Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

More Bad Reviews for Kaine’s Transportation/Land Use Package

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Here is more response to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s transportation/land use package, none of it favorable. If there’s any consolation for the Governor, it’s that his opponents are not united in their criticisms — they are focusing on different aspects of his plan.

The Home Builders Association of Virginia is blasting the Governor’s main land use reform as the equivalent of an Adequate Public Facilities requirement for roads. States the HBAV in a prepared statement:

The concept of requiring public roads and other public facilities (public schools, fire and rescue, public libraries, public water and sewer, etc.) to be in place prior to residential or commercial development is a flawed concept. It’s biggest fallacy it that it completely ignores the reality of growth and development. In the natural order of development, the construction of public roads follows residential and commercial growth. Localities neither have the vision nor the resources to build roads to nowhere, which APF growth management authority would require.

The Kaine plan would allow localities to reject rezoning projects that would overwhelm local roads with traffic. When applied elsewhere in the country, the Home Builders contend, the concept has had three dire consequences. It has:

  • Restricted the supply of new housing, driving up the cost of new and existing housing,
  • Worsened sprawl by forcing employees working in the inner suburbs to seek affordable housing at greater distances from the major job centers, and
  • Diminished quality of life by making mothers and fathers spend more time commuting to and from work.

Kaine’s “quick fix,” concludes the Home Builder statement, “will only exacerbate the transportation crisis in Virginia through the exportation of unwanted housing to the more rural areas of the state, clogging those roads.”

Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity-Virginia have denounced the tax increase proposed by the Governor. In a prepared statement, the small-government lobbying group said:

We’re pleased that Governor Kaine has recognized the importance of locking the transportation trust fund and using the state surplus for one-time capital expenditures, solutions which Americans for Prosperity has long-supported. But taxpayers across Virginia are wondering: what part of ‘no new taxes’ did Governor Kaine not understand?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

45 responses to “More Bad Reviews for Kaine’s Transportation/Land Use Package”

  1. Gold_h2o Avatar
    Gold_h2o

    Even w/o Kaine’s Transportation/Land Use Package we already have the following:

    -A Restricted the supply of (affordable)housing.
    -Employees working in the inner suburbs seeking affordable housing at greater distances from the major job centers.
    -A Diminished quality of life because more and more employees spend more time commuting to and from work.

    So, I’d ask, what is The Home Builders Association of Virginia’s “plan” to fix the mess we are in?

  2. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    It would be interesting to see what all of these groups want to do instead in each of four main areas

    Kaines plan is not perfect but it at least 1. makes an attempt at land use to prevent future problems and 2. provides a funding mechanisim to pay for escalating maintanence costs just to maintain the existing transportation network and 3. provides funds for new projects and by his 4. previous transportation board creation tries to evaluate and improve overall transportation issues.

    We can argue about the details of

    1. The land use policy (perhaps some HoD elements)

    2. How the maintanence costs should be funded (less taxes more fees regional transportation districts)

    3. How new projects sould be funded (taxes, fees, tolls)

    4. How should new projects be evaluated to receive funding (state board, regional board, elected, appointed, additional VDOT reform)

    Personally I would like to see greater efforts at reduced government spending across the board before additional money is requested especially when the overall budget has been seeing double digit increase.

    It was interesting to see the response from the builders. I think I have used all of those examples at some point.

    However, those issues are easily solved by having more work places and by “smarter” development collacating residential commercial and business.

    Building in areas that are already at or above transportation network capacity makes little economic sense and adds hastle and frustration to existing residents and business AND to those that would occupy new building.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Gold_H20 – What the HBVa’s solution? You and pay higher taxes and the status quo is maintained and, over time, it gets worse.

    Some of the best people I’ve ever met in business are in the real estate industry. IMO, I suspect that most would support, albeit reluctantly, a balanced plan that takes into account the impact of development on infrastructure and requires reasonable contributions towards public facilities. We need balance; today it is all one-sided.

    But we also have some of the most extreme and greediest people in the real estate industry in Virginia. They have had access to taxpayer-funded fat hogs for so many years that they have come to believe it is their pre-ordained right for it to continue. IMO, the longer that the industry holds out against any changes, the more angry people will become and the more likely that very strict real estate legislation will be enacted.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I noticed something curious about the budget

    On the expense side for road maintenance:

    08 09 10 11 12 13
    370 419 490 493 498 498

    in 08,09 it’s going up by 40-50 million a year

    but in FY 10,11,12,13 … it levels off …

    Then the asterisk * sez that VDOT will be using Fed funds and will reduce it’s “internal” costs

    I think this deserves some explanation from the Govs finance guys…

    VDOT would have to be doing one heck of internal “tweaking” to essentially render inflations ever increasing
    impact to maintenance costs as static.

    I wonder what gives.

    here’s the link to the budget: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/Gov2007TransRevenueProposal.pdf

  5. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    I agree with Toomanytaxes – if the Lords of RE keep fighting change in development patterns, the masses will demand – and get – draconian land use “reform” changes.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Bloggers:

    Virginia is the real looser in this fight.

    Until we create a means to get all of the conflicting parties
    to the table to sort out a common plan to resolve our growth and
    transportation problems, we will all continue to suffer.

    I see nothing that makes me believe this is doing to happen in
    the near term.

    Sincerely,

    Rodger Provo
    Fredericksburg

  7. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The environmental community is still waiting for a meaningful invitation.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I would tend to agree with JW.

    All these many years, the development community has essentially run amok at the GA (and they might well do it again).

    They’ve pretty much called all of the shots even as others like Tayloe Murphy wanted to work together to address the issues.

    All I see right now .. is the home builders throwing down the gauntlet – once again.

    It’s not like those on the other side have been unwilling to meet… ever.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    There’s a little “history” in WaPo this morning about this subject – on a smaller but significant scale:

    “In the early 1970s, a moratorium on sewer hookups was invalidated by the courts. In 1972, when a board with slow-growth leanings took office, members tried to suspend rezonings while planners drafted a five-year growth strategy. Led by John “Til” Hazel, the developer-attorney who influenced the evolution of modern-day Fairfax, the private sector squelched the idea.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502073.html

    Now compare that history with the current rhetoric from the homebuilders:

    “The concept of requiring public roads and other public facilities (public schools, fire and rescue, public libraries, public water and sewer, etc.) to be in place prior to residential or commercial development is a flawed concept. It’s biggest fallacy it that it completely ignores the reality of growth and development.”

    Now THAT does not sound like a plea for “getting together to discuss” … “this complex problem”.

    To be honest, to me, it sounds a lot like the original dialgue with Mr. Hazel.

    30 years ago… people questioned the wisdom of developing without planning for roads and other infrastructure and the building industry not only poo-pooed the concerns but went to court….

    NOW… we have 30 years of “proof” of concept and guess what – the results are not good.

    I have a major quibble with much of their statement but especially so this part:

    “In the natural order of development, the construction of public roads follows residential and commercial growth.”

    “Natural Order”? What the heck is that? Is that THEIR view of how development should proceed?

    This is TWICE illogical.

    First – it violates the very concept of planning. If we did water/sewer that way – we’d be digging up old undersized water/sewer lines every day as development overwhelmed the initial size.

    You have to PLAN for the capacity.

    Their statement sounds just like an argument AGAINST planning itself.

    Second – No one said that you need to build the infrastructure for new development BEFORE it happens.

    What is said is that WHEN and WHERE development occurs – that the infrastructure to support it needs to be provided at about the same time the new development occurs.

    If we had done this simple thing – we would have maintained.

    This is actually being done with the use of proffers and now impact fees.

    What Kaine’s proposal is – is simply codifying this common-sense approach to ensure that infrastructure is provided AS development occurs to MAINTAIN levels of service.

    The builders group, in my view, is choosing to ignore what is being proposed and to, instead, “spin” it as something different.

    No where have I ever seen proposals to require the infrastructure be built BEFORE but instead … concurrent planning to bring it online together.

    At the end of the day – I don’t think this matters because I don’t think the builders really want a dialogue about this anyhow.

    What they’re doing is their usual “shot across the bow” which will be followed by their lobby folk flooding the GA to do their usual …

    I would be interested in hearing from Rodger or anyone else in terms of what they would offer – different to put us all on a better path towards collaboration.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Who is going to pay in advance for this new ifrastructure you plan for if you don’t have the new residents?

    What will happen is that you will be like VDOT: you will have a “plan” that is simply an unfunded wish list.

    You will not be able to build infrastructure without the residents to pay for it (unless you increase taxes). You will not be able to buid residential without the infrastructure.

    You will have achieved exactly what many people want, but won;t admit, a strategic stalemate, in which nothing will happen.

    That will last until we are supporting a lot of construction workers on the dole. As it is, my farm worker is working more here and less on his construction job, but I can’t take up 100% of the slack.

    Nobody likes change, but preventing one kind of change merely means you will get some other kind of change, and you may likeit even less.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the concept is so hard to understand.

    Say a locality decides it’s going to permit development in a certain area and it will be served by water & sewer.

    The locality will then incur some debt to build the lines that will be needed.

    When developers propose development, they can then “buy” the connections that they need.

    This is called a water/sewer availability fee.

    The fee, once collected is used to service the debt AND to add new capacity WHERE that government is also commited to provide accompanying infrastructure – like roads.

    There is no chicken/egg dilemma.

    This is how the vast majority of new development occurs.

    The fly in the ointment is the roads – which the localities do not charge an “availability” fee for because they thought that VDOT would build them.

    The solution is quite simple. Plan the roads and finance them EXACTLY the same way that water/sewer is done.

    This is EXACTLY the way it is done in states like Flordia – and in a few case in Virginia with commercial development and CDAs.

    The CDAs are special tax districts to pay for road infrastructure.

    This works quite well also.

    There is no “undoeable” requirement.

    Plan the infrastructure then have it paid for “as you go” on a fair and equitable pro-rata basis.

    What’s the problem?

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Rte 28 was paid for with a CDA. Have you seen route 28 lately? Rte 66 is backed upr for miles in BOTH directions with cars standing on the shoulder to get on to 28.

    CDA’s don’t guarantee a traffic solution.

    If it works out the way you say, then I would have no problem. Where I think the problem is the part where you say a community decides to allow development in a certain area.

    There is no reason for them to choose to make that decision, unless they are being paid off by the landowners, which is pretty much the situation now. So we wind up back at the point of strategic stalemate.

    On the other hand, if new development has to pay 100% of the cost of new infrastrucure, then the developers will be in the position of arguing that, WTF, we are paying for everything anyway, what is your argument for denying us, now?

    Then we will have to admit that we just don’t want the growth: it isn’t about the money or infrastructure at all.

    Meanwhile, you still have everybody else who is not in an area where “growth is wanted” who are essentially providing services and lending money to the county for free, or even paying extra for the privilege. And, the county will have to show the income to float those loans, and that is going to have to come from higher taxes.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wait a minute … you’re telling me a group that profits from unrestricted development and a group that exists to restrain government revenue OPPOSE the governor’s plan to restrict development and raise revenue? I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I say! Maybe if Gov. Kaine had proposed loosening development restrictions to stop sprawl and cutting taxes to raise money for transportation, these two groups would’ve been happy. It would have the exact opposite effect the governor intended, but these groups would’ve been happy, and we can assume that Jim would instead blog about the favorable reviews the plan was getting.

  14. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I say!

    My shock come from those individuals that think raising taxes and restricting development will fix the problem. The Auditor of Public Accounts for Virginia, Walter J Kucharski has gone on record. He says, in my words, the system is broke. VDOT does not have the authority to fund needed projects or fix priority problems.
    More money will only get us more of the same.

    From the APA report with link:His words and
    Overall Status of Prioritization Recommendations
    While Transportation is developing statewide transportation priorities in VTrans2025, this process without legislative changes will have no direct effect on the allocation of construction resources throughout the Commonwealth. The allocation as set forth in the Code of Virginia will continue to direct the allocation of resources…
    Page 21
    http://www.apa.state.va.us/data/download/reports/audit_local/VDOTfollowup04.pdf

  15. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Miles, ever since the Guv introduced his transportation plan, I’ve been doing straight reporting… just rounding up and replicating the reaction that I’ve gotten in press releases or read in news stories. In the process, I did quote three favorable comments from the Washington Post. (If you identify any that I’ve missed, please let me know and I will note them.)

    The reason that I replicated the Home Builder arguments at such length is not that I agree with them (I agree with parts and disagree with others) but because they are the most substantive criticisms leveled so far at the land-use portion of Kaine’s plan. No sensible person can deny that restricting the supply of housing — however justified in order to mitigate traffic congestion — will drive up the cost of housing.

    Maybe the governor has a good response to the home builder criticisms. If he does, I will transmit his logic with greater fidelity and in greater detail than any other media outlet anywhere, as I have done with the rest of his transportation plan.

    Bottom line: Within Virginia’s current institutional structure, if we try to solve one problem (traffic congestion) in the absence of fundamental reform, we simply worsen another problem (unaffordability and inaccessibility of housing). We can’t solve anything by sticking our head in the sand and pretending that the trade-off doesn’t exist.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think we need to better define the term “affordable housing” because it’s NOT just the sole option of a single family residence on a 1/4 acre in suburbia.

    The market (even with restrictions) provides a wide variety of housing options and prices.

    What we are doing (and attempting to maintain) is to subsidize that sole option – at the expense of others.

    1. – Mortgage Subsidies not available to renters so their tax dollars are used to subsidize mortgages.

    2. – rush-hour sized roads for commuters again, subsidized by those who don’t commute or commute “small”.

    There is no way.. with the current funding regime to keep up – financially.

    We’d have to have a gas tax in the range of 50 cents or more per gallon to generate the kind of revenue that would be needed to build the scope and scale of required infrastructure.

    Kaine’s transporation budget generates a 500 million one-time infusion for 2007 and then 1/2 of future surpluses (if they continue).

    Divide this money up 131 ways – counties+cities and it’s a drop in the bucket.

    The best best we’re going to get out of Kaine’s budget is some money for some “smart” and urgent projects and little more.

    I don’t see BIG money to build projects like we used to even in Kaine’s “controversial” budget.

  17. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    The governors plan provides an option for localities to say no to development. It will be up to the localities to balance addressing traffic congestion and affordable housing. Several localities have affordable housing initatives which include buying property outright and having new development set aside a certain percentage as affordable.

    The interesting theme through all of these isssues is the role of government. Some argue for more of a free market approach and state that government makes these complex issues worse. Others feel government should be involved and helps to solve these complex issues.

    As has been stated before the Home Builders have a particular interest to protect. It is also always much easier to complain about situation than to provide an alternative.

    __________________________________

    Looks like the HoD is going to try the bond route as an alternative to Kaines tax/fee plan for issue priority 2 and perhaps some regional funding districts for issue priority 3.

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Having new development set aside a certain percentage as affordable is not a county initiative. It is the county, passing the costs of their responsibilites off onto the remainder of the population that buys new housing. By any definition, it is an exaction, and ought to be countd as part of their proffers.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Government makes these complex issues worse. They are so complex that no one, least of all the government, can apply enough horsepower and money to solve them all. As EMR points out, we can’t even agree on the proper vocabulary to define them, let alone allocate all the various costs.

    The free market solves this in a way we may not like. However, it allows many people of many persuasions, and various degrees of horsepower to apply their energies to the problem at hand.

    Solving many little problems is how you solve big complex ones.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    if, by affordable housing, we REALLY do mean affordable shelter….

    then one and two bedroom apartments where there is centralized water/sewer and transit and other infrastructure and services IS .. much more affordable ..than 1/4 acre lots whether they are close-in or 50 miles away.

    A “near” apartment is even going to be more “affordable” than a “far” single family residence on a 1/4 acre – not even counting commute time or the need for rush-hour commuting infrastructure.

    Some places are now using the term “workforce housing” in an attempt to differentiate it from … “other” kinds of “affordable” housing.

    And if we’re really talking about “workforce housing” – its a WHOLE different issue.

    The problem with the phrase “affordable housing” is that there is INTENT on the part of the housing industry to DEFINE it in different terms from what it really IS.
    (same deal with “smart growth”)

    “Affordable Housing” is builder-speak for the traditional “American Dream” SFR on a 1/4 in a subdivision with trees in the back yard and cul-de-sac roads …. an “enclave” shortcut for those not wealthy but “fortunate”.

    I’m not opposed to this concept nor am I opposed to anyone who has aspirations of obtaining this slice of the pie.

    What I am opposed to – is public policies that prioritize and subsidize this particular option over others.

    It ought to be a balanced playing field where each of us decides what we want and can afford both in terms of money and time – and not expect public policy to essentially discriminate against those who are perfectly willing to make those choices in favor of those who want government “help” to get their version of “affordable” housing.

    Builders say that they are merely responding to the market. Fair enough. But we’ve used government polcies to favor a choice that is made less expensive by subsidies and not market forces.

  21. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I agree with Ray’s last remark. Our society and economy are too complex for local politicians and planners to do a very good job of regulating them. In order to maximize the social good, we need to rely upon free markets to the greatest extent possible. That’s why my consistent position has been to level the playing field through making everyone pay their location-variable costs, insisting that transportation projects of all types pay their way, and reducing the power of county planners, or at least requiring them to permit a greater range of development types.

    Some planning and regulation is inevitable and necessary. But rather than assuming that more powers and regulation are the answer, we need to consider the possibility that, in some cases, less is better, and in others that planners need to focusing on other things (like planning for balanced communities).

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    By far and away the largest locational cost is the infrastructure that serves people who commute twice a day between home and work.

    The longer one commutes – the more highway is needed. The more people that do this – the more highway capacity is needed. The more people who do this at rush hour – new roads and/or seriously widened roads are needed.

    It is THE …. CENTRAL issue with respect to money, budget, legislation and land-use decisions. Neither schools, nor libaries, water/sewer, etc are even a “blip” on the scale comparitively.

    The transportation issue is the proverbial 600 lb gorrila.

    The reason WHY we have the infrastructure deficit is that we have … essentially refused to allocate the ACTUAL road costs to new home buyers and commuting road-users.

    The reason WHY we have rufused to allocate this cost – is stated by many, including Ray that it is “too expensive” and “unfair” to new home buyers because it makes housing “unaffordable”.

    Then.. by some leap of reasoning that I cannot fathom….

    this, in turn, causes people to move farther away to obtain affordable housing.

    Why do people drive so for for a house they can afford to buy rather than rent?

    The answer is quite simple. “Rent” is lost forever whereas a mortgage is an “investment” that will grow in value.

    The problem is that the most disruptive of ALL the goverment attempts to regulate and manipulate – THIS one is the fuel behind why people drive – hours on congested roads.

    If we REMOVE the ability of exurban counties to manage growth [or choose your own descriptive term residential housing growth will explode – making the current situation tame by comparison.

    Even WITH restrictions – their growth rates are on the order of 5-6% meaning their populations are nearly doubling every 10 years. Growth – at this rate – makes it virtually impossible to upgrade local roads fast enough to keep up EVEN if adequate money were collected.

    We need to be honest enough with ourselves – to ask what is actually FUELING the growth of owner-occupied housing. It’s because we can write off the mortgage interest.

    My point is that we have essentially disrupted the market – such that many “downstream” outcomes are the result and now we are trying to attack
    the problem – not at it’s roots – but the symptoms….

    So – we’ve lost the “let the market work” argument from the get-go.

    “Affordable” housing is NOT the same as “Investment” housing but the two are being linked together as one and the same not only by the housing industry – but ourselves.

    POGO – we have met the enemy… yadda yadda…

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I wanted to point out that in my case, just because I point out something does not mean that I necessarily oppose it or favor it.

    With the Mortgage Subsidy – what I advocate is that we RECOGNIZE it’s role in the “let the market work” argument.

    Whether I think it is good or bad (I have one for instance) – is different from what I think is realistic (or not) in terms of change.

    i.e. REAL equations:

    “get rid of mortgate subsidy”
    – when pigs fly

    “raise the gas tax 20 cents”
    – when hell freezes over

    “people will pay road TOLLS”
    – yes, even though they complain

    “people get upset about tax increases”
    – naw .. they love them… 🙂

    moral of story: if one is serious about change – one has to be realistic about the options

  24. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Jim,

    How does planning balanced communities coincide with your general view of the free market, pay as you go/build and less local planning.

    I see the connection between less local planning and allowing the free market to reign. Are you saying then that there is a natural incentive for having walkable communities combining residential commercial and industrial.

    feel free to link one of your articles

    I guess my question would be is there enough of a critical mass of people that want to live in balanced communities. Its been mentioned before but I think its safe to say families prefer suburiba.

    Also the balanced community hinges on people working where they live and we all know how difficult that is especially with many people in NoVA land having both parents work doubling the problem
    ___________________________________

    I love this statement

    moral of story: if one is serious about change – one has to be realistic about the options

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “No sensible person can deny that restricting the supply of housing — however justified in order to mitigate traffic congestion — will drive up the cost of housing.”

    Exactly.

    Therefore, we should consider the additional housing costs as part of the costs of fixing the roads and other transportation. We need a plan the explicitly considers the balance between these two items. It is a system that we are dealing with, and there needs to be give and take on all sides to reach and then maintain a cost effective balance.

    Nova_Middle_man is right: if one is serious about change – one has to be realistic about the options.

    If families prefer suburbia and government effectively outlaws suburbia, what will be the result? Those that preer to live in certain kind of neighborhood will be able to, but now they will have to compete for space with those that would prefer to live elewhere and cannot. This will raise the costs for all, and both parties will be unhappy.

    Eventually, the proposed plans will have economic and political repercussions, we just don’t know what they will be, yet.

    MAYBE, they will result in less travel, but this is doubtful at best, and the overall reduction is likely to be small. In any case the costs of traffic demand management, whether they turn out to be high or low, should be added to the costs of highway management and stated explicitly so that we can see what it is we are paying for.

  26. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “By far and away the largest locational cost is the infrastructure that serves people who commute twice a day between home and work.

    The longer one commutes – the more highway is needed. The more people that do this – the more highway capacity is needed. The more people who do this at rush hour – new roads and/or seriously widened roads are needed.”

    Yes. No. and Partly.

    Yes, transportation infrastrucure is expensive, however, it IS paid for by those that use and benefit from it. If we don’t have enough infrastructure, either we are ALL going to continue to pay for it, or else we will plan to have a smller section of the population pay much more. If we think we can’t afford to pay what is required, how can we then think that a smaller section of the population can afford it?

    No, the longer one commutes does not necessarily mean more highway is needed. Out where I am, Route 66 is seldom crowded, yet it sits there all day mostly unused. Those people commuting from Frot Royal and beyond are not contributing to te need for more highway, at least not out here.

    They do contribute to the need for more highway (or other transportation) from around Route 50 east. With the growth of jobs in Manassas and Centerville, the center of that equation is moving west, gradually.

    But, suppose all thos people moved to Centreville, and cut their mileage in half. You would have exactly the same number of people driving from Centreville east, and the same road demand in that area.

    It matters not at all where they come from. It matters where they are going and what time they must be there. THAT is what causes congestion of the predictable daily kind.

    So, you are right about the more people do this in rush hour, the more roads are needed, but ONLY if their destinations are similar.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “If we think we can’t afford to pay what is required, how can we then think that a smaller section of the population can afford it?”

    WHO are the two groups?

    which is the larger group and which is the smaller group?

    and … arent’ we talking as much about the capacity needed for rush hour verses the capacity not at rush hour?

    In other words … should folks who drive at rush hour pay the same amount as people who do not?

    or to put it another way .. should folks who don’t drive at rush hour be forced to pay for infrastructure that they don’t use – at rush hour?

  28. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Who are the two groups?

    Exactly my point. There are thousands of groups, all the way down to the indvidiual level. We do not know anywhere near enough about who they are, wher theyare going, and why, to assess anything like equitable charges for each.

    What you are suggesting is that the value of each stretch of road varies temprorally, depending on its use, and we should charge accordingly. We could have time based tolls charged individually, but it would be an enormously expensive undertaking. We could raise the tolls, based on road sensors, to the point that people would avoid the tolls and the road would flow just at maximum throughput.

    It is a great idea, just not practical, yet.

    In order to make that work, we would need some way of alerting the driver as to what he is paying, so that he could make the decision to pull over and stop. We see thi happen on 66 when people arrive at 5 minutes to nine: they pullover and wait because the cost of being ticketed for driving during HOV hours is too high.

    Then there is locational costs. Marshall and Warenton have rush hour, too, but their costs are not as high as Tyson’s. We don;t know what those costs are, but we can find out emprically by just raising the tolls until people don’t want to go there, at that time.

    The likely result is that they will go someplace else, maybe even some place farther away, as long as it is at a lower cost.

    So, if you are going to have dynamic pricing, then you will need dynamic signs to tell you what the pricing is, or else two way transponders and a dash indicator. (I doubt we have enough frequency specrtum for this.)

    Otherwise, you set fixed prices for certain times and post static signs. They might have to be changed monthly, or something. But as soon as you do that, you are engaging some kind of averaging mechanism, which is what you oppose.

    One reason electronic tolling works (and only partially, I point out, because they still have cash tolls) for the Greenway, for example, is that they use a very simplified method: everyone pays the same price, no matter how far they drive. Metro uses a where-you got-on, where-you-got-off method, but this is still far less complicated than one that can charge independently to every location on the fly.

    If you had true electronic, time based tolling you would eventually know who the groups are. But even if you are right, and the highly congested group is the most massive, you would still have a larger portion of the costs foisted on a smaller number of individuals, and you wouldn’t have as much money available to solve their problems.

    Probably, no matter how much money you collect, you are not going to add more highway capacity to some areas. So what is the money going to pay for? More Metro? Fine. What happened to the pay for what you use argument? Every time you induce more people to use Metro, your toll collection drops, then how will you pay for Metro? Oh, right, have them pay their own full costs, too.

    If people wind up either not going, because of the tolls, or going someplace else because of cheaper tolls (which would then eventually rise) then this will affect real estate market values, and that would affect the proposed land uses.

    Round and round we go. But, the bottom line is that what you are proposing is a free market pricing system, for transportation. That can only happen if you also have a free market pricing system for land use.

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I really don’t see any more insurmountable obstacles to electronic tolling and congestion pricing than I see for anyone who has a credit card and electronic transaction processing for other goods and services.

    That’s the beauty of the technology. It’s not just for TOLLING. It’s common and ubiqutous AND a bonus is that in a TOLLING environment.. because your’re using computers .. it can be adapted and configured and re-adapted and re-configured as conditions change.

    Transmitters will continuously transmit the costs and the free market will provide receivers for those who want “more” than a real-time ramp sign.

    And here another really big benefit… TOLL road don’t depend on the gas tax nor are affected by the price of gasoline nor hybrids or even plug-in hybrids….

    they just adjust their fee structure according to conditions and keep on collecting money.

    Finally – under Wamsley’s “Fare Road” – folks could actually accumulate CREDITs for driving at certain times .. that they could then use to pay for TOLLs at other times.

    A whole new industry would come online… helping folks find the cheapest way to get from point a to point b.

    In other words – a true transportation marketplace that reqires nary a single tax dollar… what a concept!

    Heck Ray.. you might be able to put one on your land for a short cut to I-66…

    “Ray’s Super Saver Toll Road”. Our motto “pay a little and get a LOT 🙂

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Larry, how is it that the mortgage deduction favors suburbia? Can’t I just as well get a mortgage, and the deduction that comes with it if I buy a neo-traditional new urbanist home, or a condo, for that matter?

    Isn’t one reason that people buy far out is so that they can get something they can pay off sooner? (and not owe endless condo or HOA fees?)

    I don’t see the logic that says the mortgage deduction favors one kind of home ownership over another.

    P.S. I don’t need a shortcut to 66. They already put the highway and an interchange on what was formerly my property. I like the concept though, do you suppose I can charge toll for all the electricity that is about to cross my land?

    I think you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter whether it is tax dollars or not: we will get the transportation system ewe pay for. If we privatize it, we will get the transporttion system we pay for, and we will pay profits on top of that. I don’t see how that works out cheaper.

    There are not any insurmountable problems to electronic tolling, just obstacles that we have not surmounted yet. Obstacles that will cost a lot of money to really resolve.

    After the FAA gets their system working for something like 60,000 airplanes, look at what that cost and then tell me what it will take to adapt it to the highway with millions of vehicles and thousands of more destinations.

    I do like the idea of getting credits for traveling off-peak. I didn’t pick that up from Wamsley’s proposal.

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Larry, how is it that the mortgage deduction favors suburbia? Can’t I just as well get a mortgage, and the deduction that comes with it if I buy a neo-traditional new urbanist home, or a condo, for that matter?”

    I presume you’ve heard the phrase –
    “drive til you qualify”

    right?

    That’s why.

    Entry level folk cannot afford to buy in NoVa because they cannot quality for the mortgage (and subsidy) so they must rent – which is “lost” when it could have been an “investment”.

    So – the solution is to get in your guy and drive as far as you have to until you can afford an entry-level home to match your entry-level salary and thus qualify for a subsidized mortgage.

    make sense?

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: ” If we privatize it, we will get the transporttion system we pay for, and we will pay profits on top of that. I don’t see how that works out cheaper.”

    They could be operated by a public entity but the are good reasons why it works out cheaper.

    First – only roads that are truly needed get built. So you do away with the problem of collecting taxes from everyone then have those with financial self interests get involved in what projects should be built where.

    Second – congestion pricing actually improves capacity without having to build more lanes.

    Third – you know when more lanes are needed because the “demand” for them is clear AND the money is there when it is needed.

    Fourth – because of better traffic flow – you might actually have better air quality which would allow improving the network infrastructure to remove bottlenecks and optimize signals and other design improvements.

    Without money… or even with money – but not enough… many of these things cannot be done… because the network itself starves for adequate funding and getting that funding from raising taxes is …. problematical… to start with.

    The folks who believe we can get “enough” money from raising taxes are not paying attention to realities and instead they ought to be looking at things that ARE possible…. as a way to go forward.

    How’s that? Did I convince you? 🙂

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There are issues associated with the private ownership of roads, but, at least in Virginia, there seem to be bigger issues with State ownership of roads.

    On page 9 of the December 2005 report, the state auditor said: “In the past, many of the decisions to start or add projects to the SYIP appear to have been motivated more by a project’s popularity or the desire to begin as many projects as possible rather than develop a realistic, deliverable project plan. Transportation staff and the Board did not follow established, objective
    criteria to determine project selection and authorization. They also did not consider available resources for long-term project funding. Policy makers encouraged this environment and the construction program expanded dramatically.” There seems to be some improvement, but the system is still broken.

    Without the crutch of the authority to compel citizens to pay taxes, a private company — indeed, a nonprofit — would not operate this way. This is not about bashing VDOT. It’s a factual statement about a broken system that results in wasting scarce tax dollars. It needs to be fixed before we put more tax dollars into the system. Otherwise, we will simply waste more money.

    I think that the fear of change comes not so much from VDOT and its employees, but rather, from those individuals and entities that have been able to prosper because of the system’s dysfunctional nature. It may be replaying a record that someone doesn’t want to hear, but we live in a state where a big developer addressed a meeting in Richmond by informing the group that he built things and it was the responsibility of taxpayers to fund the infrastructure necessary to support what was built.

    That little anecdote tells the very same story that the state auditor’s report tells. Both statements provide strong reasons for reform first, and then, perhaps, higher taxes. But I strongly disagree with the developer’s statement that it is my obligation to pay taxes to support the developer’s business plans. IMO, most people in Virginia, if presented with the facts, would likely agree with me.

    While there are elements of reform in the Governor’s plans, essentially he is still telling Virginians that they must pay higher taxes to support the business plans of a few, powerful developers. I just don’t think that is right.

  34. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    First – only roads that are truly needed get built.

    Nope. Only the roads that will pay for themselves and more will get built. They might be the same thing, but there might be a huge difference, too.

    Second – congestion pricing actually improves capacity without having to build more lanes.

    Agreed. The max throughput is at about 35 mph and three car lengths apart. If we had variable congestion pricing that works, we could set the price to reach this goal. Unfortunately, with private enterprise running the show, they would set the price at maximum revenue, which could be quite different.

    Third – you know when more lanes are needed because the “demand” for them is clear AND the money is there when it is needed.

    Really? you think there is enough demand in Arlington to pay for destroying a few high rises to make more room for highways that will never be built? We need to face the fact that some areas are “built out”, with respect to highways, streets, and roads. Even Metro can only provide so much extra capacity without also driving the need for more streets, that we don’t have either room for or real economic need for.

    When there is that much “demand” it will be actually for new services, and new businesses, and new homes in new places. But, if the current crop of proposed land use regulations are put in place, then those places will never exist unless the current residents put in place APF first.

    We can only guess how long that will take to happen.

    What really needs to happen is that when that much excess demand occurs in one place, that the money from the demand driven tolls be diverted to provide infrastructure in the “next” place.

    But that will mean that someone is going to pay for infrastructure that they don’t use. They will, however, benefit from it, because the new opportunities will mean that their home town infrastructure is not unduly overloaded. You will note, that this arguent is not too different from thos that ague Metro OUGHT to e funded by those that use the highways, because they benefit from the traffic reduction.

    Unfortunately we now know that Metro is a) more expensive that highway travel,and b) reduces highway travel by a factor of 0.5.

    What does the cost vs demand equation mean in this circumstance?

    Fourth – because of better traffic flow – you might actually have better air quality which would allow improving the network infrastructure to remove bottlenecks and optimize signals and other design improvements.

    AHA. At last we agree on something. It isn’t only VMT that makes a difference. It is the combination of VMT, pollution emiitted to attain that VMT, Time squandered to attain that VMT,
    most importantly, the VALUE delivered for each VMT.

    I submit that the time spent doing my (present) job in Arlingtonn is no more valuable than my time spent doing the same job in Delaplane. Particularly since the instructions for doing that job arrive via e-mail in either case.

    What is it that we are really buying with all my travel?

    I actually like your argument, but I cannot see how it actually applies.

  35. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I do not agree with the idea that it is the citizen’s responsibility to pay for ALL of the infrastructure that is built, especilly if it is solely to support the profits of those tat build things.

    Howeverr, there is SOME nexus betwetween thos tht build things and things that benefit us all. I don’t buy the arguemnt that ALL of the profits of builders and developers come at the cost of others.

    Every time a builder or developer creates a new place, he also creates an opportunity for plumbers, and landscapers, and painters, among others. He creates an opportunity for teachers, and lawyers, and pizza chefs. And burglars and police officers.

    The question we need to be asking, is how much all of that is worth in comparison to what the infrastructure costs us. If we are ever able to answer that question, then we can move down the chain and ask the more detailed question, “What does this cost each of us with respect to what each of us gain?”

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, I would probably be able to find a point of compromise with you as to what level of contribution to public infrastructure should fairly be made by new development. The problem, as I see it in Fairfax County, is that development contributes very little and then turns around and big developers turn around and demand that we all pay higher taxes to maintain the status quo. Indeed, as I’ve noted too many times, Fairfax County taxpayers are subsidizing building permits, land development and zoning services by more than $43 M since fiscal 2003. What if half that money had been spent on a few intersections?

    I’ve attended meetings where some in the real estate industry stand up to tell the “common folk” how lucky we are to pay for the Economic Development Authority’s advertising because all of this commercial real estate development keeps our real estate taxes down, even as Fairfax County reports that the share of total real estate taxes again decreased last year and sits at the lowest level in 15 or 20 years. What a hollow benefit!

    We see our elected officials tout the great negotiations they have conducted on our behalf, only to see the State report that the City of Manassas Park with 11,600 residents collected a full 25% of what million-resident plus Fairfax County collected.

    We see our neighboring counties set their cash proffer targets at levels based on current costs, while Fairfax County either has no cash proffer targets or, in the case of schools, sets them to recover about one-half of historic costs. If cost-based pricing on historic costs for proffers is correct, historic costs for VDOT should also be used to set taxes as well.

    We have a county government that regularly admits that it has no system in place to track compliance with either zoning conditions or proffers bargained. Indeed, the Chairman of the Planning Commission has noted that, because of this major system flaw, building permits are many times issued in a form that negates the zoning condition or proffer. Cash proffer commitments have been known to expire because the county hasn’t a clue as to who promised what and when.

    When the other side suggests that, in the absence of bread, we should all eat cake, the patience of the “peasants” begins to fail. When the lord of the manor offers “nothing,” the vassals often demand “all.”

    It takes two reasonable parties to achieve a balanced compromise.

  37. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    TMT:

    I agree that it takes two reasonable parties to achive a balanced compromise.

    This is the essence of Donald Trumps book “The art of the Deal”.

    I concur with your compaints about Faifax county, because I suffer the same problems you describe.

    We agree that Fsauquier is on a different planet from the rest of Virginia. I agree with all you say obout the development interests, and their unfair “contibutions” to Faifax county.

    I’m not so sure that those complaints apply generally.

    “When the other side suggests that, in the absence of bread, we should all eat cake, the patience of the “peasants” begins to fail. When the lord of the manor offers “nothing,” the vassals often demand “all.””

    This is EXACTLY how I feel about the governance of Fauquier county.

    And it is EXACTLY, why I claim that no single policy fits all conditions.

    Fairfax needs Fundmental Change, and Fauquier needs Fundamental Change in the opposite direction.

    THEN we will achive a balanced compromise.

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s the logic…

    “I’m going to build the biggest porn store in the universe and because I’ll sell a lot.. and pay a lot of taxes and generate spin-off commerce – taxpayers should pay for the infrastructure.”

    The point I am making is that just because somebody “builds” something does not mean that it is necessarily a “good” thing or a good “fit” for where they are proposing it.

    And it takes quite a bit of arrogance to suggest in essence – that “I”M going to plop down something of considerable footprint that I THINK is a “good thing” no matter what citizens think … so pay me now for the infrastructure.

    Ray think…you don’t even need this conversation. Just PLOP it down without ANY negotiation about infrastructure – ipso facto – taxes are automatically taken from folks and used to build it.

    It’s true – if we required 100% citizen support – nothing would ever get built because even one person’s gored ox – real or imagined could stop it in its tracks.

    This is why we have standards – that apply to all – rather than judging each proposal so uniguely that any justification can be used to deny it.

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: build infrastructure, collect…then use it to build the next… collect…etc.

    Yes Ray… this is what I have been saying.

    We do this now with water/sewer.

    Counties will even go into debt to build the line – as long as the cost gets recouped by hook-up fees.. which go into a fund to build new lines.

    We need to do this with local roads and other infrastructure.

    If we did this – there would be absolutely no need for APF .. AND more important, if development was actually mitigating it’s impacts and LOS was being maintained, there would not be opposition either.

    So now.. I’ll ask you who should pay for doing this? I say – do it like we do water/sewer hook up fees.

    New buyers pay this fee. Once they are hooked up – ALL users of the service pay for the operating costs.

    You say that this is not fair and that existing residents should pay for new ones – no matter what the rate of growth… if a gazillion people want to move in…fine and dandy… just raise the property taxes to pay for them…

    Ray … isn’t this why people FLEE Fairfax???? first.. new development that does not mitigate it’s impacts, LOS (quality of life) deteriorates..then taxes go up….

    Did you know that in Fredericksburg – the one type of residential development that they will approve – is …. age-restricted – empty nesters – and even though we’ve built a ton of it… there are waiting lists – of folks from NoVa…..

    Fredericksburg wants these folks – because they pay more in taxes that they use because they don’t have kids – which cost, on average, the county 7K per kid per year than their parents pay in property taxes.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray,

    Fairfax and Fauquier are the end points on the line. Neither county’s policies are fair, reasonable or right. I would agree that many other counties, from Arlington to Spotsylvania, have taken more responsible and reasonable steps to address development and to protect the existing community. Fauquier appears to operate in a near feudalistic manner – protect the rural lifestyles of the rich by restricting the land use rights of the the vassals. Fairfax operates on the level of Chicago or New Jersey. Make sufficient campaign contributions and we’ll let you do anything you want. Neither county is right.

    This is not to say that reasonable people cannot disagree as to what is the proper balance. Likewise, route selection of the same tool in every case may not work either. For example, while Prince William County regularly seeks cash proffers, it recently elected to negotiate for a school site in community where that was a larger need than cash.

    Contrast that to Fairfax County where Gerry Connolly brags that he has obtained many proffered parcels for schools, except that most of them are not ususable for schools and the schools have a ten-year unfunded capital needs of $1.3 billion, according the the recent CIP.

    Personally, I can’t wait until I can retire and move to some place where balanced government exists. And I suppose that the price I pay for a home will include, at some level, some contribution to infrastructure.

  41. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    So I have to ask an ugly question about Fauquier Politics and their iron-grip on development….

    Where is T’l Hazel and his clain – who apparently live on scenic parcels on Fauquiers land-use policies?

    It would seem that given his “success” in Fauquier that such a person could easily replicate that experience in Fauquier if he so chose…

    educate me Ray. 🙂

  42. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    DANG! “given his success in FAIRFAX”

  43. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    In Fauquier, the county has determined that only 15% of the land may be used for development, and they originally set aside what they call Service Districts where this growth is to occur. In areas outside the service districts only 15% of each lot may be subdivided. The number of lots that you may use is based on a sliding scale: the larger the original size of your lot, the fewer building rights you get, proportionately. You still get more lots, but not as many as if your original parcel was two parcels of half the size.

    As I understand it, the Hazel family originally owned a farm where Georgetown is located today. Later, they owned one near Baileys crossroads, and then Tyson’s.

    The Hazel family owns considerable land in Fauquier today, but it falls under the same rules as everyone else. I believe that some of it is actually in conservation easement. I suspect they have neither the desire, the will, or the need to subdivide or develop the farm.

    I think it is located adjacent to other areas that have already been protected, and even Til Hazel would have a fight on his hands if he tried to develop anything major there.

    I’ve never met him so I don’t know what his politics are, but I suspect that he thinks landowners should have certain rights. He recently filed a suit against having the power line cross his farm based on the idea that landowners without conservation esements are being discriminated against, and that this has resulted in a longer route than neccesary.

    I can see why the power company would want to avoid easements: with an easement, they have to negotiate with the land owner and the easement owner. And since the easemens are generally placed with the help of federal and state tax credits, the government has an interest in not seeing their money wasted.

    Accordingly, there is state law that says eased property tha is violated must be replaced with another easement elsewhere. This raises the cost of crossing eased property and places a disadvantage on those that have preserved their property at their own expense. (Regardless of their future intent, one way or the other.)

    One has to wonder what this area would look like if Fairfax, PW, Loudoun, and Spotsylvania all followed the 15% rule. EMR would say that there is plenty of room in 15% of Fairfax for all its people to live, but I have a hard time imagining it.

  44. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Clearly developers who get rezonings should pay substantial proffers, I’m not convinced that they should have to pay 100% for everything that is new. I believe existing residents should have protection from sudden increases in taxes caused by the capital requirements of new infrastructure. I think that protection can be obtained by a 5% cap on the increase in tax payments for each individual. That way it would be 20 years before existing residents feel the full impact of cost increases caused by growth.

    I also beleive that if the county expects to get paid for upzonings, then it should expect to pay for downzonings.

    I think there is such a thing as “built-out”, but I’m not sure that 15% qualifies. If the county feels it has some need for keeping 85% undeveloped, then it should do something to help it stay that way, instead of treating it like an enedless grab bag with respect to taxes.

    I think age restricted housing should be illegal, as it is discriminatory. Anyway, what are you going to do when some old geezer gets himself a trophy wife? Age restricted housing is really bad policy.

    I believe we are headed down the path to more controls and more government, not less, and I think we will pay the price for it.

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “5% cap on the increase in tax payments”

    I WISH…. Our taxes have gone up at a much higher rate – not because of increases in the tax RATE but increases in the property appraisals.

    70% of Spotsylvanians taxes go to the school system… Ditto with proffers.

    re: age-restricted “fairness”

    there are loopholes…. only one has to be a geezer….

    but in terms of fairness – a substantial amount of OUR growth is Families who cannot afford a SFH home in NoVa.. so they move here so they can afford a home – and then join the thundering herd north every morning at 0’dark thirty…

Leave a Reply

Read More