Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

An Abuser Fee by any Other Name Is Still an Abuser Fee

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

It’s only Jan. 4, and already Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax, has established himself as the front runner in the 2008 “newspeak” awards. Crafting new legislation to resurrect the much-abused Abuser Fee law he wrote last year, he’s changing his terminology. Instead of calling abuser fees “abuser fees,” he’s calling them “liquidated damage fees.” Hugh Lessig with the Daily Press explains:

[The bill] relies on the legal premise of implied consent — that Virginia’s highways are maintained by taxpayers and made available to the public under an implied contract that they be used responsibly. If anyone breaks the contract, regardless of home state, damages are owed.

Albo contends that his proposal will affect out-of-state drivers, who are exempted under the original law, because their home state can suspend their license once Virginia notifies them of the violation.

If true, that would eliminate the law’s most unpopular feature. But Albo may have tough sledding even so. Among other straws in the wind, Bill Bolling has called for the outright appeal of abuser fees. Meanwhile, the Lt. Governor wrote in a press release issued yesterday, Del. Lacey Putney, I-Bedford, Del. Mark Cole, R-Fauquier, and Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, have agreed to introduce legislation calling for repeal of the abusive driver fees. And other legislators, he predicted, will likely get into the act.

Explained Bolling:

Recent information provided by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission indicates that the abusive driver fees are not generating anywhere near the $60M a year we had been told they would generate. In fact, the fees only resulted in total collections of $2.8M through November 30th of 2007.

While it may be possible to address some of the concerns that have been raised, such as those discussed above, through revisions to the 2007 legislation, I believe that would be a mistake. While this was the most noble of efforts, it simply has not worked out the way it was intended.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

7 responses to “An Abuser Fee by any Other Name Is Still an Abuser Fee”

  1. Jon Baliles Avatar
    Jon Baliles

    Albo’s arrogance.

    By the logic that Virginia’s highways are maintained by the taxpayers and subject to am implied contract of responsible use or damages are owed, the same holds true with legislators and their time we pay them for spending at the Capitol.

    Passing this legislation is a shining example that damages should be paid by legislators that support it.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Good to see LG Bolling continuing to take a leadership position in calling for the repeal of the abuser fees.

    At least we have one commonsense Republican in this Commonwealth.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I cannot think of a more brilliant strategy to get taxpayers to BEG for a gas tax – instead.

    Let’s keep score of how many elected “reluctantly” agree to the “demands” of their constituents!!

    🙂

  4. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    You might be interested in the expansion of Albo’s traffic law firm: http://www.nowhere-fast.net/2008/01/05/dave-albos-suspicious-expansion/

    Seems awfully fishy to me.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For the present, not n the long term, a higher gas tax makes more sense. Perticularly if it is per dollar, and not per gallon.

    Those that drive pickups and SUV’s might disagree. My commute to work goes through a fair amount of farm country. Recently, I see a lot of SUV’s parked at the end of the lane: for sale.

    But, on a Saturday, driving to work, I find a far hiher percentage of people driving aggressively.

    I think that the basic idea behind the abuser fees is correct, but the implementation is wrong.

    If I foret to renew my drivers license, then that shoud NOT be equal in expese to ramming into the back of someone due to aggressive driving, or even tailgating with a severe lack of imagination as to what the results might be.

    The fines shoud be based on results, not possibilities. If you hit someone from behind, then I dona’t have a problem with a thousand dollar fine.

    If you successfully tailgate someone who is a slowpoke nuisance, then the fine should not be the same.

    But, if you are agressively tailgaiting someone who is a slowpoke nuisance because they are 75 years old, then that is a differnet story.

    And THAT is the problem with the bill as it stands.

    We should throw the book at people who screw up. If they get away with being idiots, we shoudn’t.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    RH

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I am shocked to find that there are conflicts of interest among the members of the General Assembly. Frankly, we should give an award if we can find one member of the GA who is not operating under some kind of conflict of interest.

    The anti-abuser fee crowd is in circular logic mode again. Now, the amount of money generated by user fees is so low that it’s a problem. 90 days ago the fees were going to bankrupt countless generally law abiding Virginia drivers. Hmmmmm….

    LG Bolling’s comment:

    “Recent information provided by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission indicates that the abusive driver fees are not generating anywhere near the $60M a year we had been told they would generate. In fact, the fees only resulted in total collections of $2.8M through November 30th of 2007”.

    That statistic sounds fishy to me. Wouldn’t you expect COLLECTIONS to lag the passage of the law. In addition, I know a few people who have gotten large abuser fee tickets (each for serious driving offenses). They tell me they can pay the fee over three years. That would also delay the ramp – up of collections. Was the $60M per year supposed to start immediately? LG Bolling’s statistics sound like just another Virginia politician putting lopsided spin on what should be a straight forward discussion.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I heard Sen. ex-Majority Leader Walter Stosch speak this past weekend. He referred to the abusive driver fee portion of the transportation bill as a minor section that the public latched onto. A solon in a leadership position refering to the proposed taxation of $65 million from the public as “minor” shows the deep attitudinal problems we face. We are in trouble. And this guy squeaked to re-election by running as a tax cutting conservative.

Leave a Reply

Read More