Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Cool Legislation You’ll Never Read About

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Reader Larry Gross has brought to my attention two very cool — and under-reported — pieces of legislation.

Road reclassification. In HJR 623, Del. Michelle McQuigg, R-Occoquan, would establish a subcommittee to study the current, outmoded (circa 1930s) classification of roads and streets in Virginia with a functional system as outlined by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission in 2001. The current classification, notes the bill, “oftentimes bears little relationship to the significance of a road, its location, its traffic volume, or its function.” JLARC proposed categorizing roads by statewide significance, regional significance and local significance.

This is no academic exercise. Real state dollars are dumped into different administrative buckets, with the result that many less-deserving roads get priority over more deserving roads. Additionally, determining which roads are of “local” significance is a critical step in devolving authority for local roads to local governments.

Expanded Tolling Authority. In SB 782, Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II, R-Fairfax, would grant the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, currently a shell organization, with the power to impose and collect tolls for use of new and reconstructed facilities “so as to increase their traffic capacity” and to issue bonds supported by those toll collections. The bill also stipulates that every toll facility in Northern Virginia must be capable of fully automated electronic operation.

SB 782 is part of a broader package of legislation designed to address transportation and land use in tandem. Said a Jan. 8 press release from Cuccinelli’s office: “If his transportation legislation passes, Cuccinelli said that localities would finally have the right to reject denser development if it would negatively impact local transportation networks, the transportation trust fund would be constitutionally protected and a HOT lanes network would reduce congestion on our worst roads.”

Cuccinelli isn’t exactly Mr. Popular with the Axis of Taxes running the state Senate, so I wouldn’t expect his proposals to get very far. But you never know. In any case, it’s good to know that at least one member of the upper chamber shows signs of thinking outside the tax-and-spend box.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “Cool Legislation You’ll Never Read About”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Doing a search of the 2007 Bills … HJR 623 is the ONLY one out of more than a thousand that has the keyword JLARC in it but it could serve as a ‘placeholder” for future tinkering…. (or not).

    My impression of the process (others who know more chime in) is that Delegates sort of throw as much “stuff” on the wall that they can conceive of .. and then it all gets scraped off… most of it into a refuse pile but others… mixed/matched in sort of a legislative recipe process to produce what ulitimately emerges as “law”.

    The daily digest list from the GA LIS service sometimes gives scant clues as to the mayhem that can be ongoing when “witching” hour occurs.

    Has anyone got the PREMIUM service that costs money? Is it worth it?

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I see by the paper that Clay Athey has pre-filed five bills designed to make it harder for dominion power to run their power line.

    None of them adress the earlier proposals which were designed to address the major disadvantages that landowners face in dealing with eminent domain for profit.

    It is too bad, because the one thing that would cause Dominion to consider other alternatives would be if the costs were equitable for taking and otherwise destroying other people’s property.

    And, if those faults were addressed, then wherever eminent domain takings occur, the owners could be assured of getting a fair shake.

    Setting up a few more hoops for Dominion to jump through won’t make much difference to Athey’s constituents, but getting paid fairly would.

    Just like anyone else, Dominion should be expected to pay for what they get, and they should be expected to pay for what they break.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I am with Ray on this – for any acquisition of property for public use.

    The Book “Street Smart” – recommended by JB documents a litany of abusive practices – much of it by DOTs.

    Those abuses boil down to the utilization of loop-holes to avoid paying a fair price for property and a legal framework that puts the landowner at a tremendous disadvantage.

    For instance, VDOT will routinely slice and dice someone’s property paying ONLY for the actual land and not the harm done to the remaining land not acquired.

    The book advocates a “willing buyer – willing seller” approach and the use of ED ONLY as a last resort.

    I advocate negotiation NOT by the entity that wants the land but a jury of local landowners.

    It’s safe to say – that the powerline issue illustrates quite well how Dominion and VDOT – as well as ANY entity granted ED powers – conduct themselves far differently than if their primary option was “willing-buyer/willing-seller”.

    There’s one other aspect that needs to be pointed out.

    In the WS/WB approach – the entity is allowed to purchase – for an agreed-upon price the ENTIRE parcel and then later allowed to sell the remainder of the parcel for whatever it can bring – which may (or may not) include development opportunities.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Virginia is not alone in using eminent domain in ways that truly hurt people. Many years ago, the then Minnesota Highway Department condemned land near my grandparent’s lake home in northern Minnesota to build I-35. In the case of my grandparents, the State took only a small section and didn’t cause much harm, but only a few lots over, the Highway Department split a farm in two, but offered only the “value of the land taken,” even though the entire farm was effectively made fairly useless and the farmer lost all effective use of his lake access.

    I remember my grandfather taking me to the local courthouse to watch him testify for the farmer. I can’t recall what happened exactly. I would imagine that the farmer received a higher award from the jury, but it probably didn’t cover all of the harm he suffered.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For those of you that are concerned by the Dominion power line and eminent domain, you need to visit Washington, DC and not Richmond. There is a federal law that allows power companies to declare the route of a power line to be of “national” interest [I have forgotten the exact term] and upon that declaration, all local and state review are basically preempted. So if you waved you magic wand and eliminate all eminent domain in Virginia, it would do absolutely no good for the problem of which you speak.

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bills/tags/eminent+domain/

    This is Waldo’s website on eminent domain law in Virginia. It is a remarkable piece of work and I can’t imagine how much time it must have taken to put this together.

    You can search on keywords for whatever legislation suits your fancy, and it tells you who the sponsors are so you know who to write to.

    Anonymous is only partly correct. True, the power companies can go to washington and get certified that their requirements are of national interest. But it is still state law that determines what amounts to fair and equitable payment.

    It might very well be that, even faced with the prospect of paying full price for what they take, that the power companies would still go ahead with their plans. But at least, WHEREVER THIS HAPPENS, the homeowners would be fully and fairly compensated.

    But, it might equally be that faced with the additional costs of full and adequate compensation, that the power companies would re-think their strategy and resort to more local power generation, and more co-generation.

    It might also be that faced with inadequate electricity supplies, my (former) Yankee brethren might drop some of their endemic opposition to power generation (In My Back Yard).

    My neighbors across the highway had their farm split in half. My father in law also had a small piece split off, in addition to the 60 acres that were taken. But he was able to work a land trade with another farmer on the opposite side of the road with the opposite problem.

    This necessitated considerable surveying and lawyering, that should rightly have been included in the compensation costs.

    My wife still has the sign that hung on their beach cottage “Mary Ann”. It is all she has left of those childhood memories.

    Larry is right, it SHOULD be a jury of local landowners, and this is one of the recommendations that was made years ago, and defeated by lobbyists.

    In my case, Larry’s previous comments about the rule of democracy have come home to roost. The county, through a “democratic” process has determined that my land may only be used for agriculture. Eminent domain is going to trump this determination in favor of the power company.

    But, the result is that the poaer company, as Larry points out, will pay only for the damage to the land they use. Since agricultural use is the lowest possible use, the county, through it’s democratically applied zoning laws, is now complicit in helping the power company acquire this land for the lowest possible cost.

    My suggestion is that the county (counties) immediately rezone all the land in the proposed poer line routes for the highest feasible rural density. In Fauquier that would mean re-stting the zoning to the 1986 standard of one lot per three acres.

    Taht would mean the power company would have to pay for the development losses for whatever land they cross, instead of just having to pay for a hayfield.

    After the power line is settled, the landowners would then agree to pllace the remaining land under conservation easement, reserving whatever pre-existing development rights they wished to keep. In my case, that would mean three 3-acre lots.

    But now, I would be “giving up” many lots for the cosnervation easement, which whould make the tax benefit much higher. As it stnds now, I have no usable development rights, and consequently little or no incentive to place a conservation easement.

    To my way of thinking, the county has shot themselves in the foot by backing me into a corner. Having previously committed eminent domain on my building rights, with NO compensation, the county is not in any position to let me help them in their fight against the power line.

    I have nothing to work with, unless the county gives it to me.

    —————-

    Larry is right: here is the drill.

    Dominion pays only for the property they cross, not for collateral damage to the rest of the property. I think Larry is right: they shold buy the entire property at current rates, then they can make a deal with me to sell back the remainder at the rates that exist post power line.

    I could live with that.

    Dominon is required to pay onely for an easement across the property. I still pay the taxes on it.

    Dominion is not required to pay for any collateral damage. They tend to run the rout along the property lines to avoid dividing the property, but that means they pay NOTHING to the neighbors.

    Dominion is not required to pay legal costs, or appraisal costs.

    Dominion is not required to pa for EMF, which is probably correct. But they are also not required to pay for the fear of EMF and the associated loss in property vale, which is clearly wrong.

    Dominion is not required to submit to a jury trial. As I understand it, the hearings will be held by the same judges that sit on the state corporation commision, who approved the route in the first place.

    For the land they affect, Dominon pays only the difference in value before the easement and after. Since I am (currently) restricted to agricultural use, the value before is around $400 per acre, but this is a long way from the price per acre.

    For reasons I am sure I don’t understand, there are people who are willing and able to pay a premium for land that they will never bea ble to use for anything other than pasture or crops. IO doubt the same premium will apply, post powerline.

    ————————

    No mattter what happens to future land use regulations, Dominion will pay only once. If the area zoning is eventually changed, my losses could be much higher, but Dominion will pay only once. Effectively, taht means that after 20 years, Dominion will be shipping power across my land, for free, and I will still be paying the taxes.

    Not only that, but I will be paying the taxes to support uses which I am not allowed, and which would be impossible with the power line in place.

    ——————

    I made an estimate, based on the amount of power that will be transmitted over that line.

    There are various ways of doing this, but Dominion has said they can buld this thing for 300 million dollars. Assume a payback of five years, Assume there are 400 landowners involved, on a 40 mile route. That means that Dominion expects to bring in $60 million a year on this. If the landowners collectively got 5% of the gross that would work out to $7500 per year, each, on average. In my case it might be twice that.

    I doubt my offer will be $15,000 on a one time basis, let alone annually.

    ————————

    AARGH.

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    What I don’t understand, is Larry’s position on this, given that he previously said that he was OK with Spotsy, eliminating his five acre building right, with no recompense.

    To my way of thinking, it is eminet domain, only worse.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Having returned from two days of canoeing on the Nottoway where there is NO SPRAWL… but there are POWERLINEs … 🙂

    re: process has determined that my land may only be used for agriculture. Eminent domain is going to trump this determination”

    Yes… ditto with VDOT… take any land set aside to be “protected” and ED can trump it…

    re: my view of density..5 acre .. downzoning…

    I was “OK” with it – not wildly thrilled.

    It cost me two building lots – that could have been sold for 50K+ each.
    In fact, last year… assessed at 100K.

    I did not think it was “right” but it got through “under the radar”.

    I’m also opposed to denying families the right to subdivide their land for their children to have a place to build because it hurts people who live and work LOCALLY – and have – all their lives.. and NOW.. the hoards of locusts (come here’s) don’t like the idea of “their” rural chacter landscape being converted into … HORRORs homes like their own…

    they don’t want homes in THEIR backyard but they do want THEIR home and did not care on whit that maybe the farmer who lived there for 50 years before the come-here showed up .. did not want a home in HIS backyard … EITHER.

    I don’t know all the answers and I’m especially leery at any land being developed to it’s highest potential given the way we DO NOT deal with the infrastructure impacts of allowing that.

    So .. we end up .. with unfair… probably immoral treatement of some people .. who own land but are not wealthy enough to defend their interests so the government.. essentially “preys” on them…

    .. in the name of “good” for the public.

    Now… Ray … don’t get too excited here…

    I’d buy your reasoning… IF you had a plan (a REAL PLAN) for provisioning infrastructure for less restrictive/unrestrictive land use.

    I’m consistent in this – when growth and development impacts the quality of people’s lives…

    .. in a Democracy…. they’re going to have their government employ ham-fisted approaches in response.

    It’s not FAIR.. but it’s pretty predictable.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    At last, I think we see eye to eye.

    This pendulum is going to swing the other way, someday, and we won’t like the results.

    I see that Montgomery County is about to join the moratorium bandwagon. If it happens it will take hundreds of millions out of the economy.

    At that rate it won’t take long to find out whatis for the good of the public.

    My plan for paying for infrastructure is this: if we beleive that residential areas don’t pay their own way, then we should fix that, otherwise we should stop using it as an argument against only new construction.

    I think there should be a cap on the dollar amount of tax increases. This would have the effect of protecting existing residents and foisting more of the cost of NEW infrastructure on the new construction. But it would ensre that everybody pays eventually.

    And, I don’t know how to do this or what the impetus to do it would be, but if we can have a moratorium on new construction where there is too much of it, then we can have a moratorium on jobs, where there are too many for the infrastructure to handle.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “it will take hundreds of millions out of the economy.”

    I never understood this.

    Isn’t this like a baloon?

    If there is a market for something – there will be a response – even if the product is illegal… right?

    If Montgomery County has a morotorium… won’t it just push development some where else and/or make homes even more expensive in Montgomery?

    the “money” doesn’t disappear down a rat hole.. it just finds a different path – right?

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You are right. The money will come out of Montgomery County and go someplace else.

    But if PW, Loudoun and 15,000 other places have growth controls, where will it go?

    Probably you are right, some of it will go to illegal housing, rooms, overcrowding, mother in law suites, campers, boats, and what have you.

    Gee, maybe I can put a houseboat on one of my ponds…..;-)

Leave a Reply

Read More