No Special Session Any Time Soon

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has said that the General Assembly could hold a special session to deal with transportation issues as early as May or June this year. But Chelyen Davis with the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star notes that lawmakers are so far from a consensus about what to do that “it may be months” before such a session could be organized.

The major fault line is between legislators who favor a “statewide” tax increase to finance transportation improvements and those who prefer regional solutions. Republicans, including House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, tend to fall into the regional-solution camp. Said Howell: “There’s not a crisis statewide that has to be fixed before you can fix what needs to be done for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.”

Considering that the Republicans still run the House of Delegates, Howell and his compatriots exercise effective veto power over any proposed solution.

The Democrats, including Kaine, want a statewide solution that brings in a sustainable, long-term revenue flow. Trouble is, they can’t agree on which tax they prefer. Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Springfield, has touted the gas tax, while others have argued for a sales tax. Kaine has not yet expressed a preference.

As far as I can tell, all proposals are based on political expediency — how to extract the most revenue from taxpayers with a minimum of fuss. Very few lawmakers, to my knowledge, have openly endorsed the most economically efficient and environmentally benign scheme of all: “user pays.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Groveton Avatar

    Jim:

    Did you read, “You call this conservative?” by Norm Leahy? It’s posted on Bacons Rebellion.

    Since it’s already on your site, I’ll take the liberty of quoting liberally (pun intended).

    On sprawl –

    “The use of the term “sprawl” begs several questions, but the most fundamental is: What is the proper role of government? The author of this plan makes the tacit assumption that individuals — exercising their freedom of choice — are somehow making life too inconvenient for VDOT. By choosing to live in homes they can afford in communities they find desirable, the author implies that what we really have is a bad case of market failure.”.

    Brilliant.

    On the fraud of “user pays”:

    “But even if we overcome the bias against tolls, we must still overcome the politics of road funds. Some toll roads might be capable of generating large amounts of cash. And like the sweetest nectar, this money will attract all sorts of eager government bees, looking for a taste. The most likely result would be a diversion of toll funds away from road maintenance and into any number of other projects that do not benefit the toll payers.

    For example, monies from the Dulles Toll Road are being used to support a multi-billion dollar rail project. This means toll paying drivers, who have at least the expectation that their toll money will be used to maintain the road, are instead being taxed to subsidize rail passengers.”.

    Brilliant.

    And finally, the best of all:

    “Development controlled. The demand for roads controlled. Prosperity controlled. Population controlled. These are not conservative ideas. They are the dreams of a central planner.”.

    Brilliant. That’s Europe’s approach. And it has one big advantage over all the mumbo-jumbo espoused on this site – it works.

    Jim, EMR, Larry – you all have a choice: conservatism or human settlement patterns which you prefer. You have a choice – free markets or a nanny state to run your vision of human development. Personally, I am fine with more of a “nanny state” to regulate growth. However, I’d really like it to be a “nanny county” or a “nanny region” because I can see the reasons for various priorities in my county or region. I cannot understand the priorities in places where I have never been. Fairfax County is not Wise County. Why does Virginia continue to try to govern them in the same way with the same set of clowns?

    Death to Dillion.
    Pave the Piedmont.
    Long live the “Nanny County”.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Otherwise known as “user pays for what?”

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’ve never had a problem with folks deciding where to live and where to work.

    What I have a problem with is the prioritization of public funds to cater to those who want to live farther from work and drive SOLO at rush hour every day.

    We are out of transportation money – and then some (if you count the declining monies for maintenance).

    If someone chooses to live in Fredericksburg or Culpeper or Front Royal and work in NoVa – who should pay to provide them with a timely and congestion-tolerable commute – both external to NoVa and internal to NoVa?

    We know it’s not free.

    Will Toll Road revenues be diverted?

    Isn’t this really a larger question about whether government can or will divert ANY revenues?

    Why would we suspect/fear that Toll Roads would be more susceptible that say “diverting” sales or income taxes?

    Here’s a study worth looking at – on page 5.. don’t get confused by the Title.. just go to page 5 to see a comparison of TOLL Roads.

    http://www.reason.org/pb70.pdf

    second question..

    let’s presume that Groveton is right and basically, we can’t trust the government to properly account for transportation monies – no matter WHAT the source?

    Is that Groveton’s position?

    or does he believe that we can’t trust the Government on Toll Roads but we can trust the Government on Gasoline Taxes?

    I’d like to see MORE CLARITY in the positions…

    and for the record, I’m not in favor of your typical nanny-state command&control Government.

    I think such a Government inevitably becomes a “tax&spend” enterprise.. and degrades to RH’s basic theory that “everyone pays and everyone gets”.

    If someone wants to work in NoVa and live in Fredericksburg – fine – let’s them pay the true cost of that commute.

    If they decide they’d rather save the cost of the commute and live in NoVa in more modest digs than they could in Fredericksburg – fine – let them make that choice.

    What I have a problem with is adding lanes to I-95 and charging folks in Farmville…on the specious “theory” that the folks in Farmville somehow benefit.

    Toll Roads don’t have to be corrupt and they are not corrupt merely as a direct consequence of being toll roads.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What I have a problem with is the prioritization of public funds to cater to those who want to live farther from work and drive SOLO at rush hour every day.”

    OK, but isn’t that EQUALLY a prioritization of public funds to support overly centralized job locations?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We are out of transportation money – and then some (if you count the declining monies for maintenance).”

    The reason we are out of transortation money is that we raided the trasnportation fund for other projects, and we never indexed the funding for inflation.

    Had we raised the money we spent on other priorities some other way, our transportation system would not be in quites as bad shape, even though there would still be the inflalion issue.

    But, since other priorities did raid the transportation funds, to now characterize this as a transportation problem is inacurate. You can’t ery well blame the transportation system of VDOT for spending money on something else.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Isn’t this really a larger question about whether government can or will divert ANY revenues?”

    Is this really a question? WE KNOW that has alredy happened and probably will again.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…on the specious “theory” that the folks in Farmville somehow benefit.”

    It isn’t specious. The vast majority of state funds come from ANOVA nad HR. The vast majority of the economic engine is there. Farmville MUST get some benefits from this. They should pay for those benefits just as much as the commuter should pay for his.

    WE have never seriously tried to figure out what the flow down benefits are: we just have unending political arguments over it using emotionally charged words like “specious”.

    And, as long as the commuter who drives is going to pay his way, how about the one that rides VRE?

    Furthermore, if the commuter is paying his own full costs (and no more than that) how is it that these tolls will raise new funds? Won’t they be used up paying his costs?

    How about if we be a little more honest about what these tolls are, what they will do, etc. ?

    I think we could get more people onboard if our arguments weren’t so transparently false.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The reason we are out of transortation money is that we raided the trasnportation fund for other projects”

    this is not true and if you bothered to even cursorily peruse the VDOT budget you’d know the reality.

    The fact is that VDOT get General Revenue money including 500K a year from the sales tax.

    People are playing this little game as to what “belongs” to road transportation… and they play it twice..

    first they get it wrong on the diversion issue

    .. then, when proven wrong on that count, they claim that roads “deserve” the general revenues because everyone “benefits”…

    .. if we did budgeting like this for other things like Education and Health Care – then would you then justify any and all expenditures because “everyone” benefits from more/better education and health care?

    Of course not.. but it doesn’t keep the road-lovers from making that argument.

    so what is it?

    if you look at the VDOT budget -you’ll see that a very small amount is diverted – no where near the reason why they’re out of money

    the real reason they are out of money is that they never met a project that developers didn’t like.

    Money is spent not for reduced congestion and improved safety but for economic development and the enrichment of those who profit from development and growth.

    If you cut the projects down to ONLY those that would truly reduce congestion, improve safety and remove bottlenecks –

    .. “THE LIST” would NOT be 100 Billion and counting…

    .. if you justified each road on how much people were willing to pay in tolls to use it – “THE LIST” would shrink even smaller…

    .. what you advocating is more and more taxation..with no accountability for performance and cost-effectiveness…

    in other words – PORK

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    talk about specious arguments:

    “Farmville MUST get some benefits from this”

    right. why don’t you quantify them so that we know how much they get for how much they donate?

    and then do the same with HR/TW because they’re going to claim the same thing.

    make your case.

    If you cannot do that then you ARE engaging in SPECIOUS arguments.

    ..and don’t give me that “this is so hard to figure out” so our only choice is to tax the bejesus out of everyone until we can figure it out.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “this is not true”

    Are you saying the state has NEVER raided the transportation funds?

    Otherwise, yes, we do fund part of the road system out of general funds. That’s the ysteme we have, and we do it for a reason.

    “Talk about specious”

    Are you saying that NO money from NOVA/HR winds up in Farmville?

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You know, regarding tolls, if you just came out and said that you favor tolls so that we can discriminate against a handful of long distance SUV drivers on an environmental basis, to run them out of your neighborhood, while giving everyone else who does 95% of the driving a free ride, with the eventual goal of making transit free, then you’d have an honest statement I could accept at face value for what it is worth.

    Why try to paint it as something it isn’t?

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…why don’t you quantify them so that we know how much they get for how much they donate?”

    Well, thats the problem, isn’t it? now one has really tried, and if they did they would be accused of having a dog in the fight.

    If you do measure, for all the incumbents, and you find out the moeny and benefits all slosh back and forth, then isn’t it like the BAy probelm in the end?

    The problem is so big, and so diffuse that in the final analysis it turns out that just charging everyone equally is pretty close to fair, and a lot cheaper to implement.

    RH

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, you wonder above if I have read Norm Leahy’s column, “You Call This Conservative?” Based on your comments that follow, I have to wonder if *you* read anything that *I* write in anything but a cursory manner.

    I shall endeavor to address the points you raise one by one.

    On sprawl: Here, Norm suggests that the foes of “sprawl” object to allowing people the freedom to choose where to live, in communities they find desirable. Well, you can repeat a statement endlessly, but that doesn’t make it true. Some anti-sprawl advocates may advocate such views. But I challenge you to go through my writings (or McSweeney’s, or Risse’s) and find a single example of where I (or they) have proposed curtailing the right of people to live where they want. You can’t, because I believe fervently in freedom of choice, and I have always been a foe of social engineering.

    You and Norm apparently believe that the existing regime of real estate regulation constitutes some kind of “free” market. That’s where we disagree. The market for real estate is shaped by massive zoning regulations, transportation subsidies and other factors which we have documented thoroughly on this blog. The market is anything but free. If those market intrusions were repealed, developers would be able to introduce a *wider* array of real estate projects into the market, and Virginians would enjoy a *wider* range of choices of where to live, and developers would be rewarded by building what consumers want rather than what government will permit them to build.

    On the fraud of “user pays”: Norm makes the point that politicians may be tempted to divert toll funds to all sorts of dubious projects.

    Well, I quite agree. Indeed, I have devoted dozens of blog posts on Bacon’s Rebellion to documenting that very point. In fact, I dare say that Bacon’s Rebellion has done more than any other media outlet in Virginia — perhaps more than all other media outlets combined — to show how the political process corrupts road funding. If you read my column in tomorrow’s e-zine, you’ll see also that I am highly critical of the Kaine administration’s effort to transfer Dulles Toll Road revenues to the Rail-to-Dulles rail project.

    Assuming that we agree on this point, what are the implications? I argue that only a constitutional amendment will protect transportation revenues from being used in nefarious ways by the politicians. What do you propose as a solution?

    On Development Controlled: You repeat over and over that the remedies I propose would “control” development. Somehow, though, you never quote anything I actually write. Once again, I defy you to come up with a single instance of where I would advocate “control” over anything. Groveton, if you would trouble yourself to read my arguments carefully, you would see that I argue for *less* zoning control. I admit freely that I am not an outright libertarian, and I do see a useful, though limited, role for government — especially in providing infrastructure. But I have made the case over and over for curtailing government intrusions in the marketplace.

    Groveton, you bring a lot of insights to this blog, as well as a great sense of humor, and I am grateful for your active participation. But I have to tell you, I do get frustrated at the way you repeatedly mis-characterize my views. It does not create a meaningful dialog if I am forced to spend my time correcting misperceptions. I really wish you would support your blanket claims with concrete examples of what I have said — using real quotes — as opposed to what you or someone else thinks I have said.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…the real reason they are out of money is that they never met a project that developers didn’t like.”

    Cant you more or less say that about any department in government? They all have more projects than money for.

    So do I.

    Where the money comes from has nothing to do with prioritizing how it is spent. What we do is prioritize politically, juyst and Randall O’Toole and Winston and Shriley describe.

    We make sure each constituent gets a piece of the pie.

    Thats why we elect these guys.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…find a single example of where I (or they) have proposed curtailing the right of people to live where they want.”

    No, you don’t do that directly. You just propose that they pay their full costs according to a formula you determine.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    On the fraud of “user pays”:

    Look we know that the idea is to raise funds for transit. Let’s just say so. Anyway, if it was really a amtter of user pays (for only what he gets and no more) then there wouldn’t be any surplus to distribute.

    This is a fraud in two ways. We shoudl just drop the idea of user pays and get on with it. We wshould admitits false, like Hillary’s Bosnia sory, and move on.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you would see that I argue for *less* zoning control.

    But you have also advocated a two sided taxation scheme, one for urban areas and one for the countryside.

    You don’t advocate less zoning control for the purpose of promoting freedom, you advocate it to achieve a certain desired result.

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “if you just came out and said that you favor tolls so that we can discriminate against a handful of long distance SUV drivers on an environmental basis, to run them out of your neighborhood, while giving everyone else who does 95% of the driving a free ride,”

    you know..thats EXACTLY what I’m thinking when I put my EZ-Pass on the dash for my transit on the Powhite Parkway or the NC toll road I use to get to the Outer Banks.

    you see.. it’s NOT discrimination to pay for what you actually use – except in your world…where is’s NOT discriminatory to charge people in Richmond and North Carolina for folks outside their areas using their roads.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: specious logic

    the folks in Farmville should pay for new roads in Loudoun because the buyers of those new homes 3 times the size of the homes in Farmville and the salaries – twice as much as the folks in Farmville…

    … if we charged the buyers and developers in Loudoun.. we would be making homes less affordable…

    .. so because the NoVa economic engine contributes to education costs in Farmville.. then the folks who live in smaller houses making smaller salaries should help the NoVa folks afford more “affordable” homes…

    right?

    and if we don’t do that..and make the NOVA commuters pay the true cost of their commutes – we are “discriminating” against them and the obvious solution is to go after those folks in Farmville…

    this makes perfect sense – if you spend most of your day hanging upside down as you view the world.

    RH day’s as a successful RoVa politician would be about as long as a gnat on the surface of the sun.

  20. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, in your comment of 10:20 a.m., you contend that my advocacy of a two-sided taxation scheme is not consistent with my advocacy of less zoning control. Thank you for bringing up a concrete example that we can work with instead of simply making broad, sweeping statements.

    Real estate taxes are a fact of civilized life. There is no practical way of avoiding them. The question is, how do you set them up? The manner in which taxes are administered have real-world impacts on economic behavior.

    Under the status quo, we do it one way — we tax land *and* improvements. Then we grant a whole raft of carve-outs and special exemptions: historic rehabilitation tax credits, conservation easement tax credits, and other exemptions too numerous to list.

    In place of the existing tax regime, I would substitute a land-tax-only system inside a Clear Edge and a tax-and-improvements regime outside the Clear Edge. Also, I would eliminate all the special exemptions. My approach would be simpler and infinitely fairer. And, yes, it would have a *different* set of economic consequences than the consequences we see now.

    But overall, my system would be *less* intrusive in the marketplace than the status quo. It is market-driven in that it would not “control” anybody, “mandate” anything, or “force” anyone to do anything.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think the two sided tax system would be unconstitutional as we are now organized. The constitution is pretty clear that taxes have to be on a uniform basis for all residents.

    We could eliminate real estate taxes, and tax only cash flows, which is where the money comes from anyway. Real esate taxes have no tie to ability to pay, and no tie to the cost of services provided. Real estate taxes are a recurring rtax on capital AND a tax on impted income.

    Fundamentally, there is NOTHING good to say about them and haveing a two sided system makes it twice as bad.

    Your plan penalizes anyone who wants to build anything in the countryside – even a barn, while those on the urban side can build at will.

    Making two zones, inside and outside, still sounds like zoning control.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ..”I would substitute a land-tax-only system”

    I’ve been amused of late as I have personally experienced a *increase* in the assessment on my land – as the value of the home has dropped – per the “market”.

    I am not alone.. locally or regionally as I have read of similar assessments in other counties where the assessed value of the homes went down – as they should have – but because the value of their land went up – they ended up paying as much or more in taxes.

    The Virginia Dept of Taxation, in our local case, certified that everything was on the “up and up” but I think many folks, including this one, do not have sufficiently powerful brains and/or market acumen to fathom such machinations but I’ll admit to a nagging suspicion anyhow…

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it’s NOT discrimination to pay for what you actually use “

    Not if everybody has to pay tolls everywhere they go, it isn’t. That’s not what we are getting.

    Not if everyone pays ONLY for what they get and don’t have to also pay for a free ride for someone else. That’s not what we are getting.

    What we ae getting is a discriminating tax on a selct fie on a false environmental basis.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I got two different tax bills with different ratios of house to land.
    According tot he accompanying explanation, they used a different “method” for reassesning the land.

    Surprisingly, the Two “methods” resulted in the exact same valuation overall.

    My home is a modular home, so I can go out and replace it eaxactly from the factory on any day. So I know what the current delivered price is for my structure.

    If my builder could deliver me a complete new turnkey home in 12 weeks, sitting on my foundation for $95,000 how in blazes does the county wind up assessing my (structure alone, not land and improvements) at more than three times that amount?

    It isn’t an assessment of value in the market, its an invitation for arson.

    RH

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    What we ae getting is a discriminating tax on a selct fie on a false environmental basis.

    is that what you call the Powhite Parkway or Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel or similar?

    Would it be better if those projects were not built until enough tax dollars accumulated?

    If you have tolls in an area like NoVa and NoVa ALSO gets their share of gas tax revenues doesn’t that mean that they benefit by being able to build more transportation?

    debate this on the concept itself not the other canards that are not related at least on the central issue.

    If people in an area pay more for transportation and they benefit from paying more.. how does that unfairly descriminate?

    if the SELECT payers are the same ones that USE.. then why is that discrimination?

    When I pay a toll for the CBBT, am I being discriminated against?

    your argument seems to be that if I pay gas taxes then I am ENTITLED to untolled roads and we know for a fact that – that is not true – otherwise the toll on the CBBT would be “illegal”.

    why is it not illegal to put a toll on the CBBT but other roads and tunnels?

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”how in blazes does the county wind up assessing my (structure alone, not land and improvements) at more than three times that amount?”

    but didn’t you say that was a BENEFIT to the folks in Loudoun – to own higher valued properties?

    Why is that okay for folks in Loudoun but now you?

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why is that okay for folks in Loudoun but now you?”

    My comment has nothing to do with that. What I’m saying is that the assessment (on the structure only) is patently faulty.

    Theoretically, it is based on the value of the structure, plust the value of the land.

    The value of the land is dependenton where it is located, and on that I have no beef.

    But, the value of the structure is the value of the structure. If there is a well established market for them and prices are known, how does the county get away with valuing the structure at more than three times what it can be replaced for?

    Is a Chevrolet in Fairfax worth three times what the same car is worth in North Dakota? The parking space for it, yes, but the car or the structure, no.

    Yes. Right now my neighborhood is being Mcmansioned. homes are being upsized right and left. Soon my home will be located in a better neighborhood, and I expect my property will be worth more. i look forward to paying the higher taxes that entails.

    But it doesn’t mean that my structure itself is worth more. there is a known price tag on that. I can’t see any reason for any structure, mine or someone elses, being assessed at more than what it would cost to replace it.

    Now, you have an antique, handcrafted fieldstone house: that might cost a lot more to replace today. But a house that comes off a production line, day in and day out, and gets sold at a catalogue price?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look. If you have universal tolls then there is no discrimination. it is still stupid because its costly to build and administer, but at least it is egalitarian.

    Bridges, might be a special case. But usually, the geoography associated with bridges means that everyone with similar requirements gets funneled through the brdge, so it is reasonably fair.

    But what you are suggesting is specific tolls targeted at specific people with certan habits in a restricted area.

    Everyone else gets, not only a free ride (with respect to tolls), but better road service at less cost -even if their vehicles, their milae, and their habits are substantially the same.

    Congested traffic is a small percentage of the overall picture. But you are only going to charge them because they happen to be in a place where a lot of other people need to be at the same time.

    And it won;t solve the problem. you won’t get more roads, it will still be congested, and it will still cause unneccesary pollution and waste.

    Instead of beating this dead horse, propose something that will actually help fix the problem. Move the Agriculture Department to Farmville.

    Or, just come out and say you hate SOLO SUV’s and you think they should be taxed out of existence. All of them, Farmville or not.

    At least then you have an honest argument and opinion I can respect. Right now you’ve got nothing.

    RH

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    when I go through the solo-driven SUVs at rush hour – it is to make clear that people do have choices about what to drive, how to drive and when to drive and those choices do affect the congestion levels and the oft-heard complaint that congestion is costing time and money.

    Hearing someone whine about congestion – who drives an SUV solo at rush hour every day and who, at the same time, wants everyone to pay more taxes so that the money can be allocated to make his solo rush-hour commute better.. is not inspiring.

    If you are a person whose choices about driving end up requiring more infrastructure to produce a less congested commute – the financial responsibility for that is yours – not someone who chooses to live somewhere else at 1/2 salary, and lives in a home that would be considered “sub-standard” in the NoVa area.

    This is not “penalizing” nor “discriminating” against solo rush hour SUV drivers but rather a simple recognition that “the” congestion problem is, in fact, DUE to HIS choices about driving and he legitimately owes the costs of upgrading the infrastructure to make HIS commute better.

    This is about basic fairness and equity with respect to who pays and who uses.

    Your idea seems to be that everyone should pay because everyone benefits but that is NOT equity because under that system those who consume more will get more and those that consume less will end up paying more especially when you run out of capacity and more has to be built.

    This is very similar to the idea of peak power costing 8 times more than base power but everyone pays for it whether they use peak power or not or even worse.. even the folks who try NOT to use peak power STILL have to pay the costs.

    The more you drive at rush hour SOLO – the more you owe relative to others… because your choices result in the need for more costly infrastructure.

    How this is “discrimination” and “hating SUVs” is beyond me.

    Under your theory, those that want 2 gals of milk by the glass should pay no more than they who want one glass because “everyone gets milk and everyone pays for it”.

    It .. IS.. in fact.. the fundamental logic behind “tax & spend” rather than personal responsibility for one’s own consumption.

  30. Groveton Avatar

    Jim:

    You like direct quotes. Here’s one of your most recent:

    “In place of the existing tax regime, I would substitute a land-tax-only system inside a Clear Edge and a tax-and-improvements regime outside the Clear Edge. Also, I would eliminate all the special exemptions. My approach would be simpler and infinitely fairer. And, yes, it would have a *different* set of economic consequences than the consequences we see now.

    But overall, my system would be *less* intrusive in the marketplace than the status quo. It is market-driven in that it would not “control” anybody, “mandate” anything, or “force” anyone to do anything.”.

    Using taxes is a way of forcing people to do something, it is a form of control and it is a mandate. It is completely intrusive. It is a form of big government using its power to get what it wants with or without the consent of the governed.

    I advocate a larger government role in land use decisions. I advocate government control of developers. I want limits on campaign contributions so that developers and their ilk can’t “buy off” politicians. What I advocate is forcing people to do something, it is control and it is a mandate.

    As to whether big government accomplishes this goal by legislation that directly controls land use or legislation that achieves the same effect through a new tax system is utterly, totally, completely irrelevent.

    Big government is big government regardless of whether the governemnt is exercising its might in direct legislation or through the confiscation of people’s money in an effort to achieve the desired ends.

    I guess that’s the difference – we both think that the government will have to be more intrusive and force the issue. I am just willing to say that.

  31. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, I am much obliged for the real quotes. Now we can engage in a meaningful debate.

    Yes, you are quite right: Taxes are coercive. They are a form of control. And they are intrusive. In that much we agree.

    Here’s the thing: Property taxes already exist. They already influence human behavior. All I’m advocating is altering the tax regime — on taxes that already exist — so that they influence human behavior differently.

    Combine that with my call for significantly deregulating zoning controls. I am not advocating an *increase* in control — I am advocating significantly *less* control. Therefore, I disagree with your assessment that I think “government will have to be more intrusive.”

    I commend you for being honest about your own proposed remedies, such as limiting campaign contributions to politicians. But I find them disturbing.

    First, I would like to know how you would propose to limit contributions without abrogating the freedom of speech and the right to petition for the redress of grievances.

    Secondly, I would suggest that no matter how many restrictions you place on campaign contributions, money will find a way to make itself felt in the political system. Your approach will succeed only in driving the money underground and making the developer influences less transparent and difficult to trace (already an effect of McCain-Feingold on the federal level).

    Thirdly, I would contend that there is a direct relationship between government power over land use and the proclivity of real estate developers to invest money to manipulate the political system to their advantage. The more you increase government power, the greater the payoff to those who contribute to campaigns, hire lobbyists and otherwise work the system. By *decreasing* government power over land use, you also *decrease* the temptation to manipulate the system. More government power = more corruption. Les government power = less corruption.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    on the “free speech” issue…

    “Bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given alters the behavior of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. …”

    http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+bribe&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS240US242

    When someone says that it is “free speech” for a business or group of people conducting business to give thousands of dollars to an elected official.. I distinguish this from an individual voter who wants to “speak”.

    What our system does put a value on a vote. An ordinary citizen free-speech vote is not the same as a Payday Lender free-speech vote.

    It boggles my mind that there are those who argue that the “rights” of the Payday Lenders to exercise free-speech .. are the same as individual voters…

    Each individual voter certainly does have the right of “free speech” and any company is free to buy media time to get their message out but when money changes hands and the recipient is an elected representative – we are no longer talking about “free speech” IMHO.

    and make no mistake – this money CORRUPTS .. GOVERNMENT .. AND land-use decisions….

    It.. TRUMPs everything INCLUDING “small” Government.. because even “small” government is corruptible for the right price.

  33. Groveton Avatar

    For the first time in memory I agree totally with Larry.

    If I worked with foriegn officials in the same way that some developers work with Virginia’s officials – I’d be in one of Larry’s gated communities.

    I’d like to see the Foriegn Corrupt Practices Act applied to the actions of American citizens with respect to US officials as vigorously as it is applied to the actions of US citizens with foriegn officials. Of course, it’s easier for the American politicians to enforce anti-bribery statutes against foriegn officials. That’s because payments to foriegn politicians do not end up in the pockets of American politicians. If they did I am sure the FCPA would be a lot more lenient.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Hearing someone whine about congestion – who drives an SUV solo at rush hour every day and who, at the same time, wants everyone to pay more taxes so that the money can be allocated to make his solo rush-hour commute better.. is not inspiring.”

    People have a choice as to what and how they drive. The rest, not so much. Where thy work is as much chance as anything, and may change frequently. Where they live is more or less permanent because of economic social, school, and family issues, so the relation ship between home and work is NOT very much a matter of real choice.

    “This is very similar to the idea of peak power costing 8 times more than base power but everyone pays for it whether they use peak power or not or even worse.. even the folks who try NOT to use peak power STILL have to pay the costs.”

    Here is where we part company. you see this as a matter of fairness, pay for what you actully get, and what you actually cost.

    OK. Peak hour electricity costs 8 times as much as non peak. That’s because we have to keep a lot of captital equipmet in reserve, and we burn high wuality fuel in them instead fo cheap coal. (Granted cheap coal would ot be as cheap if it had to be as “clean” as natural gas, but that’s a nother discussion.)

    But the peak hours is a fraction of the total hours and the toatal usage, whther we are talking cars or autos. You make it sound as if this (admitted) discrepancy in pricing was a major egalitarian fault. You make it sound as if it means you are paying eight times as much for your electricity. You make it sound as if we should install all kinds of giszmos. pay more, and rearrange all of our lives, just because you are retired and can shower off peak, because we are costing you a ton of money.

    It doesn’t really play very well.

    I agree that the idea that everyone should pay because everyone benefits has its faults. But I suggest that if you take your ideas to their logical extreme, here is what you wind up with: everone paying everone else for every imagined externality, whether we can prove its value or not.

    It is inefficient in the extreme and it costs MORE than the inefficiencies of just splitting the tab. Provided we don’t go crazy about it, as the communists did.

    If it costs more, then it is also environmentally unfriendly, and it amounts to restraint of trade. As Groveton points out, confiscatory taxation is a form of legislation.

    So the idea that a small group like rush hour commuters or peak electricity users can save us all a bunch of money by absorbing all of their true costs is faulty: There are not enough of them, they don’t have the money, and the real problems they cause are small compared to what is happening off peak – we just don’t realize it, yet.

    And therfore, the idea that it is “fair” to load them up with huge costs in order that we can avoid minor ones is also faulty.

    And then, if all of that isn;t enough reason to reconsider, we claim that loading them up with osts will cause them to change their habits. As Groveton says, this is a form of legislation. And how are they going to change their habits? probably by abandoning the jobs that cost them too much to get to. then the jobs will move to whre the workers are, and we get whtt we claim we don’t want, but which is the only thing htat can work.

    If that’s going to be the final result, we can find a lot cheaper way to go about it, and one that is a lot more fair.

    ————————-

    This is about basic fairness and equity with respect to who pays and who uses.

    I think you have this all blown out of proprotion. If those you wish to (or think should) pay actually did, it would save you almost nothing. it isn;t about you paying more than your fair share because the amount you would pay is minsicule.

    It is about punishing those you believe are behaving badly, and causing bad environmental and social effects. But they are such a small part of the overall problem (even if highly visible), punishing them alone isn’t going to help us a bit.

    I think the solution you propose is environmentally and socially unfriendly and inequitable to boot. And I don’t like long distance solo SUV drivers any more tha you do. I’m just convinced your proposed solution is wrong and mistated in its true purpose.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What I advocate is forcing people to do something, it is control and it is a mandate.”

    And there you have it. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don’t hide it, spin it, or paint it with some other phony purpose or reasoning.

    Call it what it is, and put a price on it.

    I respect that kind of honesty. I might not agree wth you, but at least you have my respect rather than my disdain.

    It’s easier to strike a bargain that way.

    RH

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You make it sound as if this (admitted) discrepancy in pricing was a major egalitarian fault.”

    there is not a “discrepancy” in price. there is a “discrepancy” in consumption and who pays for higher levels of consumption.

    You are saying that someone wants to drive at 90 mph but it’s “unfair” for the to pay the extra gasoline cost associated with his higher speed… that the proper solution is to “split the check” on consumption….. ostensibly because he had no choice but to go 90mph.

    saying people have “no choice” about where they work and live and how they get back and forth – which is a load – a crock.

    It’s like saying the million people who CHOSE to live AND work in NoVa don’t exist and that EVERYONE had “no choice” but to live far from where they took a job.

    They are many, many people who DO make the closer-to-work choices to align their consumption with their ability to pay for it.

    Those folks CHOSE NOT to drive 100 miles a day.. in congestion….but you’d have those folks who made that choice .. taxed to buy the commuting infrastructure for those that want to consume – as a choice.

    Anytime I split the check with some people, I KNOW what will happen. I will invariably have to pay MORE because others will always “overlook” some of the items that they consume… and if you point this out to them.. they get upset because the cost of what they consume is higher than they want it to be. It matters not to them that you would have to pay more to make up the difference. What they are upset with is that they HAVE TO PAY MORE – even though it is their legitimate costs.

    They don’t see it as their legitimate fair cost.. they see it as getting “zapped” by circumstances and blame the folks who show them their true costs instead of themselves for consuming at a higher rate than they were willing to pay for personally.

    These folks buy super-sized drinks when the tab is “split” and they get water (with free lemon) when the tab is not split.

    These same folks love the idea of “splitting the tab” for commuting or using prime time electricity.

    That’s the reality of the mindset.

    I don’t hate SUVs or solo drivers or folks who CHOOSE to live far from where they work OR to CHOOSE a job where they cannot find the right priced house close to where they work…

    what I hate.. is the bogus attitude that they “have no choice” but to drive PAST thousands of folks folks who chose NOT to drive farther and now they want the folks in those houses to be taxed to add lanes to the highway so that they can continue to drive further.

    you cite this as a “discrepancy” in pricing.

    It’s not. It’s a “discrepancy” in paying for one’s fair share of what they consume.

    You advocate, in essence, using the force of government to forcibly take money from the guy in Farmville to pay for the road capacity for the folks who chose NOT to live like those folks in Farmville have chosen to live – in much more modest circumstances with regard to salary, home and commuting.

    You would have the government take their money on the premise that the folks in Farmville “benefit” from those who drive 10 times further on rush hour highways.. get higher salaries and who would never live in a house similar to what the folks in Farmville live in.

    You advocate using the force of government to take money from those folks – with the idea that the more proliferate are “owed” this money.

    Nothing could be more unfair and un-egalitarian that advocating the government taking money from someone with a more modest lifestyle and giving that money to someone with who consumes resources at a much higher rate – on the theory that it’s only fair to “split the check”.

    Whether it is road capacity or electricity or water/sewer, etc, – we need to stop “splitting the check” and allocate the actual costs to those that consume more than others.

    Any system that “splits the check’ on consumption – invariably penalizes those who conserve and rewards those that consume.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    While all of these are interesting ideas to share the total cost of driving in different ways (i.e. get someone else to pay more so I can pay less), the only way I know of to lower total mileage across the population is to make it more expensive relative to other expenses (for example, encourage people broadly to spend more on rent so they can save on gas).

    The obvious problem with making driving more expensive over all is that if the total bill goes up it is inevitable that the middle and lower classes will have to pay most of the increase (this is inevitable otherwise it will not have any meaningful effect). Different sharing mechanisms will push the incentives around for different groups but MORE EXPENSIVE FOR EVERYONE is the only way to lower total driving. So in a world with $4 gasoline who of you votes to increase the price to $8, maybe it should be $12? Who is in favor of making it twice as exensive to commute from Tracy to San Francisco or from Newark to NYC so that all those commuters can see their home prices sink even more?

    I am no economist but if we are really serious about lowering total mileage driven, I believe we have to have a long term plan to make driving more expensive to alternatives. That probably means moving back to the cities from the suburbs or moving the jobs out of the cities, taking the train instead of driving for vacation, using trains instead of trucking for moving goods, and so on.

    None of this can be accomplished in the short term as it has been sixty years in the making. It would be good to get started now though.

    philip gianos

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “there is not a “discrepancy” in price. there is a “discrepancy” in consumption and who pays for higher levels of consumption.”

    So you want to change the “price” for higher consumtion. You must think there is a discrepancy.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “saying people have “no choice” about where they work and live “

    I didn;t sya they have no choice. But, they sometimes have choices imposed on them by economic realities. You simply cannot up and move your house every three years, and do it cost effectively. Your job location is not always of your choosing. So while choices can be madover time it takes time to implement them.

    Also, it would help if we had more job security.

    Yes, There are choices, but some of them are not very useful. it isn’t exactly the same kind of choice as which newspaper to pick up at the newstand.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Splitting the check is not always the best or most fair solution. I admit that. But frequently it is the cheapest, most expedient and easiest solution, and its downsides, while easy to overplay, are minor.

    If a more expensive, more complicated, but somewhat more “fair” solution is available which requires a huge investment in physical plant, policy, and procedure, not to mentionn a whole new bureaucracy to run, then it probably isn’t a good idea, environmentally speaking.

    Sure, it costs 8 times as much to produce peak electricity. But peak electricity generated at those prices is on one hundedth of a percent of all electricity used. How much will charging a few people a lot more really save everyone else?

    If you drop a penny and it rolls under the sofa, do you really stop what you are doing to go fish it out?

    I just think your proposals are wasteful. That’s my opinion, you have yours.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…in much more modest circumstances with regard to salary, home and commuting.”

    I would say the guy in farmville has a luxurious commute compared to they guy stuck in traffic. he may drive more over the course of a week. And the guy in farmville isn’t paying the full cost for what he gets.

    If peak commuting is 20% of traffice and congested commuting is half of that, then the rest of us won’t save much by attacking that problem: its a small oeice of the pie. Same with electricity.

    But, I don’t think the solution is to charge the guy stuck in traffic more for more roads that will never be built. I think the solution is more Farmvilles. We can build them a lot cheaper than we can build toll roads, and it might actually solve the pollution and waste problem associated with congestion.

    It might even avoid some of the massive expenditures coming to Metro to upgrade the system for congestion problems of its own. Like adding more power supplies because the ones they have are insufficient for eight car trains. Like a new river crossing. Etc Etc etc.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Nothing could be more unfair and un-egalitarian that advocating the government taking money from someone with a more modest lifestyle and giving that money to someone with who consumes resources at a much higher rate – on the theory that it’s only fair to “split the check”.”

    If there was really a lot of money involved, I’d agree. But I don;t see the social net benefit if we install $100 worth of tolling equipment so we can charge one guy $8 in ordert to save someone someplace else (who is already getting a free ride) fifty cents.

    Replacing one unfair system with a worse one is no way to advance the cause, in my opinion.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Just so we don’t get too far out of reality here: 71% of Cumberland county resicents work outside the county. 55% have a commute of 30 minutes or more, and 22% drive more than an hour to work.

    Residents of the area around Farmvill itself average 30 to 40 minute drives. the average for all of the county is a 37 minute trip.

    Now, what were saying about who pays for what?

    Source: Cumberland County Comp Plan

    RH

  44. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “But, they sometimes have choices imposed on them by economic realities. You simply cannot up and move your house every three years, and do it cost effectively. Your job location is not always of your choosing. So while choices can be madover time it takes time to implement them.”

    It does not matter HOW the choices were imposed – they are NOT the fault NOR the financial responsibility of others.

    They ARE YOURs alone.

    You are NOT entitled to a subsidy from others because you don’t like the opportunity choices available to you.

    Peak hour electricity is NOT one one hundredth not in terms of capacity nor in terms of the bill.

    If it were only that amount, we’d not have to build new plants for 20 or more years at a time….

    and again.. it does not matter “how little” you claim that a subsidy is – even though the estimated is chronically lower than actual –

    the point is that no one is entitled to be subsidized by others because their “choices” are not ones that they find palatable.

    You not only favor the subsidies but you favor government imposition of those subsidies to essentially “steal” from some to give to others so that they don’t have to make the same choices that others have – as personal responsibility…

    It is NOT egalitarian to split the check equally when the amount consumed is not the same.

    It leads directly to more consumption by those who get the subsidy and penalizes those that would act more responsibly in THEIR “choices”.

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ….” ….if we are really serious about lowering total mileage drive”

    here’s the reality:

    * the U.S. burns about one quarter of the oil used in the world

    * fleet wide standards, in miles per gallon, for new motor
    vehicles for several nations:

    o Japan 46.0
    o European Union 43.0
    o China 36.0
    o U.S. cars 27.5
    o U.S. light trucks 22.2

    * Average miles per vehicle driven annually:
    o Japan 7,097
    o European Union 7,829
    o U.S. 12,427

    * For every 1 American who bicycles to work,

    5 walk to work,
    9 usepublic transit,
    154 drive to work alone,
    21 ride in car pools

    * oil consumption increase (+) or decrease (-) since 1980, as
    percent:
    o U.S. +21
    o Japan +2
    o Italy -13
    o Finland -14
    o France -14
    o Switzerland -18
    o Germany -20
    o Sweden -32
    o Denmark -33

    http://readmyopinion.blogspot.com/

    based on the NY Times article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/weekinreview/20mouawad.html?em&ex=1208750400&en=516ad3c52a257f17&ei=5087

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You are NOT entitled to a subsidy from others because you don’t like the opportunity choices available to you.”

    You are not entitled to demand that someone else make a ten thousand dollar move every time you think their move will save you a dollar.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not impressed.

    Show me the average travel cost per person for those countries, including all costs and subsidies for public transport.

    Show me the total energy consumption, not just oil consumption, and compare it to net per capita personal income for those countries.

    I agree, fuel consumption for american cars is gross.

    RH

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You are not entitled to demand that someone else make a ten thousand dollar move every time you think their move will save you a dollar.”

    no one is demanding that.

    It is totally up to the individual to do what suits him and absolutely no one else owes him anything in making that choice.

    No one owes you anything at all just because you think that your lot in life is not to your liking.

    If you lose your job – then one of the penalties might well be in one of your “investments” but that is your own personal responsibility.

    No one owes you compensation because you lost your job or you suffered a financial loss because of it.

    Where do you get the idea that if someone buys a house that others owe them something if you lose money when you sell it?

    The reason why you lose money may or may not be due to your own circumstances but those circumstances are totally yours – and no one owes you a thin dime because things did not work out for you.

    One of the things you do .. when you buy a house – is you make a judgement about your ability to be around to pay for it.. at least long enough to recoup your money but again.. that is YOUR judgement and it is YOUR responsibility not anyone else.

  49. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Show me the total energy consumption, not just oil consumption, and compare it to net per capita personal income for those countries.”

    you’ve seen the electricity consumption and they use a similar amount less of that also.

    what else is there?

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well for starters, I think those Northern countries use a lot of offshore Norwegian gas, and maybe Russian gas which isn’t included in the petroleum figures.

    Then there the little fact that these countries do not refine their own petroleum. The energy to do that shows up in the sky high energy usage in UAE and other places where it is refined.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    People make their own choices, I agree. But when it comes to making choices to change housing or jobs, they don’t come easy or quick.

    Consequently, there will always be some people who are living a life you don’t approve of and for which you think they should be charged more, in order to lower your own costs.

    There is some lag in the system.

    “you make a judgement about your ability to be around to pay for it.. “

    Nonsense. You make a judgement about being around long enough to recoup your investment, including moving costs. It is a decision made under risk, because your job could change tomorrow, through no fault of your own.

    —————————–

    “Where do you get the idea that if someone buys a house that others owe them something if you lose money when you sell it?”

    When did I ever say that? Please don’t put totally invented words in my mouth.

    ——————————

    “No one owes you anything at all just because you think that your lot in life is not to your liking.”

    OK, so we have a system where some costs are averaed over many people, and that results in some people paying slightly more.

    I’m sorry you think you pay slightly more. What makes you think anyone owes you something because your lot in life is not to your liking? After all, we elected the people who put the rules in place, right?

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The tax burden is Sweden is 51%. Ours is what, 30%?

    You think they are 20% better off?

    RH

  53. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Consequently, there will always be some people who are living a life you don’t approve of and for which you think they should be charged more, in order to lower your own costs.”

    It has nothing to do with whether I approve. I just expect all of us to pay for what we use.

    It has nothing to do with lowering my own costs. I fully expect to pay for what I use also.

    “Nonsense. You make a judgement about being around long enough to recoup your investment, including moving costs. It is a decision made under risk, because your job could change tomorrow, through no fault of your own.”

    You are not entitled to ANY return on ANY investment.

    It is YOUR CHOICE as to what you choose to “invest” in. It is also your responsibility for the consequences of your judgments.

    No one owes you one thin dime if your job and the house you “invested” in both go belly up.

    In short – you are not entitled to anything other than what you managed to achieve on your own and with some luck.

    No one owes you anything for bad judgments or bad luck.

  54. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The tax burden is Sweden is 51%. Ours is what, 30%?

    You think they are 20% better off?

    Let’s see.

    They drive less than us.

    They use less electricity than us.

    They are all covered by universal health care.

    They have longer life-expectancies than us…

    and they don’t have their sons and daughters coming home without arms and legs and eyes….

    What do you think?

    where are they worse off than us?

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I just expect all of us to pay for what we use.”

    If it could be PROVEN that this approach would lead to a LOWER overall welfare, would you still expect individuals to pay for every individual thing? or is there SOME level here you say, well, this is ridiculous?

    RH

  56. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”SOME level here you say, well, this is ridiculous?”

    this is truly hilarious….

    YES.. you reach that point and guess what … you say: ” I’m NOT BUYING THIS” and you walk away…

    as opposed to: ” this is ridiculous.. we’ve got to have subsidies for this”.

    Crystal Clear. No?

Leave a Reply