THE EXACT COST OF DYSFUNCTION

Want to know the cost of dysfunctional human settlement patterns and the Agency costs of creating them?

For Tysons Corner try $20 Billion over the next two decades. And that does not include the direct and indirect costs of citizens living and working in Greater Tysons Corner.

Not to worry, it will never happen because of The Great Recession, but it gives anyone who understands the difference between functional and dysfunctional settlement patterns a great yardstick.

How do you get that total?

Well if a Functional Station-Area Strategy for Tysons Corner had been created, most of the cost ($5 Billion) of the METRO extension could have been captured from the increase in value due to station platform proximity – especially the use of land that is in the Rights-of-way that citizens already own.

(Yes, there would have been a deflation of the value in land at the outer fringes of the station- areas but that WAS – it is gone now – speculative value based on the willingness of Agencies to kick in the $20 Billion.)

And in addition to that $5 Billion, with a Functional Station-Area Strategy most of the estimated $15 Billion in infrastructure “improvements” – primarily to support Large, Private vehicles – would not be required or would be covered by those who profit from the enhanced Mobility and Access that METRO brings. (See today’s WaPo Page 1B: “Tysons will need $15 Billion – ‘with a B”)

But for The Great Recession these pipedreams might come to pass. In that case citizens could only hope that the members of AICP, AIA, ABA would pass the hat and pay the $20 Billion bill. They might ask their client land owners to make a contribution.

Fair allocation of these location-variable costs will only happen after contributing to dysfunctional human settlement patterns becomes a crime against humanity.

Please do NOT ask: What is a “Functional Station-Area Strategy”? Just go back and read the 8 September 2008 column “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies,” the 20 plus or minus columns on Tysons Corner and the Dulles corridor that proceeded that column and the referenced material SYNERGY has been producing since 1984.

On a more positive note, for those who wonder about why ‘family’ has become a Core Confusing Word with respect to human settlement pattern and why SYNERGY now uses ‘Household’ as in Single Household Attached Dwelling, see “Single living surges across D.C. region” in Wednesday’s WaPo. (At least WaPo editors did not capitalize ‘region.’)

And one more note on Vocabulary and Core Confusing Words: The new “Save-us-money-and-pretend-we-are-doing-readers-a-service WaPo redo includes a new section called “local living.” It deals with issues related to the local planet (aka, Earth), the local nation-state (aka, US of A), the local region (sometimes the Northeast MegaRegion, sometimes the Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region, sometimes the Virginia SubRegion, sometimes … you get the idea. And then there is the confusion of municipal Agency with ‘community.’)

An indirect crime against humanity.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

83 responses to “THE EXACT COST OF DYSFUNCTION”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    The exact cost is $20 billion.

    Over two decades.

    Not counting direct and indirect costs.

    But don't worry it won't happen because we can't afford it.

    Remind me not ot hire SPI as my accountant.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    " most of the cost ($5 Billion) of the METRO extension could have been captured from the increase in value due to station platform proximity "

    Once again, why is it any different to claim to pay for the costs of metro through the increase in value (to private owner/speculators) of adjacent land than it is to pay for any other infrastructure throguh the increase in value for the adjacent land?

    Why is this OK accounting for MRTRO expenses but for road expenses it is windfall profits for land speculators?

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Most of the estimated $15 Billion in infrastructure “improvements are going to be required anyway, precisely because METRO will allow the increased density that makes that OTHER $15 billion necessary.

    ————————–

    I'm confused. Which is it, that the $15 billion won't be required, or it will be required but we are going to take it out of someone's profits? Is this the same people who just put up the $5 billion in metro costs through increased land values?

    ———————–

    Is your argument that if we had just done it your way it wouldn't cost anything because the landowners would have paid for it all?

    Where are THEY going to get the money? From selling us more goods and services at higher prices to cover the additional $20 billion in costs?

    Isn't that what we have WAL-Mart for?

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Anon RH said: “I’m confused.”

    It seems Professor Risse covered this well:

    “but it gives anyone who understands the difference between functional and dysfunctional settlement patterns a great yardstick.”

    It is to be expected that RH is “confused.” He has demonstrated over and over that he does not understand human settlement patters or that he intentionally distorts or misconstrues posts and comments to meet his own goals and those of his clients.

    In fact he proves his complete lack of understanding by saying:

    “Most of the estimated $15 Billion in infrastructure improvements are going to be required anyway, precisely because METRO will allow the increased density that makes that OTHER $15 billion necessary.”

    He is confusing himself – or rather attempting to confuse others.

    Perhaps if he would just try to understand reality he would not appear to be such a dunce.

  5. Well I thought the last sentence in the WaPo article was the $64 that I'm not sure that EMR answered.

    " The question is how do you accommodate that growth in a way that doesn't exacerbate the problems created by the way we've grown until now?"

    so what happens if you don't build the private car infrastructure and save 15 billion?

    but then they say this:

    " The transportation costs might seem huge, but county leaders say the alternatives could be even more expensive to taxpayers: more suburban sprawl, more pollution, more driving, more gas."

    so .. it would seem.. that this is the perfect situation to promote/advocate a more enlightened approach to a more functional settlement pattern.

    You could require this development to only accommodate a certain number of cars.

    You could erect a congestion toll cordon to discourage traffic beyond a certain level.

    you can build more/better.. prioritize non-auto mobility.. sidewalks, bike, golf-carts..
    you know.. block it off from cars completely except for delivery vehicles…

    but I guess I'm stunned that EMR sort of glided by this…

    even if he had to repeat his prior thoughts.. it would have been reinforcing and instructive.

    what I get.. and perhaps others can correct me is something along the lines of…

    "they did it wrong and it can't be fixed"..

    no?

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    In theory, one could reduce traffic to and from Tysons substantially (not totally) and, thus, reduce the amount of roads that need to be built. For example, there could be no parking spaces within the TOD 1/4 mile density circles. There could be congestion tolls and minimum $50 per day parking charges.

    But those types of controls would likely make Tysons non-competitive with other office/residential markets (e.g., Arlington, Reston, Bethesda). The landowners would scream — maybe understandably.

    We need to stop playing pretend. We could adopt severe rules like this; the developers/landowners could pay the costs for most of the $15 billion; or we could reduce the added density to some level that required less expensive infrastructure additions.

    I wonder how much the typical resident of Fairfax County would be willing to pay for an urban Tysons.

  7. " But those types of controls would likely make Tysons non-competitive with other office/residential markets "

    really?

    Arlington included?

    I thought Arlington was the desired model?

    no?

    Is Arlington also at a disadvantage in the competition?

    I'm just asking questions here..

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    No, Im confused because Dr. Risse cannot construct a lucid sentence.

    He says in one sentence that either $15 billion in public infrastructure won't be required, or if it is, then someone else will pay for it.

    If I could give my predictions $30 billion worth of latitude, I'd be right pretty near all the time.

    Which is it? By Risse's prognostication it won't be needed or it will be needed and landowners will pay for public infrastructure.

    If that is what you call covering it pretty well, then I'm more than confused, I'm mystified.

    Not that it makes any difference. We did not get EMR's idea of near station density, the landowners are not going to pay all the costs, and there will still be significant auto traffic in Tysons.

    We have pretty much decided what is going to happen there, even though we have no real idea who will get the benefits or how the costs will wind up being distributed.

    If we had the slightest bit of sense, we would ignore EMR's comments about what might have happened if only we had taken his advice and we weren;t struck down by a depression.

    Instead, we would take the opportunity to view this as an actual (and expensive) experiment on the ground. We would hire three or four or five independent analysts to study the TOTAL costs and benefits of this (fiasco).

    And then we would compare them for reasonableness and vet them against the (most likely) political comments from all the stakeholders.

    In the end we would distill all this down to a few development aphorisms based on actual experience that almost no one could realistically disagree with.

    At that point we will have learned something about development patterns. Hopefully we would apply it ina way tha makes sure we don't make the same kind of mistakes again.

    It would be a huge effort, but compared to what we are going to sink into Tysons anyway, it might be one or two percent.

    It would be the best investment we make in Tysons.

    RH

  9. so.. how does Tysons differ from Arlington?

    and what things would have to be done to Tysons to configure it more like Arlington?

    I see this as a direct challenge to those who say that Tysons is dysfunctional and that Arlington is functional.

    Surely we can delineate the differences.

    and surely we can generate a laundry list (even a mystical one) that would hew to the changes necessary.

    what does TMT say here?

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    "..but county leaders say the alternatives could be even more expensive to taxpayers: more suburban sprawl, more pollution, more driving, more gas."

    That is the current Mantra, but where is the proof? It might be more driviing and more gas and yet less pollution and less concentrated pollution. Suburban sprawl has both costs and benefits, so lets not lump that on one side of the equation.

    I'm willing to believe them, but I have not seen very much more than bald faced opinion.

    OK, you can heat a bunch of apartments cheaper than you can heat the same number of houses. They are smaller for one thing, and they share walls for another.

    Problem is, you cannot really live in one, you have nothing to do but sit and read, eat, or watch TV.

    So now you go out and go somewhere, and as soon as you do that you start burning energy and spending money. Which is s cost of that kind of living that does not get measured.

    Some studies have shown that the household energy costs for urban dwellings are lower than for suburban homes. OK, but suburban homes are larger and the vehicles they drive are larger. It isn't a straight comparison. Figure it out on a square foot basis and you get a different answer.

    Take the TOTAL city energy budget and compare it to the total rural energy budget, per family or per square foot, and you get a different answer.

    Or to simply put it bluntly, if urban area are so efficient, why aren't they cheaper? They are not cheaper in taxes and they are not cheaper in total living expenses.

    Therfore if you think green as I do, then you pretty soon realize that the more green it takes to live somewhere the less green it is. Money represents resources used.

    When some county official shows me how I can live better in Tysons for less, then I'll listen.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    Functional vs dysfunctional.

    Total income – taxes – basic living expenses divided by total income.

    Basically this is how much disposable income do you have after what it costs to live there.

    Then take that and multiply it by some kind of quality of life indicators: a composite of health, longevity, education, and external risk/public safety.

    EMR proposes first that urban areas are where people want to live, as proven by the prices they pay. Then he proposes to give them very little alternative.

    I propose that withut making any value judgements you pick an index that tells you whether people are getting what they pay for.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    We already know that if you compare disposable income you are better off living in Texas and driving than you are living in Queens.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Consensus tends to hold that, Arlington, while far from perfect, has the best TOD in the country. Someone told me that, in the Rossyln-Ballston corridor, some 17% of the residents do not own an automobile. Transit ridership is somewhere in the range of 25%. K Street in D.C. is around 50%. Source: Fairfax County.

    The R-B corridor is close to D.C. That seems to encourage transit ridership. Tysons is not close to D.C. It's in the middle of a a very large road network (123, 7, Beltway, Toll Road) that encourages people to drive.

    The R-B corridor has an existing grid of streets that facilitates traffic flow. Tysons Corner does not. Building a grid will be expensive and individual property owns can make building it more difficult.

    The Orange Line is buried in Arlington. The Silver Line will be above ground. Planners tell me that an underground line makes urbanization easier.

    The R-B planning process was set up so that no individual stakeholder group could dominate the process and force a result strongly opposed by other stakeholders. The process forced compromise and consensus. The Tysons planning process was designed to keep all interests except for large landowners at bay. Until John Foust was elected supervisor, the public was not permitted to speak at Task Force meetings.

    In Arlington, public input was incorporated into the process and the results. In Tysons, the public input was distorted by permitting only limited inputs to fixed questions and ignored. The Task Force initially proposed density in the 95-15 million square feet range. Public comments overwhelmingly indicated that those densities were too intense. So what did the Task Force do? Proposed densities as high as 220 million square feet.

    Public comments also supported keeping density right at the four stations and following existing county policies. So the Task Force flouted TOD policies, by proposing density away from rail stations and distorted the established method for measuring the TOD area — making it bigger of course. County policy also requires inclusion of affordable and workforce housing in the TOD area. The Task Force first wanted to put the affordable housing in places such as Chantilly and even now would like to create an affordable housing ghetto in the outskirts of Tysons.

    The Task Force wanted to put virtually all large parks and recreational facilities for Tysons outside Tysons, including as far away as Dulles Airport.

    The Task Force has not put a single dime on the table and is now arguing that county studies are wrong — expensive infrastructure is not needed. Magic happens. Everyone gives up her/his car and rail capacity becomes unlimited. Some of the Tysons landowners could teach Bernie Madoff lessons.

    I'm sure I could think of more differences.

    TMT

  14. thanks TMT –

    how do the advocated densities compare to Arlington?

    how do the advocated densities compare to what EMR supports for "functional" settlement patterns?

    does anyone know – in general – how the proposed Tysons densities compare with most urbanized settlement patterns?

    in other words – are the Tysons folks asking for way more than is found in places like Arlington and similar or is it that because of the current road/auto demand prevents it – and that demand cannot be moved or suppressed?

    I'm just trying to better understand here and TMT is doing yeoman support that is appreciated.

    there irony here..

    it looks like that Tysons cannot become what Alexandria is – on purpose ….

    when Alexandria got to be Alexandria as much by accident as a precise plan..

    but I may well be displaying more ignorance

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Another major difference between the R-B corridor and Tysons Corner is that the former is very narrow. Tysons is just the opposite. But I'm told that the distance from Rosslyn to Ballston is quite comparable to the distance between 123 and the DTR and Route 7 and the DTR.

    Go a couple blocks from an Orange Line station and you are in the midst of single family homes. Go a couple blocks from what will be Silver Line stations and you are still smack in the middle of Tysons Corner.

    I'd say on the whole, RB densities tend to be less than what the Tysons landowners want, but there are some higher densities at Rosslyn and Ballston.

    Generally, the Tysons landowners want much higher buildings than are found in the R-B corridor or Bethesda.

    Some of the landowners were sold a bill of goods by some Task Force leaders. I don't want take cheap shots, so I will not identify them by name. Some of you might guess correctly though. Landowners were told that they could get massive increases in density. And then human greed took over. They started believing their own BS and multiplying their demands.

    None of this should be taken to conclude that we should not add density at the four stations. It only makes sense to try to do some TOD. But what is sustainable and what the Task Force wants are polar opposites.

    As the cost estimates show, Tysons Corner will always be an auto-centric place.

    TMT

  16. re: " Tysons Corner will always be an auto-centric place."

    that appears to be a difference.

    and none of the folks involved seem to thin this is not true.

    correct?

  17. Groveton Avatar

    Almost everywhere in America is an auto-centric place. Fredricksburg? Henrico County? Chesterfield County? Warrenton? Give me a break.

    Even on the Rosslyn – Ballston corridor only 17% don't own autos.

    The only places I have seen in America that are not auto-centric are parts of Manhattan and parts of Chicago. High density urban locales with a young demographic. Both are served by a vast public transportation system including an extensive heavy rail systems. New York and Chicago built the Subway and The L starting in the 1880s. Virginia's efforts were started about 100 years later. Which, by Virginia standards, is par for the course. Only a century behind.

    Dr. Risse's writings have a great deal of environmental, urban planning and macro architectural content. However, they are generally light on economics and political reality. The concept of small self-contained hamlets where people walk to work, live and shop is not realistic in the United States over the next 50 years. However, better development patterns in the suburbs with extensive mass transit between the suburbs and the urban center is realistic.

    As for the general view held by some on this blog that nobody rides Metro – once again facts are stubborn:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

    I would urge the anti-rail to Dulles c rowd to look carefully at LA's 16 miles of mass transit rail. That is what you get when you decide that auto-exclusive (vs. auto-centric) is OK.

  18. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Careful when you dis Virginia, Mr. Groveton, sir. Virginia did *not* adopt mass transit "only a century behind." Frank J. Sprague, inventor of the electric trolley car, built the *first* electric street railway system in Richmond, Va.!

  19. re: auto-centric

    vs … personal mobility vehicles

    look at these:

    Tata Nano: The World’s Cheapest Car

    “They are not concept cars, they are not prototypes,” Mr. Tata announced when he got out of the car. “They are the production cars that will roll out of the Singur plant later this year.”

    http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/

    then this:

    Four Wheels for the Masses: The $2,500 Car

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/worldbusiness/08indiacar.html

    okay ..so it's going to take some serious safety and other US-mandated features backfitted on this car but I think the future of automobility is automobility – not the autoNObility that EMR has been promoting.

    they will be smaller, lighter, much more mobile and efficient and .. most important ubiquitous worldwide and eventually in the US…

    which means – the end of the US Auto-making industry as we know it…

    and the continuous of auto-centric settlement patterns.

    on the wider scope… goods will continue to be made in far away places.. and moved by huge container ship to the US and stocked at giant distribution centers which will supply just-in-time inventory replenishment not only at WalMart SuperStores but even smaller scale almost mom-pop stores – any store that uses a point-of-sale scanner tied to a computer network that in turn talks to that giant distribution center.

    WalMart is now making Neighborhood scale stores ….

    Now.. from my point of view…

    this is not "dysfunction".

    this is evolutionary.

    smaller, more efficient vehicles that maintain, expand personal mobility…

    and more and more a flat earth economy….

    the toughest problem we have and Mr. McDonnell will soon find out – is what does Virginia have to do to join the world non-govt world economy and wean itself off of the US Military-Industrial Teat.

  20. Groveton Avatar

    Ha Ha Mr. Bacon. Yes, Richmond managed to knock out a railroad invention. So did Alexandria:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_H._Janney

    Unfortunately for both locales the moribund political machine of Virginia couldn't figure out how to apply these fine inventions (at scale) to Virginia's human settlement patterns.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Hi:

    Haven't been to Tyson's in a while, but I could see it developing into a string to "town centers" connected by vehicle.

    It will NEVER be walkable in the traditional sense.

    The billion $$$ question is does it really matter? Does Tyson's have to walkable? I think the answer is no.

  22. well.. no … the real question is not should Tysons be walkable…

    it's the underlying premise that Tysons is using a place like Arlington as a model – or not.

    If it is not – then the talk of TOD and Smarter Growth is just that – talk and what is really being proposed is just a massive development that depends of publically-funded infrastructure to make it "go".

    the folks who live around and are affected by the potential have already completed the

    " fool me once shame on you"

    phase of development scenarios

    they are not at the second part:

    " fool me twice, shame on me"

    and so Tysons is not going to go forward as it might have done in the past…

    the developers will have to reconcile this… or walk away.

    The Richmond Infrastructure Sugar Daddy has – like Elvis – left the buildling.
    what say you TMT?

  23. Correction:

    they are NOW at the second part:

    "fool me twice shame on me"

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    "…what I get.. and perhaps others can correct me is something along the lines of…

    "they did it wrong and it can't be fixed".."

    ———————-

    That's pretty much the way I read it.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    "I wonder how much the typical resident of Fairfax County would be willing to pay for an urban Tysons."

    My suggestion is that you allow th e citizens of Fairfax to own shares in the building permits. The developers could then offer to buy shares, and if the residents don;t think they are paying enough, they don;t have to sell.

    But now they have to share the opportunity cost of NOT building with the developers.

    This is how you find out what citizens are willing to pay for an urban Tysons, because they would recognize that an urban Tysons will increase their taxes, which comes out of their profit on the builfing permits.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    "Someone told me that, in the Rossyln-Ballston corridor, some 17% of the residents do not own an automobile. "

    Could be. What is their average income? What is their disposable income at the end of the month?

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    "The R-B corridor has an existing grid of streets that facilitates traffic flow. "

    Another mantra that is simply not true. Grid streets just mean that you have to stop at EVERY intersection.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    "Dr. Risse's writings have a great deal of environmental, urban planning and macro architectural content. However, they are generally light on economics and political reality. The concept of small self-contained hamlets where people walk to work, live and shop is not realistic in the United States over the next 50 years. However, better development patterns in the suburbs with extensive mass transit between the suburbs and the urban center is realistic."

    Once again Groveton has reduced three years of my effort to one cogent paragraph. We need to figure out how to take what we have and make the best of it without demonizing the enemy or stealing from him.

    RH

  29. " But now they have to share the opportunity cost of NOT building with the developers."

    how does this work in the Tysons case and how does this work in general?

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    "how does this work in the Tysons case and how does this work in general?"

    I have explained this before. It is a way of letting people vote withtheir wallets, introducing the market into development issues.

    The county government sets the growth rate and decides how many building permits they will issue to meet that rate. In order to use a building permit you must have a certain number of development rights.

    Development rights belong to the landholders, but the way we do it now, some landowners hav rights and some don't. Under my plan every citizen has the same development rights, but they might come in fractions: one development right does not equal one building permit. The county determines how many rights must be redeemed in order to match the number of building permits they are willing to issue. And every citizen gets an equal number of "development rights" which are in the form of certificates.

    Now, any developer is free to buy development certificates directly from the citizens who own them. Those citizens who are opposed to development can pocket their tickets and simply refuse to sell. But, in doing that they will incur a loss (the opportunity to sell their certificate.) If they believe that development costs more in services than it pays in taxes, then they can pocket their certificate and sleep at night in th e belief that they (and the community) actually come out ahead.

    Now the developers have to appeal directly to the community, and not the planning board, and they have to make their case or no one will sell them development rights.

    Suppose I believe that a certain development will result in my taxes going up by $100. I'm going to hold out selling my development rights until I get more than that. I might want $500, so I'd have enough to pay the excess taxes for several years. If I believe that development is good because it increases the tax base, I might sell my development rights much cheaper.

    The planning board would have no say in whether a project goes forward, unless it does not meet the prescribed codes and conditions. So a developer would submit a plan, and if the plan is approved on technical merit then he is free to build – provided he can buy up enough development rights.

    As part of the approval the planning board would make its assessment of the tax impact of the proposal as approved. Each citizen who sells the builder his development rights would have to sign a document stating he knew and approved of the planning board's tax impact statement. Based on the density and other factors the planning board would also determine how many development rights the project would consume. A single family home one one acre might be one development right, but fifty homes on ten acres might be only thirty.

    In order to get thirty development rights the developer might have to buy fractional certificates from a thousand citizens.

    Development rights not sold would roll over to the next year, but if not used they would eventually expire, say after five years. This makes sure the county does not get any sudden surprises, and allows them to plan for the future based on what they know is in the pipeline.

    The more people you have in the county, the smaller the "denomination" of the development rights: you would need more of them in order to populate one building permit.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    How does that work for Tysons?

    Tysons will need huge infrastrucutre nd cause a big tax impact. TMT might believe it will cause his taxes to double, from $4000 a year to $8000 a year. He is going to want big bucks before he relinquishes his certificate.

    But, if Tysons developers are shelling out $25k per certificate, then TMT will have to make an assessment as to whether the Tyson's owners will be successful, other wise he could miss out on $25K and still get the higher taxes.

    It is one thing to bitch and moan about higher taxes in a vacuum, but it is quite another to put your money where your mouth is.

    Under this plan cevelopers are free to build, within limits, and provided they can get (buy) community support. The community can't complain that this is going to cost them, because they are getting paid.

    RH

  32. are these development rights specific to geography?

    how would you know how many of these to create?

    and you'd allocate them to every single property owner in the county?

    and where could they be used?

    anywhere in the county?

    and they'd have the same value no matter the time or place?

    if you sell a property does the property rights go with the property or the owner?

    If they go with a property and the the owner sells them then that property no longer has any rights?

  33. " provided they can get (buy) community support."

    so if they want to build in Tysons but the property owners in Tysons won't sell can the developers then buy other county property rights and force the property owners in Tysons out?

    methinks you are flying by the seat of your fanny on this..

  34. Groveton Avatar

    Here's some real dysfunction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01cyberwar.html

    Key quotes:

    "Lackland Air Force Base here was named home for the new Air Force cyberwarfare operation after a competition that pitted San Antonio against communities with better-known bases in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska and Virginia.".

    "San Antonio’s experience in lobbying for the new headquarters proved how the traditional “Iron Triangle” of military contracting — the Pentagon, Congress and the military industry — is being replaced by a new silicon circle that requires harnessing the efforts of municipal governments, business leaders and universities to ride the next wave of large military contracts."

    Guess what? Virginia's top universities are in the middle of nowhere. Guess what? Our Chambers of Commerce are full of real estate developers and dry cleaning shop owners.

    It's looking more and more like game, set, match here in the Old Dominion.

    Over-development might be the least of our worries soon.

  35. Sounds like "Revenge of the BRAC" to me….

    NoVa doesn't have retired generals?

    "The Miltary-Industrial Complex – Government Stimulus done RIGHT"

    Here's Obama trying to spend that money on teachers and roads and health care instead of the military.

    What an affront to the Republicans style of Governance!

    Humvees and Cybernets instead of Health Care!

    so.. here we have NoVa thoroughly and securely attached to the Gov teat – whining about some other part o the country getting some of that government largess?

    Sounds like those folks down in Hampton Roads groaning about the loss of one carrier to Maryport.

    Let's see Bob McDonnel roll up his sleeves and get Virginia a REAL economy!

  36. Groveton Avatar

    Not sure what Air Force base is in NoVA. So, I don't know that when "Virginia" was considered it was NoVA. LarryG, as always, jumps to anti-NoVA conclusions.

    Hopefully, LarryG and all the other people from areas addicted to monetary transfers from elsewhere in the state have a plan for what they'll do when the transfers end. Because, right now, the Commonwealth of Virginia is on a pretty poor trajectory. Other states, like Texas, believe that the public universities should be controlled by … well, the public. Here in DimBulbVille the public universities do whatever they want.

    "Here's Obama trying to spend that money on teachers and roads and health care instead of the military.".

    LarryG, just for grins, who do you think funded the Air Force cyber security center in San Antonio? Millard Filmore?

    This isn't about Obama. It isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about an increasingly uncompetitive state that has a pyramid scheme for an internal financing plan.

  37. If by government you mean pyramid scheme – I'd only ask why one just now got religion on that issue…..

    NoVa did not suddenly turn into a govt teat sucker right?

    Oh we have a plan down in the Fredericksburg Area – We intend to convince your government agencies to move down here… since we already provide them with a substantial number of their employees…

    We call this the reverse-HOT lanes plan….

    😉

    I'm not anti-NoVa… I just think the down-the-nose "we are the economy in Va" attitude needs a kick in the pants every now and then to remind them that there is nothing particularly brilliant about their "business" leaders unless you count accidental geography as something akin to business acumen.

  38. You know all this talk about the government and settlement patterns has got to be tying up EMR in knots also.

    I mean who other than the Feds have royally screwed up the settlement patterns in the NoVa Region if not the Feds?

    I mean how DARE the govt move thousands of jobs to two military bases – neither of which have METRO and both of which will surely explode the use of "large private autos".

    Of course the same government pretty much brought back from the dead the West Va hamlet of Clarksburg so – the govt gives and the govt takes away.

    Clearly the govt could care less about "functional" – settlement patterns nor structural and responsible budgets…

    right?

  39. Groveton Avatar

    Oh we have a plan down in the Fredericksburg Area – We intend to convince your government agencies to move down here… since we already provide them with a substantial number of their employees…

    We call this the reverse-HOT lanes plan….".

    Great plan. Unfortunately, they are moving to Texas. Because the University of Texas – San Antonio is pretty effective. How is the University of Virginia – Fredricksburg doing? No? How about Virginia Tech's Fredricksburg campus? Oh, right …

    "I mean who other than the Feds have royally screwed up the settlement patterns in the NoVa Region if not the Feds?".

    Every urban area in America has screwed up settlement patterns. Ever been to LA? Been on the Kennedy (in Chicago) during rush hour? Atlanta?

    LarryG – you live in a sad jealous place where your own community is economically ineffective. So, you lash out at the nearest place that is economically effective. If you lived on Virginia's North Carolina border you'd bitch about Raleigh. If you lived in Milwaukee you'd bitch about Chicago.

    I went to UVA. When I was there the students all complained about Duke. They never complained about Maryland. Why? Because Duke was a better school and Maryland was not. Losers always complain about winners. I guess that's why you complain about NoVa.

  40. we're not jealous Groveton…we get our share of those govt jobs…

    about 60% of our workforce heads up your way everyday to get their share of those gvmint jobs.

    Do we work real hard to "attract" those jobs? Nope.

    How about the city fathers of NoVa?

    Did they work hard like those guys down in San Antonio to get those wonderful jobs provided by our govt deficit spending?

    well ..not exactly….

    geeze Groveton… if your guys were so brilliant how come they let Richmond go through their pants pockets and wallet to get money for RoVa?

    If ya'll were even the slightest bit competent.. you ought to be able to keep those Pocahontas thieves out of your pants…

    so .. no.. ya'll are like the yokel that won the lottery then fritters it away on free roads in Richmond while they figure out how to put HOT Tolls on your roads and fleece the other toll roads for Tysons developers.

    so.. I'm not jealous .. why would I want that kind of thing down this way?

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    "so if they want to build in Tysons but the property owners in Tysons won't sell can the developers then buy other county property rights and force the property owners in Tysons out?"

    Where did you get that from? If you own your property you own your property, no one can take that frome you except through eminen domain.

    Under my plan, in order to build the Tysons developers would have to accumulate (buy) sufficient development rights to move ahead.

    If I live in Fairfax, it doesn't matter where I live. If it looks like the Tysons development is going to cause me a big tax increase, then I'm either not going to sell, or only sell at a price high enough to cover the tax increase.

    It might well be that the property owners nearest the development, (like TMT) would be less willing to sell their development rights.

    They might organize a boycott, to prevent selling rights to the Tysons developers. But at the end of the day, they would have to take a risk: they could refuse to sell and wind up with nothing.

    That is the way a market works: you share the risk and you share the rewards.

    But if you think the risk is higher taxes due to enormous infrastructure costs, that risk is uniform across the county.

    If you think the risk is due to other costs that you don't wan't in your back yard, well that risk is not uniform as far as THIS project is concerned. But, because of the way this is structured the risk that SOMETHING will happen in your backyard is more uniform.

    Otherwise, if you live in the leafy suburbs, you are pretty safe: development is only going to happen in cerain places so designated, and only those places reap the "windfalls" associated with growth.

    Uner my plan, windfalls might happen anywhere, and you would have some ability to stop it. But if you fail to stop it, you would also be compensated.

    RH

  42. If the property owners in Tysons refuse to sell – they won't end up with nothing…. they'll end up with what they already have.

    right?

    how would you build a Tysons if the folks who own the land needed for it won't sell?

  43. Anonymous Avatar

    are these development rights specific to geography?

    No. Everyone gets development rights certificates. You would need a certain number of them to validate a building permit. How many you would need would depend on your development proposal.

    —————————-

    how would you know how many of these to create?

    The planning board would decide on an overall growth rate. Say it is one percent. Say there are 100,000 dwellings in the county, then a growth rate of one percent would be 1000 SFH building permits.

    You would issue one certificate per dwelling unit worth 1/100 of a building permit.

    Someone wanting to build a single family home would have to come up with 100 certificates. He might be able to do that from just family members.

    A developer looking to put in 500 homes might have to come up with 7,000 certificates if the planning board thinks it is a "bad" development or 3,000 if it is a "good" development.

    "BAD" OR "Good" would be related to the proposed tax impact.

    —————————-

    and you'd allocate them to every single property owner in the county?

    Not every porperty owner, every citizen, or maybe every voter. You would not have to own property in order to be granted development right certificates.

    ——————————-

    and where could they be used?

    anywhere in the county?

    Theoretically, yes.

    A developer would propose a project which meets the present building guidelines. (In my personal case that would mean that I cannot propose, because no development is allowed here, period.) But, even though I am shut out of development myself, I could still profit from (someone else's) development by selling my certificate.

    Even though I am not in a service district and pretty much shut out, I don't have to sit by and watch others get all the profit.

    I could, of course, propose a plan that involves rezoning, but the planning board would caclulate what it would cost to bring services to my development, and set a very high conversion factor. I'd have to buy a LOT of development rights to pull it off, and all the people in favor of preserving farms would refuse to sell. Theoretically I could develop, but practically it would not be cost effective.

    But, the people holding the development certificates would be the ones to decide. At that point the planning board would be out of it.

    ——————————-

    and they'd have the same value no matter the time or place?

    Everyone would be issued the same number of certificates. At that point yhey have the same par value.

    But, what they would sell for would depend mightily on the time and place they might be used. Tysons developers would be willing and able to pay a lot more than some slob wanting to put a daughter-in-law cottage behind his home.

    ————————–

    if you sell a property does the property rights go with the property or the owner?

    You are not paying attention. The certificates are issued to citizens and they are a form of property in themselves, distinct from ownership of land.

    On selling your land or property you could throw them in to sweeten the deal, or not. In any case their value is distinct from the value of the property because it depends on what developers will pay.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    From the citizens point of view, if he thinks he is not getting paid enough to offset what he thinks the resulting tax increase will be, he won't sell. If he is moving out of the county anyway, then screw everyone else, sell. If he thinks growth is good, not bad, he may be disposed to sell at a lower price. If he thinks growth is bad, not good, he may want a higher price.

    But at the end of the day, he is going to have to look at the market and decide. I might believe that conservation of my county is priceless, and I want $5000 for my certificate. But if they are only selling for $1000 dollars then I have to decide if I want $1000, or nothing.

    —————————–

    If they go with a property and the the owner sells them then that property no longer has any rights?

    The development certificates have NOTHING to do with the property the owner of the certificate holds.

    The concept is that (under your argument) the landowner has no development rights: the county has them all.

    But the people of the county are the county, those rights are valuable, and so the county distributes those rights evenly among the citizens, through the use of certificates.

    The certificates have no value in and of themselves, but they have value to those who wish to develop.
    And they have value to those that wish to prevent development. PEC can buy up or accept as contributions as many as they like, and just hold them until they expire.

    But, unlike conservation easements, they are not permanent. Your argument is that development rights are not permanent, the county can change the rules at any time. So, suppose I gave development rights associated with the property (if I had any) to a conservation group. The group would have my (intrinsic) development rights and I would have the rest of the property.

    That's the way it works now. But suppose the county (at some future time) changed the rules and gave me some more development rights?

    Would the ones the conservation group had be worthless? Nope. They could then, and could now, always sell them to some development they deemed worthy. After all, those developent rights are their property.

    If one were and alarmist and a conspiracy theorist, one could postulate that conservation groups recieving development rights were merely speculating. Once they have cornered the market (they've got 70,000 acres in Fauquier now) they could change their charter, and start sellng developmet rights here in favor of better conservation prospects elsewhere.

    But, under my plan, all that "forever" nonsense goes away, and we have to deal with facts on the ground here and now. I would KNOW that whatever development certificates I have would eventually expire, and be replaced by new ones.

    Transparent, fair, and predictable.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    methinks you are flying by the seat of your fanny on this..

    Look, it is a proposal that meets many of the complaints I hear about the present system.

    It is just a thought, but that is a lot more than I hear from most people, which is either "This isn't fair because it is going to cost me." or "Not in my Back yard"

    This is a proposal on ONE way to allow the market to make development decisions, in such a way that individual citizens are not harmed, whether they support development, or not.

    RH

  46. Groveton Avatar

    "How about the city fathers of NoVa?".

    For the eleven millionth time – the city is Washington, DC not NoVa. Kind of like Hoboken, NJ and NYC. Remember Frank Sinatra? He was from Hoboken. Remember when he sang New York, New York? That was a guy from a suburb singing about the city in a different state. Is this really all that hard? Some metropolitan areas span multiple states. Like here in DC.

    As for the fathers of DC – Washington, Mason, Jefferson, L'Enfant. Not a bad crowd.

    I have far more affinity for Montgomery, MD than I have for Fredericksburg, VA. I mean – not even close. In fact, if not for you on the blog I wouldn't even thing of Fredricksburg. Like never. Rt 128 in Boston? Sure. Austin, TX – sure. Raleigh, NC – you bet. Fredricksburg, VA – who cares. It's already part of NoVa. And not a particularly interesting part.

    "geeze Groveton… if your guys were so brilliant how come they let Richmond go through their pants pockets and wallet to get money for RoVa?

    If ya'll were even the slightest bit competent.. you ought to be able to keep those Pocahontas thieves out of your pants…".

    Out of the mouthes of babes some times come gems. We need:

    1. A more effective campaign to bring the chronic and long term failures of incumbent GA politicians from NoVa to the attention of NoVa voters. Janet Howell is a case in point.

    2. A better alliance with the other fleeced localities. NoVa and Tidewater for example.

    3. The 2011 redistricting to dillute RoVA power.

    These are very Republican type thoughts.

    We'll get McDonnell this time, Bolling and Cuccenelli too. Maybe a big move among the Delagates. Then, in two years, maybe we take down the senate. Maybe I should run against Howell.

    We are going to take the state back from the re-distributionists.

    In 5 years this debate will be over.

    And all of you transfer addicted crack whores will have to go into treatment or a half way home.

  47. Anonymous Avatar

    "Here's Obama trying to spend that money on teachers and roads and health care instead of the military."

    The government's primary job is protecting people and property.

    Without that we won't have to worry about roads or teachers.

    We snoozed through the beginning ow WWII. We won't get that option again.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar

    "Oh we have a plan down in the Fredericksburg Area – We intend to convince your government agencies to move down here… since we already provide them with a substantial number of their employees…

    We call this the reverse-HOT lanes plan….

    ;-)"

    I win.

    This is the only plan that is likely to work, bad as it is.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    "I'm not anti-NoVa… I just think the down-the-nose "we are the economy in Va" attitude needs a kick in the pants every now and then to remind them that there is nothing particularly brilliant about their "business" leaders…"

    OK, but the facts on the ground are that NOVA still supplies around 43% of the entire state economy.

    How it got that way or how flimsy the basis is beside the point.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar

    "I mean who other than the Feds have royally screwed up the settlement patterns in the NoVa Region if not the Feds?"

    Bingo.

    Move the senate to Hawaii, the house to Florida, Agriculture to Iowa, Justice to Texas, and Defense to Oklahoma, Education to California, Transportation to Mississippi.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    "geeze Groveton… if your guys were so brilliant how come they let Richmond go through their pants pockets and wallet to get money for RoVa?"

    Mob rule. No matterwhat NOVA does they cannot control the stae senate.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    "about 60% of our workforce heads up your way everyday to get their share of those gvmint jobs.

    Do we work real hard to "attract" those jobs? Nope."

    We just sit back and claim tht NOVA should pay for its own roads so we can get to work easier.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar

    "And all of you transfer addicted crack whores will have to go into treatment or a half way home."

    Gee Groveton, easy on the single malt scotch.

    RH

  54. " OK, but the facts on the ground are that NOVA still supplies around 43% of the entire state economy.

    How it got that way or how flimsy the basis is beside the point."

    Well.. it depends if you are a RovA fella if you think that NoVa cash cow is smart or dumb.

    If that NoVa cash cow is pretty clueless then grabbing some of that money is relatively easy.

    so the proof is in the pudding here.

    NoVa was not smart enough to earn the money – it basically fell in to their laps – and consistent with that assessment..they're also not smart enough to keep RoVa from pilfering it.

    see if NoVa didn't really deserve the money.. they just were standing around with their thumbs in their ears when the Feds showed up parachuting money all over the place.. then anyone who can grab hold of those dollars – gets them.

    Now.. there's another theory here that starts off with some folks in NoVa being smart – in particular the developers.

    The developers elicit an agreement from Richmond to fund the infrastructure needed for development like Tysons and in return they promise to let Richmond/RoVa have a share of the taxes that accrue from that development.

    so there's two theories here.

    You can choose the NoVa is dumb theory, or you can choose the NoVa is Smart theory.

    what say you?

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    "..they're also not smart enough to keep RoVa from pilfering it."

    Once again, you come out in favor of stealing……

    Short of secession, NOVA has very little control over the make up of the virginia senate.

    It is mob rule.

    Let's take what we can get, regardless of whether a) it is a net public benefit b) the losers get compensated by the winners and c) it makes th eslightest bit of sense on any level, let alone an ethical one.

    RH

    RH

  56. see from Richmond's point of view, it's not stealing no more than them taking gas taxes and allocating them out not in the proportion they were generated.

    right?

    Richmond is saying that 2% of the Sales Tax – no matter where it is collected geographically belongs to them – statewide.

    and then they are free to decide how to allocate that money – and the Supreme Court says that for education – it must be equal access – statewide so you put those two things together and there is no "stealing" at all.

    It is merely collected a state tax – imposed statewide and then the state allocates it according to the way the Supreme Court has told them to.

    So you can blame the Supreme Court for the "stealing" but I suspect every without the SC, that most folks would agree that the State does have the right to tax and does have the right to not allocate it in strict proportion to how it was collected.

    Even in Home Rule States, you'll find statewide sales taxes that are reserved – for the state's use.

    so you're barking up the wrong tree – as usual.

  57. Groveton Avatar

    I'll be in Georgia from Wed – Sun this week. I'll remind the good people of Georgia how Fredricksburg is part of The Real South. I'll log onto Bacon's Rebellion and let them see LarryG writing "y'all" every chance he gets. I'll make sure to explain that Virginia really, really is part of the South. I mean – just ask people in Richmond.

    When they stop laughing we'll all go fishing.

    I tried the same thing in Tennessee a few weeks ago. The answer was unanimous – Virginia is part of the North. Not NoVA, not Washington DC – Virginia.

    So, we'all will'all be'all goin' to Jawja and I'all will let y'all know how'all it goes.

  58. Anonymous Avatar

    Hey, you were the one thatused the word pilfering.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar

    "All property, except as hereinafter provided, shall be taxed. All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax…."

    Article X of the Virginia constitution.

    Taxes must be uniform, so if we recognize a toll as a tax then all roads should be tolled, or none.

    But it doesn't say anything about how taxes should be SPENT. If Virginia collects the tax then Virginia should be free to spend it any way it sees fit, subject to the limits imposed by the fact that the state has an obligation to protect everyone's property equally, and the fact that htere is no reason for the state to do anything that doesn't represent a net public benefit.

    RH

  60. Groveton Avatar

    "and then they are free to decide how to allocate that money – and the Supreme Court says that for education – it must be equal access – statewide so you put those two things together and there is no "stealing" at all.".

    The Supreme Court has never said that education has to be subsidized. Equal access can be accomplished a lot of ways. All jurisdictions paying reasonable property taxes for example. Once again, you have taken a disconnected fact and tried to fabricate a false argumument.

    "So you can blame the Supreme Court for the "stealing" but I suspect every without the SC, that most folks would agree that the State does have the right to tax and does have the right to not allocate it in strict proportion to how it was collected.".

    I have nver claimed that the state didn't have the right to do what it's doing. I have claimed that the process is opaque and unfair. I have claimed that the Decendants of Pocohontas still run the state for their own wealth building opportunities. I have claimed that more awareness among NoVA and Tidewater voters coupled with the mandatory redistricting from the 2010 census will tilt what the state does in a different direction. But I have never said that the state didn't have the right to fleece some people so that others could avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

    "Even in Home Rule States, you'll find statewide sales taxes that are reserved – for the state's use.

    so you're barking up the wrong tree – as usual.".

    For the bintillionth time – neither Dillon's Rule nor Home Rule is a single way of doing things. They are both philosophies – like Democracy – and they both leave a lot of room for interpretation. The US is a democracy. So is France. And India. Do they all work the same way? Do we have a parliment? Virginia's pre-historic interpretation fo Dillon's Rule is an extreme case of centralizing power in the state government. The vast majority of states have decentralized some of the power to the localities. The question of how much power to decentralize or how to decentralize the power varies from state to state. The key point is the extremist approach taken in Virginia. And why is this extreme approach taken? In my opinion, it is to allow a relatively small number of people to control a large state. I believe that government that governs closest to the people governs best. Richmond is not closest to the people.

    Really, why is this hard?

  61. Anonymous Avatar

    "But I have never said that the state didn't have the right to fleece some people so that others could avoid paying their fair share of taxes."

    Then I will say it.

    The state doesn't have the right to fleece some people so that others could avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

    It may have the aurthority and the power, but it will never have that right.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar

    "Most Massachusetts counties currently exist only as geographic regions, and have no county government. All former county functions were assumed by state agencies in the late 1990's-early 2000. Sheriffs and some other regional officials with specific duties are still elected locally to perform duties within the county region, but there is no county council or commissioner."

    That would be even more extreme than Virginia except that in Massachusetts all land is incorporated in a town or city and these governments are quite autonomous.

    RH

  63. " The Supreme Court has never said that education has to be subsidized."

    Education is subsidized no matter how you do it – unless and until each "customer" has to pay directly for it.

    The State is given the authority to figure out how to make sure every kid has equal access.

    The State is entitled to collect a statewide sales tax equally from all localities and the state is free to allocate those revenues such that they result in equal access to education.

    The State DOES USE a composite index that takes into account, local wealth, local taxes, ability to pay and about 5 other metrics.

    none of the claims that the State is "stealing" from NoVa hold water at all if you subscribe to the above.

    it's a false issue.. invoked for other political reasons IMHO.

  64. two points:

    " Taxes must be uniform, so if we recognize a toll as a tax then all roads should be tolled, or none."

    what a bunch of grade A BS…

    are you saying that every locality in Va has to levy the same local taxes.. same property tax rate?

    re: Massachusetts

    For what it is worth – that state is the top state in the US for education test scores and about the only one that comes close to the NAEP standards for reading and math proficiency.

  65. Anonymous Avatar

    " Taxes must be uniform, so if we recognize a toll as a tax then all roads should be tolled, or none."

    what a bunch of grade A BS…"

    ——————————–

    How do you read a constitution that says taxes must be uniform?

    You gonna wiggle out of this by claiming a toll isn't a tax, that it is a "user fee"? If it is a user fee, then how do you justify spending it on something else?

    —————————

    "..are you saying that every locality in Va has to levy the same local taxes.. same property tax rate?"

    The constitution discusses property taxes separately, so the answer is yes and no. Every locality must assess property at current full market value, so the basis for taxes must be the same everywhere.

    If you treated tolls as taxes you might have different tolls in different areas but the basis would have to be the same: Cost of road per mile divided by annual number of users, or something.

    ————————–

    "For what it is worth – that state is the top state in the US for education test scores and about the only one that comes close to the NAEP standards for reading and math proficiency."

    How did you think I got so smart? 😉

    RH

  66. re: "wiggling out"

    have you looked around you guy at the disparate taxes ?

    the problem is you read the Constitution but you don't understand it – and you then disagree with ALL the other folks.. lawyers and judges and lawmakers.. and say it is THEY who do not follow it.

    pardon me.. but I think they got it more right than you do.

    when Spotsylvania charges a different tax rate than Facquier …what does that mean with respect to the Constitution Ray?

    are you going to tell us that these counties are violating the Constitution?

    Do you think the toll on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge or the Powhite Parkway or the Dulles Tollroad are "discriminatory" and in violation of the law because they don't apply statewide?

    Methinks you do not understand the law here…

    Don't bother showing me your law degree … guy… it won't bolster your case..

    😉

  67. Anonymous Avatar

    "…have you looked around you guy at the disparate taxes ?"

    The constitution syas they are supposed to be uniform. If they are not then we are not following the intent of the law.

    Then of course, there isn't much point in having uniform taxes if you don't have uniform spending.

    You do agree that people should get what they pay for, don't you?

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar

    "All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects… "

    That seems pretty clear to me. What is there to not understand? What is there ot "interpret'?

    If we are not doing that then, yes, the Supreme Court and everyone else is bending or disobeying the law.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

    RH

  69. Anonymous Avatar

    Good god, you don't want .. lawyers and judges and lawmakers..making the laws.

    That's how we got into this mess.

    RH

  70. Anonymous Avatar

    "when Spotsylvania charges a different tax rate than Facquier …what does that mean with respect to the Constitution"

    It doesn't mean anything. According to the constitution that is expressly allowed. The only caveat is that real estate must be assessed at current market value.

    The Constitution also requires that the tax rate be set at a public hearing which is held at a separate time from the budget hearings.

    If you read the quote it says:
    "… within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax…."

    Spostylvania can charge a different tax but they have to charge everyone in Spotsylvania the same way.

    RH

  71. Anonymous Avatar

    Do you think the toll on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge or the Powhite Parkway or the Dulles Tollroad are "discriminatory" and in violation of the law because they don't apply statewide?

    —————————–

    Yes I do, but some fathead lawyer or judge has no doubt decided that they are not discriminatory because they apply uniformly to everyone, it is just that not everyone crosses the bridge.

    This is thee same kind of idiotic thinking that suggests that revised setback requirements apply equally to those that have already built and those that won't be able to because of the new rules.

    Sorry, you can wiggle all you want but at the end of the day it isn't equal taxation if it causes unequal effects.

    "We'll just define this as equal and charge those other guys more."

    That's the way lawyers talk and they do it with a straight face. If I did it, it would be a comedy act.

    RH

  72. Anonymous Avatar

    Methinks you do not understand the law here…

    Oh, I understand the law. Stealing is wrong.

    What I don't understand is why we let the authorities break it or ignore it.

    RH

  73. do you know what this means?

    ".. shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects."

    if you know that then you understand and you know why you don't pay the same tax that others do – if they are not in the same "class".

    this is not one tax on all vehicles.

    it depends on the vehicle.

    this is not one tax on property.

    It depends on where you live.

    there is not even one tax on income. It depends on what bracket you are in.

    Now.. you are free to join with the wing nuts who show up at the tea parties with sign in hand and gun on hip… but I think it's a futile gesture.

    virtually all of this territory has been plowed a number of times.

  74. Anonymous Avatar

    Well shucks then, lets have an infinite number of taxes on ann infinite number of subjects.

    From each according to their abilities and to each according to their need.

    We'll absolve all property rights and the government of responsibility for protecting them.

    Oh, and I'll be having supper at your house tonight.

    RH

  75. Anonymous Avatar

    "The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority board voted Wednesday to double rates on the Dulles Toll Road by 2012, setting aside objections from commuters.

    …….

    Authority rules required the board to seek public comment, and the reaction in commuter submissions was overwhelmingly negative. Last month, the board released a summary of 221 public comments, and opponents outnumbered supporters by about 3 to 1.

    …………..

    Many toll road users pointed to other people — airport passengers, Metro riders, Loudoun residents — as the ones who should be paying for Metrorail improvements.

    Members of those groups had different opinions.

    "Another toll increase? Where is the money going now?" someone from Sterling wrote in an online submission. "As I remember it, the tolls were supposed to be temporary as a way to pay for the toll road in the first place. My understanding is that the road was paid for years ago which means every dollar collected since should have been gravy. Stop holding the residents of Loudoun County hostage."

    ————————–

    This is exactly what brought down the Mass turnpike authority: holding residents of one area hostage to ever increasing tolls for non highway use.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar

    "Several recommendations include setting specific regulations to make it safer. There are more than 600 driveways along the 13-mile stretch and the corridor averages 400 accidents per year.

    A number of the proposed cross-lot connections involve private properties. City Manager John Bohenko assured any connections would have to be approved by the private owner and compensation determined.

    The overall cost is expected to be around $77 million."

    some communities know how to do things right.

    RH

  77. Anonymous Avatar

    "TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) – A Pima County Superior Court judge is keeping alive a lawsuit that is 1 of the first court cases involving a state constitutional requirement for compensation for property value reduced by land-use regulations.

    Builder Michael Goodman sued for damages over a Tucson building code provision imposing a review process for demolition permits to tear down buildings.

    Judge Paul Tang on Tuesday denied the city's request for a pretrial ruling in its favor on grounds that the city's repeal of the section meant Goodman's suit shouldn't go forward.

    Tang ruled that it would be absurd to deny damage claims just because the section was repealed."

    ————————

    Another case where compensation is likely to be ordered for a regulatory taking.

    RH

  78. Anonymous Avatar

    "There is no doubt that the citizens care about the condition of the municipal facilities in Lake Oswego. After all, we own them and pay for them with our tax dollars. But for many citizens, the fate of these facilities is secondary to sensitive lands. As long as this “800-pound gorilla” remains on the property of those affected by the sensitive lands ordinance, nothing else really matters to them.

    The seizure of their property rights and the possibility of financial loss are the terrible consequences of this ordinance, and they trump anything else the city council may have on its agenda. This is unfortunate, but only the council has the ability to do something about it.

    Fortunately, there is a “white knight” in the picture. It is called Measure 49, and it was passed specifically to compensate the public for this type of governmental abuse. Under Section 12 of Measure 49, a property owner may file a claim for just compensation if the owner’s desired use is restricted by land use regulations enacted after Jan. 1, 2007 and the enactment of these regulations has reduced the fair market value of the property."

    Lake Oswego News.

    —————————-
    Yet another community where people have decided that compensation must be paid when property rights are damaged.

    We can repair dysfunctional communities, but if we think we can do it by stealing property rights, then we have not calculated the exact cost of dysfunction.

    RH

  79. Anonymous Avatar

    "The Oregon Court of Appeals, sternly scolding Multnomah County for its handling of the Dorothy English land-development case, has ordered the county to pay nearly $200,000 in fees to the lawyers who represented the late "poster girl" of the state's property rights movement.

    But that doesn't mean the case is over, though English died 18 months ago. Earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed to hear another appeal of the decision that granted her $1.15 million in compensation for her dispute with Multnomah County. The case will be argued in January.

    And still to come is a decision on another layer of legal fees, about $300,000.

    English, who died in April 2008 at age 95, fought the county for four years in an attempt to split her 20 acres into eight home sites for her extended family. She wasn't allowed to develop her property off Northwest Skyline Boulevard because the county rezoned it after she and her late husband bought it in 1953."

    Oregon Environmental news.

    —————————–

    You may die first, but you still deserve compensation when the government takes something from you.

    RH

  80. Anonymous Avatar

    "Mike Irvin, of the Kansas Farm Bureau Legal Foundation, explained that eminent domain is in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and can be invoked by the government to take someone's property for public use against his or her wishes. But the property owner has to be justly compensated for the land. This situation occurs when land is needed for economic development and contractors can't get owners to sell it.

    Irvin said growing populations require more infrastructure, such as schools, utilities, transmission lines, libraries, fire stations etc., which creates a need for land.

    Conflicts occur, Irvin said, because a lot of farmers don't want to sell their land. Eminent domain then is enacted and more disagreements surface about what the definition of public use of land is and what the just compensation should be."

    ——————————-

    Looks like a lot of people are concerned about the cost of dysfunction. Most of them are people who think they are losing something.

    RH

  81. Anonymous Avatar

    "Several landowners, who had entered into contracts for wind farm development, sued the county commissioners, saying the prohibition was unreasonable.

    But the Kansas Supreme Court agreed with a lower court finding that the county commissioners’ zoning decision was lawful. The lower court said the board took into consideration the wind farms’ impact upon the aesthetics of the county and the wishes of residents.

    The landowners also contended they entered into wind leases prior to the 2004 adoption of the ban and that the county cannot pass a law that interferes with the enforcement of a contract. But the court said land use is heavily regulated and that changes in the law may alter contractual obligations.

    The state Supreme Court, however, left open several other issues for further arguments. Those include whether the zoning ordinance represents a “taking” of property rights without just compensation and whether it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A second round of oral arguments is scheduled for Jan. 27."

    ————————–

    Yet another case of ex post facto zoning being used to prevent contracts already legally enetered.

    RH

  82. Anonymous Avatar

    "PALESTINE — Texans overwhelmingly stood in favor of private property rights in Tuesday’s Constitutional Amendment Election passing Proposition 11 by a roughly 81 percent to 19 percent margin.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “By approving Proposition 11, the voters of Texas have sent a clear message: Don’t mess with private property rights. This measure provides needed protections for private property owners and builds a firewall between the misguided principles of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling.”

    Proposition 11 is a Texas constitutional amendment that prohibits the taking, damaging or destroying of private property for public use. It also bars the taking of private property for certain economic development purposes and limits the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to certain entities."

    Palestine Herald

    —————————–

    And Larry tinks land use law is "pretty well settled".

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar

    Civil libertarians are warning Americans about the ambitions of federal lawmakers to control all waters within the United States including those on private property, in the latest power grab by politicians in Washington, DC.

    According to the American Land Rights Association, the Obama Administration and Congress are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S787) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States."

    "The US Constitution's Tenth Amendment automatically reserves power for controlling waters to the states, not to the Oval Office and US Congress," said political strategist Mike Baker.

    "This is just one more power grab by out-of-control politicians who only adhere to constitutional law when it suits them," he added.

    '''''''''''''''

    "Senate Bill 787 will change federal jurisdiction over “navigable” water, to give the federal government control over all water everwhere, in municiple reservoirs, and on private lands, and in private wells. This bill ignores state water law authority and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,"

    ……………….

    "It also means that the Great Lake States and Provinces could not protect the Great Lakes from being pumped dry to feed the growth of California and the Southwest. "

    ————————–

    RH

Leave a Reply