|
Gov.
Mark Warner isn’t being straight with the
voters. In a desperate effort to obtain approval
of the sales tax referenda in Hampton Roads and
Northern Virginia, he is telling voters that the opponents
“offer no alternatives.” He knows that’s
untrue.
Referendum
opponents have offered very clear alternatives.
The Piedmont Environmental Council has spent a
substantial sum of money developing and
promoting a bold solution to gridlock and urban
sprawl. PEC proposes an approach based on
investment in mass transit and land use controls
to steer development toward corridors served by
transit.
A
different option has been advocated by others,
including this writer. In fact, it was the
preferred option of the legislative study
committee considering the Hampton Roads
situation right up to the final months of 2001.
That option is toll-financing for new road
projects.
The
fact that the governor and the legislative study
committee rejected the toll option does not mean
that it isn’t an alternative for the voters to
consider. Perhaps, the governor doesn’t read
but he certainly must be able to hear what his
Secretary of Transportation, Whittington
Clement, tells him.
Clement
said in January that “
Virginia
needs to be more creative in finding solutions
to transportation.” He recognized that “we
can’t pave our way out of
Northern Virginia
’s transportation problems.” Clement must
now have amnesia.
At
the very first debate on the sales tax
referendum on
July 13, 2002, in
Hot Springs, Clement and James Dyke of
Fairfax
County
represented the proponents, while Chris Miller,
the PEC executive director, and this writer
represented the opponents. In considerable
detail, the opponents described their
alternatives to the sales tax funding for more
“free” roads. If that weren’t enough,
Miller wrote to the governor on
September 16, 2002
, laying out PEC’s alternative again.
The
other alternative is a market-based alternative,
which depends in part on tolls and user charges.
It is well known to the opponents. They simply
reject it.
Contrary
to Warner’s charge, the opponents don’t
advocate doing nothing. They favor more
efficient and sensible programs than his. There
are costs associated with the opponents’
alternatives, but those costs will be borne more
equitably by those who directly benefit. Warner
relies on the regressive sales tax.
The
voters deserve an honest and candid discussion
of the issues before November 5. They should be
able to decide for themselves whether the
options rejected by the governor make sense. If
Warner continues to repeat what he knows isn’t
true and to withhold information vital to the
voters’ understanding of the question on the
ballot, he will lose the referendum fight for
sure.
Warner’s
shrill attack will backfire, particularly
because most voters know it’s misleading. The
opponents do offer alternatives. Warner’s
proposal isn’t environmentally sound. It will
undoubtedly produce more sprawl. It doesn’t
promote mass transit. And it won’t work.
When
Virginia
turned away from toll-financing (the kind that
made many of the region’s bridges and tunnels
possible) to massive, tax-supported road
building two decades ago, unmet transportation
needs were about $5 billion. Even with revenues
from the largest tax increase in state history,
the amount of unmet needs has skyrocketed to $80
billion today. We simply can’t afford more of
the same.
A
“yes” vote for the sales tax referendum is a
vote for more of the same. A “no” vote gives
the General Assembly a message and a chance to
do it right.
--
October 7, 2002
|
