Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Abuser Fees for Every Taste

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Just when I was beginning to think that Abuser Fees were only partially, not totally, bone-headed — see Mike Thompson’s column, “Perhaps We Should Call Them “Safe Street” Fees,” citing a reduction in major traffic citations — along comes my friend Terry Marsh, a Richmond attorney, with yet another reason to dislike them: Many of the offenses that generate fines have nothing to do with dangerous driving at all. He writes:

You can find the Virginia Supreme Court’s list of “Civil Remedial Fees” online here. Take a look at that list and tell me it’s just about abusive driving. “Learner’s permit violation”? “Refusing to drive to weigh station”? “Fail to report accident with less than $250 damage”?

Or, how about these (some of my favorites): knowingly operating a school bus without a safety belt ($300 fine)…. Blocking access to a service area ($300 fine)… Illegal use of a fictitious driver’s license? ($300 fine.) The last one should catch half the teenagers in Virginia! Continues Marsh:

I have a problem with any law the basis of which is fundamentally dishonest. This is a dishonest law. It should be done away with. Pass a new tax if you want, but don’t lie to the public about what you are doing. You engender distaste and disrespect for government. There’s probably enough of that already.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

5 responses to “Abuser Fees for Every Taste”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I would encourage everyone to read the paper that Groveton supplied for the Hampton Roads Congestion Tolls thread (that paper outlines just how money is taken from NoVa and given to other localities in Virginia)..

    If you’re really interested in outrage for abusive laws… the road abuser fees small potatoes compared to this.

    http://forwardfairfax.com//papers/withdrawals.html

    Localities .. like Culpeper and Henrico, Charlottesville, Roanoke, Hampton and Harrisonburg RECEIVE money from NoVa and whatever other localities also “contribute” (do any?).

    geeze .. forget the piddling fines on those who perhaps halfway deserve it..

    .. look at how unsuspecting innocent residents of NoVa are essentially being financially raped by the state of Virgnia in the name of education.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Terry Marsh adds this comment to his original post:

    I think it’s important to point out that probably the majority of the cases of suspended drivers licenses involve failure to pay fines. There isn’t any public transportation in the Richmond area to speak of, so if someone has to go to work, he’s going to drive. There is no restricted license to go to work for a suspended license (restricted licenses are for dui and drug charges). So now you drive to work with a suspended license, you are pulled over for, e.g., expired inspection sticker, the cop finds you suspended because you weren’t able to pay the previous fines and costs for some other offense (usually well over $150), and voila! another $750 “fee” which you won’t be able to pay either. It’s hideous if you’re a working stiff.

    And I thought I was to the right of Attila the Hun.

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    Thanks for the support.

    Jim Bacon:

    Isn’t this always the way government works?

    The bad driver point system were heralded as strictly a way to get bad drivers off the road. Now you can get points by taking the Dulles Access Road without going to Dulles Airport.

    Remember the seat belt law? The politicians said the police would never pull a car over just to check whether the seat belts are buckled. The law would be enforced if you were pulled over for some other reason. This was done to calm people’s fear that the seatbelt law would be used for profiling of drivers. Now – “click it or ticket”.

    Give a politician an inch and they take … well, they’ll take your wallet.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Same with zoning. Originally it was to prevent true nuisances. Now a nuisance is anything we don’t like.

    Same with proffers. Originally they were a necessary way to meet sudden or axtraordinary capital needs. Now they have become a back door way to avoid (some of) our own (deferred) costs while slamming the door behind us.

    Same with some environmental laws. Originally designed to protect the environment, and now used for everything but.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I have a problem with any law the basis of which is fundamentally dishonest. This is a dishonest law. It should be done away with. Pass a new tax if you want, but don’t lie to the public about what you are doing. You engender distaste and disrespect for government.”

    Jim,

    I think this may be among the single most cogent and important statements ever made on this blog.

    Well said.

    Congratulations,

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More