Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

McDonnell Taps Connaughton to Run Transportation

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The selection of Sean Connaughton for Secretary of Transportation will likely be one of Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell’s most significant cabinet appointments. Connaughton, former chair of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors and then administrator of the Maritime Administration, knows a thing or two about transportation.

In PWC, Connaughton established a county department of transportation, issued bonds and oversaw the construction of $300 million worth of roads. He’s the logical man to execute McDonnell’s strategy of building more roads while miraculously not raising taxes. Also, his experience with the Maritime Administration makes him well qualified to guide the future of the ports at Hampton Roads.

Said McDonnell in his press release:

[Connaughton] gained solid understanding of the transportation challenges facing our suburban and exurban localities in the faster-growing parts of our state. He agrees with me that we much be much faster and more efficient in transportation planning and decision making. And his overall background in transportation law and policy give him a broad perspective on this multi-faceted issue.”

Given the political reality that McDonnell would appoint (a) someone with strong Republican credentials, and (b) support his program of raising megabucks (but somehow without raising taxes) for transportation improvements, Connaughton is as good a pick as anyone could expect the governor-elect to make. He does, in fact, have an appreciation for viewing transportation in a land use context — a good thing. On the other hand, he showed that he is comfortable with General Obligation debt, which he used (if I recall correctly) to fund road improvements in PWC. Issuing G.O. bonds is one funding source for transportation that Virginia needs to steer clear of as the nation spirals closer to Boomergeddon.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

123 responses to “McDonnell Taps Connaughton to Run Transportation”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ha ha ha

    Your are SUCH A KIDDER – James B!

    " He's the logical man to execute McDonnell's strategy of building more roads while miraculously not raising taxes."

    and you make that statement right after this one:

    "… Connaughton established a county department of transportation, issued bonds and oversaw the construction of $300 million worth of roads."

    Now I'm going to go easy on you here but I would ask a gentle question:

    Who do you think pays the bonds back and where does that money to pay the bonds back come from?

    If you apply this paradigm to the State of Virginia…

    …now stay with me….

    Virginia issues a BILLION dollars worth of bonds for new roads … and… we pay them back without raising taxes?

    so now the cruel question…

    … and this is Republican?

    no wait.. this is RINO – right?

    Merry Christmas James B!!

  2. Mom Avatar
    Mom

    "Connaughton, former chair of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors … knows a thing or two about transportation."

    No, he knows a thing or too about bowing to developers but as regards transportation he only knows how to create congestion and blame it on Richmond.

    "He's the logical man to execute McDonnell's strategy of building more roads while miraculously not raising taxes."

    Based on what, certainly not his record in PWC.

    "strong Republican credentials"

    Name one, I dare you.

    "He does, in fact, have an appreciation for viewing transportation in a land use context."

    The only appreciation he has for that context is that provided him by the developers attorneys. Don't believe me, we can revist the entire Brentswood fiasco but I'll have to set aside a couple of hours to recap Lord Connaughton's role.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I clicked on comments to state the obvious only to see that someone had beat me to it.

    It's also interesting to see that "transportation" is apparently a synonym for "road construction."

    Connaughton might have built a lot of roads during his term as Chairman of the Prince William BOS, but he didn't do anything for public transportation. At the same time, his developer friends gained approval for considerable residential development.

    Which might explain why there's still traffic traffic everywhere with nary a bus to ride.

  4. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry: I thought it would be clear enough from my previous posts, including my criticisms of McDonnell's transportation plan, that I think it would be a TERRIBLE idea for the Commonwealth to issue G.O. debt to pay for new road construction. I have always stood for the idea that there must be a transparent nexus between road construction and road financing — a nexus in which the user pays. Foisting road construction debt onto the public would be a terrible idea.

    Let me clarify one more point. When I said that Connaughton is the "logical man" to execute McDonnell's plan, I meant that it was logical from McDonnell's point of view. Not mine. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

    Mom: In my conversations with Connaughton, he struck me as someone who had a pretty good understanding of the critical importance of land use in making transportation decisions. Admittedly, we were talking mostly in the abstract. If you say he bows to the will of developers, I'll have to take your word for it.

  5. J. Tyler Ballance Avatar
    J. Tyler Ballance

    Sean is a nice fellow who has held a number of political appointments and insider jobs.

    Having been appointed to run MARAD, to oversee our dwindling Maritime Industry, hardly equips anyone to deal with Virginia's transportation issues.

    I guess appointing a traffic or civil engineer was out of the question. I am not sure how being a lawyer is seen as "highly qualified" for so many senior level jobs in D.C. and here in the Commonwealth.

    Sean is a nice fellow; perhaps too nice to be stuck with such a thankless and impossible job.

    Our key solution for NOVAs hellish traffic lay with the federal government, not the state. If the federal government would relocate the major offices of the various branches, a minimum of 180 miles outside of D.C. then NOVA's traffic issues would vanish.

    From a strategic position, we should not have so much of our government inside D.C. anyway. Such a tempting target is going to attract a nuke one day, if we don't disperse the key branches; and of course, all of those parasitic lobbyists and contractors will follow the various office relocations out to Emporia or wherever they end up.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I can solve the NOVA transportation problem overnight.

    Institute the home rule where Congress only meets in person for 25% of their time; otherwise they stay in their home district and conduct business via videoconference.

    This initiative intends to relocate US Representatives and Senators to our State Capitols and State Representatives and Senators to our City Halls and Courthouses in our Districts.

    It's long past time the American people take back their government and begin holding elected leaders accountable and responsible for their actions. Drastic action is needed now to reign in our out-of-control, out-of-touch government. It's time to bring elected leaders back home to work in their districts, surrounded by the people they must ultimately answer to.

    http://bringhomethepoliticians.com/

    Think of all the folks that would have to leave the area.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I have always stood for the idea that there must be a transparent nexus between road construction and road financing — a nexus in which the user pays."

    —————————–

    Well, gee. given that the road is going to be there for fifty years or more, the users are going to be our children and grandchildren.

    In this case debt is an obvious and logical way to actually get the users to pay.

    Why would you EVER want to pay cash up front for capital goods that will be used up over a long period of time?

    Using debt to buy next weeks toothpaste is a bad idea, but using debt to buy something you will have and use for many years is a good idea.

    Provided you have the cash flow to make the payments.

    RH

  8. J. Tyler Ballance Avatar
    J. Tyler Ballance

    I like the idea of the bring the politicians home initiative, but don't understand you posting anonymously? If the idea has merit, you should stand behind what you write with your real name.

    I don't think the initiative would have a huge impact on traffic, though. When Congress is in recess all of those government employees and contractors are still schlepping up I-95 from Virginia.

    This home idea would help, but dispersing the agencies themselves would dramatically reduce traffic and making harder to take out our whole government with a one kiloton tactical nuke.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Roads and other infrastructure improvements cost money – big money. If you foreswear reliance on tax revenue, there aren't too many options left. As RH notes, there are some public expenditures that, because of their physical nature and expected use over time, lend themselves to debt financing. Others not so much. Knowing the difference is important. However, it surely cannot be the position of "Republicans", as they are recognized by Larry G, that the state government will not raise taxes and will not incur debt for long-term infrastructure investment. How do we feel about paying a $50 toll to drive from Ashland to Fredericksburg?

    NoVA Scout

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    if you are going to toll – and I do support that over taxes – not because I'm opposed to the taxes but instead because of the process we use for deciding road needs an allocations… combined with how many view roads as "economic development" ….

    the tolls obviously should not exceed the cost of the infrastructure, it's initial build, operations and maintenance.

    And tolls ARE DEBT in most cases.

    So here's the bonus question that I don't think I've seen the answer to.

    We know that an interstate grade highway in a rural area runs about 20-30 million per mile and that it can easily carry 50,000 vehicles per day.

    what SHOULD the toll be if a road is to be self-supported from tolls alone?

    This gets trickier than it sounds in areas that are not rural.

    so I don't think the toll from Ashland to Fredericksburg will ever get to $50 unless it would be built as a HOT Lane designed to generate MORE than it's costs so that the excess can be used as money for other transportation projects.

    Now for those who dislike the idea of stand-alone toll roads, let me tell you about what Maryland and Florida, and other states are doing.

    They have formed statewide toll road authorities where they explicitly intend for one toll road to subsidize another one and to charge as much as can be charged on the toll roads to be used as a de-facto revolving construction fund for NEW toll roads.

    These states are taking this path because of the hardened political resistance to raising the gas tax – and because they feel the gas tax alone is no longer sufficient by itself to fund roads anyhow.

    Most folks don't realize it in Va, but the gas tax only funds about a billion dollars of the 2.2 billion dollar budget.

    Also little known is that roads in Virginia are, in fact, partially funded from the general revenue fund – via a 1/2% sales tax.

    Other money comes from taxes on new cars and car sales.

    The current shortfall that VDOT is experiencing is mostly from less revenues from the non-gas tax sources.

    you can see all of this at:

    http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/tracking_oct09.pdf

    thems the facts… and McDonnell will have to confront that reality just like Kaine did and Deeds would have.

    The difference in that Kaine and Deeds were honest and made no bones that VDOT would need more money if we wanted more roads

    .. now.. the interesting thing to me is that the 'no mo tax' folks in their twisting and turning to not violate their 'no mo tax' pledge seem to easily gravitate to "user fees" like tolls.

    ..and the folks who support McDonnell and the "no mo tax" concept ..most of them seem fine with that idea.. as long as they don't have to pay more dang taxes…

    so which is the more honest approach ?

    The Dems Kaine/Deeds approach or the McDonnell approach?

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    on the tolls…

    a 30 million dollar mile of highway with 50,000 traffic – if it were going to be paid for in one year it would cost about $1.50 a trip (not counting financing costs).

    If you amortized that over 30 years, it would be a nickel a mile but then you'd have to also add in the maintenance and operations which I suspect would easily double or triple that nickel.

    Now, why is this "better" than just putting a tax on everyone?

    Because of the way Virginia does land-development, that's why.

    A locality will tell it's citizens that approving a new development will not be a problem because they'll put the newly need roads on their VDOT-maintained priority road list.

    The problem with this is that – that list – in my cases has been in practice – based on how much money was actually available – 25-50 years deep or more.

    In essence, the money was not there. The locality really is only going to get back NO MORE but usually much less than what it generated in fuel (and related) taxes to start with.

    But local politicians in cahoot with land development interests would use this "VDOT will take care of it" approach to fool local voters into thinking that no matter how much land development was approved that VDOT would build the roads.

    We've finally got to the point where people no longer believe that in part because they're starting to realize that VDOT is broke.

    But if we generates new sources of revenue for VDOT – the land-development folks will go right back to business at usual telling local citizens that new development will only "temporarily" overcrowd the roads until VDOT can come to the rescue.

    Before I'd agree to higher taxes for VDOT – I want to see a much more transparent funding and allocation regime where for each county – we KNOW how much money that county actually generates in fuel/related taxes each year AND we know how much they get back each in in-kind improvements, operations and maintenance.

    VDOT has the same problem that health insurance does and that is people think they are "covered" so they don't care what the costs actually are – because they think that no matter what those costs are – they are "covered".

    It's a bad system.

    We don't have that problem with schools or law enforcement for the most part. It's splattered all over the local budgets that get posted on websites and printed in the paper.

    But go to those budgets and try to find an accounting of transportation funding.

    It's not there – and it needs to be.

    If McDonnell doesn't do a single thing other than require more transparency and accountability, he will have accomplished something worthwhile because that will then set us on a course of people deciding how much they want to pay for transportation – and how.

  12. RBV Avatar
    RBV

    Larry,

    Check this out;

    http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/ctb_Budget_12-17-09.pdf

    What this budget doesn't do is show a breakdown of the budget by district which would be helpful, IMO.

    That would tell you who was getting the short end of the stick.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    if you are going to toll – and I do support that over taxes

    —————————

    Tolls ARE taxes. Only not as efficient as taxes because they get shortstopped by contractors before going to the government.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "When Congress is in recess all of those government employees and contractors are still schlepping up I-95 from Virginia. "

    True, but it is still a lot wporse when congress is in session.

    RH

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    RBV – here's one that breaks it down to district – page 7

    http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/fy-08-supplement-final.pdf

    this is a large PDF – 270+ pages so don't dl unless you have fast internet.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dispersing government:

    I've said many times, send the Senate to Hawaii and the House to Florida, those guys are mostly retired anyway, and the farther we keep them apart the less damage they can do.

    Send Justice to Texas, Agriculture to Iowa, and Defense to Nevada, where whores are legal. Send Education to Mississippi, and the Corps of Engineers to New Orleans.

    RH

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    tolls are taxes.

    I agree.

    The State has the option of self-financing and operating it's own toll roads or contracting it out.

    They tried running the latest one the Pocahontas road and ended up turning it over to to pvt operators.

    why?

    same deal with HOT Lanes.

    Why can't Va/VDOT do it as a state project?

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Senator Byrd of WVA would be more than happy to move as many govt agencies as desired to WVA just like he did the FBI

    but then Groveton and others could not claim that NoVa was the economic life-blood of Va – no?

    be careful what you wish for.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Most folks don't realize it in Va, but the gas tax only funds about a billion dollars of the 2.2 billion dollar budget.

    ————————

    Because it has not been raised or indexed to the price of gas for twenty years.

    Most of the tolls we are talking about will make raising the gas tax look cheap: A toll of 5 cents a mile is equivalent to a gas tax of $1.25 per gallon.

    As people wake up to this, protests and revolts angainst toll roads are mounting.

    The protest called for Mass. Pike drivers to avoid the tolls on Tuesday. Upon hearing of the Pike protest, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and the city's public safety commissioners sat down with representatives from Stop the Pike Hike to discuss safety concerns.

    The city cited the potentially dangerous impact the protest would have on traffic and city streets should all commuters avoid the highway. In a letter to StopThePikeHike.org, Menino explained that the protest would create a host of problems for the city, including increased traffic on residential streets, a financial impact on residents and the business community, and a question of whether or not the MBTA had the ability to handle additional ridership.

    So here you have a situation where a large demonstration against the cost of tolls is cited by public safety officials as a concern.

    And yet toll supporters point out that drivers don't have to pay the toll. It is a free market they say, and other options are available.

    So, we know that tolls will encourage people to use other routes, yet we do not count all of these externalities and their associated dangers as part of the COST of toll roads.

    Tolls are a bad and inefficient way to raise money, and toll roads will prove to be a bad policy that we will regret.

    RH

  20. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well twice as many people are opposed to taxes rather than tolls and just building opposition to tolls does not mean that they want taxes.

    big mistake to think so.

    Toll Roads did not come about because people were in FAVOR of taxes guy.

    They came about because people are opposed to taxes.

    and how would you "stop" a toll road anyhow?

    the only way that I know of if for the State to make it illegal to do a toll road and if they know they can't fund roads with higher taxes, why would they take away their only other option?

    Texas DID do this. They put a moratorium on toll roads.

    North Carolina, on the other hand just formed a brand new toll road authority …

    and Maryland could not have built the ICC without tolls … not only without tolls but without subsidizing it from other toll roads in the state.

    Do you really think that McDonnell is going to proposed raising the gas tax or even indexing it and that even if he did – the GA would go along?

    I guess stranger things have happened but I would not bet the ranch on it.

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Actually… if McDonnell even "thinks" about raising taxes, he's effectively destroyed the core principles that Republican's are running for office on.

    Once he crosses that line, in many folks eyes, especially the Republican base, he's no better than a tax&spend Dem or HORRORS, even WORSE – a RINO!

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how would you "stop" a toll road anyhow?

    Protests, boycotts, blockades, letter campaigns, vandalism. You know, all the usual tactics employed by environmentalists.

    Same sort of thing as brought down the government of Romania.

    "TOLL ROAD DERAILED: Protest and Passion Prevail"

    http://www.surfermag.com/photos/flash/toll-road-stopped-08/

    If people don't like txes they are going to really hate tolls. It is a wasteful way to collect money.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Texas DID do this. They put a moratorium on toll roads."

    And Massachusetts disbanded the Mass Turnpike Authority.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "and Maryland could not have built the ICC without tolls … not only without tolls but without subsidizing it from other toll roads in the state."

    That is ridiculous. Marylanders are going to pay for it one way or another. They were paying for it by NOT building it for thirty years.

    The argument for toll roads is so other people in the state won't feel like they are subsidizing it.

    That argument isn't helped much if other people elsewhere in the state are subsidizing the new road anyway by driving on their own toll road.

    They could be driving on their own roads and paying gas tax to subsidize the new road just as well, and cheaper besides.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I want to see a much more transparent funding and allocation regime where for each county – we KNOW how much money that county actually generates in fuel/related taxes each year AND we know how much they get back each in in-kind improvements, operations and maintenance."

    No argument there. Those are public expenditures and they should be transparent and easily accessible. But that goes for the whole state budget, not just VDOT, so there is no reason to try to withhold funding on that account, unless you want to withhold funding for the entire state.

    RH

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The "efficiency" of cashless tolls is pretty good.

    It's even better than credit card "swipe" transactions.

    No tollbooths… no stopping at a booth.. and in the newer ones – regular highway speeds.

    Mass got rid of tolls?

    coulda fooled me:

    http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/fastlane/main.aspx

    electronic tolling is not going to go away… it's going to be the way that new roads get built from now on;

    get used to it.

    In order to generate a road construction program in Va out of gas taxes, you'd do an increase of about 20 cents a gallon to yield a billion a year.

    you think that is going to happen?

    there are quite a few folks that would rather pay an electronic toll for a fairly reliable trip – I'd say quite a few more than those that would protest.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Also little known is that roads in Virginia are, in fact, partially funded from the general revenue fund – via a 1/2% sales tax.

    Other money comes from taxes on new cars and car sales.

    —————————–

    And that is a good thing. Those that benefit from roads should be paying for them, and those benefits accrue to people far from the road being funded, there should be multiple sources for funding roads/transportation.

    RH

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    here's where roads don't come from – personal property taxes on autos….

    why not?

    why not have real estate taxes go for schools and personal property taxes go for local roads and let VDOT figure out what to do about new mega roads?

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The "efficiency" of cashless tolls is pretty good.

    —————————–

    No it isn't. It is TERRIBLE compared to just collecting the gas tax.

    Not to mention the last time i went through a toll booth, there was an accident in the next lane over – the Smart tag lane.

    Some clueless individual stopped in the Smart Tag lane to pay his toll with cash.

    How efficient does Smart Tag have to be before it recovers the cost of completely wasting a handfull of $30,000 vehicles?

    After seeing that I always go to the full service lane so the guy behind me KNOWS I'm going to stop.

    One way to protest toll roads is ALWAYS go to the full service lane – and give them a twenty.

    RH

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there is no stopping at all on a cashless toll road guy.

    NADA.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Real estate tax is the one thing even worse than tolls. You get taxed on imputed profits, which you don't really have.

    When people travel it is generally to conduct business of one kind or another. The only taxes that make sense are transaction taxes, of which gas tax is one. Relatively small taxes taken against every transaction in which money moves would raise all the money we need for roads or anything else.

    Transportation is more closely tied to commerce than to anything else, which is one reason the land development thing is mostly a red herring. there is no reason transportation cannot be funded by transaction taxes, which would include sales taxes.

    New developments involve a lot of transactions and big ones, so they would be paying their sahre that way, and then a continuing stream of smaller transactions while people live in the area.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    there is no stopping at all on a cashless toll road guy.

    NADA.

    ———————————

    I'm just telling you what I saw happen.

    Where is there a truly cashless toll road? I've never seen one.

    I imagine you could do it, but you would be passing up tolls for many outsiders passing through.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In order to generate a road construction program in Va out of gas taxes, you'd do an increase of about 20 cents a gallon to yield a billion a year.

    you think that is going to happen?

    ——————————-

    OK, so you would have to tax every road in the state with tolls equal to $0.08 per mile to raise exactly the same amount of money, which would come out of exactly the same pockets. Except it would cost a lot more to collect.

    You think that is going to happen?

    No, it won't. So a few people will be taxed 80 cents a mile so everyone else can ride free.

    Now there is a system you can really hate, unless you think you are the 80% that will be free riding while you steal from the other 20%.

    And you don't have anything against stealing.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don't care how much people don't want higher gas taxes. Our leaders need to stand up and explain to them that the alternitive is far more expensive, far more wasteful, and far more discriminatory.

    They need to do their job: protect everyone equally, and protect people from themselves.

    Then if they lose their job for doing their job correctly – well, it didn't pay much anyway. Hopefully we have a long string of applicants for the job that are not completely spineless. I have a vision of Ghandi's men lining up at the salt factory to be beaten over the head.

    RH

  35. RBV Avatar
    RBV

    The thing with the gas tax is that it's 20th century policy going up against 21st century technology. It's simply becoming obsolete.

    A few things you can count on in the next 25 years;

    -Cars will be more fuel efficient so they will use less gas.

    -Many cars will run on fuels other than gasoline….pretty soon you will be charging up your car the same way you do your cell phone.

    More fuel efficient/alternate fuel vehicles make the gas tax that much more obsolete. If this were 1900 it would be like trying to finance new road construction by taxing the horse & buggy. That's fine until everybody ditches horse for a car.

    But, the revenue needed to maintain the roads will probably increase so your going to need to replace the revenue from the gas tax somehow….Tolls are just the latest fad….once people revolt against them (which they will) they will just dream up something else.

  36. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you're way behind on the technology RH… you clearly don't get it…

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-27-cashless-toll-roads_N.htm

    in the future – the gas tax will be everyone's fair share of the costs of operations and maintenance.

    That's all the gas tax is going to be capable of funding.

    In fact, any increase in the gas tax is not going to be near enough to allocate out equally to the various localities that would want their "new road" share.

    From now on, the folks who want new roads will have to pay for them – themselves – like the ICC (which will be cashless).

    If you want the ride you pay. If you don't that's fine also.. just bear the congestion.

    Most folks like to have that choice instead of being forced to pay especially for roads they don't use.

    that way of funding new roads is gone.. won't come back.. because if you every convinced folks of a gas tax – they are going to demand their local share of it – up front.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That's all the gas tax is going to be capable of funding.

    If that's all the money there is you can't get it out of tolls either.

    If it takes that kind of technology to collect the tolls, collecting the same money through gas taxes will be cheaper and more efficient.

    It is bad enough if government takes our money, we don't need to have government pay contractors to collect it for them.

    Don't confuse technology with the solution to a problem. A solution and an optimum solution are to very different things.

    There is nothing out here that beats the gas tax for revenue potential or efficiency – except as you point out – the 80% of people who believe the lies they have been told.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In fact, any increase in the gas tax is not going to be near enough to allocate out equally to the various localities that would want their "new road" share.

    ——————————–

    That won't be any different with tolls, especially if tolls are subsidizing each other.

    By now we ought to be able to recognize a Ponzi scheme.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you collect gas tax centrally and use it to build roads you won't get every road wanted built all at once. You are going to have road rationing, but any road you decide to build, you can pay for.

    But if you decide to fund roads only from the local people that use them, it won't matter whether the collection device is tolls or gas tax: there won't be enough money to build the road.

    Conservationists who hate roads anyway know that, and to them this is the real beauty of tolls: they KNOW that they won't work.

    Conversely, by the time there is enough demand to make it work, the road will have already been neeed for decades.

    As usual such people are not considering ALL the costs and ALL the benfits, so they come to an environmental conclusion that is far from green.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

    RH

  40. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " If you collect gas tax centrally and use it to build roads you won't get every road wanted built all at once. You are going to have road rationing, but any road you decide to build, you can pay for."

    this does not work. the operative word is "decide".

    Special interests, including many who would develop land see the centralized transportation fund – and a politicized process for making decision as opportunity – and this my friend is NOT a theory.

    Just take a look at the recent project in Loudoun and now Tysons where the developers are clearly looking for the "state" to step in and help with the infrastructure.

    "But if you decide to fund roads only from the local people that use them, it won't matter whether the collection device is tolls or gas tax: there won't be enough money to build the road."

    More BS as usual RH.

    Localities can USE their allocations … COMBINED with local taxes, proffers, special transportation referenda, CDAs and Special Tax Districts to produce the infrastructure that they want and need.

    And they do this. My own county, voters agreed to pay higher taxes to build a series of improvements needed as a result of growth – and the state was not going to provide the funding – only a small amount of it – our share.

    You – like many – treat "State Funding" like it is a Richmond Money Tree.

    That everyone pays into that fund and then everyone gets back MORE than they pay into it – somehow.

    All any locality is truly entitled to – for local roads – is what they generate in taxes.

    If they want to "save up" their yearly allocations towards one or two priority projects – they can – and do.

    You apparently have never heard of a Six Year Plan where that is exactly what is done.

    and any locality is more than free to "accelerate' their priority roads by adding more skin to that game.

    and they do – all the time.

    the biggest problem is the localities that approve land-development with significant transportation consequences but tell their citizens that it's not a problem because the new roads are going to go on the VDOT wish list.

    What they often fail to tell their constituents is that list for their locality is 25-50 years long and there is no chance that VDOT is going to fund much of it – ever.

    As evidenced by the last 2 years of VDOT removing 2/3 and more of the projects on those "wish" lists.

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    continued:

    So.. NOW – the localities are holding onto this worthless paper of lists of roads.

    that paper was worthless all along.

    it was a cruel hoax perpetrated on people with less than powerful minds that "somehow" VDOT would build them more roads than they actually generated in taxes.

    Now the interesting thing with this current appointment, is that it appears to me that McDonnell has actually picked someone who supports the status quo way of doing business – i.e. make list of roads then find the money to build them – except higher STATE-LEVEL taxes are ruled out from the get go.

    What I would hope for from a fiscal conservative is state-level guidance and assistance for localities to take more responsibility for their own local roads, and to take more responsibility for their land-use decisions that result in the need for more transportation infrastructure that has to come from somewhere – and will NOT come from the state.

    Mr. Connaughton, despite criticism of friendliness with developers did pursue 300 million in local money for transportation.

    He did not, however, decree a tax increase to get that 300 million (unlike some who seem to favor government by decree).

    Nope.

    He had to convince a majority of voters ( yep.. that nasty "mob rule" again) to … AGREE to pay higher taxers for more/better roads where THEY LIVE.

    Sounds a lot like a quid-pro-quo to me.

    If you had asked that same group to, instead, pay higher taxes to Richmond and then try to get their 300 million worth of projects back – they would have so a RESOUNDING ..NO!

    in Fact HELL NO! (that's what you call "no" when it's 80% of taxpayers".

    And it's language that Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Connaughton understand.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    this does not work. the operative word is "decide".

    ——————————

    But at least you get to decide. Done locally you will never have enough to make any decision.

    You are corect that wecannot do everything. The question is will we cooperate so we can do some things, or balkanize and do nothing?

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and a politicized process for making decision as opportunity – and this my friend is NOT a theory.

    ————————-

    I agree. Take the politics ou of it and make the process fair, transparent, and predictable.

    If people like yourselves would stop politicing, there would be no need for special interests.

    Put a price on development, and if some developer is willing to pay the price, then he is approved. No if, ands, buts, public participation, delays, or lawsuits.

    If the price in Spotsy is too high, then it will dry up, and the price will have to be lowered. Builders can survey the prices for development in arious counties vs the prices for developed property and make business decisions instead of political ones.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    $300 million is what, 1500 traffic lights?

    It is a drop inthe bucket compared to what is needed, even locally in spotsy.

    Your problem, and Mcnaughton is that you thinke way too small.

    RH

  45. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: balkanization

    we've already got that. They're called VDOT districts and MPOs.

    Having these entities still does not prevent the state from being primarily responsible for state-level roads and localities and regions financially responsible for their roads.

    VDOT can set the standards that all counties meet so that the roads maintain uniformity and standardization.

    right now, transparency and accountability if virtually non-existent at the county level sans Henrico and Arlington – which are financially responsible for their roads.

    Until I know how much my county generates in gas taxes and how much it gets back in construction, maintenance and operations, I'm not in favor of even a penny increase in the gas tax.

    I'm convinced that not having this knowledge – and having the CTB making decisions, that the process keeps citizens in the dark about transportation funding.

    and that's not a good thing.

    Many folks who pay property taxes can tell you how much they pay every year and most of them have some idea how much their county budget is (or can find out fairly easily) and what portion goes to schools but virtually no one knows the numbers for transportation.

    this needs to change.

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Until I know how much my county generates in gas taxes and how much it gets back in construction, maintenance and operations, I'm not in favor of even a penny increase in the gas tax."

    ——————————-
    At least that is a sentiment i can understand. The logic defies me, but the sentiment is understandable.

    Suppose you discovered that your county got back pretty much what it paid in – less something for overhead. Would you be ok with that?

    Now suppose your county won a huge manufacturing plant for Iberdrola, manufacturing wind turbines. Over time your county has an influx of workers for this plant and it is overun with convoys of oversize trucks carrying the enormous parts for these towers, especially the new 600 foot models.

    Would you still be happy to have just the money from your county, or would you be demanding help fromoutside, now that youa re the proud owner of the worst traffic situation in th state – one that makes significant contributions to state coffers?

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "having the CTB making decisions, that the process keeps citizens in the dark about transportation funding.

    and that's not a good thing."

    I agree, but transparency and balkanization are two different things. With balkanization you can never adress a problem like described above, no matter how transparent it is.

    Even if there is not enough to go around, you need the ability to focus on the biggest problems first, or they can never be solved.

    Farifax could never do the Springfield interchange by itself, and it should not fave to because it is not a local problem.

    RH

  48. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    accountability of not only where the money comes from but how it is spent is what you want.

    For instance, low taxes while the roads have axle-busting potholes in them is not the same as low taxes with the same axle-busting potholes or gas taxes diverted to buy 10K laptops instead of fixing potholes.

    It's called good government and even though it's a lot harder at the State and Fed levels… there is some opportunity at the local level provide enough people perform their role as citizens.

    I'd remind you further than without elections – and "mob rule" that all of this would be much, much more difficult with an "appointed" leader.

  49. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    balkanization competes all the time with regionalism.

    If there were no Planning Districts and no MPO – thus no opportunity for localities to band together on issues like transportation, I would be more in agreement with the argument but that's not the case.

    46 other states do local roads without said to have "balkanized" their roads.

    46 other states have to use care and good judgment when considering development proposals that affect their roads.

    In Virginia, we don't – or at least didn't until VDOT finances evaporated.

    Now.. when a developer proposes something – all eyes are now on the transportation impacts – an that's the way it should be.

    If the Region believes that that development even with it's transportation impacts is good for the region – then they can allocate MPO money to help.

    If they don't, then the locality will have to make the decision – and what I advocate is that the tax-paying citizens know about the costs and they have the ability to let their local elected leaders know how they feel about the project.

    No more "it's VDOT's job" when the developer and the pro-development officials knew there was no chance than VDOT had the funding to do it….

    from now on.. anything the developer does not provide is going to be the direct responsibility of local taxpayers.

    Now if that developer is proposing a 1000 employee manufacturing plant that needs a road – citizens can decide if they want to kick in some taxes for that road.

    But they can also decide they don't need to kick in road money for some development that is also going to put a strain on other taxpayer-funded resources.

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "low taxes while the roads have axle-busting potholes in them is not the same as low taxes with the same axle-busting potholes or gas taxes diverted to buy 10K laptops instead of fixing potholes."

    ———————-

    I assume you mean low taxes without the same axle-busting potholes.

    I think you are making my argument.

    Total costs = PC + EC + GC

    in this case

    TC = Cost of Road construction (minu Benefits of Road construction – even if the benefit is to developers) + External costs (busted axles, congestion, pollution, etc) + Government Costs (which could include opportunity costs for revenue lost by NOT building the road OR government costs for maintaining and policing the road once built)

    Even if the road is going to be built by government you don't put those costs in the government column because you asume that you have some source of revenue to buld the road whether it is government or not. The costs and benefits are treated the same for the road construction costs whoever builds it. That way you can keep the other buckets clear and see what really happens as far as this system goes.

    It all gets lumped in total costs on the left side anyway.

    The question is whether total costs are lower with low taxes, little or no development, broken axles, etc. or whther total costs are lower with higher taxes, development, fewer broken axles, etc.

    Then after you figure THAT out, you can address inequities such as whether developers are getting an inordinate amount of the benefit for the costs they absorb. winners ought to be able to pay the losers and still come out ahead, providing there is a net public benefit to be had.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now.. when a developer proposes something – all eyes are now on the transportation impacts – an that's the way it should be.

    —————————

    No, you are incorrect. This is focusing on only part of the problem and part of the answer. You are almost certainly guaranteed to come up with a wrong answer using this approach.

    You need a systems analysis that estimates the costs and benefits for the full system – as far out as you can reasonably set the boundaries.

    It is not only the current users that benefit from new roads, and they shoudl not be expected to bear the full up-front costs: that is a ridiculous idea.

    Vendors to and customers of thoase that use the roads are also beneficiaires as are future users future vendors and future customers. There are tax effects that accrue to those fronting the road, those with access to the road, and those nowhere near the new road.

    It is not only the road construction costs and their effect on tax rates that need to be considered.

    It is politically popular to make the developer the bogey man in this, but it is an economically stupid way to make decisions.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I've made the historical comaprison between Fauquier and Loudon before. Forty years ago they had equal populatons and the opulations had similar per capita assessed value and similar per capita incomes.

    Today, Loudoun has a lot more people and EACH OF THEM owns more property, has more income, and yes, pays more taxes than their Fauquier neighbors.

    Explain to me how it is that Loudoun (as awhole or individueally) is "worse off" because they have had more development and higher taxes.

    Let's assume for a minute that we can postulate the idea that this is all a matter of zen: Fauquier residents today are actually just as well off as their Loudoun neighbors.

    That would mean that we have just set a price on alll of Fauquier's "intangibles" such as open space, "quality of life" etc.

    We might even claim that Fauquier residents are Better off, meaning we claim an even higher value for those intangibles.

    In the example in the previous post we claim that you MUST examine the WHOLE SYTEM before you focus too much attention on developers and what their benefits and contributions should be.

    In this example we claim EQUALLY that you must look at the WHOLE SYSTEM and decide who the benficiaries of open space and other intangibles are as well as who should pay for them.

    Let's go back to the initial postulate: Fauquier residents are just as wll off as Loudoun residents even though they own less valuable property and earn less money. They have simply made different choices, or they assume that some intangibles do have monetary value.

    At a system level (in this case using the county lines as system boundaries) we could figure out on average what those intangibles are worth. We could do that for dozens of county pairs.

    Eventually we could zero in on a range of values that represent from a historical precedent and measurement, just what it is you give up or gain when you develop 20 acres.

    It would be a gross estimate and an average with considerable error bounds around it, but reasonable people, regardless of their political or environmental persuasion ought to be able to agree whether the price is a million dollars plus or minus a half million or if it is fifty million dollars plus or minus $7million – per unit of area, over a ten or twenty year time frame.

    Once we agree on what ball park we are in, we can start refining the method (whittling down the plus or minus uncertainties), by adding more consideratons or measurs of value as required.

    And once we agree on what those intangibles are worth – based on measured preferences – then we can reasonably add those values to the price of development.

    Fauquier and Loudoun residents have voted with their feet and their wallets for many years now. That is a real vote with real preferences, and real value at stake, not just a bunch of local citizen agitators at a developement "hearing". It is not a referendum based on what you say you want – absent having to ay for it.

    The case of Loudoun vs Fauquier represents, in my mind a sort of glacial, long term auction on E-bay. In the traditional terms of income and value of property owned the effect of long term government policies are clear and well defined and we ought to be able to use that an other similar information to make informed, reasoned, and measured judgements about future development without resorting to fifty layers of government or mob rule to do it.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If the Region believes that that development even with it's transportation impacts is good for the region – then they can allocate MPO money to help."

    ——————————–

    I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is how will they know what to believe.

    We may not care. We may decide that whatever idolatry they believe in is good enough as long as most believe it.

    But let's be honest enough not to call THAT iscal conservtism or even fiscal decision making of any kind.

    How do you make the facts people use to base their beliefs on known without distorting them for political purposes. How do you limit "agenda based science" without limiting the discovery of new facts?

    I believe the way you do that is to make sure that NO GROUP gets to make a decision that they don't have to pay for. people can still beleive anything they want, but they are likely to believe it a little less strongly if it actually cost them cold hard out of ppcket cash, in order for "their beliefs" to make them better off.

    We need to have equal property rights for everyone and they need to extend to all the sticks in our bundle. If we cannot price intangibles, then we need to attach them to tangibles and auction THOSE off. pretty soon we will know what the prices of "intangibles" actually are as opposed to what they are whe people are allowed to steal them.

    We need to disabuse people of Ratso Rizzo's idea that "if its free, then I ain't steealin' it. right?" That goes EQUALLY for developers, conservationists, environmentalists, industrialists, and community activists all alike.

    The first thing we did as environmentalists in the 60's and 70's was make a property rights claim to the environment which belongs to all of us.

    But we are doing very little to define, protect, and defend those rights equally or equitably, which are two entirely different concepts.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You never answered my question: "Would you still be happy with just the money from your county, given the hypothetical situation described, or would you be asking for help from outside?"

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is my analysis of Fauquier vs Loudoun:

    77,000 Acres preserved

    $4,000 lost income per person (last census)

    $10,000 lost property value
    40 years to accomplish

    $2,000 lost income per year, discounted
    40,000 population level discounted
    3,200,000,000 cost of lost income for 40 years
    650,000,000 current cost of lost property value

    3,850,000,000 total cost

    $50,000 Cost per acre protected, todays dollars, up to todays date, but th ecost goes up every addtional year.

    We can argue about the number of acres protected, the discount rates and the years under consideration, but that $50,000 seems reasonable: it might be + or minus $25,000, but it is probably not plus $10 million.

    Let's assume it is a "correct" number.

    It is ex post facto. What it cost us after 40 years. It cost us $50,000 in todays dollars to save that acre and it is going to keep costing us more as time goes on.

    As a first cut, we ought to be willing to sell that back to a developer for $50,000. On that basis we could claim a development proffer of $50,000 is reasonable but one of $70,000 is not.

    In fact, since the developer is paying up front not only for our past expenses to date, but he is also protecting us from future expenses, which we should discount and deduct from the price.

    Just the lost income portion of those savings amount to $3300 per acre, per year. Even if we let him develop for free, we break even in fourteen years. If we charge him a proffer of $25,000 we break even in seven. Based on an actual comparison of Fauquier vs Loudoun.

    In my equation, TC = PC + EC + GC this only considers the PC portion: production cost of developing vs not developing land. Loudoun residents do experience more congestion and higher tax rates, but they also get higher levels of government service, and ther government has more revenue to work with on account of higher property values and more people.

    I would argue that even after taking these factors into account the $50k figure is not wrong by orders of magnitude. A lot of the external costs and government costs are already factored in by the tenso of thousands of new loudoun residents. This means that suggesting proffers from $70,000 to $120,000 per acre is probably la la land, and even $25,000 is probably asking too much.

    Knock yourself out falling all over this.

    RH

  56. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: "buying" open space.

    this is a laughable concept in a county like Scott or Tazewell or Campbell.

    Tell me again who in those counties is supposed to pay and why?

    roads are going to cost money.

    any developer is free to make the case to the prospective payers that it's in their best interest to kick in more taxes for a road for a development but that's as far as "we" go when deciding cost/benefits from development.

    As I've reminded.. you're free to claim anything you want with respect to the "benefits" of development but you are not entitled to charge them against their will.

    You and EMR still can't seem to get that concept straight with regard to settlement patterns or development or property "rights" that are confused with "development rights".

    The developers are finding this out in the General Assembly.

    They can outlaw proffers and mandate one-size-fits-all impact fees – but at the end of the day, all the county has to do is say "no thanks" and that's the end of the story.

    "development rights" are always balanced with "impact rights" and thus always a negotiation where you are free to make your case but not impose it.

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    this is a laughable concept in a county like Scott or Tazewell or Campbell.

    —————————–

    No it isn't.

    The price for buying and preserving open space there is lower, that's all. But, at the same time you would hae to own it for a much longer period of time, before the concept of "open space" there would be meaningful. And after that long period of time you might find out you had paid more rather than less for what you preserved in the end.

    Anyone want to guess what the cost of preserving Central Park up until today is? you cold probably by ALL of Tazewell county for that kind of money, and this is pretty much exactly waht the new urbanists are suggesting when they say that urban living is green.

    RH

  58. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ha ha ha ha ha

    who is supposed to pay in Tazwell?

    and what are you "preserving"?

    who pays?

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    roads are going to cost money

    ——————————-

    And so are not roads going to cost money.

    A systems approach does not start by assuming one side is right or wrong. It justs asks "How much and to whom, really?"

    Once you have those answers, then you can talk about fair. Otherwise it is just blather.

    The analysis above is really simpe minded, and based on just census figures, but it comes to a surprisingly believable answer.

    TMT would have us believe (and I sympathize with him, Ihave property in FAirfax, too) that developers are the scum of the earth and they are all out to rob us blind.

    This sentiment is widely held, but based on the analysis above there is at least some reason to believe it is wrong.

    ——————————-

    Lets say for the sake of argument that I made a half million in profit on developing my property in Fairfax, over the last twenty years.

    I could argue that "roads cost money" and lobby against the next guy ding the same as I did. I might save myself a couple of hundred per year doing that, and it won't cost me anything to do.

    But how do I justify to myself the "not roads" cost to that other guy of HIS half million dollars?

    Believe me, If I could find a fair and equitable way to save me $300 a year at his cost of a half million over twenty years, I'd love to be able to do it.

    I believe his dollar is entitled to the same level of protection as mine.

    RH

  60. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you can believe whatever you wish but you cannot impose your beliefs on others and until you convince them of your "logic", go fish.

    you aint going to collect money from folks by blathering them to death.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ha ha ha ha ha

    who is supposed to pay in Tazwell?

    and what are you "preserving"?

    who pays?

    ——————————-

    You are arguing my point exactly. Who would want to preserve anything in Tazewell? It is development that is at a premium.

    But there must be some land in Tazewell that is environmentally sensitive. Home to the mountain pig-sucker, or soemthing. Top of a mountain that is about to be blasted off and carted away.

    Whoever thinks it should be preserved, PEC or EDF or whoever, should pay for it.

    RH

  62. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    and they do pay for it but that happens in Loudoun, Fairfax and Facquier also.

    you're talking about undeveloped land of no particular historic or cultural significance and who should "pay" to keep it undeveloped.

    Undeveloped land without any particular significance ABOUNDS in Tazwell.

    Tell me again who is supposed to pay to preserve such undeveloped land – in Tazwell OR Facquier?

    you've got the blather machine set to "HI" here.

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you can believe whatever you wish but you cannot impose your beliefs on others and until you convince them of your "logic", go fish."

    ——————————–

    I don't see anything in this statement that explains why my analysis of Loudon vs Fauquier is wrong. No refutation or explanation of how my "logic" is wrong.

    What I hear is that I cannot impose the facts on the mob majority, because they are free to believe anything they want, even if the measurable facts prove them wrong through forty years of their own economic choices.

    They are free to claim, at tno cost to themselves, and with zero burden of proof that their yard is worth as much as my inch.

    As you pont out, I can beleive anything I like. I believe these thugs are using gross abuse of power to steal from others.

    I believe that citizens of Fauquier will eventually tire of earning less than their neighbors and having less tangible wealth, even after they make allowances for "lifestyle".

    the reason I beleive that is that I have seen it happen before, in other communities.

    Until then, they can believe any lies they like, but they cannot force me to join the chorus of liars.

    If you think the census figures are wrong or my math is wrong, I'm listening.

    I think it is possible, just possible, that some kinds of conservation are costing us more than we save. As fiscal conservatives and as conservationists we ought to be at least interested in knowing the answer.

    Unless we think we are better off by permitting people to lie and steal, which is hardly a conservative position to take.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that's as far as "we" go when deciding cost/benefits from development.

    ——————————-

    Translation: we have superior rights to you.

    We make our own rules for cost benefit analysis instead fo ging by the accepted book, which says you must consider EVERYONE's costs and benefits.

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ythy're free to claim anything they want with respect to the "costs" of development but they are not entitled to charge me against my will.

    My ollars are entitle to the same protection as theirs. If they don;t think so it is only because they want to steal mine from me.

    RH

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    but at the end of the day, all the county has to do is say "no thanks" and that's the end of the story.

    —————————–

    No it isn't the end of the story. That story is going to continue for forty years or so.

    And the end of the story is that Loudoun citizens earn more money and retain more accumulated wealth – after they pay their higher taxes than Fauquier citizens wher the county just said "no thanks".

    Presumably on behalf of the citizens.

    The end of the story is that saying "no thanks" has a real, measurable, dollar and cents cost associated with it.

    Citizens are free to believe otherwise, but they WILL still pay the cost.

    Opportunity cost is a real cost: it just takes time to realize the opportunity passed you by.

    RH

  67. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    how about all those folks in Tazwell who refuse to pay for open space.

    what happens to them?

  68. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    did the folks in Tazwell allow opportunity to pass them by because they refused to pay for open space?

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Undeveloped land without any particular significance ABOUNDS in Tazwell.

    Tell me again who is supposed to pay to preserve such undeveloped land – in Tazwell OR Facquier?

    ——————————

    What you are telling me is there is no market to protect such land. I believe in market values.I if no one WANTS to develop it, the PC or whoever should be able to buy it dirt cheap. But even at fire sale prices they can't afford to buy very much, because there is so much, and because they are unwilling to put up the money.

    Now show me ANYPLACE, ANYWHERE that PEC bought outright in order to preserve it. This sort of thing dDOES happen sometimes. usually the first thing that happens is that the new owner puts up a museum and charges admission.

    Something the previous owner was prohibited from doing by zoning law.

    Or, the new owner supports it by begging for donations for its upkeep. This is something the public is glad to do for the new owner, but they would have considered the same kind and level of contributions to the previous owner as "subsidy" or "welfare".

    No, PEC and Smart Growth Coalition, etc. are not in that business, very much. They are in the business of lobbying government so they can get what they want – apparently for nothing.

    But, as the example above shows, those costs do, in fact, accrue. Whether anyone chooses to believe it or not.

    If you pick your own raspberries, you will get stuck, and getting stuck is the cost of raspberries. You can choose to say no, I won't get stuck.

    But Raspberries still get sold, and that means you can calculate a cost for everytime you did not get stuck.

    Plus, you still have no Raspberries.

    RH

  70. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Rasberries?????

    Nope.. I did not tell you that there was (or was not) a market for undeveloped land in Tazwell.

    What I said was that there was a lot of it and I was asking you who was supposed to be paying to keep it undeveloped.

    Whether it's Tazwell or Fairfax – no one pays to keep undeveloped from being developed.

    The Tazwell example just shows how nutty your concepts are – that's all.

    The folks who own undeveloped land in Tazwell are free to lumber it, grow kumquats on it and build New Urban villages on it – and I can guarantee you that NOT ONE PERSON in Tazwell will pay the owner of that land to not develop it or else opportunity will be lost.

    All of your blather theories fall totally apart when you substitute Tazwell for Fairfax.

    that's because you do not get it at all RH.

    There are thousands of "property rights" folks living in Tazwell and yet.. not a one of them gets paid to not develop their land and keep it preserved.

    Not a one of them is payed to not pollute.

    None are provided with free roads by others to make sure opportunity is not lost.

    Why?

    Why are your theories total crap in Tazwell guy?

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    jezus you twist things around.

    —————————-

    If no one wants to preserve land in Tazewell there is no market for it. That does NOT mean that there is no land worth preserving: it means there is a market failure, and that is one reason we have government: to address market failures (when they affect the public adversely). there is plenty of open space in Tazewell so there is no adverse effect from not protecting the land and no reason for government to intervene.

    Yet.

    But there is a reason for government to accurately consider costs/benefits so that they will know when to step in.

    —————————–

    Fauquier is just the opposite. There are plenty of people who "want" to preserve land, they just don't want to pay for it. This is the opposite kind of market failure and one the government should address.

    However it is possible that in Fauquier they have missed the Tazewell inflection point and now the cost of preserving land in FAuquier is more than the conservation is worth.

    What the people in Fauquier have not figured out, yet, is that even if you do not pay for th eland you wish to preserve, it still costs money.

    And now we are right back to who gets the benefits and who pays the money.

    It is not a question of if we will pay for environmental protection or not: we WILL pay.

    We will pay X dollars for too little environmental protection and Y dollars for too much Environmental protecton. but if we get it just right we can pay an amount called Z where Z = (X – a) = (Y – b) and the cost of Z is therefor lower and less wasteful than either too much or too little protection.

    Some people think environmental prtection is free. Some think it is their right and that costs don't matter. Some think it will pay for itself through economies or efficiency. Some even think it will pay for itself with new jobs.

    But new jobs means more work, and that means higher costs, not lower costs. The other dreamers are just as wrong.

    Fauquier residents have been told that they do not need to pay for conservation, because it is "free, no cost".

    Someday they will see the truth: that idea is admission of a market failure,and, what you need to fix it is better markets, not more stealing.

    RH

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why are your theories total crap in Tazwell guy?

    ————————-

    They are not. It is just that the prices are different. The market still works.

    RH

  73. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    NO ONE is paying anyone else NOT TO DEVELOP their land in Tazwell.

    Why?

    "Market Failure"?

    yeah… bahawhawhahawhhw

    there are a gazillion places like Tazwell…

    are all of them "market failures"?

    so.. you're saying .. if there is no market for rotten kumquats.. it's a "market failure"?

    I'm snorting in my coffee.. here…

    here's an equation for you:

    crap theory = crap theory

    garbage in = garbage out

    Total Crap Theory – if the theory "works" in Facquier but has a market failure in Tazwell.

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Whether it's Tazwell or Fairfax – no one pays to keep undeveloped from being developed.

    ——————————–

    And then they complain about development.

    I just showed you that the people fo Fauquier are paying $50,000 an acre to prevent development.

    And you still insist that no one pays for preventing development.

    RH

  75. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    no one is paying 50K to not develop land except possibly in la la land or in the minds of those hopeless polluted by rotgut or if they're lucky good vintage wine.

    A PDR/TDR might make some sense in Loudoun but what kind of sense does it make in Tazwell?

    Why would you pay someone who owns 10,000 acres in Tazwell NOT to develop his land in the first place?

    What would the folks who paid get in return for their money?

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    NO ONE is paying anyone else NOT TO DEVELOP their land in Tazwell.

    ——————————-

    And no one is paying them to develop it either.

    It does no mean that conservation in Tazewell has no value or that development in Tazewell has no value. All it says is that the prices are a lot lower.

    But even in Tazewell no one has the right to to say "I'm going ot preserve you rland aagianst your will.", without paying whatever pittance the land is worth.

    Tazewell no doubt has a soil and water conservation district. The soil and water boards are non-profits and they "cooperate" with government and citizens. primarily waht they do is provide informaton about how you can get paid for various activities through cost sharing grants.

    The Virginia Open space Land Act authorizes the purchase of conservation or open space easements, and property and estate tax benefits for those owners who donate easements on agricultural, forest or other open space lands. Last I knew, it's provisions still apply in Tazewall.

    The Virginia Land Conservation Foundation provides matching grants to nonprofit organizations to buy interests in land.

    And yet you are telling me that no one buys land to preent it from being developed. That this is a stupid idea.

    And all I'm saying is that no, it is a generally accepted idea.

    The problem is that it isn't universally accepted, and so we still manage to take value out of land by preventing its development, without payment. we take other peoples money from them without paying them. We take the opportunity to make money from them without paying for the opportunity, either.

    You don;t pay the same amount for th eopportunity as you would pay for the land. You don't pay for a purchase option (the opportunity to buy land) as much as you would pay for the land, but you do pay something.

    That purchase option is just a piece of paper, but it has value. and if you take it aay from someone, then you owe him money.

    When that doesn't happen, it is wrong, and it is exactly equivalent to stealing, justas if you stole that piece of paper.

    RH

  77. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    requiring development to mitigage it's impacts is not preventing it – not in Tazwell and not in Loudoun.

    If that were true, Fairfax would still look like it did 40 years ago and we know it does not so the development "restrictions" did not prevent development.

    but it did foster more vigilant taxpayers like TMT who realizes who pays when the development does not mitigate it's impacts.

    and we know in Loudoun what happens when VDOT steps in an tells voters what the impacts of large scale development will be in terms of infrastructure costs.

    and no one one is paying these developers to not develop either.

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    requiring development to mitigage it's impacts is not preventing it – not in Tazwell and not in Loudoun.

    ———————————-

    You miss the whole point.

    The forty year experiment between Loudoun and Fauquier show us that developments only impact is to make the citizens wealthier.

    I don't have any problem with development paying its own TRUE impact. As explained above, I think that impact is a lot smaller than some people seem to think, and a lot smaller than proffers reuired in some locations.

    In fact, based on the economic loss, you could argue that it is prevention of development that has impacts that should be managed.

    Probably, both situations are true. Some development causes more impact and needs more mitigation than other development. Some development prevention cuases more mpact than others.

    But, unlike yourself, I believe in equality of policy. Where prevention of growth causes impacts, that should be mitigated (paid for) same as any other publicly imposed cost, including prevention of growth.

    As pointed out above, it is going to be paid for one way or another anyway. We may as well get an accounting that is as accurate and equitable as possible. The best way to do that is through markets, auctions, and other methods of trade. But fair trade requires, first of all, that you have some expectation that what you own will be protected.

    By my analysis, I figure residents of Fauquier are paying $50,000 for every acre protected, and that is only for lost income and property value, on a per capita basis. But the actual cost is much higher than that because Loudoun now has so many more people. If they each have more income, and higher retained wealth (property) after taxes, than the (fewer) citizens of Fauquier, then the true wealth generated by development is several times higher than the per capita figures indicate.

    Residents of Loudoun pay higher taxes than residents of Fauquier, but the have more to pay taxes on and more topay taxes with. Their taxes cold be considerably higher and they would STILL come out ahead of Fauquier residents.

    So, explain to me again what it is you think the negative impacts of growth are. And let's be fair about it. I will concede up front that my measures are ONLY income and assessed property values. Fauquier has CHOSEN over a long period of time to give some of that up in exchange for intangibles. Whatever we call those intangibles, we can now see pretty well what the price is. What we cannot see is whether Fauquier residents are carrying that burden proportionately to the benefits recieved.

    I would make the SAME aregument about whether developers are carrying the burden of THEIR fairly, but I suggest that if we had any kind of rational accounting we would find those "impacts" are probably mostly benefits.

    If it costs $50,000 an acre to preseve land and you can make $2 million an acre by developing it, then those that get the benefits can easily pay those whose (opportunity for the same) benefits get (permanently) displaced.

    Or, we can do as some other states have done and redefine conservation so that we recognize it more as a savings bank where future withdrawals are expected. Those states have outlawed permanent conservation easements in favor of 99 year leases.

    RH

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "To create a sustainable world, we need everyone's cooperation. If we are going to get that cooperation, we need to acknowledge equal rights to all of the world's scarce natural opportunities. To make equal rights meaningful, the world must develop a concept of environmental equality that takes into account all appropriations of scarce natural opportunities – land, fish, oil, gold, diamonds, polluting, the frequency spectrum, fresh water, having children, greenhouse gasses, geosynchronous orbits, etc., and we need to have compensation from the nations that appropriate more than their shares to those that appropriate less than their shares. To do the accounting, we should develop markets that would reveal the scarcity value of as many of the resources as possible."

    Prof. Nicolaus Tideman

    Second international conference on environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability.

    —————————–

    If we need to have compensation from nations that use more than their share to those that use less than their share, why would we not apply the same logic within nations and apply it to individuals?

    After all, Larry, this is exactly the argument you make regarding unequal transportation funding: that we need an accurate accounting of what comes from where and goes to where.

    I'd only suggest that we recognize that accounting is expensive. When it costs more to track the transactions than the transactions are worth, then it is time to stop.

    Likewise, when the cost of environmental protection is more than the damage it prevents, then it is time to stop.

    But, any way you slice it, in order to make payments and trade property, you need to have the property properly defined and protected, and you need to have a market.

    RH

  80. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The forty year experiment between Loudoun and Fauquier show us that developments only impact is to make the citizens wealthier."

    WRONG on ALL counts – as usual.

  81. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "cooperation" means exactly that.

    you must make your case to the others for them to accept.

    "cooperation" is not when you tell them you are right and they are wrong and you'll use the boot of government to make them do what is right.

    That's your problem.

    You won't say it outright but that's essentially what you are advocating.

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    more vigilant taxpayers like TMT who realizes who pays when the development does not mitigate it's impacts.

    —————————

    I will readily agree that Tyson's is a special case.

    But we cannot paint EVERY development with that same paintbrush.

    Protecting Yellowstone and Yosemite is a special case, too.

    But we cannot paint every place a civil war bullet was fired with that same paintbrush either.

    There are serious voices out there that believe ALL devlopment in the Chesapeake wateshed should be stopped: that managing growth is not enough and it must be prevented outright. What they seem to froget is that ALL growth is going to vfall in SOME watershed.

    There are serious voices out that that beleive we should halt all land application of manure, and septic systems fall in that category. What they forget is that manure WILL go somewhere.

    Such people can get waya with this kind of thinking only because they do not have to recognize the costs they impose on others.

    RH

  83. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I will readily agree that Tyson's is a special case.

    But we cannot paint EVERY development with that same paintbrush."

    Tysons is NOT a special case. It's no different that the defunct Loudoun County plan to to a massive rezone while pretending there were no transportation impacts.

    The only thing different about Tysons is the scope and scale but at it's core, it's the same exact problem with most intensive development and that is that such development will generate additional automobile traffic that will burden the existing infrastructure and without improvements, it will become overloaded.

    the same exact thing happens to a place like Tysons whether it's one single giant proposal or the equivalent occurs incrementally over time gradually.

    development creates a need for infrastructure.

    this is a simple fact.

    people who make a profit at building and operating developments are not going to easily convince local taxpayers to pay for what amounts to infrastructure to serve the development.

    That's a cost of business just like plate glass windows and bathrooms.

    the way you pay for these things is by embedding them in the costs of the goods & services that you sell – to the people who use your facilities and the infrastructure that serves it.

    Now days, most developments pay proffers, establish CDAs and Special Transportation districts such that the infrastructure is provided up front – and then each customer helps pay for it every time they buy something.

    it's a good system and it works – across the country.

    but it does not keep developers from trying to get taxpayers to pay as the case with Tysons and Loudoun with their failed project.

  84. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " There are serious voices out there that believe ALL devlopment in the Chesapeake wateshed should be stopped:"

    you've got the blather machine running on "hi" again.

    There are serious voices out there that believe that we need to deal with the runoff issues from non-point and point sources that end up polluting the bay and rendering it unfit for normal aquatic life.

    there are and have been for some time, "crazies" that are opposed to any development at all… offset by the "property rights" crazies at the other end of the spectrum.

    we ignore both and try to find solutions.

  85. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Where is the "cooperation" for people who have been downzoned without compensation six consecutive times?

    There is no cooperation in that: it is stealing by mob rule. Now, if there were a market for downzoning, then those who want it could buy all the downzoning they want and can afford, at a price that is cooperatively agreed on.

    Your argument about "cooperation" is jsut more stealing by mob rule and claims for superior propertyrights. It makes me want to puke.

    All I'm suggesting is a system with truly equal rights, which can be bought and sold cooperatively, and which are protected equally for everyone.

    You and I, or someone before us had proerty with the right to build on it. Which they di and we now enjow the benefit of that. Now, we agree that our neighboer should not hvae that right soe we take it away from him, for our benefit. We can do that because we outnumber him and he doesn't have to agree. He has to convince us that we are hurting him, and we don't have to listen. We don't have to convince him of anything.

    We get what we want from him for free, and it does not affect the rights we already used up a bit.

    Puke. Puke. Puke.

    RH

  86. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Where is the "cooperation" for people who have been downzoned without compensation six consecutive times?"

    that's the way our system works.

    they were never entitled to the original upzones in the first place either.

    the question is – what are they ENTITLED to?

    and that question is decided by our current form of government.

    …which you keep saying in a round-a-bout way – ought to be replaced with a dictatorship.

  87. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    there are and have been for some time, "crazies" that are opposed to any development at all… offset by the "property rights" crazies at the other end of the spectrum.

    we ignore both and try to find solutions.

    ——————————–

    Those are not the same kind of crazies. The no development no pollution types want to get what they want by any means, including arson, vandalism, and government backed force.

    The property rights "crazies" are perfectly willing to sell to the other crazies whatever it is they want, can define, and can afford.

    And once a property rights "crazy" sells his property to some conservation crazy who would otherwise steal it anyway, then that property rights crazy will still be EQUALLY crazy about protecting the other guys property.

    We already have a solution: it is called buying and selling property that is protected from theft, each from the other, equally.

    RH

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that's the way our system works.

    Yeah, and slavery was once a god given right.

    Anyway you are wrong. Our system is based on and requires payment for property taken.

    the fact that this does not (always) happen is an idincation that our system is broken – not that it works.

    RH

  89. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Those are not the same kind of crazies. The no development no pollution types want to get what they want by any means, including arson, vandalism, and government backed force."

    ha ha ha ha ha

    yeah, right.

    we don't care what kind they are. If they go off the ranch, we put them in the slammer.

    the only think different these days is that with the internet they have their blather spasms online.

  90. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Anyway you are wrong. Our system is based on and requires payment for property taken."

    and our elected government does just this and the way we do it is supported by most property owners.

    you get to make your argument.

    you get to convince others of the correctness of your views.

    but at the end of the day, you do not have a dictator to enforce your beliefs on others.

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they were never entitled to the original upzones in the first place either.

    ——————————

    Nonsense. Of course they were. The county put a zoning plan in place. property was bought and sold under that plan and the sales were sanctioned and recorded by the county. Subsequently the county took away part of the value of the property whose transfer was authorized, sanctioned, and recorded by the county. The county revoked that permission for the ebenefit of others, and the county owes compensation for the value of property reduced.

    The county has an obligation to protect people's property equally. They cannot do that if they make you property worth more at the expense of my property.

    The obligation to pay for public use of proerty taken is there specifically to prevent the kind of land or partial land grab this represents.

    EQUALLY if an owner buys property designate for one dweeling and wants five, then he should pay for the additional privilege. But that doesn't mean he has to pay some fantastic amount that isn't justified by the costs involved.

    The requirement for payment is not a restriction on government activities, but it is instead a point of inforamtion that informs government decsions: is this really for the public good? Or will we have to raise taxes to make sure everyone gets an equal burden?

    The majority can still do anything they want, provided that they are willing to vote upon THEMSELVES the taxes required to make sure no one gets an undue burden.

    It is going to cost nine uf us $100 a year each if this development goes through. It costs the tenth person $1000 a year if it doesn't go through. If we each give him the Hundred dollars the development is going to cost us anyway, in order that he not build, then we ALL have an equal cost of $100 a year and the majority gets what it wants, which is no development. They tenth guy still doesn't get his development, but the cost to him is the same as the cost to us.

    OR

    He can go ahead with development and pay us each $100 a year, and he nets out $100 a year, as well.

    But if we just say no, you have no right, we keep our $100 a year, he loses $1000 a year and we are stealing from him.

    Let's not confuse the fact that some activities require a permit with the idea that permission can be refused or revoked arbitrarily and capriciously.

    Would you say the county has the right to arbitrarily revoke your occupancy permit – without cause or compensation?

    Driving reaures a permit, but DMV cannot arbitrarily refuse me the permit because I am black. I have to fail the conditions which are published in advance. If the dirvers age is sixtten and the age limit is raised to eighteen the do not go out an revoke the already issued licenses for everyone under eighteen.

    You would argue that such an action would be fair because it punsihes everyone equally. I'd say that those with a permit had already entered and agreement. They may have a vested financial interest that depends on that agreement, like a job.

    If the state suddenly decides it is in their interest to rescind the driving permission then the state needs to consider the (external) costs they imposed.

  92. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and our elected government does just this —–

    Bullshit.

    Show me the payments to any Faauquier citizen, or any citizen, who has been downzoned multiple times.

    ———————–

    way we do it [not pay] is supported by most property owners.

    Back to mob rule again. Don't you ever give up on this? Democracy constrains mob rule for a reason. Democracy REQUIRES equal protection under the law, and "most porperty owners" cannot change that without denying that they stand for democracy, fair treatment, and reason.

    Most property owners upport mob rule that allows them to get what they want without payment and effectively violates the basic principle our system is based on.

    The system we live under is FUNDAMENTALLY broken as long as some proerty is protected differently from other property. If you really want to see FUNDAMENTAL change, this is the place to start.

    RH

  93. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your crazy argument is assymetric.

    Environmental crazies want other peoples rights.

    Property rights crazies only want their own rights.

    You don't see any property right crazy camped out in someone else's tree.

    RH

  94. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You don't see any property right crazy camped out in someone else's tree."

    nope.. they're down at the courthouse spraying spittle all over…

    same obnoxious manners just different venues.

  95. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    way we do it [not pay for restricting other peoples development] is supported by most property owners.

    —————————-

    Of course it is. Most property owners are living in homes where their rights have already been exercised. They don't lose anything and they get something for nothing.

    My mother would call that stealing.

    RH

  96. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: zoning

    The CONSTITUTION of Virginia, the General Assembly of Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia

    they ALL SAY that a county can determine the zoning – UP or DOWN.

    so your "mob rule" IS CONSTRAINED

    and not only in Virginia – in all states – the law is pretty much the same.

    you keep confusing "vested" rights with other "rights" but no matter.. when facts are enemies anyhow…
    Many counties initially applied much denser zoning than they really understood the consequences of.

    They're allowed to change it.

    If the voters don't like it, they can throw them out.

    Those who don't like that are not allowed to replaced the elected with dictators.

  97. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Of course it is. Most property owners are living in homes where their rights have already been exercised. They don't lose anything and they get something for nothing.

    My mother would call that stealing."

    not true. there is more undeveloped land than developed land in most places.

    I have bad news for you.

    Your Mom lied to you and you believed it apparently.

    Santa and the tooth fairy and especially the Richmond tooth fairy are all lies too…

    sorry…

  98. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they ALL SAY that a county can determine the zoning – UP or DOWN.

    And the US constitution says property taken for public purposes must be paid for. The Virginia constitution is thus restrained, and it is apparently ignoring the law of the land, for now.

    You claim that people who recieve upzoning should expect to pay for the privilege and I agree. But as an equal and opposite corollary I also claim, and the constitution supports me, that changes the other direction should be paid for. You think we do and should have assymetric logic in this, and I think it is un-American.

    You claim that development should have to contribute to mitigate the impacts it causes, and I agree. But as an equal and opposite corollary it is only reasonable to assume that anti-evelopment should pay for the impacts that it causes.

    You claim that the public does not have to prove the costs for development impacts it claims, but developers have to prove they have mitigated all costs.

    I claim that without equal burden of proof there can be no equal rights and no true democracy. In Criminal law it is the PUBLIC that has to prove guilt, but in development or land use law it is the eveloper who has to prove innocence: to whatever standard the public requires.

    Whatever burden of proof the developer has to live with should equally apply to the antideveloper.

    You think the impacts of development are well understood, and I think that we not have and never have had an adequate fair and commplete methodology for measuring and quantifying those impacts.

    I also happen to beleive that the "impacts of growth" as popularly understood are grossly overstated. I do not believe that impact fees give adequate consideration to previous taxes paid when services were not provided, and so the "imapct" assessment is one sided and starts and stops at this point in time. I believe the benefits of growth are not included and so the assesment is one sided. I believe there is a built in advantage to, and bias from, those people who already enjoy the benefits of development against those who have not.

    But I also believe that I could very easily be proven wrong given a costing methodology that is fair, consistent, logical, and transparent. Being wrong doesn't concern me because I know that the right answer is better for all of us.

    But your side won't even consider that such a thing needs done because you are petrified that the results won't support your beliefs.

    Unless it involves puts and takes on the gas tax. Then you agree with my argument because it suits your ideology.

    You believe in absolutes (There is no right to pollute). And I believe we can make better decisions with fuzzy logic and markets that have the ability to adapt.

    You beleive the majority rules, and I believe tha majority rules within limits. Even the majority has no right to override those limits.

    You believe your property is sancrosanct and eveyone else's is subject legalized theft. I believe everyone's property is subject to equal amounts of petty theft and we agree to this as gentlemen as a form of tacit barter. I allow you to let one rip and I expect the same.

    Basically I want everyone to have equaly all the same things you want for yourself and the mob exclusively.

    RH

    RH

  99. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "there is more undeveloped land than developed land in most places."

    That hasn't anything to do with this argument. and you know it.

    There are far mowr owners of developed land than undeveloped land.

    That's because their land is "developed"

    That's because they have already "spent" their development rights. Now they want to raid the savings bank of those people (conservationsts and fiscal conservatives) who conserved their property for the future.

    Those who have already develope have no problem in taking away what they know they won't have to give up.

    suppose we chose our open space by fair and equal lottery instead. How many developed proeprty owners would agree to that?

    No, they would say, it would cost me too much. Well, it is going to cost the other guy just as much: it is only a question of money (development rights) spent in the past or spent in the future.

    ——————————

    The argument that growth management has not prevented grwth is also an obvious fallacy.

    RH

  100. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you don't agree to an equal burden of proof, why are you trying so hard to change my mind?

    RH

  101. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "They don't lose anything and they get something for nothing."

    I call it stealing.

    You can call it anything you want, but it will always be a synonym for stealing.

    And don't be talkin about my momma.

    RH

  102. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you keep confusing "vested" rights with other "rights" but no matter.. when facts are enemies anyhow…

    ——————————-

    I'm not confusing vested rights. I only claim that we both recognize there is such a thing.

    I only claim we need a better, clearer, more pervasive, fairer, more complete, and more universally applied definition for vested interests.

    If I buy land zoned for four lots, by the county, and the county concurs with, approves of, and records that transaction, then what kind of twisted logic would allow you to assume that I do NOT have a vested interest?

    All you are saying is that it is OK to steal because the vested interest is not written down. I claim it IS Written down in the zoning code. This whole problem goes aay if you date the zoning regs and make them applicable only to property sold subsequent to the regulation.

    Make a transaction stamp and affix it to he deed at the time of sale. The transaction stamp has a price of ten dollars on it, and it says the county and the buyer agree that the applicable regulationsare those in effect at the time of sale. Having bought that stamp both parties agree as to wht the "vested interests" are, and it meets the requirements of a vested interest because payment has been made.

    NAH. That's too easy. We would much rather have axiety, turmoil, lawsuits and ruination of individuals by the mob.

    We would rather fool ourselves into believeing that we can somehow win a game where the rules change on a whim.

    RH

  103. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Many counties initially applied much denser zoning than they really understood the consequences of.

    They're allowed to change it.

    ———————————-

    They are allowed to change it, but they need to take responsibility for their mistake and not make those who bought property in good faith.

    When we do that we are rewarding those who sought, and got, short term gain and punishing those who invested and conserved the longest.

    The way you even the score in this case is claw back some of the short term gain (through higher taxes or somehow) and distribute it to those who lost their long term gain – you buy back the property rights.

    RH

  104. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They're allowed to change it.

    If the voters don't like it, they can throw them out.

    ——————————

    We already wet throguh that. there is a built in numerical bias towrds developed property owners.

    The affected minority is never or seldom going to be able to put in representativews who will represent THEM.

    Nor should they expect to. Such an expectaton implies that they "own" the elected officials and they have superior property rights that way.

    What we should ALL expect is that whoever gets elected by wahtever party will represent the interests of everyone equally and that means that even when relected by a majority, officials, government, and the law have an OBLIGATION to give equla protection to the property of the minority.

    RH

  105. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    rezoning is not considered a "taking" in the Constitution and and Law. It's a "right" of govt.

    I think if you did not originally pay for the upzone, that you certainly are owed nothing back from a downzone.

    I said developers have to prove what the impacts of their development are and the costs to mitigate.

    It's still up to the local government to decide if they want to accept a proposal for less than that – and they do.

    taxpayers do not have to prove anything because they are not asking for anything.

    the law grants them the right to require developers to provide impact info and allows them to decide – on balance – in the development benefits the community.

    the burden of proof is on the person making the proposal – to prove that their proposal is a net benefit.

    what I basically believe in – is what is in the Constitution and the Law – and Democratic process.

    I do not believe as you do that there should be a 3rd party – a Dictator to impose things on people because you think the people are wrong.

    you are free to believe what you wish.

    you are free to convince others.

    but they are free from you also.

    you cannot force them to do what you think is right.

  106. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " They are allowed to change it, but they need to take responsibility for their mistake and not make those who bought property in good faith."

    If you buy property and get it platted, they cannot downzone it.

    If you buy property for speculative purposes, no one owes you anything – no more or no less than if you bought stock or a business.

    Your dollar bill says it's worth a dollar but in a year it's likely worth less.

    I don't hear you claiming that Uncle Sam owes you the difference.

  107. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there is no bias toward developed property.

    Most folks don't want actions that will undermine the value of their property so they usually won't vote against their own interests.

  108. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    there is no bias toward developed property.

    Most folks don't want actions that will undermine the value of their property so they usually won't vote against their own interests.

    ———————————

    What are you talking about? Of course there is.

    first you say that Most property owners want……

    And then you say there is no bias towrds developed proerty.

    Most property owners live in developed property. In Fauquier there are 65,000 residents, and aobut 6 to ten thousand of them live on farms.

    If they want to sell their farms (for an economically feasible use) and the other 50 thousand want to save the farms (as farms) , what do you think will happen?

    Who do you think this benefits?

    it is not a question of unermining the value of their (developed) property, it is a matter of enhancing the value and keeping their taxes low by keeping on the books a bunch of proerties that everyone admits are paying twice as much in taxes as they get in services.

    It is absolutely a bias in favor of developed proerty and against the minority.

    I have no problem with paying residential taxes AND agricultural taxes on top of that. But I'd like my agricultural taxes to go for agricutural services and not to send some town kid to school.

    ———————————-

    The per capita property owned in Loudoun is worth more than the per capita property opwne in FAuquier.

    How has devcelopment in Loudoun harmed those that developed first, as compared to Fauquier whrer development has been more limited?

    How was the value of property there undermined? This is one reason why I think the proffer calculations are overblown: they include costs for development but don;t subtract for the benefits.

    RH

  109. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " , it is a matter of enhancing the value and keeping their taxes low by keeping on the books a bunch of proerties that everyone admits are paying twice as much in taxes as they get in services."

    it's their choice whether or not to "enhance" and I doubt seriously that taxes are lower but rather higher.

    taxes on AG land is a joke and you know it.

    you pay very little compared to what residential properties pay so saying "twice" is not only not proven but likely false.

    The source of your claims is pretty ironic also.. the American Farmland Trust – cost of community services – is an Anti-Growth group… they OPPOSE developing farmland – no?

    so who is "twisting" here?

  110. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you buy property and get it platted, they cannot downzone it.

    Actually that can be done and has been done. it is just a lot harder.

    So If I buy property for speculation and immediately get some lines drwan on it, tha's OK, but if I don't get the lines drawn, I'm out of luck.

    What is fair transparent and predictable about that?

    What if I buy property with multiple lots and it has nothing to do with speculation, but is merely reserved for future family use? Still out of luck, right?

    Bottom line is I bought something and now I don't have it. This is just quibbling over what represents a vested interest.

    What about "Administrative lots"?

    During the early downzonings one of the ways the county rammed it through was to give (promise) every large landowner that they would have three so-called administrative lots. These were lots for which a specific promise was made: you can develop these lots at any time throguh a simple administrative procedure with no need for expensive subdivsion plans and requirements.

    Those lots were an explicit bargain. A deal in which the county got a huge amount of downzoning but landowners got left with the promise of something tangible. there was no written contract. The county did not go into all the applicable deeds and annotate them with this promise, but they could have.

    Then a subsequent downzoning did away with those lots.

    Even the adminsitrative lots wer no bargain. I knew of one family that got three administrative lotss but they had five children, and it pretty much destroyed that family. There was plenty of land, but there was no where near enough money to get through the formal subdivision process, after which they would be turned down anyway.

    The subdivision processwas supposed to stop the big speculative builders, but now only the biggest builders can afford to even attempt the process. That's good government for you: give the big builders prtection behind a high entry barrier and wipe out you rown local families that have lived there for generations.

    Puke, pUke, puke.

    RH

  111. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your dollar bill says it's worth a dollar but in a year it's likely worth less.

    I don't hear you claiming that Uncle Sam owes you the difference.

    ——————————

    Not a valid arguement or analogy. If I have property with four potential building lots and the market value goes down, I don't blame government for that.

    I have a dollar with four potential quarters in it. I earned a dollar and I paid taxes on a dollar.

    Then one day the government anounces there are only two quarters in a dollar. The government then owes me for the value of two quarters, otherwise they jsut stole from me. They took private proerty for public use, and they cannot do that without paying me for it.

    Thats completely different than if I gan buy a large drink one day and only a medium drink the next. the dollar is still a dollar and it still has four quarters in it, but the person I'm buying the drink with has become less cooperative.

    You would say that as a majority we can force him to give us the large drink, and he has to prove to US what his costs are. And we don't have to believe him.

    I'd say it is his drink and we cannot force him to sell it or take it away from him. If we were smart we would have parked our Dollars in Euros, and then bought back more dolars with them later to cancel out the inflation.

    You wold call that speculation, and prevent me from taking those short term profits.

    I would say that I have a vested interest in my Monies. Whether they are dollars or Euros I expect to be able to buy things with them, including other currencies.

    Whether you have a vested interest or not has nothing to do with whether the prupose of the purchase is speculative.

    RH

  112. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    even in Uncle Sam prints more money an that makes your money worth less?

    I think you are free to speculate but you do not deserve any protection nor shelter from the downsides of such activities.

    if you get so big that your speculation can bring down other people who are innocent then those folks will take measures to limit the impact your activities will have on them.

    you take a safe and secure banking system that allows you to carry one your speculation in relative safety.

    I'm in favor of removing that protection and letting you do your activities totally bare – on your own – without protection from the government nor supply you with a safe banking system either.

    I think once we do this.. we're going to see a LOT LESS speculation… and the ones that continue to.. when/if they get defrauded.. tough.

  113. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it's their choice whether or not to "enhance" and I doubt seriously that taxes are lower but rather higher.

    —————————–

    Why is it their choice to enhance their land at my expense? Isn't that exactly what you say is wrong? I manufacture something and I get the profit but you get the pollution. My profit comes at your expense and I have no right to do that.

    Your property will be worth more if it is close to shopping. Second to shopping it will be worth more if it is close to open space. They enhance the value of their property by keeping the open space, which they don't have to own.

    I don't know what you mean by taxes being higher rather than lower. Even though AG taxes are low, they are a bargain to the community, because they collect those AG taxes for free – no services provided. Not only that but they charge residential rates on farm infrastructure, so farmers pay residential rate for their dairy cows to live in a barn.

    County officials and other "save the farm" advocates routinely say that we need to keep the farms because it keeps our taxes low.

    Everybody but the farmers who pay tice in taxes what they get in services. AG taxes are low, but the joke isn't that they are low, it is that you get nothing for them. And on top of that you pay residential taxes on some AG property.

    Why are AG taxes so low? Because AG property can't earn enough to pay them. If AG taxes are only $4 to $6 per acre thats cheap considering the land might be worth $30,000. But when the land only earns $25 to $100 an acre net that means the tax is between 4 and 24%

    If 24% tax is a joke, I'm not laughing.

    It is not the AG tax that is a joke. The joke is persisting in the myth that when a hundred acre propeerty sells for $9.5 million, that it is a farm.

    It is not a farm and can never be a profitable farm at that price. not until corn is $100 a bushel. But, located right next to Rte 66 exit that $9.5 million could make a very nice and very profitable truck stop, which would pay a lot more taxes than the farm does.

    THAT is the AG tax joke. Sure, AG taxes are low, but that's because they are restricted to AG use. Until that changes, there is a LOT of AG land and farm infrastructure paying a LOT of money to the county (other county residents) for which the farms get NOTHING.

    So. back to my santa claus tooth fairy definition: I had money before, and now I don't have it. I got nothing in exchange, so it must have been stolen.

    Hi neighbor! Good to see you! Enjoying the free scenery?

    RH

  114. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    even in Uncle Sam prints more money an that makes your money worth less?

    Now you are just changing the subject. I guess you gave up on the last argument.

    The corollary would be if the county created more land, making mine worth less, but that doesn't often happen.

    What does happen is that the county creates fewer lots someplaces, and pay nothing for the downzone, then they create MORE lots someplace else and get paid for the upzone, plus they get other benefits.

    If I'm worried about inflation, then the thing to do is go borrow as much money as I can, and put it in anything other than dollars. But a new tractor or bulldozer. pay off the loan with new cheaper dollars and sell the equipment later for more than you paid for it.

    Strangely enough there is a land case involving beach replenishment in front of the supreme court. The state "printed" more land during a beach replenishment project.

    The previous owner bought and paid for a private beach with property to the low water line. But the state claims ownership of the newly created (at state expense) strip of land and the previous owner is now landlocked.

    He still has access to the beach, but it is no longer private. He still has the state as his neighbor, same as before. (the state owns the land that is unederwater, they just improved it by raisng it above water).

    Previosly, anyone could use the underwater state land, they just could not stand on his beach. Now thy can use land in the same location that is above ground.

    My guess is that the state printed more land and made his worth less, but I don't think he has a legitimate beef.

    Except, the state has now created a nuisance. new Beachgoers are not going to be very considerate of his new property line and they will plunk down anywhere on the beach, his or the state portion.

    The state still has an obligation to protct his property.

    RH

  115. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I think you are free to speculate but you do not deserve any protection nor shelter from the downsides of such activities."

    If I buy a hundred shares of stock and the value goes down that is not something I expect to be protected from.

    But if I buy a hundred sahres of pharma stock and a hundred shares of farm stock I don't expect the county to come and take 20 shares from me just because it is farm stock.

    If i buy land zoned for four lots I expect to sell land zoned for four lots whether the price goes up or down. I don't expect to sell land worth six lots any more than I expect to sell land for two lots.

    Nor do I expect any moron to convince me that the loss of those two (potentials) is a normal speculative loss.

    That isn't normal market fluction or an adverse competitive event. That would be insider market manipulation, the county being the insider, and it ought to be against the law, just as it is on the stock market.

    RH

  116. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and the ones that continue to.. when/if they get defrauded.. tough.

    Even when they get defrauded by the government?

    I don't agree with you on this. government has an obligation to protecte everyone's property equally, regardless of the kind of property or how they intend to use it.

    If I buy a camear to shoot porn and it gets stolen, I'm still entitled to file a complaint, and get it back if the thief is caught.

    If there are fraudulent activities in the market, then they need to be policed.

    But if I invest everything I have in Kodak film, right before FUJI and digital cameras, then I deserve no protection from that.

    If I place a buy order to my broker for Kodak and he buys Bernie Madoff instead, then I do (or should) get protected. Even if I'm not protected, someone will be punished.

    RH

  117. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Why is it their choice to enhance their land at my expense?"

    if you are asking for money from them then it is their option to give the money even if in doing so the claim is it will "enhance".

    You cannot as a private landowner force other landowners to give you money.

    the question as to what "enhance" means is open to interpretation.

    In Tysons case, for instance, the folks who live in the residential may not want more intensive uses around them even if it "enhances" their property in value because even with such enhancement, they may well not be able to duplicate the amenities that they enjoy.

    that's why they have a role in the decision.

    the idea that farmers pay more in taxes than they get in services is Grade A BLATHER …ESPECIALLY if they have that land in the land-use category.

    If what you said was true, then areas in Virginia that are 95% farms would, with your theory, all be paying more in taxes than they got in services.

    Pure, unadulterated BLATHER.

    you're not talking about "farms" in the first place. FARMS are what you see in IOWA… 1000 acres in corn with millions of dollars worth of equipment to plant/harvest or a Dairy farm with several hundred cows and a twice-a-day milking operation or a cattle farm with 10,000 head.

    what you're talking about is hobby horse farms for folks who like to piddle and use the tax system to their advantage then complain about how hard it is to make a profit farming.

    "Real" farming is like "real" land-development. You don't whine about the obstacles.. you overcome them and get on with your job.

    there are lots of folks who end up with less money than they started and yes.. many of them would like to blame others.. but in the end.. it's how you choose to not lose it that counts.

  118. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Real" farming is like "real" land-development. You don't whine about the obstacles.. you overcome them and get on with your job.

    ——————————–

    Give me a break. I know a guy who will be happy to tell you how profitable farming is: he gets around $80,000 a year ins subsidies.

    In land development you can make money if the land is worth $30,000 an acre. In farming you cannot.

    That is an obstacle that is insurmountable. It can't be done not even if you are growing opium or pot.

    It is a joke and a bad idea to hold really valuable lend over to farming only. If we decide that is what we want to do for some reason, then we are going to have to find a way to pay farmers enough to keep their most valuable asset out of circulation.

    ——————————–

    " Why is it their choice to enhance their land at my expense?"

    if you are asking for money from them then it is their option to give the money even if in doing so the claim is it will "enhance".

    You have lost the bubble here. it is widely accepted in Fauuqier county that the reason the residentisl areas fight to keep pfarm land open is that it enhances the postion of residential areas at the expense of farm owners.

    Farms enhance the value of neighboring proerties, keep land prices artificially high, support local busonesses, and pay more than twice in much in taxes as they get in services.

    You say that

    "You cannot as a private landowner force other landowners to give you money."

    and yet that is exactly what is happening here with the majority of homeowners controlling and bleeding the minority of landowners.

    ——————————-

    "because even with such enhancement, they may well not be able to duplicate the amenities that they enjoy."

    So they think they should be able to set the priorities, the premiums, and the value of amenities at their discretion and develoeprs have nothing to say about it? it is just yet another way of claiming superieor proerty rights.

    We need a better more transparent and more predictable decision systemthan that. It will benefit everyone because you will be able to see and plan in advance when is the best time to get out profitably.

    I think the Tysons plan is an abomination, but we hae a way to stop it. Form a corporation raise the money and go buy the place. The you can do whatever you like.

    If you cannot afford to do that, then youu have just admitted the the plan the Tysons developers have is better than yours. I don't likeit either, but there it is.

    The farm situation is the exact opposite. The county has a plan that they are enforcing stingently, unlike the tysons situation. And, unlike the tysons situation almost ANY use for some of the land would be a better use than farming.

    The proof is the same: if the county really wants to keep all those farms then they can raise the money and buy them. thenthey can not only look at them , but walk on them and use them for wahtever they like. I'm pretty sure that it would not be farming. I think I figured out one time that it would cost about $1.8 million per non farm citizen to do it.

    If you don't like what is hapening to someone else's land, then put up or shut up.

    RH

  119. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "the idea that farmers pay more in taxes than they get in services is Grade A BLATHER …ESPECIALLY if they have that land in the land-use category."

    Absolutely true. They pay far more in taxes than the get in services, Even if they are in land use. That fact is attested to over and over again by county officials, and other with farm protection interests.

    I think they are smack crazy, because as I point out to them if you really want to keep the farms around, why are you taxing us twice what we cost you?

    Of course I pay more than most other residents: I pay the same amount as them at the same rate on my house and two acres. Most of them don;t have two acres, even if they have a house of equivalent size. then I pay residential rates on five outbuilding,and proerty tax on foour trucks. And then I pay the (lower) land use tax IN ADDITION to all the above.

    It is not a tax break, especially since I am prohibited from using the land for anything else.

    If I just do nothing, at present rates my tax bill would go up around $8000 because I would lose the farm use "tax break".

    I'm not going to make any (or much) money farming, at least not on my land. So the real name of the game is to farm enough so that yo lose less than the additional $8000 the county will take from you if you stop. In a five county area the average farm loses around $2000, so I'm better than average.

    Just ask youself how much time you want to spend in the hot sun doing heavy labor whn youare 65. An not for $8000 you will put in your pocket, but just to avoid being forced to pay another $8000 on top of the first 35 – for land you still won't be allowed to use.

    If you think land use category makes a farm a bargain, then you are truly clueless. My 200 year old rental cottage makes as much in a month as the rest of the farm makes in a year, and it is a whole lot less work and less risk.

    RH

  120. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "what you're talking about is hobby horse farms for folks who like to piddle and use the tax system to their advantage then complain about how hard it is to make a profit farming."

    No, I'm not, and your ignorance is showing. I'm talking about real farms and real neighbors. Big strapping men who have farmed full-time for generations and now simply cannot do it anymore.

    And right next to them are people who work two jobs off the farm so they can get health care and keep the farm afloat. The farm supplies significant additional cash flow to the family but nowhere near enough to live on. It provides even more cash flow to local merchants.

    These people are not whining about haw hard it is to farm profitably, they are telling you flat out it is impossible. Every year they have to wigh the option of gettin gout for 5 million or sticking it out anther year for $30k.

    The people who make money at farming are the contract farmers. They one no land and farm other peoples property. they pick and shoose only the biggest and best places where they can use big expensive machinery to its best advantage. In this aea it is the land that breaks the equation: it is too valuable to farm.

    So who do these guys depend on? Who owns the land they farm?

    Land speculators.

    RH

  121. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh yeah, that land use thing? It costs $120 Administrative fee to sign up for and to renew.

    RH

  122. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    $120 to evade thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes and then complaint that you pay more taxes than services you use?

    who do you think makes up the loss in taxes on land-use properties?

  123. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    $120 to evade thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes and then complaint that you pay more taxes than services you use?

    who do you think makes up the loss in taxes on land-use properties?

    ——————————–

    If it is an adminstrative fee it ought to be no moer than 10 or 15 dollars. At $120 dollars it is a tax that increases the (apparent) land use tax by almost 25%. Calling this an administrative fee is either a lie or an admission of gross administrative incompetence, take your pick.

    —————————-
    You still don't get it. You think residential taxes would be lower if we would just charge full residential rates on farmland.

    If that is true, I still pay the same (HIGHER) residential rates as anyone else. And I pay more residential tax than most people because they charge me for a two acre lot and for all the farm infrastructure.

    And then, on top of paying more to start with, I pay still more in "adminsitrative fees" and taxes, on land that I ma prohibited from using for anything.

    There is no "loss" on land use property because the (admittedly smaller) amounts collected are basically free money to the county, for which they provide zero services.

    The residential portion of land use properties pays the same or more than other residential properties. The "loss" on land use properties accrues to the poor slobs that own the properties, because they pay far more than they cost.

    If you think we would be better off collecting residential rates on agricultural land, then just zone it residential.

    If you think we are taking a loss on agricultural land becasue we are not taxing it at resiential rates, then you must also agree that we should tax residential properties at commercial rates, in order to avoid that "loss".

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More