Good News on the Job Front — But No Reason to Get Complacent

Gov. Bob McDonnell made a few big promises when he ran for governor. One of those promises, raising more money for transportation, was a bust. Privatizing the state’s ABC stores, collecting royalties from offshore oil drilling and slapping tolls on Interstate highways have crumbled like the asphalt on Interstate 95. But another of his promises, to promote job creation, has panned out pretty well. So far, McDonnell has lived up to his campaign slogan, “Bob’s for Jobs.”

Virginia’s economic development success garnered attention in today’s Wall Street Journal, which noted that the state’s unemployment fell to 6.8% in October, down from 7.2% in February thanks to the net creation of 55,000 new jobs. That was the third best job-creation rate of any state, noted reporter Jennifer Levitz. And it represented a big improvement from 2009, when Gov. Tim Kaine presided over a performance that ranked 35th.

Clearly, Virginia benefited from the surge in federal spending last year, but only 2,600 of the new jobs came from additions to the federal payroll, the WSJ noted. (The article offered no numbers for expanded employment by federal contractors, which probably exceeded the number of direct federal jobs.) On the other hand, Virginia benefited relatively little from soaring energy and agricultural prices, as several other top-performing states have. Instead, the Old Dominion has enjoyed a slew of traditional economic development coups in a year when big new corporate expansion announcements were far and few between. The Governor’s office has announced 215 deals so far this year.

The article points to two differences between Virginia and other states. Even as it was cutting spending by hundreds of millions of dollars, the General Assembly gave McDonnell $57 million in economic development funds to entice new investment to the state. McDonnell also appointed Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, as “chief job creation officer,” transforming a largely ceremonial position into a high-profile economic development czar.

Philosophically, I’m opposed to the use of government “incentives” to buy jobs. Business subsidies do not create new jobs, they only transfer them from one state to another. I believe in low corporate tax rates for everyone — and no special deductions, credits, exemptions or subsidies for anyone. Our economic development strategy should be to focus on creating a favorable business climate that helps everyone, not a favored few. That said, as a Virginian, I’d much rather have the jobs here in Virginia. I’d rather live in a state that promotes job creation rather than a state like, say, California, where state policy destroys jobs.

McDonnell deserves to bask in his job-creation success. And I’m not opposed to his request for an additional $54 million to continue the program. But I would hate for Virginia to get stuck on the idea that buying jobs through incentives is a good long-term formula for prosperity. It’s an economic development philosophy that dates to the 1960s, if not earlier. In the long run, we need to improve K-12 educational performance, achieve productivity breakthroughs in healthcare, patch our crumbling infrastructure, develop more energy-efficient human settlement patterns and build world-class research universities — not by doing things the same old way, as in throwing around money at every desiderata, but by adopting new paradigms for how we deliver and pay for government services.

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

116 responses to “Good News on the Job Front — But No Reason to Get Complacent”

  1. And at the same time Obama gets zero credit for jobs creaton efforts.

    And how do we reconcile the current interest in jobs and economic development with the concern for massive overconsumption?

    And, as WAPO pointed out, construction workers are still out in the cold. And there is a sector that could easily get a huge boost without any government subsidies: all that is needed is for government to get out of the way.

    =================================
    Off topic

    Cuccinelli was on the News Hour last night the whole time he was on all I could think of was Joe South:

    Oh the games people play now
    Every night and every day now
    Never meaning what they say now
    Never saying what they mean

    And they wile away the hours
    In their ivory towers
    Till they're covered up with flowers
    In the back of a black limousine

    It is hard to beleive that the guy can have such nicely crafted and carefully stated arguments, that are completely off target.

    His only positive comment was the old argument about allowing health insurance sales across state lines, as if that would fix the problem.

    Fine, lets do that. Turn healthcare into interstate commerce.

    Then what?

    Does he forget that it was a Republican who signed the Massachustts law with a health insurance mandate?

  2. "Philosophically, I'm opposed to the use of government "incentives" to buy jobs. Business subsidies do not create new jobs, they only transfer them from one state to another".

    Competition among the states, like competition among "for profit" business, makes for better products and services sold at more cost effective prices.

    California is failing because the policies adopted by the elected officials in California are non-competitive.

    A shipwreck is a lighthouse to the sea. Hopefully, the excesses in California, Illinois and New York help inform Virginia's elected officials regarding the danger of special interests in the public sector.

    As for corporate welfare … good luck ending that. The simple fact is that a very small percentage of taxpayers pays a very large percentage of the total tax burden. Attracting people in that small percentage will remain a priority for well run state governments.

    I recently exchanged comments with a blogger who was against a particular housing development being built in Northern Virginia. The blogger said that building those new homes would only add to the tax burden for supporting the people living there. I countered that the new residents would have to pay all the usual taxes so I wasn't sure why it was assumed that they would cause the financial burden to get worse. The reply was shocking (but quite possibly true) … The only new homes which generate more in taxes than they consume in services cost $500,000 or more. Any addition of housing below that price threshold brings in people who consume more in government than they pay in taxes.

    Is that true? I don't know. But it might be. There are some citizens who are net surplus taxpayers and some who are net deficit taxpayers. That seems obvious. So, if a state government knew the boundary between a "surplus" citizen and a "deficit" citizen – wouldn't they want to attract "surplus" citizens? And if it cost $10,000 in "corporate welfare" to attract an executive who provided $12,000 per year in "surplus" – wouldn't that be a good financial deal?

    I always wonder when otherwise free market thinkers can't think in free market terms about issues like this.

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Groveton, I understand your logic that spending money to attract jobs can increase the tax base (under some circumstances), and that is why I am not unalterably opposed to McDonnell's aggressive use of incentives. It makes some sense to give such tax breaks during periods of economic downturn when the newly created jobs put out-of-work people back to work. That creates taxpayers out of non-taxpayers. Everyone benefits to some degree.

    However, it makes far less sense to provide the giveaways when the economy is hot, unemployment is low, and the jobs created will be filled by people who move in from outside the state. Those newcomers do generate more tax revenues, but they also create the need for government to provide more roads, schools, utilities and services. The cost-benefit trade-off is typically much less favorable.

    I have one other concern. Only a fraction of new jobs are created by large corporations that are relocating or expanding in Virginia. The majority of new jobs are created by smaller businesses that fly beneath the economic developers' radar screen. Nobody's giving them tax breaks.

    As a matter of principle, I believe that similarly situated people (and businesses) should pay taxes at the same rate. I recoil at the idea that one guy can hire a lawyer or lobbyist and cut a better deal than the guy who doesn't hire the lawyer or lobbyist. Such rent-seeking behavior is the bane of this country.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Oh what a tangled web! Fairfax County officials have told me that only high-end homes tend to generate sufficient tax revenues to pay for the services that they consume. I suspect empty-nesters are big contributors in many instances though. After all, well more than 50% of Fairfax County's spending goes to its public schools. Maybe, many singles and couples of all stripes without children also are net contributors.

    So we want more commercial taxpayers. But, at the very same time, growing evidence suggests that new commercial growth that generates any significant increase in driving creates significant costs that aren't being paid by Richmond or Uncle Sam. The 527 traffic analysis process is showing that.

    Now to make Tysons Corner work, we need a lot more residents to live and work at Tysons. But will we get the type of residents who are net contributors to the county budget? But if we do, we won't have the many lower-paid workers necessary for Tysons to operate living within walking distance.

    Bottom line, since Fairfax County is largely built out, we are probably at a point in the cost curve where major development costs more than it brings in.

    TMT

  5. I have serious doubts that "govt" can "create" private sector jobs.

    Basically govt is working to garner "their share" of the jobs but what we have going on in the US is dumb.

    We have more and more states going after fewer and fewer jobs in part because of education system is not producing an employable workforce that can not only compete for global jobs – but, in fact, drive the innovation that creates jobs.

    We are rotting from the core because we see our schools as wonderful amenities for our kids to be "self fulfilled" and develop a killer college entrance resume but when it comes to simple things like being able to articulate a scientific or mathematical concept – as it pertains to the real world – we fail –

    we rank pretty much last in the G20 when we are the ones who invented public education.

    If Gov Mcdonnell wants to "attract" jobs to Va – we need to have a world class education system that ranks in the top 5 in the world (that's a modest goal).

    Instead of making kids "remember" stupid stuff – they need to be taught – how to learn – which means they have to be able to read, understand, and articulate the technology that drives the world now days.

    Doing "more" for education also does NOT mean spending more money.

    It means MORE accountability – not teachers in the trenches but the folks who operate these institutions.

  6. The only new homes which generate more in taxes than they consume in services cost $500,000 or more. Any addition of housing below that price threshold brings in people who consume more in government than they pay in taxes.

    Is that true?

    ==================================

    No, it is not true.

    This is a widely proclaimed BIG LIE, based on innumeracy.

    The way this is done is to take the county budget and divide it by the number of homes in the county. Then, based on the number required, and the current tax rate, determine the size/cost of a home that must be built to pay "its share" of the costs.

    But, in Fauquier county, for example, real estate taxes only account for one third of the revenue. In order for the above calculation to be correct, you would have to dived the result by three.

    It is easy to see how srewed up this is by following the numbers produced by this argument over the years. When I first moved there, the argument was $350,000 and it increased to $750,000 before the crash, and now it is probably back down to $500,000.

    One problem is that it is based on a point home value in time, compared to cash flow needs over time. That $350,000 home is likely to become a $750,000 home over time, and therefore pay its way.

    Especially if homebuilding is artificially restricted through the use of this specious argument. it is an argument which, if successful, defeats itself. The real argument against residential construction comes from current residents attempting to protect their values at the expense of others.

    This is not my personal opinion: it is a matter which has been studied and verified by economists over and over again.

    Even if, the calculation used to create this argument was not deliberately mismanaged, Groveton hits on ANOTHER laogical fallacy. If residential housing is not paying its way, then how is it that only NEW housing is credited with creating the problem?

    At the time that it was said that only homes costing $750,000 or more paid their own way in Fauquier county, the average home value in the county was only around $250,000. Notice that is one third, of the claimed need, as pointed out above, and yet, it is enough to cover the current budget.

    If it is NOT enough to cover the budet, then you have a tax problem, not a housing problem.

    Either Grovetons friend knows the facts and is lying through his teeth, or else he has been told the BIG LIE so often that he believes it.

    ================================

    To be fair, developers broguht this on themselves. In earlier years they sold a previous BIG LIE, that whatever problems their projects caused would be covered by increases in the tax base.

    The truth is somewhere in the middle, but anti-developer, anti-profit, anti-big, anti-traffic, anti-road sentiment holds sway at this time.

    Or it did until the recession. Now you suddenly hear moare about how the government is being hurt because new revenue is not being added by expanding the tax base.

    Even EMR didn't beleive me at first when I pointed out that the budget went up and the tax rate didn't, because of new property that was created.

  7. education system is not producing an employable workforce that can not only compete for global jobs – but, in fact, drive the innovation that creates jobs.

    =============================

    Intersting story on NPR. Two ex IBM employees dropped out and started their own IT business. They did well, but needed more capital and wanted to globalize, so they went looking for an international partner.

    They wound up being acquired by a Chinese company. They sold their company for stock options in the new larger company. when the new, merged, larger company went public, they made far more than they would have staying local and taking their (smaller) company public.

    Everyone made out, and you can buy stock in this company on the new york exchange.

    Being purchased by a foreign company is one way to compete globally.

  8. "….since Fairfax County is largely built out, …."

    ===============================

    Oh brother. I can hear the EMR turbines spinning up from here.

  9. "However, it makes far less sense to provide the giveaways when the economy is hot, …"

    ===============================

    Except that is when government has the money. It is not allowed to keep those funds and invest them for use later.

    If they (government) did that you would be screaming about excess taxes and slush funds.

    Lets put government in a position where it can't win, can't act like a business, and then turn around and complain that government is a loser.

  10. Fairfax is pretty dense compared to many Va counties but it still has only about 4 people per acre.

    The Va UDA law calls for a minimum of 4du per acre – which is basically 1/4 acre subdivisions – 4 homes per acre with an average of 2.5 per home and that totals up to more than twice as dense as Fairfax is right now.

  11. The Va UDA law calls for a minimum of 4du per acre – which is basically 1/4 acre subdivisions

    ==============================

    Better hope it doesn't work out that way. go look at some quarter acre subdivisions and you will see some pretty dumpy neighborhoods.

    That average is going to have to be achieved by much denser areas nterspersed with more open space to get the average.

    Those denser spaces will be smaller homes (apartments), probably valued at less and paying less taxes to send the same numbers to school. One reason densification fails.

    All that future open space is owned by someone. They are going to raise holy hell if they get "saved" for open space so that someone else can get densified.

    Equality, Economy, Environmnet.

    Better figure out how to keep them in the proper order.

  12. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry said, "Doing 'more' for education also does NOT mean spending more money."

    Larry, it's nice to agree with you for a change!

  13. Bacon – you note I hope that Obama has done what the Conservatives have advocated – take on the unions….

    But Va has no teacher unions.

    The problem is Va is the parents.

  14. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    TMT, speaking of how much money Fairfax County spends on schools… I heard a story about Arlington County schools (not the same as Fairfax, I know) to the effect that the cost per square foot of new schools in Arlington exceeds that of Manhattan office space.

    Virginia spent more than $10,000 per student on average in 2008 (I'm glossing over the wide discrepancies between NoVa and RoVa). Let's say classrooms average 20 pupils. That translates into $200,000 per classroom. Let's say the average teacher earns about $47,000 a year. That leaves roughly $150,000 for stuff other than teachers.

    Don't tell me there's not a huge amount of wasted money. How many administrators do we need in the public school system????

  15. "How many administrators do we need in the public school system????"

    Amen, brother.

    # of students in the city school system where I live is about 4,000.

    Cost to run the place;

    http://tinyurl.com/2e55yko

    And this is in a district where 20% of the students live below the poverty level and over 50% get free or reduced lunch.

    Not to mention we have a county school system surrounding the city schools with just as big a budget.

    Oh, and the place is shut down three months out of the year.

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry,

    There are teachers unions in Virginia, but no teacher can be forced to join and there is no collective bargaining. But they play a very powerful roll, at least in Fairfax County.

    The administrative bloat in public education is huge. Class size is increased while assistant superintendents and non-teaching specialists grow in number.

    TMT

  17. From the Uber website:

    "Request a car by telling Uber where you are. Text us your address, or use our iPhone or Android apps to set your pickup location on a map. Uber will send the nearest driver to pick you up, and text message you an estimated arrival time. Cars usually arrive within 5-10 minutes. Your licensed professional driver will park curbside in a sleek black car. Uber will text you again when the car arrives. Hop in the car, tell the driver your destination and you'll be on your way."

    EMRs shared vehicles are here – and they are large private automobiles!

  18. With all the digital books and information avaialble online for free, we could eliminate schools entirely, and just replace them with a serieis of exams to be passed by individual study.

  19. when you talk about school administrative costs – are you aware that Virginia Code allows the localities to fund by category and to direct funding streams separately to instruction and administration?

    re: unions – still Obama has taken on the union mindset in schools and advocated for performance.

    But what you're going to find is that most teachers do a pretty good job except in the urban areas where it's much harder to attract highly qualified teachers.

  20. Hydra:

    Not so sure I can agree with you here. First, as a point of reference, the person on the other web site was not my friend. In fact, I disagreed with him pretty much categorically.

    However, there is some point at which people go from being net consumers of government funds to being net providers of government funds.

    The point about home value is not just about real estate taxes. There is an implicit belief that the people who buy $500,000+ homes generally make enough money to pay for those homes. So, they pay more in income taxes. And they buy more things like cars and boats – so they pay more in sales taxes.

    The real "sweet spot" for a community is a couple with both spouses working full time at good jobs who either don't have children or the children are grown. Hopefully, they buy an overpriced home on a relatively small lot.

    A lot of communities have decided that it's hard to market themselves to individuals who are net "surplus" citizens. So, they market to employers who have net "surplus" citizens on the payroll.

    LarryG's point about the school system is interesting but more of a national problem. Let's say the state of Virginia spends a fortune and creates a superb school system in Lee County. Kids get good educations, go to college and then …

    Move to where the jobs are.

    Manhattan doesn't have particularly great public schools. But it's where smart kids from all around the country go to make money.

    EMR has always been right about the different levels of government. Dooryard, cluster, etc. What are the right, non-overlapping roles and responsibilities for different levels of government?

    I'd suggest that education should be a national issue.

  21. The point about home value is not just about real estate taxes.

    =================================

    I agree, completely, but I'm well acquanted with the argument your frind was making and how it is derived.

    The argument isn;t about whether the occupants pay their way, it is whether the house pays the way for its occupants. That is why only the value of the house is taken in consideration.

    It is also why the value claimed is almost exactly three times the value of the average house: real estate taxes are only one third of revenue.

    We depend on money from the state, and money from businesses and fees to make up the difference. Since there is no direct connection between money from the state and who pays it, the income of home owners is unimportant, for this argument.

    But, we do depend on businesses to make up a lot of the difference, in commercial real estate taxes, etc. And all those taxes are in fact paid by someone — who lives in a house.

    Now it becomes simply a game to see if your community can keep its business resources and export its housing problems.

    Clearly you are correct. Expensive homes are (or were) owned by pople with high incomes, and they ontribute (or have more extorted) cash to keep the community running. but the rescue squad and fire department are mostly manned by local blue collars.

  22. "However, there is some point at which people go from being net consumers of government funds to being net providers of government funds."

    =================================

    Agreed, but there is not much we can do about it. The net consumers have not got the funds to provide. We can reduce the amount of government funds avaialble for them to consume by reducing what we take from the net providers.

    Instantaneously, it isn't clear that society is any better off. A few people wo are well off anyway are better off, and a lot of people are worse off.

    The argument goes that, over time, those people who are better off will invest their money in ways that makes everyone better off (especially themselves).

    Even then, it isn't clear that soceity is evenetually better off. That depends on whether those accumulating and investing capital are able to do it in such a way as to outpace the fecundity of the others. I'm not sure that's a good bet, but the alternative is worse.

  23. A lot of communities have decided that it's hard to market themselves to individuals who are net "surplus" citizens. So, they only allow adult living units to be built. This is out and out discrimination and should not be allowed.

    Someday, someone will apply to build and be turned down, only to watch a seniors place be built. He will sue under the fairness in housing act, if he can ever get due process, which pretty much does not exist in zoning cases.

  24. EMR has always been right about the different levels of government. Dooryard, cluster, etc. What are the right, non-overlapping roles and responsibilities for different levels of government?

    =================================

    EMR is theoretically right, but you point out the problem. The more parts you have, the more interfaces, the more overlap, and the more oversight. You have more friction, more wasted motion, and lots of energy loss.

    If you had perfectly defined, non-overlapping roles and responsibilites, what whould that mean? It would mean that you would always know exactly which part of government controlled which of your rights.

    Those rights being valuable, you may as well call them what they are, which is property rights.

    But if property rights are properly defined, you no longer need nine levels of government to protect them.

  25. Think of your IT business. On one hand you have the seven layer information protocol which is pretty rigidly followed. On the other hand, all those packets of information are bouncing around, colliding, being resent and passed on seemingly randomly, only to be reassembled at the final destination.

    If you tried to make it all work in perfect order, it wouldn't work at all.

  26. Manhattan doesn't have particularly great public schools. But it's where smart kids from all around the country go to make money.

    ================================

    And when they get there they compete like crazy to get their kids in the best PRIVATE schools, starting with pre-school.

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    In the mid-1990s, I was in Denver talking to a friend and business colleague. He complained about the cost of tuition, board and room for his daughter at a Colorado public college. That is until I told him my wife and I were paying more for preschool and after-class care for our daughter.

    TMT

  28. Tmt:

    All politics is relative.

  29. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    You say that McDonnell "deserves to bask" in his supposed success. But as you point out and the Journal does not provide details, about the rather modest increase in jobs could well be to federal contractors (listed as "private" employers) and Obama's stimulus, among other reasons.
    You send a bit of time giving us warnings that we shouldn't rely on the state for jobs inventive programs (even though such programs in the $50 million range are rather modest) you then cheer jobs creation. Smells like a usual red herring.
    You blame Kaine for not creating jobs. What, then, happened between January 2010 when Kaine left office and today? The only thing I can think of is that Obama's stimulus spending started to show rsults. You are loath to admit this because you are anti-Obama. What's more, many of the jobs that Bolling and McD are said to be creating don't exist yet.
    What about Obama's stimulus, Jim?

    Peter Galuszka

  30. " …credit Virginia's business climate"

    Does that include Kaine's role also?

    Is there something new and different that McDonnell is doing that Kaine did not?

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    @Gooze Views "The only thing I can think of is that Obama's stimulus spending started to show r{e}sults"

    If it's really Obama's nationwide stimulus spending, why is Virginia performing better than so many other states?

    It's leadership. Simply throwing money, like this President, at problems is never a solution. In contrast, our new team in Richmond, McDonnell and Bolling, have been wisely spending our taxpayer money in strategic ways and showing results from it.

    – Ryan

  32. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, Regarding Virginia's business climate… our No. 2 business climate (we've been surpassed by Utah, as I recall) is a bipartisan achievement.

  33. I think if you go to recovery.gov – both the Federal and the State version of it – you will find that the money was fairly carefully targeted – and I would point out further than Va did not have to accept the money if it felt it was not being spent properly and that would include getting a loan from the Feds for unemployment benefits.

    The only thing this President did – was a stimulus – which was carefully thought out – go look for yourself -and targeted in a way to try to get it into the economy relatively quickly.

    I think we could fairly debate the merits of the use of stimulus by ANY administration – to include other countries as well as prior administrations but to target this particular President personally is just flat out more partisan crappola in my considered opinion.

    I note that even Bacon and Groveton who initially castigated the idea of stimulus have since then – at least in part – seem to have reconsidered their initial disagreement.

    It's true that the economy could not have picked a worse time to crap out given our existing debt and deficit problems but it's also true that most of the credible economists have supported the concept of the stimulus – and the results are not in dispute from those who are honest about it.

    In Va – thousands of teachers and deputies would have lost their jobs and multiple highway projects would have never gotten started.

    We can argue about whether we should have done the teacher/deputy cuts last year rather than this year or next year – that would be a fair debate.

    The basic concept of ANY stimulus by ANY leader of ANY country is to help the economy at a low point – knowing full well that it has to be paid back – when the economy improves.

    McDonnell DID have a choice and he DID make the choice.

    He could have said that ANY stimulus would not stop but merely delay layoffs and went ahead and did the deed because the stimulus came with a lot of administrative strings anyhow.

    McDonnell DID make his choice so don't blame the President.

  34. "I note that even Bacon and Groveton who initially castigated the idea of stimulus have since then – at least in part – seem to have reconsidered their initial disagreement.".

    I've always said the same thing … it was too big. When all is settled, the total extra debt will not have been justified by the sustainable economic improvement.

  35. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, that's a fair question. Insofar as stimulus dollars were spent disproportionately in Virginia (as they were), the stimulus probably contributed to Virginia's job growth. That's why I specifically noted in my post, as the Wall Street Journal did not, that it is insufficient to count the growth in the number of federal employees — we need to account for the employment growth among federal contractors… and, I should have added, anyone else who got stimulus money.

    While you hint that I am loathe to give Obama any credit, that is not true. On the other hand, I think it is fair to suggest that you are loathe to give McDonnell any credit.

    215 economic development deals. That's a lot, especially for an economy limping out of the recession. The federal government had very little to do with any of those jobs. For those deals, we can credit Virginia's business climate, the governor's economic development slush fund, and the priority given to economic development given by the McDonnell administration.

  36. The Federal Highway Administration reported today that travel on all roads and streets in the U.S. increased by +1.9% in October compared to the same month last year. Total travel for the month of October was estimated at 259.5 billion vehicle miles, the highest travel volume ever for the month of October. The October increase in traffic was the fifth consecutive monthly increase compared to the same month last year, and the seventh increase in the last eight months. The sustained and ongoing improvements in vehicle miles since the summer of 2009, along with a record-high volume for the month of October, indicate that the economy recovery is real and gaining momentum.

    From Carpe Diem

  37. I think ecnonomic recovery is due to factors bigger than Bob Mcdonnell or Barack Obama.

    Giving them credit for the workings of a massively chaotic system dependent on the individual desire for mass overconsumption, is going a little too far.

  38. Megabits … megabytes …

    I should take more time before I do "cocktail napkin" math.

    Anyway … there are a lot of packets.

  39. "On the other hand, all those packets of information are bouncing around, colliding, being resent and passed on seemingly randomly, only to be reassembled at the final destination.".

    Hydra … you know better than that.

    Take ATM (OSI layer 2) running over a SONET OC-3 link. This would be just a piece of big network.

    The ATM packets are 53 bytes long. The OC-3 connection supports 115 MBits / sec.

    That's 362K ATM packets per second on that one connection.

    Per second.

    Needless to say, at those volumes statistical distributions begin to get very predictable.

    More importantly, the visibility of the packets is almost total. 5 bytes of the 53 byte ATM packet is header.

    The whole system is designed to be well managed and controlled.

    You want to compare the beauty of the OSI stack (running at volume) to the American political process?

    Politicians are not ATM switches. They are less reliable, capable of lower throughput, more error prone and much cheaper to buy. Their packets (or laws) are half-baked collections of illogic and special interest legislation. They not only lack management information in the header they have intentionally false, invisible or misleading information in the header (i.e. the politicians' declaration of the need, scope and cost of the law).

    Please don't insult protocol stacks by comparing them to the handiwork of American politicians.

    What have the protocol stacks ever done to you?

  40. Anonymous Avatar

    @Larry G

    Thank you for your 10 paragraph and 370 word statement. However, all those words still add up to one thing: a silly argument. Or in your own words: “partisan crappola.” 😉

    Okay, let’s talk about the stimulus. In fairness to you, did the stimulus contribute on some level to the well-being of the overall economy? Of course, it did. So does buying lottery tickets.

    Thank you for directing me to the Recovery website. It’s good to see the Obama administration take pride in something — its web site design. However, if you ignore the site and just download the raw government data, the facts are clear.

    Of the continental (contiguous is a better term) 48 states, Virginia received one of the lowest amounts, if not the lowest amounts, from the stimulus plan. And the liberal think tank Center for American Progress shows the same figures.

    Therefore, in spite of receiving less stimulus money than most states, we are impressively outperforming every other state — except three– on job creation. Thank you Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling!

    -Ryan

  41. @Ryan – let's review:

    " If it's really Obama's nationwide stimulus spending, why is Virginia performing better than so many other states?

    It's leadership. Simply throwing money, like this President, at problems is never a solution. In contrast, our new team in Richmond, McDonnell and Bolling, have been wisely spending our taxpayer money in strategic ways and showing results from it."

    Now are you complaining that "Obama" was throwing money away or….

    " Therefore, in spite of receiving less stimulus money than most states, we are impressively outperforming every other state — except three– on job creation. "

    so… Obama throwing money away or Va .. EFFECTIVELY 'Using' the Stimulus it did get?

    Can't have it both ways guy.

    McDonnell could have chosen to NOT take the stimulus money – and basically PROVE that with his superior "leadership" he did not need stimulus money to "create jobs" at all.

    Here's what is wrong with your analysis.

    You discredit the idea of the Federal stimulus – even calling it "Obama's" stimulus but then you complain that Va did not get as much as it should have?

    but that even then – the state DID USE the stimulus to "create jobs" – that you guys also say that the "Obama" stimulus did NOT create jobs?

    that's why we call it partisan crappola guy… because it is…

    it's more of the same right-wing "narrative" that seeks – at the same time to hammer "Obama" while praising folks like McDonnell.

    McDonnell .. craps out on the ABC deal – when folks find out his plan has stealth taxes embedded in it….

    his "fix" for the state transportation needs is … that's right – more debt – pushing the state ever closer to losing it's AAA rating…

    and his budget "surplus" was achieved by "deferring" how much money from the state pension funds – adding to the 17 billion unfunded liabilities that is being passed on to taxpayers because the man chose to use the pension money to balance the budget instead of making the cuts necessary to get balance?

    ha ha ha…

    it's getting to be quite a lengthly list of "accomplishments" that we need to keep reminding you guys of what "Conservative Leadership" really is in Va.

    lord. lord.

    Mr. McDonnell is creating what amounts to – de facto structural deficits that undermines our reputation as a pay-as-you-go- state and putting us in the same class as New Jersey and California.

    tsk tsk

    I'm not sure of how much more "Conservative leadership" we can stand.

    isn't that right Groveton?

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    Footnote: Stimulus Dollar Per Capita were used. Comparing those figures between states gives one a better picture than the total sums per state. 😉
    -Ryan

  43. yeah – I caught that. Did you count the NoVa and Hampton Roads "stimulus" that gives Virginia far more Federal Dollars overall?

    But Ryan – here's the problem.

    We are told over and over that govt spends too much and that if we don't stop spending and get to cutting that we are going to have serious budget issues.

    There's substantial merit to that argument – I would agree.

    But what do the folks who claim to be Fiscal Conservatives do when they actually get elected?

    At the National level – those fiscal conservatives inherited a balanced budget and a 5 trillion debt – and they promptly turned it into a trillion dollar annual deficit and at the end of their 8 years – doubled the deficit that they passed on to Obama – not the mention the smoking economic pile.

    In Va – a similar story. The man said he did not have to raise taxes for Transportation that all we needed for more discipline and getting rid of waste and abuse, etc, etc, yadda yadda.

    So what does the man do?

    well he PLANNED on NEW TAXES on oil companies who drilled offshore an NEW TAXES on ABC businesses he wanted to "privatize".

    Then he pushed the State deeper into dept from both transportation bonds and deferring pension plan payments.

    I hate to break it to you but neither what the National Republicans or the Republican Gov is Fiscal Conservatism.

    Ask Mr. Bacon here who is himself a principled fiscal conservative if somewhat partisan at times – misguided no doubt by the noise that emanates from the right wing propaganda machine..

    You've got to admit that the same Republicans that banned the RINOs have themselves turned into DOO DOOs – that's "Delay, Obstruct and Obfuscate" until they were threatened with having to work Christmas Eve and they folded like a cheap tent…..

    isn't that right Groveton?

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    @Larry G.

    This is entertaining. Since I have the facts on my side, you now claim that I am making a mutually exclusive statements. Based on what?

    My supposed intentions in your eyes? How cute. If simply stating the facts is complaining, God bless your spouse. 😉

    And congratulations. The intentional fallacy is one of the lamest arguments on the planet.

    If my statements are mutually exclusive, here they are again quickly.

    Question: If it's really Obama's nationwide stimulus spending, why is Virginia performing better than so many other states?
    Statement: It's leadership.
    Statement: Simply throwing money, like this President, at problems is never a solution.
    Statement: In contrast, our new team in Richmond, McDonnell and Bolling, have been wisely spending our taxpayer money in strategic ways and showing results from it.
    Question: Did the stimulus contribute on some level to the well-being of the overall economy?
    Statement: Of course, it did. So does buying lottery tickets.
    Statement: Of the continental (contiguous is a better term) 48 states, Virginia received one of the lowest amounts, if not the lowest amounts, from the stimulus plan.
    Statement: In spite of receiving less stimulus money than most states, we are impressively outperforming every other state — except three– on job creation.

    Where's the factual contradiction Larry? Go ahead and armchair analyze my intentions. The facts aren't changing.

  45. the right wing propaganda machine is shifting into higher gears here.

    Stringing "facts" together to "prove" something is a favorite tactic….

    what pray tell does stimulus have to do with McDonnell leadership?

    Does McDonnell NEED stimulus to demonstrate "leadership"?

    spending money "strategically" when at the same time you are putting the state in HOCK?

    He spent how much "strategically" compared to how many billions in debt?

    How many new jobs compared to how many billions in debt did you say?

    The problem with the right wing these days is they can't handle the realities so everything focuses on cherry picks conveniently ignoring the steaming pile hiding behind the curtain.

    Yup.. I'm waiting for McDonnell to propose Tax Cuts as a way to generate more jobs in Va thus building on the obvious successes of the National Republicans in "proving" that tax cuts produce jobs and increase govt revenue.

    impressive?

    Of course the nasty details are like cockroaches to be quickly dispatched less people notice.

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    Of the right: "Stringing 'facts' together to 'prove' something is a favorite tactic" -Larry G

    Yes, Larry, putting facts together to prove something is called a good argument. It's called reason and logic. If that's the vast right wing propaganda machine, guilty as charged.

  47. yup. It's true that we had a stimulus.

    but it's not necessarily true that Gov McDonnell did anything "smart" with it at all.

    that's also reason and logic, eh?

    I don't think McDonnell did much to "create" jobs much less used the stimulus to do it.

    But even if he had – how could McDonnell use the stimulus to "create" jobs when you guys on the right claim – at the same time – that the stimulus did not produce jobs.

    that's also called reason and logic.

    I'd HONESTLY GIVE McDonnell CREDIT on the things he has really done.

    For instance, the man had the scruples to agree that the National Guard needs to follow the same rules that the Uniformed Services follow despite some right-wing loose cannons in Va.

  48. At those volumes statistical distributions get very predictable.

    ======>===><<<<<<>

    Absolutely, or it would not work at all. But it is still a statistical distribution. I'm not a packet switcher so correct me if I'm wrong. Once a packet arrives, you have no idea what route it traveled. Studies have shown that the chaos of Italian intersections produces more throughput than overcontrolled traffic light systems. If you had to individually direct every packet, the overhead would kill you.

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    @Larry G,

    Successful job creation is not simply an act of spending, distributing, or pumping money. It comes from competitively offering a suitable business environment for certain companies to come and/or grow. This includes not just taxes, regulations, or education but also cost of electricity, cost of living, quality of life, etc. McDonnell and Bolling know this. This is why we are recovering faster than the other states with their own stimulus as well.

    If it's the stimulus, I'm still waiting to hear why we've had more jobs created during McDonnell than 47 other states. 47 states who also received stimulus money yet have little to show it.

  50. "[job creation] comes from competitively offering a suitable business environment for certain companies to come and/or grow. This includes not just taxes, regulations, or education but also cost of electricity, cost of living, quality of life, etc"

    a couple of points:

    when you say "competitively offer" – you're implying ATTRACTING jobs that already exist or will – but not really "creating" them..

    and second – Virginia has had – long before McDonnell showed up a "competitive" business environment.

    Can you tell me what specifically that McDonnell is doing that was not done by previous Govs?

    I always had the impression that both Warner and Kaine ALSO engaged in the practice of attracting jobs to Va and/or ..ahem… "creating" them but I just don't see what McDonnell and crew is doing differently…"better" than previous Govs. For a no-taxer, he sure does not seem bothered by more debt.

  51. Waldo Jaquith has an interesting perspective on McDonnell:

    " Candidate Bob McDonnell, September 2009, on Governor Tim Kaine’s suggestion that state employees should contribute to their own retirement accounts:

    These are tough economic times. I understand the governor has been forced to make difficult decisions to balance the budget. As Attorney General, I made tough choices as well, cutting the office’s budget by 14% over a two-year period. But the decision to suspend a scheduled payment to the state’s Retirement Fund is a budget gimmick that will reduce the solvency of the fund at a time when the funded reserve has already declined. This should be of concern to every state employee and retiree."

    … read the rest at:

    http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2010/12/mcdonnell-retirement-accounts/

    so my question is – if McDonnell is a self-avowed fiscal conservative and Kaine is considered to not be a fiscal conservative – what is the difference between them when it comes to funding the state pension fund?

    How is McDonnell fiscal conservatism different and "better" than what Kaine did (or should have done but did not?)

    These are the kinds of issues when talking about the "good" job that McDonnell is doing – deserve some discussion.

    My premise has been and continues to be that many if not most of those folks who claim to be fiscal conservatives – do not, in fact, govern much differently than those they portray as tax&spend politicians.

    But yet – the rank and file voters who fancy themselves as supporters of fiscally conservative governance – seem to have basically a blind eye to the whole shebang.

    Bush and the Republicans were loved and admired by those who said that fiscally conservative governance was exactly what this country needed – even as taxes were cut and no compensating cuts in spending – amounting to budget shortfalls of a trillion dollars a year – essentially doubling the 5 trillion debt to 10 trillion.

    And Now ..these SAME FOLKS – like Eric Cantor – who was elected to Congress in 2001 – are saying that our debt is due to a failure to cut government spending – well DUH!

    but wait – there's MORE:

    Wen you ask Mr. Cantor how he would balance the budget or substantially reduce it – he has no answers.

    Yet almost 70% of his constituents consider him a principled fiscal conservative.

    All I can say is WTF!

  52. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    (Point of clarification on VA UDA law)
    Minimum densities for Comp Plan/LU Map UDA:

    Localities with less than 130,000 (population)= 4SF, 6TH, 12MF units per acre and minimum 0.4 FAR

    Localities with more than 130,000 (population)=
    8SF, 12TH, 24MF units per acre and minimum 0.8FAR

    "To the extent possible, federal, state and local transportation, housing, water and sewer facility, economic development, and other public infrastructure funding for new and expanded facilities shall be directed to the urban development area, or in the case of a locality that adopts a resolution pursuant to subsection D, to the area that accommodates growth in a manner consistent with this section." 15.2-2223.1

    As a side note- The intent behind this legislation is to promote density in appropriate areas. Wonderful concept that I hope to support with the transfer program, but some localities are going to have issues with waste load allocations.

  53. Andrea thanks for the very relevant info.

    The UDA law is intended to concentrate density and co-locate residential with commercial on the theory that some people will be able to walk, bike or ride transit to a nearby job instead of commuting daily from car-dependent residential-only developments.

    but as you point out – the TMDL laws are very close (I think) to allocate maximum daily loads (of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment) on localities which is a huge change from the existing paradigm which basically allows new wastewater plants to be added – as long as they meet the effluent standards.

    This new change basically allocates a maximum – capped amount of nitrogen and phosphorous regardless of and independent of how many plants there are.

    The total of the discharges has to stay under the cap.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that some localities – rather than designating their UDAs in or adjacent to existing water/sewer infrastructure are designating greenfield UDAs that require extending water/sewer to them – and no UDA rules restrict non-UDA hook-ups along the line to the UDA that would serve MORE traditional auto-dependent residential development.

    So the law has some major flaws – offset in part by the coming restrictions on TMDL allocations.

    Now the very interesting thing about all of this in Bacon's Rebellion is the fact that despite much dialog about "dysfunctional" settlement patterns – that not a whole lot has been said about the UDA and TMDL laws which are going to fundamentally influence development patterns for decades to come.

    Oh.. and the part about "directing resources to the extent"..

    that's just blather… it has no impact on actual policy unless it actually denies funding to non-UDA water/sewer infrastructure plans.

    I still believe that PDRs and TDRs need to have criteria with which to target, prioritize and rank which lands are most desirable to "preserve" and that patchwork preservation is misguided.

  54. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I agree with you Larry. I am personally aware of a few localities who have existing comp plans that already exceed waste load allocations. I am also aware that there are localities who are using UDA criteria to reach into green fields. HUGE mistake, with the exception of greenfields within existing developed areas…Infill greenfields for lack of a better word.
    I do however believe they will attempt to guide the funding to UDA's, and in the absence of common sense, that could be a big mess.
    And just FYI…My programs have ranking and valuation criteria. Each transaction is as unique as the circumstances of the parcel. I chose the "private entity" route for the flexibility.I can work in partnership with localities to achieve their goals, provide the additional density where it is appropriate, and keep the rural landowners from "loosing the farm"

  55. Andrea – many counties have water&sewer Master Plans which are also CIPs.

    The expansions are debt-financed and paid back from hook-up fees.

    Most water/sewer Master Plans are predicated in part on the planned density – that in turn affects the size of pipes and where they go geographically and the size of pump stations i they have to move across sub-watersheds.

    In short – water/sewer master plans are fairly tight engineering specs that have dollar consequences.

    You can't ADD .. UDAs – either through increasing density or greenfield expansions without affecting the CIP.

    There are some huge implications embedded in that issue for many localities that are contemplating different densities or water/sewer served areas than originally planned.

    I'm skeptical. I support the UDA concept but I also know that more than a few localities – at the BOS level are loose cannons on these issues.

    Most of them – including the VDOT consultant folks "think" you can just put a pin on a map for a UDA regardless of terrain and geography but water/sewer engineers know there can be huge consequences if you try to water/sewer "difficult" terrain.

    On your land preservation issues, I'd like to know more about your process if that is possible.

    Is there a link or reference material ?

    thanks!

  56. keep the rural landowners from "loosing the farm"

    ==================================

    Andrea, I'm sorry, but you are whistling in the wind. Nothing you can do will keep farmers in this area from losing the farm.

    There are only two ways that happens

    1) the farm is profitable and makes a decent living for the family.

    2) The farm is an estate for someone with plenty of money and it is operated as a charity.

    I sincerely believe that no lump sum payment in exchange for property rights is doing any landowner a favor. It may be good for the community, but it is not helping the farm, except in the short term.

    Assuming the farmer has off farm income, possibly the best outcome is that he sells his developemtn rights and gets a permenent open space designation. Then he can stop farming without tax consequences, and concentrate on something more lucrative.

    I understand what you are trying to accomplsh, and I support the goal, but the methods are all wrong.

    The one good thing is that as soon as you go out and buy a developemt right, it proves a point. All the development rights that were previously extinguished without payment amount to stealing. They should be reinstated, forthwith, according to the formula proposed and instituted in Oregon (before it was later repealed).

    If that is done, you will have a better appreciation of the problem.

  57. I'm still waiting to hear why we've had more jobs created during McDonnell than 47 other states. 47 states who also received stimulus money yet have little to show it.

    ==================================

    It is primarily because McDonnells state is fortunate to be located adjacent to the US Capitol. There is no evidence that the same result would not have aoccured under any administration, and no evidence that McDonnelll did anything superlative to cause the delta.

  58. The UDA law is intended to concentrate density and co-locate residential with commercial on the theory that some people will be able to walk, bike or ride transit to a nearby job instead of commuting daily from car-dependent residential-only developments.

    ==================================

    And you don't see the problem with this? There is a cost to concentrating this density, and we have no agreed upon method for determining what it is.

    There might be a savings associated with driving less, (we assume it is) but it might equally well turn out to be a net cost and not a savings. Again, we have no agreed upon methd for determining which it is or how much.

    If you tutn out spending more money to create concentrated development than it saves, then it is NOT a green initiative.

    Without agreed upon measuring sticks we have no way to evaluate the success of such a program, and no way of knowing whether it was worth doing.

  59. "Directing resources" is like "allocating costs". It reveals a deep lack of understanding of what is actually happening.

  60. Fauquier county at one time was claiming that the cost to them of a new home in the county amounted ot a loss of $2500 a year (Difference in real estate taxes paid over services provided). Groveton points out correctly that real esatet taxes don;t tell the whole story, nevertheless, that is the basis the county uses for its argument.

    No mention is made whether that loss is more or less in a UDA, or any other location. It is a blanket claim.

    If I've got 4 acres of farm land and I'm really good at it, I might make $400 a year, net. If I build a modest home on it (whith its own water and sewer) I might make $400 a month, net, by renting it out. And I could still farm three acres of it. So the difference to me is $4700 a year in income, plus the eventual increase in capital value, which might be another $4000 per year.

    So the county claims that preventing me from building saves "the county" $2500 a year. but I'm part of
    "the county" too, and it is costing me $8700 a year. $4000 of that translates into increased value and increased taxes paid, which reduces the county's claim at the rate of $40 a year.

    Once upon a time the county would have just taken my development right and refused me the option to build. Nowadays they have recognized that this would be (an was when it happened) stealing. So they are magnanimously willing to pay me $20,000 for a building right. That translates to $1600 a year a 8% interest.

    If you believe their cost is $2500 a year they are making $900 a year on the deal: a good savings for "the county". But I'm part of the county too, and it is costing me $7100 a year. If the county was smart, they would say, look, pay us 5600 a year and we will each have a gain of $3100. And If i was smart Id say wait a minute, I'm doing lallthe work and taking all the risk, I'll pay you $3600 a year and keep the rest. Tis will reduce the taxes of every household in th county by about a nickle.

    Not enough, says the county. We will keep our $2500 a year savings, and you get nothing.

    Swell, says I. Show me the $2500 you saved.

  61. well.. Ray and I don't agree on everything and some days – nothing but on the point of what you call land that used to be farmed but no longer is – or can be – at least in the traditional sense of it being a productive enough operation to support a man and wife and kids…

    what should we call it? more important what should we believe it is and is not.

    as far as "density" is concerned – it requires less infrastructure per capita.

    people who live in urban spaces use, for instance, far less heating and cooling energy per capita in part because they are in smaller, more compact spaces.

    they are closer to work, schools, shopping, libraries, etc in general and can get there is a variety of modal ways besides the car along and even with the car – travel far less distances.

    Don't argue with Andrea or me in that regard because what you are up against is a far bigger force – governments – and those are the ones you'd have to convince are "wrong" and I hate to tell you – but yours is an uphill job on that part…

    🙂

    basically 75% of our population – PREFERS Urban areas despite the congestion and other downsides.

    Young people LIKE to be where they can go to college and bike along the Potomac and go to a hockey game – all in the same day.

  62. " No mention is made whether that loss is more or less in a UDA, or any other location. It is a blanket claim."

    not true Ray. You're revealing your ignorance once again.

    Many counties with proffers have a schedule of costs for each capital investment category from schools to roads to EMS to libraries and they have separate columns for single family detached, single family attached, and multi-unit and the price goes down the dense the housing.

    Housing DOES pay for itself if the locality that is funding it's schools is able to self-capture retail commercial taxes to make up the shortfall.

    That necessitates developing commercial corridors – that often cannibalize transportation infrastructure – congesting roads and requiring fairly expensive remediation and improvements – that USED to be "free" from VDOT so it all sort of "worked" as long as some adjacent locality didn't poach it's neighbors sales tax base.

    School Costs are the big gorilla in the closet both for capital facilities and operational expenses.

    In my county – the average annual property tax is about 2K a year.

    But the county SPENDs 5K a year on each kid.

    That means each house with one kid is already 3K in the hole.

    If you have a large percentage of kids – like the exurbs have – because they attract young marrieds with kids – the equation gets even more upside down.

    There's no two ways about it. Educating kids costs a whale of a lot of money – and in some ways – is the reason why anti-development attitudes exist.

    More development = more kids = higher school costs = higher property taxes.

    All of your "equity" equations that you use don't seem to deal with this particular dynamic – and I would submit THIS IS WHY your county does not want development. All the counties around it took development and now have higher taxes, more congestion and more and more pressures for more and more expensive services to include schools.

  63. Now lets say that someone like Andrea wants to buy that building right. They would have to offer $108,750, lump sum, for me to break even at $8700 a year, forever. And that's if I think I can average 8% return.

    I don't see anyone offering that kind of money for building rights.

    Or, they could buy my four nearest neighbors, outright for around $7million, maybe, and rent their land to me for $25 an acre.

    Their return on that investment would be around 0.0007%, Which is about what the county is forcing me to accept by restricting me to agriculture only.

  64. " No mention is made whether that loss is more or less in a UDA, or any other location. It is a blanket claim."

    not true Ray. You're revealing your ignorance once again.

    ==============================

    You are changing the argument. My statement stands. the county makes the baldheaded claim that an average new home costs them $2500 a year.

    Period. Only if the home is valued at more that $750,000 do they break even.

    No mention is made in their argument about WHERE the home is built.

  65. OK, some counties have a schedule of proffers. They are setting a price schedule for building rights (previously stolen) that they are now willing to sell back.

    They are setting the price schedule. "Allocating costs", if you will. It would be better to let the market set the price, using methods I have discussed previously.

    Also there is no proffer schedule on Margarets property, or many others. Apparently they are considered to be of infinite value, as is.

  66. people who live in urban spaces use, for instance, far less heating and cooling energy per capita in part because they are in smaller, more compact spaces.

    =================================

    OK.

    I would argue that we can agree on how to set a yardstick of measurement that includes the savings of using less heating energy, and the cost of living in less space. Part of the cost of living in less space is increased fire services, for example.

    Systems engineers define boundaries they can use to compute the true equivalent costs and costs deltas, all things. It is not rocket science and there are political elements to be considered, but it can be done.

  67. In my county – the average annual property tax is about 2K a year.

    ================================

    No wonder they have a problem. Existing residentsy are not paying near eneough, and they are trying to make it up off the new folks.

    I'm paying sround six times that with NO kids is school, and my six nearest neighbors are paying three times that with no children in school. We are better than Grovetons sweet spot, we are a gold mine.

    How many years should I pay six times the average before I get forgiveness on one proffer? If I eventually get permission to build one modest home is that what EMR would call "windfall profits"?

  68. Educating kids costs a whale of a lot of money – and in some ways – is the reason why anti-development attitudes exist.

    ================================

    And we are not even educating them.

    At least we finally agree that discrimination is (partly) a prime mover for anti-development attitudes.

  69. More development = more kids = higher school costs = higher property taxes.

    All of your "equity" equations that you use don't seem to deal with this particular dynamic –

    ===================================

    That is becasue it is a wash over time. Notice that I used annuall costs, not instantaneous ones. My home is 110 years old in in that time two children went through school.

    When the county claims it is losing on average $2500 per home in real estate taxes, I assume it is averaging in all the empty nests.

    And it is a stupid claim anyway. obviously they can;t be losing that much per home, because all the bills get paid, somehow. And they are paid by people who live – in homes. This is the same stupid and wrong argument that says drivers of autos don;t pay their full costs: since nearly everyone drives, who the hell else is paying the costs?

    The anti-development sentiment (and anti driving sentiment) that is based on perceived costs is simply calculated wrong.

  70. It's the same no matter where the location is, isn't it?

    why would it vary according to location?

    The claim is also made "on average" but the devil is truly in the "details" because most homes without kids in them actually generate MORE in Taxes than they consume.

    In fact, in many counties, the taxes would be much higher if the percent of non-kid homes dropped.

    If you take kids out of the equation – most housing pays for itself.

  71. If you take kids out of the equation – most housing pays for itself.

    ===============================

    That is why if you take time out of the equation, all housing pays for itself. That is what is wrong with the cost of services studies: theyar are a point in time.

    So, how is a house with kids any different from you 50 mile commuter? Based on your arument they both expect someoen else to pay for thier decsisons.

    It's like talking about the "middle class" as if it was a stagnant set of people. some will get rich and move out of middle class and some will get poor and move out of middle classs, but it is meaningless to talk about whether the middle class is gettng richer or poorer.

  72. as far as "density" is concerned – it requires less infrastructure per capita.

    ==========================

    So why is it more expensive then?

    Because the amount of infrastructure is really not smaller, and what you get costs a lot more per person. You don't need a 75 ft ladder truck in Delaplane. You don't need a six foot diameter water line that runs fifty miles to get there.

    Etc Etc.

  73. You misunderstand me. I'm not complaining about anything, except that certain public policies are being made on the basis of widely believed premises, which are simply not true.

    Andrea no doubts thinks she is helping farmers and families not to lose the farm. I don;t think she is, because the purchase of development right plans I have seen are deeply flawed.

    You have to first ask yourself if you are saving the farms or saving the families that operate them. If you are trying to help the famlies, it is highly likely that the best help you can give them is to dispose of the farm at the highest possible price.

    The remaining farms will both be worth more and be more profitable. That is how you helpp farmers: let the ones who want out, get out.

  74. Really. Suppose Andrea showed up on my doorstep and said "I want to help save your farm, here is $30,000, no strings attached."

    I would say "Thank you. With that and my other full time job I cna live decently, and the farm can continue to scrape by for another six years. Please come back then."

    "Oh, but if you want me to actually work this full time, then you need to come back with another $30k every six months."

    That is how big the problem is, and she ought to know that.

  75. basically 75% of our population – PREFERS Urban areas despite the congestion and other downsides.

    ======================

    So what?

    You've got this piece of nonproductive farm land. Out of the OTHER 25% I can surely find someon who wants to do SOMTHING with it.

    Hell, I could do something with it. But the county keeps insisting on calling it farm land. therefore it can only be sold or rented to someone who wants unproductive farm land.

    Not much of a market. As for the other 25%, let me have at 'em.

    Just don't condescend to me and act as if you are doing me a favor by helping me save the farm. You have a guy on a boat with a hundred gallon an hour leak. Then you offer to help him by giving him a ten gallon per hour pump – if he gives you his last remaining cargo.

    Some help that is.

  76. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    She does know that Hydra. "loosing the farm" was just a figure of speech.I apologize for the poor choice of words.
    What I will ask you to consider is this:
    I am not government. I am offering a service that could be considered quasi-governmental because it deals in development credits, but I am not government. Therefore, I have far more flexibility than if I were tied up in enabling legislation. There are properties where credits might be worth $100,000 and properties where they are worth nothing. Hell, some property owners with stale zoning they are paying HUGE taxes on might want to GIVE me the credits to give them some tax relief.

    There are many formulas for many situations. They account for proffers, taxes and time.

    But I have a question for you.You said:
    "…So they are magnanimously willing to pay me $20,000 for a building right."

    Where did that number come from?

  77. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    and please remember the transfer ratios are not 1:1. They can be as high as 1:4 or even 1:5 in some places.

  78. Where did that number come from?

    That is what Fauquier county was paying uonder their PDR program, last I knew. At one time it was as igh as $30,000, but they cut back when they were low on funds.

    I have a friend who has no development rights to sell, but she gives some away every year. He buys development rights and then "gives them away" to a conservation agency as a gift. He takes a write off that is worth more than the DRs cost.

    He doesn't know how it works or where the money goes, just his accountant told him to do it. I imagine there is some kind of broker or facilitator involved along the way.

    My point is still the same. Don't try and convince me this is good for the farmer, or landowner.

  79. By stale zoning you mean someone who has subdivided land that was never sold and still operates as a farm?

    Or is that zoning density that exists on paper but he hasn't, in fact, a prayer of ever executing?

  80. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Back to the post…

    I agree with Jim that we need to be careful when dangling incentives.
    The worst case example of waste and blight is "Big Box" Mart.
    So, …Some localities are willing to give additional discounts on fees and taxes for a specific period of time. "Big Box" builds a 200,000sf facility. The "period" runs out and "Big Box" moves on to the next locality, leaving a huge facility that is nearly impossible to find a new user for.
    Most of the folks who work there have to move with the store and half are on welfare anyway because the Box doesn't pay very well. (I am usually not one to find issue with compensation;this is the one exception.)
    Now you end up with more commuters or a spike in unemployment, more welfare and a big…empty…box.

    Someone please help me understand how this can pass as a positive force for economic development?

  81. "Big Box" moves on to the next locality, leaving a huge facility that is nearly impossible to find a new user for.

    ===============================

    What's the problem?

    Someone still owns the box and they are paying taxes on something that uses no services.

    Sounds like as good a deal as taxing farmland for services it doesn't get. Except it is not as "pretty".

  82. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    By stale zoning I mean property that has been zoned ( usually for over 5 years either under a straight use classification or CUPD) but not yet developed. The property owner is paying taxes based on zoning. If they sever some/all of those credits, they can re-qualify for the land use taxation program for the portion of the property they severed the credits from. It doesn't change the base zoning. And, contrary to popular opinion, the property doesn't need to loose all future development potential.

  83. And, contrary to popular opinion, the property doesn't need to loose all future development potential.

    ===============================

    No, but the credits used are gone forever.

    To requalify for land use in Fauquier you have to use the land in land use for five years, and resent recepts for your sales. If you qualify, you would then pay taxes based on land use regardless of the underlying zoning.

    However, if you take it out of land use, you would pay back taxes on the underlying use for five years.

    Unless you are planning on being in land use for a long time, it isn't worth doing. And, you could pay the taxes on the higher value for a long time before you paid as much as you might lose by severing the credits.

    Basically, it is an act of desperation. My observation here is that most who participate are elderly. They aren't going to do anything with the land anyway, why not have the cash? And they can feel like they have done something for the land that is more permanent than they are.

  84. Right now, the requirements to qualify for land use are low, and there are a lot of fraudulent situations that are deliberatley overlooked.

    Eventually, money will get tight and the requirements will be tightened, and tightened, and tightened, just as development rights were successively restricted.

    A lot of farms that are borderline under the present use rules will fail to pass muster and the owners will be in financial trouble.

    For those that can afford them, large estate lots will be dirt cheap. Everyone else will be looking for affordable apartments with heavily shared infrastructure.

    We can see how that is going to work: rents up 22% in the lst decade.

  85. On that cheery note. Merry Christmas to all. Enjoy your family.

  86. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully someday in the near future I'll have several case studies from the program for you to analyze if you wish, but I'm won't make any attempt to change your opinion.

    The problem with empty big boxes:
    As they sit vacant, they become blighted, dangerous, subject to vandalism and squatters and pull down the value of surrounding properties. And they end up using MORE services to secure the property, remove squatters and combat vandalism. They (and the adjacent properties)also end up paying far less in taxes when the value plummets. And then there's the lack of sales tax revenue that was the reason the locality wanted the darn thing to begin with.
    All of this is not to mention the lost revenue from small, independent businesses that are forced to close because they can't compete with the box who ships everything in massive bulk from China.
    This very specific example happens to be a passionate (not personal) issue for me. It isn't about "pretty". It's about public safety, adjacent property value, and small business survival.

    And for the record, I don't think non-commercial farms should pay taxes any more than the average homeowner. I believe that's the purpose of the use value taxation, but I don't think those programs are all created equal either.

  87. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Ditto on Hydras Merry Christmas.:)
    May this season bring joy and safety to all!

  88. not particularly on the radar screen that relates directing to the idea of taxes and stale zoning and the entire conundrum is HOW …LOCALITIES … DETERMINE the Value and thus the taxes on undeveloped land.

    In other words – the localities an their land appraisers – either in house or hired – play a significant role in determining what someone might want to do with their land.

    And I believe that can have a LOT to do with how valuable (or not) the PDR/TDR credits are.

    For instance, when Ag or undeveloped land that is ADJACENT to land that is currently developed or being developed, the county and it's land appraisers will often increase the appraised value of that land – and in the process – bump up the taxes significantly such that the owner of the land basically has few options other than selling it to a developer because the taxes will be a drain on their finances unless something is done about it.

    So land development is pre-ordained in some areas by the simple act of an appraiser – in that appraiser's judgment – deciding that that parcel is developable – and should be developed to achieve it's "best and highest use".

    It works the same way in reverse for AG land that is deemed by the same appraiser as not likely to be developed.

    When "credits" are bought and sold – a subject I know little about but would like to learn more – it would seem to me that the appraised value of the land with respect to it's development potential – ought to play a role.

    If it does not – then developers looking to increase density are going to go out and buy "cheap" credits on land that is either not developable or certainly not so – in the foreseeable future.

    Which then goes back to the whole entire idea of 'setting aside land' and what that land's particular significance is or is not.

    We went through this previously with the concept of wetland mitigation banks and whether or not wetlands could be 'created' rather than just acquired in-situ.

  89. Anonymous Avatar

    @Larry G

    bwahahaha! What happened to the stimulus?

    So now you're claiming that McDonnell is doing nothing different. Here's one thing: Results! Scroll back up to the top and recognize the facts for once. Here's Bob and Bill with the jobs and you're desperately looking for flies in the ointment.

    "when you say 'competitively offer' – you're implying ATTRACTING jobs that already exist or will – but not really 'creating' them."

    As for job creation, the best way to create jobs is not census jobs or temporary so-called shovel-ready projects but allowing businesses to grow and attracting new ones.

    Like every state, Virginia must compete both for jobs that don't already exist and jobs that already exist. Whether someone is starting a new company, expanding a company, or moving jobs, Virginia must competitively offer them what they seek. Or they can simply take their money elsewhere to create new jobs.

    Moreover, if you are going to be an armchair English professor, try checking a dictionary. Create has several meanings in the English language. It can be bringing something into existence or causing something to happen by a course of action.

    Besides, the people being hired — thanks to Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling's groundwork — likely do not lose sleep at night over the metaphysical question of whether their job is created or moved.

    Regardless, merry Christmas to you and everyone.

    -Ryan

  90. here's what I AM saying – that net jobs in Va would be DOWN no matter what McDonnell did – or did not do if the stimulus was not available for him to use.

    and Second – Virginia is a direct beneficiary of the trillion dollar annual debt that currently pays for two wars, the "war on terrorism" and Homeland Security – none of which were paid for at the inception but instead charged to the Chinese credit card

    I would give McDonnell credit for any jobs that he legitimately created but let's be clear about where the jobs are coming from and why.

    Otherwise – it's just more of the same partisan blather.

    I don't – at this point – in terms of job creation see a whole lot of difference between the performance of Kaine – a Democrat and McDonnell – a Republican and I think to be fair – credit them both or not regardless of their political stripes

    Too many of our problems are our refusal to see the truth and our insistence of viewing the world through partisan lenses.

    In the end – we don't go forward.

    This is why we continue to have a trillion dollar annual deficit at the same time we argue about the "benefits" of tax cuts.

    In the end – the tax cuts are killing us …if we don't address the deficits.

    and that's a big problem with the folks who cast themselves as fiscal conservatives but refuse to deal honestly with te deficit and debt.

    right Ryan?

  91. Here's the other thing to point out Ryan.

    Those who claim fiscal conservative credentials are telling us that the way to a balanced budget and not increases taxes – or even lowering them is to find more efficient ways to do government, cut waste, redundancy, and make hard choices about what we can afford and what we cannot.

    And yet – when they get elected – they don't make the hard choices or find the efficiencies and instead they do what McDonnell is doing – he's increasing the debt for transportation rather than finding those cuts and efficiencies .

    He DID identify about a billion in stranded funds and plans to reallocate them but that's a one shot deal – not a sustainable approach to transportation.

    Then – instead of making the hard choices that need to be made for the budget itself – he essentially stole money from the pension funds to use for operational expenses.

    Now, it's true that Va needs to take a hard look at how the pension funds work – and more than likely convert them to defined contribution plans – but doing that INSTEAD of "borrowing" money from the plans to essentially finance the operating budget would have been a more righteous approach for a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative.

    If McDonnell ever has aspirations for higher office – I'd like to see him build a legitimate fiscal conservative track record – worthy of the label.

  92. Larry, if a credit is moveable, once purchased, then its value has nothing to do with the value of the land it came from. At one time huge tracts of fauquier land was zoned at one house per four acres. As I understand it, when zoning was first "sold" and introduced, this was the worst zoning you could get. And it was reasonable in rural areas dependent on well and septic.

    It didn't take long for reasonableness to go out the window. Rural landowners were treated like Indians, with one broken promise after another. Finally you wind up on a worthless reservation with no way out.

    That is why I have suggested treating the allowable growth in a county as property that belongs to every taxpayer. Everyone would own a share of this years allowable development credits. TMT would get a share whether his home is developable or not. If he thinks Tyson's is crazy, he can choose not to sell his credits. If enough people withhold, the project is dead.

    If they don't withhold then he can't claim the game is rigged by crooked authorities or the developers are not paying enough.

    Development credit vouchers would be issued according to the amount of real estate taxes paid. The reason for this is because the risk of higher taxes due to development will be felt by those persons first.

    In a way this agrees with your idea of "cheap" credits, but not really. Yes, people with lesser valued land would get fewer credits (and be more likely to sell them) .

    But, the credits are not attached to their land. They are grants of public property (publicly controlled development rights) . Just as if govt sold public land and used the money to reduce taxes.

    These credits would be renewable. You would get new ones every year, depending on how much development the planners think we can financially stand.

  93. Now if you have non valuable land in the countryside, you could buy enough rights to develop, but you would have to compete with those that have more valuable projects, like Tyson's.

    That would be unlikely, so your land would be undeveloped for a long time. But you would not be shut out of the profits from development, because you could sell your chits, year after year.

    You would have the steady stream of income your land needs. And since you pay twice as much in taxes as you get in services, you pay more taxes and get more chute than the Guy in a townhouse.

    When development finally encroaches, your property is valued more, and you get more chits that you can sell to help keep your property sterile.

  94. This completely changes the incentive. No one will sell a chit if they think it will raise taxes more than the value of their (increased) number of chits. And the chits are more valuable the less development authorities think the budget can stand. And as you point out the big enchilada is education, which is independent of location.

    Instead of penalizing and screwing over families like Margaret's, you pay them more the longer they preserve their land. They are allowed to profit from development, and don't have to participate in it, or risk yet another downzoning in a misguided attempt to "save" them from the day that, as Harry put it, someone wealthy can buy them.

  95. I don't think there is any evidence that what McDonnell did changed the outcome.

    Larry could have been governor and the result would be much the same. We give too much credit and put too much blame on our political leaders.

    My decision to hire someone to put up a new shed on the farm doesn't depend on the governor, thank God.

  96. the lost revenue from small, independent businesses that are forced to close because they can't compete with the box who ships everything in massive bulk from China.

    ==============================I

    I heard that argument when they were arguing over the Walmart in Warrenton. Then they complained it would draw too much traffic. Traffic is good for small businesses. That is why you have anchor stores in a mall.

    When My local hardware wants $7.50 for apair of vice grips and I can buy a set of five for that at walmart, then it is a question of the cost of the trip to walmart.

    So far, Walmart is winning. And Tractor Supply.

  97. I don't think non-commercial farms should pay taxes any more than the average homeowner.

    ==================================

    There are no commercial farms, not in this county or the five surrounding them. Every single one of them loses money, on average.

    In Fauquier, there are maybe 20 that make money on the books, and that comes form federal ag subsidies, if you call that profit.

    For starters, I pay tax on my house and two acres at the same rate as anyone else. Already that means I pay more than most, especially since I also pay residential tax on my horse barn and cow parlor, etc. Plus property tax on the multiple vehicles the farm requires.

    If I, and everyone like me paid the average tax, the average tax would have to go up a lot. And we pay additional tax, at a lower rate on the vacant land, for which we get no services, and which we are not allowed to use for other than agriculture. the average would have to go up a lot.

    And yet, the school of tax accountants at University of California studied land use taxation in Fauquier and concluded it resulted in HIGHER taxes overall.

    Who is right?

    Land use valuation is set by a state board that considers soil type, slope, crop values etc to determinge the agricultural value. In recent years that means $100 an acre, net profit, amortized over 20 years the land is worth $2000. At one mil the tax is $2.

    But consider in the tens of thousands of acres, it is real money for which the county provides NOTHING in return, plus they are already taxing the remainder at higher tan average dollars. No wonderthey love farms.

    But your idea can't fly because residents would scream bloody murder over paying more so wealthy landowners could pay less. Never mind the landowners that are poor because of the land, and losing money on it year after year. Their wealth is only potential and it depends on property rights already removed through successive downzonings.

    The assessor could come in here next year and claim this is the perfect spot for a truck stop, but I would still pay land use valuation on it, because that is all I'm allowed to use it for. The county would still claim they are saving money because they don't have to provide me any services.

    This is patent lunacy. It is like me claiming I'm making money on the farm if I turn a ten dollar profit, while turning down a million a month from the truck stop I'm not allowed to have. Which is the point the UCAL professors made.

    The land use valuation is so far below the potential value the county is screwing themselves and everyone in it.

    Forty years ago Loudoun and Fauquier had almost identical per capita income and per capita assessed wealth. Loudoun is way ahead today, despite the fact they have to divide the wealth among far more people.

    The difference is the cost of Fauquiers bucolic charm. I have nothing against bucolic charm, I like bucolic charm, but I have a problem with the lie that it is saving Fauquier residents money.

  98. Localities dont determine the value, only the availability.

    What is more important is how the value their availability allows is distributed. If some areas are excluded from availability, at any price, then their potential value goes to someone else.

    Presumably you have excluded them for some reason that has value.

    To everybody but them.

  99. localities assign the value via the appraisal process though.

    And it's helpful to understand the hows and whys behind two 100 acre parcels in the same county having very different values – appraisals – even though both are designated as AG land.

    AG land that is within a few hundred or thousand feet of water/sewer is usually worth much more than land in the more remote parts of a county and that means the owner will usually pay higher taxes even if they keep it in land-use -ultimately higher taxes are due.

    If AG land that was near water/sewer was truly intended by the county to stay AG – why would it be appraised higher in the first place?

    Andrea what do you think about this?

  100. all land does not have the same development potential – even before the appraisers weigh in on it.

    Land that has difficult terrain is more expensive to put infrastructure and buildings on.

    I would cite one example that in a gated community in NC – some of the interior roads that were "drawn" on a map during the design – were never built because they required bridges and culverts that ended up costing more than the value of the lots that would have been freed up for sale.

    Along those same lines – there is a lot of beautiful land that the locality is perfectly happy for you to buy – but it is 150 miles from a decent job.

    Finally – county boundaries are artifacts of a time when the King of England divvied up parcels of land for his investor friends but clearly all development potential and "rights" are not equal and never will be.

    The people who make a living developing land – make a professional career of determining what land has development potential and what land does not.

    People who buy land or inherit it or not "entitled" to anything more than the "enjoyment" of their land.

    If they want to develop land – other land owners – other non-land owners do not owe them "development" rights.

    But if someone wants to buy a large parcel of land and build the interior roads, built the water/sewer infrastructure, provide service districts for fire and rescue , etc – many localities will give them approval to do that so they create their own development opportunities.

    We have several gated communities in our area – one of them actually managed to talk the county into extending water/sewer 8 miles beyond the existing served areas in part because the houses in that development START at 500K and go up and most do not have kids so the county became convinced that that development would generate an enormous level of taxes compared to "ordinary" homes.

    The "availability" fee for water/sewer was also tied to the cost of expanding it.

    Most counties in our area will approve subdivisions even in AG areas if they are self-contained and do not require additional county services.

    Many of them have their own water and sewer systems also.

  101. Farms are like metro. They need a dedicated source of continuing funding, preferably profits. But the best way to have profitable farms is to have a lot fewer o them. Right now the dedicated source of income is the owners off farm income.

    If it is going to be public policy to save the open space (lets not even call them farms) then the public should participate in the cost, instead of forcing the landowners to contribute free revenue to the county and support all the farm related businesses.

    My farm does pretty well for a small part time operation. My farm operations pretty much break even. So long as I don't consider the land investment. Take that into account and the farm is broke in a week.

    If rich people are going to be the source of revenue to keep open space, then lets say so, and cut the sanctimonious crap, and the false green cities pretense.

  102. "saving open space" is un-smart in my view.

    But localities do have the Constitutional authority to decide WHERE they will provide infrastructure – and it's true than when they do that – that winners and losers are created.

    When they extend the boundaries of the area that they will serve with water/sewer they have increased the value of the lands in that area.

    When VDOT puts in a new road with exit ramps – the area around those ramps increases in value.

    When the government decides that steep slopes cannot be disturbed without mitigation sufficient to not have increased runoff – winners and losers are created.

    But no where in the world that I know of – is there a country or a process for doing what Ray advocates and that's not to say that perhaps there might be some merit to some of it – but it will take the public to agree with it because we just don't have benevolent dictators to do what is "right".

  103. All I can tell you, Larry, is that if I wanted to build one home here, even for a family member, the application would cost $100,000 to fill out and process, and then there is a near 100% probability it would be turned down.

    Besides, developing the farms wont preserve open space, and my plan will.

  104. Ray – in most counties including Stafford and Spotsylvania, Culpeper, Caroline, etc – you can build by-right.

    You can even subdivide land for family members – not unlimited but over time can do it multiple times.

    But they won't let you build private roads and then a few years later come back and ask the county to put them into the state system for maintenance – as was the case in years prior.

    Now.. am I to understand that in Facquier, there are ZERO residential building permits issued annually?

    if that is the case – then I'd be pretty surprised so can you tell me how many building permits are issued ( or not )?

  105. It does not matter what the assessment is, tax will be paid on the land use value, except for the residence and other buildings.

    Except that, if the land comes out of land use, then back taxes are owed for five years. Since it takes five years to get in, its pretty much a long term deal, or it is not worth messing with. All the assessment does is alert the owner to what he is missing out on. And since the assessment will eventually go up, the longer you wait the more back taxes you owe. Those that preserve the land the longest, get punished the most.

  106. There are still some permits available, but it is pretty safe to say that the goal for some people is to get to zero.

    In my case, I have by rights but cannot use them because 85% of the farm must stay in one piece. My one remaining family lot was taken away years ago. The reason given was that too many people were taking advantage of the law.

    The practical result is that I cannot do anything here, but I must continue to farm at a loss, or sell the entire place in one huge chunk, four time larger than the neighbors, to someone else who wants to farm at a loss.

    I know other people in the same boat.

    That is no no joke about the $100k application.

  107. I'm not sure what the application costs are down here but they are multi-thousand though not likely 100K.

    there would be no problem with most of this if we did not have the problem of people who still work in NoVa moving down here into the rural areas and then complaining about the roads, rural schools and lack of 24/7 fire and ems.

    Once they get here and build their home on 20 acres or whatever they start complaining…

    They want more, better roads, VRE subsidies, etc… to "help them" with their "hellish commute".

  108. what would be interesting would be to see a map of properties with their assessed value – over a period of years.

    We currently have AG land that sits inside of the water/sewer mast plan area.

    That land – has to have higher appraisals and higher taxes.

    My understanding of the land-use was that it could go forever.

    If we did a map of a county – would it show that the larger parcels were all in land-use?

    that would be an interesting map.

  109. Right now this is no longer amusing. As we speak I'm tearing out the floors in my house so I can replace the decrepit steam pipes and the boiler. When I'm done I'm going to wish I had all the money the county has caused me to waste on their rural beautification dreams. Meanwhile I have no heat and no floors.

  110. jesus – Ray…. that sounds extreme… why do't you abandon the steam stuff and get a modern system even if you have to better insulate?

  111. I could have opted to convert to hot water instead of steam, but the floors would have to come up anyway, and then the whole house needs new pipes, convert the radiators, and install multiple thermostats. This is going to cost $20 k as it is, so the additional cost wasn't in the cards.
    K
    This place has 44 windows including six sets of walk out bays. There is almost no wall space to insulate. Rooms I already renovated had insulation and steam pipes replaced already.

    Had the county let me, I would have built a modern house more suitable for the two of us, and rented this one out. It would have made a HUGE difference in my net worth and my cash flow. But the county thought they knew better than I how to plan my life.

    Even though that rental would have paid every month more than the farm pays in a year. So now that twenty years of lost opportunity comes home to roost. I might have retired this year, and been comfortable. But thanks to PEC and others of that ilk I will have hardship and debt instead of comfort and joy. But when I'm done some rich sob will get a nicely restored old home for a relative song.

    He'll probably tear it down and build a real mansion.

  112. Well, I have to have a traffic plan ( there is no traffic) an archeology survey, soil survey, drainage, plan, Flora and fauna survey, etc, etcetera, for the entire farm, whether I put in for one house or forty. I only needed one, and thought I had rights to do it. Was told it was ok. They lied to me and screwed me over on a technicality, which they could have warned me about. But they treat the whole thing as an adversarial process.

  113. Yes the land use can go on indefinitely, or until the economic differential is too great for the owner to bear. Meanwhile, the county is foregoing all that tax revenue, although they will back tax for five years at the higher rate.

    Yes, you can pretty much bet the large parcels are in land use. There is a fair amount of fraud in it, too.

    The slow motion train wreck I am experiencing is why a one shot cash infusion for development rights does no good: farms need dedicated and continuing cash flow.

  114. Well there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind tha Fauquier county has gone too far as described in parts b and c.

    Requiring an owner to conduct a noneconomic activity clearly removes essentially all the value from the property, eventually. And there is no nexus for the requirement to place the remainder in conservation easement forever in exchange for a building permit on a small plot today.

    I believe fauquier zoning and other related policies are in violation of the constitution.

    Unfortunately, in order to prove that, I would have to get to the supreme court. In order to do that, my case must be "ripe", which means I must first exhaust all of my administrative options, before I can get standing to Sue.

    That process starts with filling out an application that costs $100,000.

    Effectively there is no due process in zoning cases, which is why there are so few.

    Harry Atherton once told me they had a lot of smart lawyers to make sure their rules did not cross over the line, but skated as close as possible to the edge.

    Ignore the spirit or intent and go after the letter

    For a real laugh, read the California case cited. As I recall the court basically tore the municipality a new one.

    Fauquier actually had a supreme court case, which they won, I believe.

    I think, eventually, their day will come. But as a result of successfully fighting a rear guard retreat for so long, they will be utterly unprepared for the eventual result.

    In the last 30 years Loudoun has gained 200,000 citizens and Fauquier 27,000. Loudoun has increased the number of citizens over seven times as much AND increased the percapita income AND the per capital accumulated wealth much more than Fauquier has. We are talking 15 times the total wealth and income increase.

    That is the price for Fauquiers successful conservation efforts.

    But, taxes are lower in Fauquier, just not 15 times lower.

  115. Hope Porter published a letter in the Fauquier paper this week, pointing to that 27,000 figure and claiming it was evidence of Fauquiers superior planning skills and political fortitude. Really, how much planning skill d.oes it take to plan for fewer than 1000 people per year?

    She and people like her can afford to have a "Let them eat cake" attitude toward present residents and a "go someplace else" attitude towards potential residents.

    That is how you spawn attitudes on the part of elected representatives who say things like "my plan for your property is to have someone wealthy buy it…."

    I'm sorry, but what is wrong with a plan that will allow me to be wealthy – and keep it?

    In my book, that would have been good Fauquier planning.

Leave a Reply