently
placed unmanaged growth as a primary concern of the
Northern Virginia electorate, and recent polls show
the same concern statewide.
-
A
1997 poll of Northern Virginia voters by
Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates found:
“In spite of all the public attention that
transportation and traffic congestion generates,
only 5.7 percent listed that issue as a top
priority.”
-
And,
of course, the September 2002 Mason-Dixon
Northern Virginia poll found that although 52
percent said they would vote for the sales tax
(at that time) and 64 percent rated the
transportation system fair or poor, an
astonishing 59 percent thought it wouldn’t
relieve congestion!
The
electorate began matching its actions to the polls
even before the referendum vote.
In 1997, voters in Loudoun County supported a
mixed slate of Republicans, Democrats, and
Independents who ran on a Smart Growth platform.
Elections since in Chesapeake,
Fredericksburg, Stafford and Frederick Counties have
continued this trend, with smart growth candidates
winning seats.
Despite
this clear expression of voter sentiment, General
Assembly committees have consistently killed bills
to give local governments more authority to manage
growth. Over
the past decade the only meaningful action the
General Assembly has taken on these issues is to
take away existing local government authority –
passing at least eight bills reducing local land use
authority. In
the past we have been told that it is politically
impossible to pass smart growth bills.
We believe that now it is not only
politically possible, but also politically
necessary.
With
defeat of the referenda, the voters clearly rejected
a vision of Virginia based on ever expanding
highways and sprawl development. An alternative
vision for the future is contained in our Blueprint
for a Better Region and is matched with an array of recommended policies
for state and local government.
Governor
Warner has an opportunity to work with the
leadership of the General Assembly to capitalize on
the sophistication of Virginia’s voters to reshape
policies for the future. While some of these
measures may involve funding, they are nowhere near
the cost of the massive, $11 billion program
rejected by the voters. Among the steps which can be
taken:
