Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Never Fear, the Rebellion Is Here!

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

We’re a day late, but better late than never. You can check out the February 20, 2007, edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine here, and you make sure to never miss an issue by subscribing here.

Transportation Abomination
Mutant offspring of a tortured political process, the transportation compromise before the General Assembly will do more harm than good. It needs to be strangled in the crib.
by James A. Bacon

Looking Down the Road
Even as the General Assembly finalizes its political short-term response to transportation finance challenges, the long-term has arrived.
by Doug Koelemay

The Transportation Tax Panic
The transportation package backed by House and Senate Republicans would raise taxes and create unaccountable regional governments — just to help the GOP survive the next election.
by James Atticus Bowden

What About the Children?
In vilifying Walter Stosch’s tuition grants for disabled children, opponents decry the impact on schools, teachers, principals, even lawyers — but never the children.
by Chris Braunlich

Slippery Slope
Virginia’s Republicans are backing higher taxes and bigger government, ostensibly to save themselves from electoral disaster. They are taking the path to minority status.
by Phil Rodokanakis

Falling Short
The transportation bills before the Senate and House of Delegates conferees fall short of the fundamental reforms needed in transportation planning and priority setting.
by Stewart Schwartz and Lisa Guthrie

Reforming Regional Government
Regional governments in Hampton Roads have a say in taxes, tolls and major investments in critical infrastructure, but the public is largely excluded from decision making. Here are some remedies.
by Reid Greenmun

Nice & Curious Questions
Tea Leaves and Lifelines: Predicting the Future in Virginia
by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

23 responses to “Never Fear, the Rebellion Is Here!”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Working my way through the “Zine” which is very excellent as usual!

    Reids article first.

    Very excellent and a “must read” for Roger or anyone else who believes that a State Level planning agency and more money are the solution to our challenges.

    With regard to Reids analysis of the problems.

    Any County… has issues that center on County Policy verses administrative implementation of those policies.

    The trick is not micro-managing but at the same time not letting Staff, in essence, define policy by their implementations.

    And I’ve seen this in action when the Head of the Water/Sewer department was utilizing customer monthly fees to essentially subsidize new hook-ups.

    There was a major dust up when the BOS was asking WHO decided this to be county policy – and the answer was that by the BOS not laying down such a policy – they essentially delegated it to Staff.

    Okay.. so take this one step further to where “STAFF” is the folks in the Regional Authority AND not only do they know MORE about.. the intricacies of transporation funding.. pots of money…etc.. very complicated.. but the delegated Policy Board is pretty much clueless and that is just dandy with the Staff who can and will and do run amok.

    I know this from our own Fredericksburg MPO where STAFF was dictating POLICY rather that implementing it – because the Governance folks – the designated BOS folk – saw meetings – as meetings… part of their attendance duties rather than exercising their roles as decision-makers.

    So 50 million dollars a year was allocated and prioritized by a small select group of folks who were NOT acting in the best interests of the Region in terms of congestion relief.

    Decades-old congestion trouble spots were routinely ignored while sexy new infrastructure – for economic development was built instead.

    Now the are broke and whining to the state to “step up to the plate” and help Fredericksburg pay for their “transportation crisis”.

    I’m quite sure this is small potatoes compared to HR/TW but the essence is the same.

    Frankly I don’t see how regions can do business without Regional Policy .. AND Implementation which includes not only decisions but decisions about when/where/how to spend money in support of Regional benefits.

    But if you cannot trust these guys nor the process… then what next?

    You can be sure – they’re not going to be defunded. Actions at the Fed and State level will deliver money to them.

    The disaffected can show up at referendums for new money and stop it there.. but it won’t put these Regional Authorities out of business.

    Reids “solutions” … I dunno.. I think they are correct but I don’t see how they get done.. because in essence you’ve got to convince the FOXes already in the henhouse to agree to put up barriers to foxes….right?

    I’ll say one thing – it is worth citizen groups from the various regions combining to strategize about how to push back the bad guys.

  2. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Thank you Larry.

    I especially like this point you made:

    “it is worth citizen groups from the various regions combining to strategize about how to push back the bad guys.

    I would simply add that what I witness isn’t so much “the bad guys” as business leaders seeking to guide public policy to benefit their bottom line, with the view that the “public” are little more than whining sheep that must be lead to the barn to be shorn as often as possible.

    The challenge in organizing grassroots seems to be both the difficulty of herding cats combined with myopic blinders focused on local, parochial “needs” – and or “wants”.

    The other challenge is when discussing the true history of “regionalism” is that many everyday folks tend to view those that expose the inner workings of these cookie-cutter “strategies” (or “road maps”) comprised of all-appointed regional authorities with taxpayer-funded “professional staff “are designed in an intentional effort to emasculate the power of voters, and, at the same time, transform local governments into “service providers” instead of “decision-makers” – trust me, you get many everyday folks looking at you like you just donned your best tin foil hat and you are a typical conspiracy theorist nutcase that will eventually begin discussing the time you were beamed aboard the Mother Ship and suffered through those painful “examinations” we have all heard so much about . . .

    I do have to laugh – the old adage “Just because you’re paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you” – is, sadly – true.

    But you have to tread very cautiously when you present such incredible facts to those that simply have a hard time accepting that their community “leaders” would actually volunteer to willingly and enthusiastically engage in such deceptive schemes.

    Of course not everyone runs their own business, so they have difficulty appreciating the lengths many business owners will go to lay out a business strategy to improve their bottom line.

    Spending OPM to grow your business is a “no brainer” to any successful and growing entrepreneur.

    The “OPM” in this case are the tax dollars of the uniformed and naive working class “locals” that live within the corresponding “region”.

    Sadly, they appear to be easy ‘marks’. Why? Precisely as Larry points out – we are not organized, nor structured to “push back the bad guys”. “Bad guys” wearing expensive suits, driving fine expensive luxury automobiles back and forth to their well-appointed and luxurious homes.

    Don’tcha love the smell of unapologetic and gratuitous class warfare in the morning? LOL!

  3. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    I have a comment on Jim’s piece:

    Transportation Abomination

    A mutant offspring of a tortured political process, the transportation compromise before the General Assembly will do more harm than good. Conferees should strangle it in the crib.

    I agree with almost everything you have stated Jim.

    However, what I have observed MISSING from your comprehensive assessment of our 2007 Transportation Train Wreck is the BIG PRISE sliding quietly under the radar of public scrutiny and main stream media coverage:

    All-appointed Regional Authorities are being created with no objection from anyone within the process – AND Gov. Kaine ran for office opposing regional transportation authorities.

    His failed challenger ran on a plan to create them.

    I voted for Gov. Kaine because of this issue.

    Folks, it is simply THAT important.

    We all need to keep our eyes open and pay close attention to the words that keep ending up in EVERY transportation bill.

    It is the year 2000 all over again, and HB-1474 is alive and well, repackaged using “the transportation crisis” as its “rider”. (Or “cover”, if you like).

    The price of good transportation does not have to be bad government.

    The proposed regional authorities found in HB 3202 and SB 1415 – and substitute SB 1101 – are HORRIBLE!!!!

    … and, the Status Quo gang are licking their lips because there is no Gov. Gilmore to veto all-appointed regional government this time.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Rather than howling about the sins and weakness of appointed “regional” (actually subregional and semiregional) agencies how about getting behind Fundamental Change with elected regional, community, village and neighborhood govrance with a rational allocation of functions?

    We all agree, the MPOs, RTAs, PDCs are of no value. So lets work to put together something that reflects reality and does function.

    EMR

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reid, I agree with you, my column did not delve into the complexities of handing over so responsibility for transportation policy to regional government. My column was running too long as it was, and I ran out of time to get into the issue. But I figured that was OK, knowing that your piece would be running as well.

    My concern with the regional planning organizations is twofold, encompassing the issues raised by both by Ed Risse and yourself. Elaborating upon Ed’s point above: Are the regional authorities properly aligned with the geography of the New Urban Regions they represent? Are they being tasked with responsibilities that are appropriate for a regional-scale entity? Would sub-regional entities be appropriate for certain responsibilities? And, venturing a little beyond the realm of what is political possible at the present time, are the boundaries of Virginia’s *local” governments aligned with organic communities, or are they outdated and artificial constructs?

    You described the other set of problems very nicely. Given the fact that we have regional organizations and we’re proposing to entrust them with greater power and financial resources than ever in their history, should we not pay close attention to their governance structure? Should we not ensure that they are as representative as possible, as accountable as possible and as transparent as possible?

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    With regard to Jim’s article.

    I think WAY back from wonksville that the perception of the average person will be that “something” was agreed to verses a “failure” to pass anything.

    Given that dynamic.. butt ugly beats nothing…

    You can blame the media and the axis of taxes but at the end of the day.. it’s that guy in the pickup in Farmville or that Lady Manager on the beltway that really want – just the headline.. not the gory details.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “We all agree, the MPOs, RTAs, PDCs are of no value.”

    OOPS!

    Are we talking about the intended value of the function or failed implementations?

    I don’t think the concept of an MPO or a PDA is any more failed than the concept of an MSA – metro or micro.

    Unless.. the idea behind fundamental change is that indeed even the way we do MSAs is wrong, wrong wrong.

    One historical view:

    “The FCC divided the United States into MSA markets and Rural Service Area (RSA) markets. There are 306 MSAs in the United States”

    I plead my usual ignorance.

    But if the Census folks are looking at regions in terms of markets – and things like MPOs, Planning Districts, and other government functions essentially adopt that same MSA framework…

    Does Fundamental Change seek to change the MSA way that we currently view regions?

    Is the MSA paradigm 180 degrees different from Balanced/Alpha frameworks?

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    A few hurried notes:

    I do not know how much you have dealt with the Census Bureau but they are very susceptable to drawing lines to suit Congresspersons. The results are political, not demographic / economic / social / physical to summarize. MSAs are, 10 to 20 years behind reality and with the rapid disaggregation of urban land uses that is a big difference.

    See the note in another string re the Clear Edge for Greater Fredericksburg / Stafford / Spotsylvaina.

    Virginia’s conception of the roll and scome of PDCs in 1969 was very enlighteded. For the next 10 years the scope and flexibility was carved away.

    There is no end to the stories. We have touched on some in our Columns. See “Reality-Based Regionalism.”

    The two basic difference between Balanced Communities in New Urban Regions and the current MPO MSA PDC RTCs mess are:

    1. Use small component analysis (Census Block) as Lucy and Philips do, not Census Track or surely not municipal aggregations.

    Redraw the boundarys and create more levels of governace to reflect reality. Jim refers to this in his post above.

    EMR

  9. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Looks like the MSM is preparing to put the blame on Kaine and the Big Spenders if there is no plan. Also notice the business as usual bias and the way the Ds are hiding behind the 250 million argument as a front for business as usual. To be fair as Jim mentioned the R compromise funding mechanisim isn’t that great either.

    “Lawmakers on both sides of the issue predict the Senate will be the bigger challenge. If the chamber refuses to approve the bill when it comes out of the conference committee, the issue could be dead for the year, dealing a blow to Kaine and many Northern Virginia lawmakers — not to mention tens of thousands of commuters who endure traffic delays nearly every day.

    “We’ve got to make sure we have 21 votes on the Senate floor come Saturday morning,” Hugo said Monday. “I’m hopeful that we will have more when people realize it’s all or nothing.”

    But several senators who oppose the use of $250 million in general funds for transportation said that they are willing to go home empty-handed if that’s what it takes to protect the state’s other core services.

    Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said he does not expect a single Democrat in the Senate to vote to transfer that amount of money to transportation, even if Kaine presses them to do it.

    “That’s not going to happen,” Saslaw said, but he added: “Saturday’s a long way off.”

    Sen. R. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania) said that the $250 million transfer is “a deal breaker. But you start getting [down] to $100 million or so? I couldn’t tell you. This thing is really stacked. In some ways, it’s who’s going to blink first.”

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s what we don’t have.

    We don’t have a ranked and prioritize list of projects that will be funded .. as deep into the list as funding is agreed to.

    Having said that – I think the MSM has correctly portrayed the $250 million issue in terms of whether it should come from General Revenues or not.

    It gets much more murky as to whether or not the 250 will not become a permanent 250 “bite” from now on in the General Fund.

    I think that on Principle this is an important issue – and worthy of strong divided opinions – on both sides depending on one’s own fiscal budget philosophy REGARDLESS of party.

    I’ll be honest – where is the GLORY on this issue from the folks portrayed as:

    1. – anti-tax

    2.- pro general revenue fund use for transporation?

    Is this a principled stand?

    The Philosphical PREMISE of the Transportation Trust Fund has always been that car driver pay their own way with gas taxes – user fees.

    We all accepted and acknowledged that Education was not funded with user fees but tax dollars – pure and simple.

    What we are arguing is NOT money – we are arguing a fundamental change in the way we deal with transportation funding – and again – I don’t see the R’s covered in GLORY here

    because I feel their arument is disengenuous..

    they are claiming that it is about the money.. and not the philosophy – that they have already decided that a major change in philsophy is a GIVEN .. AND not negotiable.

    THIS is where they ARE perceived correctly so to be obstructionists in my view.

    Chichester and the others are holding firm on the philosophy issue

    AND they are consistent in the money department – they make no bones that more money – from transportation-related sources NOT the General Fund is THEIR game.

    In other words – Chi and company basically support maintaining a general philosophy of the Transportation Trust Fund with predictable revenue sources and the R’s are in favor of abandoning that philosophy – but portraying it as a money issue instead.

    Now .. back to the ranking and prioritization.. issue as it relates to a budget philosophy including the TTF.

    WE … COULD move from the TTF philosophy to a General Fund philosophy if we wanted to treat funding as discretionary from year to year – with the roadmap for funded projects being those that are ranked at the top.

    More.. money.. more surpluses.. the deeper you go into that list.. less money, lean years.. and no more projects added – that year.

    But because we don’t rank and prioritize and instead do things on an Ad Hoc basis.. NOT HAVING a predictable revenue flow makes for a really chaotic planning environment.

    Let’s make this clear – go look at ANY TIP for your region – and you’ll see that it is predicated on a “rolling” 6-year window and for each project they show 6 individual years of allocated money.

    The “out” years are predicated on revenue projections based on a fixed budget philosophy of known revenue sources.

    The R’s are advocating that these “out” years estimates be even more undependable and off the wall than they are right now.

    WHAT Would be a PRINCIPLED STAND?

    The answer is SIMPLE.

    If the R’s COMBINED their advocacy for General Revenue fund use with a cap BUT ALSO Required VDOT to Rank and Prioritize their lists (and to adjust them annually for inflation)… then we would have a fairly predicatable budget process for transporation.

    If there were more money – we could see the additional projects to be built..less money… ditto.

    and localities and ordinary people would understand …

    What the R’s want is budget philosophy LITE in my opinion.

    They want the Glory with being associated with a conservative approach but they are not willing to invest in the reforms that are necessary for such an approach to be feasible.

    They had a good start with discussion of reforms.. then they bailed on the reforms and have spent far, far more time on figuring out how to “spin” their approach than the hard work necessary to produce something that is NOT an abomination.

    I think they are hanging and twisting in their own noose…

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Those who say we have plundered the TTF need to show some specific examples.

    Second – 1/2% of the sales tax taken from non-drivers already is dedicated instead of coming from users.

    Third – even if money was taken from the TTF – and I do challenge to provide specific examples – it does not justify abandoning the concept – rather it indicate that we need to return to the concept – and I was assert, in the process – remove the 1/2% tax and replace it with something that directly comes from user fees.

    This is where I feel folks pretty much abandon their principles by using the excuse that since we at not sticking with them to start with that it justifies complete abandonment ….

    whoa!!! what happened to the heart of conservatism? (littl “c” on purpose).

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The concept of user fees for transportation is fundamental to small government in my view.

    It makes a very clear statement that people who use will pay and that we’ll not raise taxes on others for folks who drive.

    We’re at a crossroads where drivers do not pay enough for the transportation facilities that they use.

    My view is that true conservatives would not want to retain the user pays concept… and if they feel the TTF is being plundered then close that door also

    … but to abandon the concept and to advocate instead a concept that is so open-ended that pro-taxers in the future will have an easy path to raising taxes every time VDOT wants more…

    .. tells me that Conservatives are not .. conservative..at all… they’re walking/talking like – no WORSE that Chichester who is standing firm on the user pays concept.

    We can disagree… but my view is not isolated…. I can assure…

    Fiscal Convservatives in Virginia are seeing:

    1. – the Party taken on by Social Conservatives

    2. – abandonment of fiscal conservatism by those who label themselves as Fiscal Conservatives.

    Bill HOwell – a person claiming to be a fiscal conservative is in favor of a budget process that, in the future, with tax and spenders elected.. will give them the keys to tax and spend budget philosophies…

    bad karma

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    correction:

    “My view is that true conservatives would not want to retain the user ..”

    True Conservatives WOULD WANT TO RETAIN User Pays concepts”.

  14. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Larry its nice to be a third party guy :-p

    This is all from the R perspective

    As has been said it was decieded to avoid disaster in 2007 some plan had to be passed.

    Compromise was reached between the house and senate.

    Howell knew he would get blowback from some of the true believers but he did what was best for the party.

    Unfortunatly, Chichester threw in a monkey wrench and now we are where we are.

    I would just leave on one point. The Rs may not be perfect but do you think Kaine will stay in the center if the Ds get control. I see what some of the delegates and senators Think Saslaw Moran etc, people in the solid blue areas say around where I live in inside and around the DC beltway. These aren’t reformers these are tax and spenders.

  15. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    It looks like a contest for top tax and spender.

    The Business as Usual for transportation spending.

    The Conservationists for Chesapeake Bay Watershead protection.

    The Property Rights for support of their 3x, to 10x developments.

    Etc., etc, etc.

    HIP, HIP, HURAY, for the TAX AND SPENDER

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    NMM –

    The TTF is a “convervative” idea.

    The point is that users would pay for services received rather than raise taxes.

    If more services were needed then folks would be charged more – without raising taxes.

    The conservatives made a big deal about “protecting” the TTF – not the money – the concept.

    What they’ve done is seriously damage the concept in my view.

    Chichester has maintained all along that maintaining the concept of the TTF is paramount and that meant that new revenues should come from users – not the General Fund.

    So – one could make the argument that Chichester is “more conservative” than the guys who not only bailed out of the TTF concept but then went and raised taxes to boot – DOUBLE reneging on TWO of their own principles.

    If the Conservatives had INSISTED that the concept of the TTF stay intact and that new funds would be raised in the way that was intended when the TTF was first created – they would have found themselves in agreement with Chichester on the Concept but perhaps disagreeing about how much to raise user fees.

    I understand the pragmatism that is involved in making hard decisions about doing “something” but what I think is disengenuous is the portrayal from the conservative R’s that they have stuck to their principles when Chichester has abandoned them.

    I see Chichester as standing firm on the TTF principle and the Conservatives R’s as bailing out.

    Wrong?

  17. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    This all goes back to Warner and the 2004 tax increase

    The main argument is that taxes were increased unnecessarily.

    The users have already paid but the money was sent to the wrong place.

    These taxes should have been feeding into the TTF so they are basically being transferred from the general fund to the TTF

    Chichester’s principals are tax and spend so he supports taxes regardless of where they come from or who they benefit.

    Chichester and the R compromise plan are relatively similar except for the $150 registartion fee on the senate bill and the 250 million transfer on the house bill.

    We will know the answer by Saturday 🙂

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “These taxes should have been feeding into the TTF”

    Perhaps I’m the only one but I don’t see general revenue taxes as TTF taxes.

    TTF taxes were never intended to come from the general fund.

    The idea was to firewall BOTH the revenues AND the expenditures.

    I would not disagree with what happened with Warner and raising taxes but did Warner himself and the D’s (and Chichicester and the RINOs) INTEND to use the surplus general revenue funds for the TTF?

    I think they did not and that their intent was to come back at later sessions and address the TTF with a different revenue stream.

    I don’t think the Dems nor the RINOs have changed their positions on this.

    I think that the R’s themselves decided that since there was a surplus – that it would be wrong to have new money for the TTF even if it came from dedicated TTF sources.

    I think the argument about the suprplus is valid but I think it went wrong when the Conservative R’s comingled the concept of the surplus and the TTF.

    Once the TTF funding starts to come from General Revenue funds – it is no longer a conservative idea – user pays… it, instead, becomes yeat another line item on the General Revnue side – with no build-in control mechanism since anything/everything (revenue) that is not already committed is a potential VDOT target.

    The worst part is that you cannot really plan for roads unless you have a predictable revenue stream because of the lead-time required for new roads.

    How do you plan a 6 year revenue stream for a new road when you had no idea what the actual dollars will be in the out years?

    Yes.. it will all be over Saturday in terms of legislative action – but I do wonder what happens in future budget years especially lean ones.

    Hey – and don’t get me wrong. I am NO FAN of VDOT but one of the reasons is that I felt it was not being operated in a fiscally prudent manner to start with – and I think removing the TTF firewall will just make it worse.

  19. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    So y’all are okay with taking hundreds of millions of dollars OUT OF THE TTF and putting the gas tax money into the General Fund to spoend – on whatever???

    Here’s a “fair” compromise – every cent of FRAN I.O.Us now sitting in the TTF should be paid for with every “Surplus” tax dollar – until they are paid off.

    WHY?

    Because every dollar of those FRANS in the TTF were used to subsidize the General Fund!

    Oh … and BTW – those FRANS are supposed to be used to pay for new contruction, not eatten up by maintenance expenditures.

    Oh .. and the FRANS should be paid back using what “money” is now “worht” based on the YEAR the TTF was raided.

    meaning, if $350M was raided in 2001, then whatever $350M would have paid for in 2001 – even if that is now $600M in transportation spending, should be repaid to the TTF – not the “face value” of the TTF money robbed to be spent elsewhere.

    I cannot understand WHY anyone objects to the use of surplus tax funds to restore the transportation funds taken out of the TTF???

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s some words on FRANs and their use in Virginia:

    “… Jim Gilmore financed the car-tax wealth transfer scheme with debt and passed it off as a tax-cut reducing the size of state government. The Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 cut $89.3 million in cash from transportation and raised the Federal Reimbursement Anticipation Note (FRAN) debt ceiling by $400 million.

    What are FRANs? Basically, they represent use of tomorrow’s federal transportation grants as collateral for today’s state spending–even on non-transportation projects. So, Jim Gilmore (1) vastly under-estimated the cost of the car-tax wealth transfer program, (2) then decreased state revenue without a corresponding decrease in the size of state government or state spending,** (3) thanks to borrowing in 2000 on future federal transportation receipts.

    …. even if you think the car-tax program was the best thing since sliced bread, Jim Gilmore didn’t reduce the size of Virginia government or state spending. He borrowed money. From future transportation receipts from the federal government. It’s one thing to promise a tax cut and deliver by reducing the size of government; it’s another thing altogether to promise a tax cut and make the next generation pay the price. With interest.”

    and who was the “small government” GOV who wanted to lower taxes and protect the TTF?

    The more GERMANE is this.

    As an avowed conservative –

    Do you support raising general revenue taxes for transportation?

    That’s a two-part question.

    1. raise taxes on everyone

    2. use to it pay for roads no matter who uses them

    Bonus Question – What is the “small government” approach that Conservative R’s in Virginia support?

    … just trying to keep you guys straight..

    talk-the-talk.. now walk-the-walk.

  21. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    (1) Gov. Mark Warner raided over $300M from the TTF to spend on – – whatever.

    (2) My “R” advocacy for smaller government is to reduce the size of PDCs/MPOs and to reduce their decision-making authority of Virginia’s all-appointed regional government, restoring decision-making back to the local City Councils or BOSs. You can read my proposal in my guest column under the Wonk section of this blog. In the case of my regional government I am proposing to reduce the number of commissioners from 45 to just 16.

    (3) I am also in favor of abolishing VDOT – less government.

    (4) I am also in favor of abolishing the TTF and having state transportation priorities be evaluated and funded being compared alongside all other state priorities.

    (5) Locally I have successfully worked to prevent the creation of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority in my city. This is another example of an “R” fighting for less government. Did I mention my city has the highest population of all Virginia cities?

    (6) I have worked to advocate that the free market (private sector) develop a light rail line connecting Virginia Beach to Norfolk, not the regional government and local taxpayers. Another example of an “R” standing up for less government. Ironically, the exisitng rail line planned by the regional government belongs to a private sector railroad and the regional transit authority is seeking to turn more private property into non-taxable regional government property.

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Collecting taxes from all Virginians on a per-capita basis without regard to their useage of the transportation network is

    NOT a Conservative Principle

    It is, instead a Socialist Principle.

    The original concept of the TTF was to collect from users – in the proportion of their useage – a Conservative principle.

    Advocating INCREASES in the General Revenue fund for roads is NOT a Conservative Value – it’s a Liberal tax&spend principle.

    What is the Conservative approach to providing a transportation network?

    This is a serious question.

    What is the method to use that embodies Conservative Principles?

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Regional Governments.

    Let’s take the Fed one first.

    MPOs are Federally Mandated.

    They WILL RECIEVE funding from a variety of sources no matter how vociferous the opposition is UNLESS the opposition can convince your Elected Congressional Reps to do away with the MPOs.

    If there is no effective movement underway to actually remove MPOs, I would suggest that the opposition to them is ineffective.

    State Level – Regional Authorities – Planning Districts.

    Ditto to the Fed level.

    I saw absolutely no legislation in the GA this year or previous years to outlaw PDCs.

    As long as PDCs exist – they will receive funding from a variety of State sources and those funds, (like the MPOs funds) WILL be allocated.

    I do AGREE that there is a problem but what I am saying is that the opposition if not wide and deep – if it were.. we have both state level and federal level efforts to do away with MPOS and PDCs and I’ve yet to see a single piece of legislation from your own elected reps to move this forward.

    My view: There are rules and regs for the way that Regional Authorities operate.

    There are safeguards – ignored by those who are in charge that are not used effectively by those who oppose the WAY they operate.

    One example: The TIPs and the CLRPs must be financially constrained.

    Most MPOs routinely violate this by not incorporating inflation into their process.

    What this means is that there are more projects than they have money for.

    If they were forced to adhere to the Federal Requirements for fiscal constraints – they would have to remove projects.

    Citizens.. who assert this – can force the MPOs to do this.

    No – this won’t make the MPO go away but it will force them to use a more realistic process of prioritization.

    THEN the issue for citizens to go after WILL BE the prioritization – or lack of.

    I think this is a much more realistic way to deal with the MPOs rather than advocate their demise mostly with words and very little action.

    Until I see your elected Reps come on TV and say they are going to submit legislation to do away with MPOs.. I’ll have a hard time believing that prospects for their removal are much more than wishful thinking …

    and that means.. that they WILL CONTINUE to get funding and they WILL CONTINUE to make decisions with regard to how to spend that funding – whether we (and I do use the term “we” to represent BOTH of us on this daunting prospect) like it or not.

    The bottom line – MPOs are here to stay… and we need to work with the regs that control them if we want to be effective.

    Having said that – I DO agree with your initiative to revamp the voting representation and I do think that – that issue CAN be and should be pursued.

    What is needed is an MPO expert who would know what would be the most promising paths to take in pursuit of this.

    I’d start with their bylaws…

Leave a Reply

Read More