A Breakthrough or a Breakdown?

Michael Shear with the Washington Post tells the story of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Republican leaders in the General Assembly to overcome their differences and cobble together a compromise transportation “solution.” What comes through very clearly: Fear of retribution at the polls drove the compromise. Writes Shear:

Shocked by George Allen’s loss in last year’s U.S. Senate race and fearful of losing their majority in the elections this fall, the top lieutenants in the House of Delegates and Senate put aside years of philosophical differences and personal hostilities during closed-door meetings arranged and hosted by Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R).

The resulting legislative package, as outlined in this blog, was a bastardized hybrid of incompatible philosophies. The only good thing I can think to say about the financing piece of the compromise is that it avoids a statewide general tax increase. But if the regional components in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads are enacted, the deal would pump about $1.1 billion a year, plus $2 billion in bond proceeds, into a broken transportation system. Most of that money would be wasted, and the impetus for fundamental reform would be lost.

Legislators can respond that other pieces of the package will “fix” the system and ensure that the money is well spent. The land use reforms are a useful step in the right direction, but they are woefully incomplete. The VDOT reforms also are useful, especially the requirements for performance standards, which would prioritize transportation projects that actually mitigate congestion. But so many aspects of the transportation crisis remain unaddressed, as I’ve enumerated in previous posts, that the “fix” will go only skin deep.

The question now is how Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and his fellow Democrats will respond. There is much in the compromise they don’t like. It won’t take much opposition for the entire contrivance to collapse. But there is political risk: They won’t have much leverage in the 2007 elections if they torpedo the compromise. In a podcast analysis of the compromise on the Bearing Drift blog, J.R. Hoeft and Brian Kirwin suggest that the Dems have no choice but to go along.

I suspect that they’re right. Gov. Kaine is enough of a realist that he will hold his nose and go along, especially if he can get concessions on two things. One is a measure that would empower local governments to reject rezoning requests that would overload local transportation networks. Second is a measure that would create a fund for smart road projects.

But passage of the package is far from inevitable. It is the nature of compromises, that there is something in the package for everyone to dislike. It could unravel quickly if a powerful lobby like the home builders digs in its heels. I’m tempted to say that would be the best thing.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

15 responses to “A Breakthrough or a Breakdown?”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “One is a measure that would empower local governments to reject rezoning requests that would overload local transportation networks.”

    I don’t get it.

    We blame long distance drivers for causing congestion far away, then we give government the ability to control zoning that overloads local networks. This does nothing for existing regional problems. It won’t even help prevent the problem from getting worse in the future, as long as we have an excess of jobs in certin areas.

    The only thing this will do is lend legal support to the endemic antithesis towards new neighbors.

    It is going to be fun to watch what happens when we have the tools to “prohibit” growth, and growth is still trying to happen.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear Jim Bacon:

    The problem with the GOP Transportation Package is
    it does not address some of fundamental problems
    relative to how we have grown over the last twenty
    years, continue to grow and our inadequate response
    to our transportation needs, the continued reliance
    on highways and a revenue system inadequate to deal
    with our problems.

    The failure of our state is address these issues has
    created growth patterns and a transportation system
    in Virginia more like what is in Southern California,
    instead what is found in Europe, Asia and U.S. North-
    western states and Canadian western providences.

    Nor does it address the likely dip in the state’s revenue
    stream, given the deficit spending by the federal government
    being financed by the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and the
    Saudis will not continue and Virginia will be hit hard by
    reductions in homeland security and defense department
    spending.

    I think this package is bad for Virginia. We need a good,
    hard fought election campaign this fall to determine the
    public’s positions about the matters and the election of a
    new General Assembly that will rise to task of designing
    programs and revenue streams to meet our needs.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  3. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Help me become less cynical Rodger

    I just see two choices

    Ds want to raise raise raise

    Rs want to reduce reduce reduce

    Nobody really wants to address the landuse/human settlement question.

    I understand we need more money for transportation which would but I also want accountability efficiency and to know exactly what the new funding will be used for.

    I feel my views are in the majority in the greater Northern Virginia Area.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear nova middle man:

    I agree with you. But the problem we have is
    that if you put $2 billion into our system and
    we continue to grow, as we have over the last
    two decades and probably will over the next two,
    we will still have the same problems.

    Job growth is the driving force behind our growth
    and acute transportation problems for we continue
    to need new workers we do not have, thus we attact
    them from out of state.

    I was in Southwest Virginia last weekend which has
    nearly 2,000 unfilled jobs in technical fields. That
    region has started a recruitment effort to try to lure
    people who left the area years ago to return home to
    fill those jobs.

    We need a state planning department. We need a state
    growth management plan. We need a transportation
    system that provides more rail capabilities.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    What would the situation be if the average Virginian trusted state and local government in the area of land use? Why did the 2002 referenda fail? Because the average voter knew the tax increases would be used to spur more development and not to provide meaningful relief from traffic congestion? Why did Mark Warner’s largest-ever tax increase pass with him being viewed as a good guy? Because the average Virginian knew that the additional taxes would actually go to public safety, education and health care.

    I’m not arguing today that VDOT does not need more money or that Warner’s increased spending was all necessary or was fair to NoVA (Fairfax County taxpayer sent an additional $107 M to Richmond in exchange for less than $14 M additionally for its public schools.) But no can credibly claim that Warner’s tax increases helped foster more development. Mark Warner had the average Virginian’s trust on the 2004 tax increase; he did not in connection with the 2002 transportation effort.

    The average Virginia perceives that he/she loses with development. The quality of life decreases and taxes increase. Unless and until that equation is changed, the typical Virginian is likely to question higher taxes for transportation.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    “One is a measure that would empower local governments to reject rezoning requests that would overload local transportation networks.”

    Note to the real world – local governments currently have this authority and have used it many times to turn down developments; this bill is only a clarification of an existing right to comfort nervous county attorneys in their Dillon Rule state.

    Urban Transportation Service Districts – just another word for raising taxes; if you read the existing Service District law that is what it says. So, some poor person who has paid once through increased home price due to cash proffers and twice through gas taxes, will have his real estate taxes raised to pay for more roads while the guy outside the district who is using the same road gets off scott free.

    Also, check out how generous the real estate lobby was in writing the impact fee portion of the “deal.” (Yes, they wrote it.) Local governments can impose an impact fee on agriculturally zoned land being rezoned for residential use. How generous! Well, right now local governments get a lot more money on rezonings throught cash proffers than they ever would throught impact fees.

    Some may say that these are “good first steps.” If you carefully analyze each of the land use provisions in light of current reality, they do nothing for local governments or for controlling development.

    Apparently, once these minimal changes pass, victory in the fight against growth will be declared and the combatants will retreat.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think TMT has his fingers on the truth.

    When people do not trust their BOS and VDOT – it’s not money that is the issue – it’s fear of what they will or will not do with the money – behind closed doors.

    If you have an environment like this – a State Level Planning Agency – unless different from the existing institutions that are not trusted – it won’t work either.

    People believe that our institutions that are supposed to be working on solutions for people – are, instead working to enhance business – and those individuals who gain wealth from businesses and their fuel is ordinary citizens tax dollars.

    I just don’t think changing the conversation is going to deal with the core concerns.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Ray – it’s BOTH. Long Distance AND Local.

    Neither collects – up front – the money needed to provide adequate infrastructure.

    They approve the growth – and the localities blame the state for what they will not do – charge for infrastructure…

    .. and the State… gets stuck with 400 lane miles a year… sucking it dry from providing commuting infrastructure.

    NEITHER of them are focused on improving the existing network – to optimize it and to manage congestion.

    BEFORE we spend billons of new tax dollars on new infrastructure – pray tell what is wrong with at least TRYING congestion pricing which, at the least, would provide MORE capacity without lifting another foot of pavement?

    I can tell you what most folks suspect.

    They suspect that the folks in charge are NOT interested in anything other than MORE growth opportunties and to heck with congestion….

    Roger advocates for a new State Level Planning Agency.

    I’d like to ask.. what if they did this.. and they put Til Hazel in charge along with a dozen other “business” folk.. and the same elected BOS that won’t bite the bullet right now.

    Would anyone have any more confidence than they do now?

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear Larry Gross:

    State planning directors in most states are state department heads
    or the position may be a cabinet level office, as is the case in
    Maryland. Governor’s make those appointments drawn from qualified
    planners, as required by laws in other states. Maryland, Oregon,
    Utah, etc. all have statewide planning. I doubt Til Hazel nor his
    business pals would want such a job nor would the public stand for
    that twisted concept. Larry, quit being so grim.

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Neither collects – up front – the money needed to provide adequate infrastructure.”

    Who will you collect the money from, just the developers and new residents that “cause” the need for infrastructure, or will it also be all the residential areas that have “not paid their way” for the last thirty years? In either case, won’t it amount to a tax increase? What major project has ever been funded 100% up front?

    Larry, I’m with you on congestion pricing. It’s just that I don’t beleive the money will be used to reduce congestion. I don’t think it is possible, absent shutting down jobs. If the money will be used for something else, like repairing the bridges that have been rotting for thirty years, then we need to cut out the rhetoric about unbridled growth or autos that don’t pay their way, or free roads (that aren ot free at all) and admit that much of this is our own fault.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Ray – if you Deny reform because it does not “undo” previous abuse – then you’re against change. right?

    what you advocate is the status quo.
    right?

    You cannot improve the system and rectify things that are wrong if you forever link those things to “undoing” previous wrongs. It’s not a solution.

    It’s an argument for NOT going forward.

    and FYI – I do accept this same premise with regard to the reform VDOT vs more money fight but there is a very big difference.

    The later want MORE taxpayer money to CONTINUE a failed and corrupt system.

    The former wants new-purchaser dollars to pay the fair costs associated with their home. No different than an electricity or phone deposit or a water/sewer hookup.

    I advocate with roads the same EXACT thing that is now done with water/sewer as I have stated more than a dozen times in this blog.

    New folks pay for new infrastructure the same exact way they pay for a water/sewer hookup fee and then subsequently they pay a monthly useage fee that ALL users pay.

    (Note further – with water/sewer – as a user – if you use MORE you pay MORE.)

    What is lacking is that while counties maintain water/sewer CIPs that function much like a revolving fund where hook-up fees are collected and then spent to expand the water/sewer lines AS GROWTH OCCURS (NOT BEFORE it occurs as often argued).

    Roads are not done this way. There are NO CIPs for road plans. Most county road plans are simple lines on a map with no projected cost or build date – because they don’t have CIPs.

    This approach to roads is bogus.

    Lines on a map are empty promises.

    The average person just assumes that there is a “plan”… the average person is foolish to think such a thing – because the “plan” is for the State to raise taxes on everyone and then engage in a shell game as to which projects get funded and which ones don’t.

    Folks who don’t believe this – should – for your own county – go online to where their Comp Plan is and take a look. Only two counties (out of 99) in Virginia maintain viable and legitmate road plans. The rest.. are heavy into lines on a map.

    re: congestion pricing and how proceeds are spent.

    The solution to congestion pricing is referenda – where the question is put to citizens AND at the same time a commitment is made with respect to what the monies will be spent for.

    And of course this solution is the same one that would be needed if you wanted a future tax-funded referenda to NOT FAIL like the 2002 referenda did.

    People WANT a direct connection between what they are paying for and what they are going to get.

    They are fed up with their money disappearing down a rat hole.. and in return.. promises for “something” – “someday”.

    This is why they prefer TOLLS over TAXES.

    You could actually put the TOLL question in the form of two choices:

    1. – spend the money for – a specified list

    or

    2. – rebate the money to the counties

    I’m betting that few, if any voters will support #2 because they know what will NOT happen to the money.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Larry, quit being so grim”

    Roger – I’m sure you remember what happened to Tayloe Murphy and the Growth Commission – right?

    Front and center was representation from the development community who internally threw sand in the gears until it ground to a halt and externally they lobbied to have it killed – and succeeded.

    Maybe not T’il Hazel but I bet.. Virginia Association of Home Builders and I bet VDOT and I bet CTB and other officials who currently are involved in transportation and land use decisions.

    I would ONLY support an agencies that has explicit protections against being co-opted by the very same folks who control and manipute our current processes.

    otherwise, I’d consider the formation of such an agency -sans protections – to be a RUSE perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

    If we’re going to do statel level planning – let’s have a purpose, specificed objectives, measureable performance criteria and, in general, open, transparent and accountable – results-oriented operations.

    By the way – I am ALL in FAVOR or inclusive “stakeholder” representation but I’m totally opposed to having traditional institutional folks and excluding citizens and environmental organizations.

    What I favor is the same exact process that was followed in Reality Check – a collabroative environment but specific goals and objectives and measurement of progress and benchmarks

    and NOT .. ropa-dope .. delay tactics.

    in other words – don’t waste citizens time by recycling the same old bogus processes.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Dear Larry Gross:

    The sad reality of your world is there is no
    constructive solutions for Virginia to pursue to
    solve our problems. Your game plan is no game
    plan for us.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Dear Roger Provo –

    There ARE … CONSTRUCTIVE solutions.

    Among them are those laid out in Chapter and Verse by JLARC.

    If we are truly serious about changing the way we do land-use and transportation, we can START with the JLARC recommendations.

    Further, I SUPPORT the building of new infrastructure, in fact, I’ve stated over and over the reason why we have “anti-growth” sentiment is precisely because our existing system does not PLAN realitistically for transportion which means staying within your budget, prioritizing the projects that give you the best bang for the buck and a system that is open and transparent to citizens so that they will have confidence and trust in those that perform transporation planning and land use decisions.

    Roger – my vision is CONSTRUCTIVE. You just apparently don’t like the direction and so you engage in Ad Hominem attacks which Roger .. should be BENEATH you.

    If you don’t like an idea – trash the idea and put something of your own on the table rather than attack those who who don’t agree with.

    Of all things NOT constructive – Ad Hominem attacks are the worst in my view.

    I hereby revoke your “good guy” status.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “constructive” input

    It dawned on me that Roger’s response was directed at my comments about a state level Agency.

    If nothing else, I consider myself to be a pragmatic person – to recognize realities and to keep those things in mind when advocating …. and to remember history so we don’t repeat failures of the past.

    I am NOT opposed to a State Level Agency but IF we’re going to have one – then I feel quite strongly that we must not repeat the errors made in the past and that creation of such an Agency not be co-opted and essentially used as a way to “change the conversation”… while continuing the existing practices with regard to land-use and transportation.

    The creation of such an agency should:

    Be clear about purpose and authority.

    Be inclusive of all stakeholders.

    Be open and transparent about proceedings.

    It does not make decisions – it produces recommendations to the public for their concurrence via referenda.

    We do not want or need yet another agency staffed by un-elected people who claim professional credentials as the reason for not using a legitimate public process.

    2. – We have the General Assembly going on right now.

    Roger – is this the time to advocate for a State Level Planning Agency?

    If not. When?

    Is this a job for Gov Kaine?

Leave a Reply