Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Regional Hucksterism

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Daily Press today editorializes on ‘A Regional Authority. Best advice: It’s an ugly duckling, but it’s our duckling’ (Friday, April 13, 2007).

The editors call the transportation plan a “monstrosity” for unknown reasons… but say, “in this imperfect world, the best interests of the majority of the people in Hampton Roads will be served if the regional authority is approved.”

The Daily Press has supported Regional Government the way Pravda in the 1930s supported collectivization of farms and the Great Leader. Which is why some facts are never be printed on their pages.

Like, the Hampton Roads ‘plan’ actually adds congested miles after 20 years of construction delays, accidents and deaths. So, their cute comment about “The folks in Poquoson, for example, may not appreciate it, but their nice lifestyle will be damaged if that regional economy frays because of gridlock” doesn’t explain that the plan that Republican legislators (minus Delegates Gear and Rapp) cynically took around the voters just ADDS to the gridlock.

The DP will never publish the economic relationship between tax increases and job losses – for the working poor first.

Or, how much the Regional Government will pay in salaries, services, consulting fees, etc.

Or, that a Regional Government isn’t needed to build bridges, tunnels and roads.

Or, how many trucks a day the Port of Virginia will dump in the middle of Hampton on I-64.

Maybe that is why Hampton City Council will put a referendum on the Regional Government on the ballot.

Already, Newport News City Council (-2) voted for Regional Government even though the law doesn’t take effect until July. Isn’t that illegal?

Oddly, the editors close in commenting on “this pitiful excuse for a transportation plan.” No idea what they dislike about the plan, when they love unelected, unaccountable, un-separated powers Regional Government.

There is a chance for the voters to speak on the ’07 Transportation Tax Panic where Republicans challenge business-as-usual, tax-and-spend Republicans in the primary on June 12th.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

13 responses to “Regional Hucksterism”

  1. Not A RINO Avatar
    Not A RINO

    I hope I don’t get shot down here but for the most part Republicans I talk to are very pleased with the “compromise” because it does essentially save the Republicans in at least the Senate and possibly the house.

    Cuccinelli, OBrien(Sp?) and Davis would have gone down without question and the most of the delegates would have followed them as well.

    Now I know most folks including me are not completely pleased but this compromise was the best that could be expected out of a very bad situation.

    Do we really want 100% ideological purity with no ability to compromise at all and get both sides of the table together? I can tell you right now the inceases in user fees and abuser fees are much better than huge across the board tax increases if the General Assembly would switch hands. We took the one card away the dems have been playing the last three years. Part of the ability of compromise is accepting things we don’t like in favor of even worse outcomes like losing the GA and major across the board taxes. That is why I feel the comprise was the best out of a real no win situation.

  2. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    I find it distressing the writer
    offers no solutions to our horrible
    transportation problems.

    The country suffers today from the
    endless attacks in the press by
    talking heads and zealots who take
    up space on blogs such as this one.

  3. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    NAR: “for the most part Republicans I talk to are very pleased with the “compromise” because it does essentially save the Republicans in at least the Senate and possibly the house.” Precisely why I call it the Transportation Tax Panic of 07. Based on abject fear of the voters, as opposed to good governance.

    “this compromise was the best that could be expected out of a very bad situation.” Then get new legislators. Actually, if this is the best they can do, all the Yes votes should resign immediately. The bad situation was caused by the RINOs,now retiring or facing challenged (minus a couple) wanting to tax more than the Dems.

    “Do we really want 100% ideological purity with no ability to compromise at all and get both sides of the table together?” If you can’t recognize the differenc between ideological purity and the abortion of principles spelled ou in the Republican Creed of Virginia, then it’s probably not worth writing much more.

    “Part of the ability of compromise is accepting things we don’t like in favor of even worse outcomes like losing the GA and major across the board taxes.” A Republican compromise would be how much or how little the tax cut would be. How much or how little the bond would be. How much or how little the GF spending would be.

    So, the reason to keep the GOP in the majority is so they can raise taxes some, but not as much as Dems? Hmm. Actually, there is another option.

    Rodger Provo: Stay distressed. Brevity is the soul of wit. Here is the answer: NO Regional Governments. The Code of Virginia is adequate for bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, etc. to have been built since Colonial times – all without Regional Government

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The Code of Virginia is adequate for bridges, roads, tunnels…..”

    “I find it distressing the writer
    offers no solutions to our horrible
    transportation problems.”

    May I please parse?

    question 1: Is our existing transportation infrastructure adequate?

    If you think the answer is yes – stop here.

    If you think the answer is no – here is

    Question 2: How would you like to pay for the improvements you think are necessary?

    Can I point out that we all know that the current gas tax revenues is adequate enough only to pay maintenance and that more money will need to be raised to pay for new improvements?

    Would it be impolitic to suggest that dollars for transportation needs in TW/HR, NOVA and Fredericksburg probably will not come from RoVa even if they were financially able to?

    What we ought to expect from RoVa is their fair share of the State’s connecting road infrastructure – the interstates and primary roads that criss-cross the state.

    What we should not expect from RoVa is money to fix NOVA, HR/TW nor Fredericksburg’s road needs.

    What the GA did was remove the excuse that NoVa and TR/HR was using to blame the state for the shortfall in their respective regions.

    Now the ball is in their court.

    If you believe you have infrastructure deficits – you now have the ability to address them – as a region.

    What I hear from JaB is that they don’t want to be a region and they don’t want regional responsibility for the consequences of regional growth but instead want other Virginians to pay for their needs.

    What I hear from Mr. Provo – seems to be similiar…. though not as explicit as he asks over and over “who will fix this problem” apparently ruling out the Fredericksburg Area’s own Regional leadership.

    I do agree – Fredericksburg should be given the same deal as NoVa and HR/TW.

    In fact, I think all urbanized areas in Va with MPOs should be given the same ability.

    But his is the option that is not on the table:

    “I want my regions roads improved but I want taxpayers from outstide my area to pay for them”.

    Note again. I am not voting for the “balkanization” option.

    All of Va should pay for our connecting roads.

    Each locality should pay for it’s locality-specific roads.

    And each Region – should address Regional issues.

    It’s apparently this Regional perspective that is at disagreement in terms of who bears responsibility for both planning and funding.

    Correct?

  5. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Re:”What I hear from JaB is that they don’t want to be a region and they don’t want regional responsibility for the consequences of regional growth but instead want other Virginians to pay for their needs.”

    I’ll speak for myself. Don’t want a new level of government that is unelected, unaccountable, unseparated powers open invitation to waste, fraud, incompetence and corruption.

    The infrastructure issues across Hampton Roads can be addressed by placing them in a vertical priority and paying for those that serve all of Virginia and the US (Port of Virginia 3rd Crosssing, etc) with bonds and GF money properly done – on the ballot.

    Local infrastructure problems can be paid by tolls, congestion fees and a fair share of the Transportation Trust fund and GF – not by subsidy from other parts of the Commonwealth.

  6. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Mr. Gross continues to ignore demands on our transportation system generated by regional and
    national traffic that are putting
    stress on our over worked and under
    funded system. Over and over again Mr. Gross ignores this hard
    fact in his postings on this blog
    site that along with others offers little to help us find solutions to our problems.

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    A plan for the future:

    1. Short term – spend more on roads. Road expansion, road construction, road repair. The funds for this should come from a reduction in non-transportation funding, assessments on developers including substantial fees for by-right development and user fees for drivers (i.e. tolls).

    Reform VDOT – the fact that Henrico and Arlington Counties maintain their own roads is an indictment of VDOT. In a state where the state has all the power and the municipalities nearly none – the state has to act. Counties are too small to properly manage a regional transportation plan. VDOT needs to do its job – not tell the counties to do it instead of VDOT.

    There is no need for regional transportation authorities. If this is the right organizational structure to solve Virginia’s needs then VDOT should organize itself this way.

    2. Move the jobs to the people (not visa-versa) and provide alternative transportations options.

    Counties where a lot of residents commute to other places to work need to establish a comprehensive and effective economic development program. This should be paid for by the county and administered by the county. The county has the option of giving away land to attractive employers whoare willing to provide employment in a sustainable way. The county can also provide tax breaks, zoning variances and a host of other incentives to get the right kind of employers to “open shop” in the county.

    The state should start penalizing employers for establishing business operations that add to congestion and gridlock. These penalties would center on the miles that employees have to commute in order to get to and from work. While there would be credits for those employers who could prove that their employees use a high degree of mass transportation, the ultimate savings would be had by distributing the jobs out to the suburbs and towns in rural areas.

    The state must also reform its higher education system. The number of qualified students being turned away by Virginia state colleges and universities is a scandal. The baby boomers’ babies (or echo boomers) are now applying and attending college. The state’s refusal to prepare for this long anticipated increase in demand for higher education is inexcusable.

    In addition, the state must distribute its higher education capabilities to regions of the state that are underserved. There are historical reasons for Williamsburg, Charlottesville and Blacksburg to have major universities in their towns. However, there are current and future needs for thise universities to be able to reach well beyond these towns in providing educational opportunities to Virginia’s children and economic opportunities to Virgina’s regions.

    3. Long term – a relentless and strict adherence to local zoning and land use laws. No sub-dividing the countryside. High density only in urbanizing corridors like Wilson Blvd. in Arlington and Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax. This applies to all land in Virginia – not just urbanizing areas. Tax credits for the demolition of low density housing in order to build high density houseing.

    A complete and broad inter-modal transportation system including raid, road and water. Once people are in towns then it’s relatively easy to connect the towns with mass transit. However, when people are spread all over in sprawl it is impossible to effectively connect people with mass transit.

    Think Germany.
    Think the Green Belt around London.

    There are examples to follow.

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “What we ought to expect from RoVa is their fair share of the State’s connecting road infrastructure – the interstates and primary roads that criss-cross the state.”

    I’d say it differently:

    What we ought to expect from RoVA is their fair share for EVERYTHING including, but not limited to, transportation.

    And, if as I suspect RoVA is not providing their fair share then …

    1. RoVA should spend less or..
    2. RoVA should raise local taxes and pay for more

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It seems to me that there is opinion that the urban areas “contribute” more than RoVa does while at the same time receive less state allocations not only in transportation but education so therefore RoVa and not the respective Regions is … the guilty party for the Urban Regions transportation woes.

    I beg to politely but strongly differ.

    First, from a practical point of view – trying to “collect” enough money from a much smaller RoVa population is simply not realistic. The money is not there not in population numbers and not in per capita wealth.

    Second, The problem all along in the urbanizing areas has been (in my view) an irresponsible lack of planning with respect to (on one hand) wanting/encouraging/promoting economic growth while simultaneously refusing to address the inevitable consequential impacts of such growth to regional transportation networks.

    I’m not saying the solutions are simple nor cheap but we cannot have it both ways.

    NoVa cannot go after every High Tech job that comes down the pike knowing full well that people commute to those jobs and

    HR/TW cannot build/develop their ports while ignoring the inevitable land transportation implications of the goods that come into those ports.

    Blaming this on the RoVa “state” is just plain evation of basic planning responsibilities in my view.

    I think this is essentially.. “running to mommy and daddy when you spend your allowance on a car and then forgot the insurance and gasoline”.

    And I use my own area of Fredericksburg to illustrate the issue because Fredericksburg has a harder time claiming that they “contribute” to the RoVa State.

    Fredericksburg leaders and especially the business community have wanted and sought after the “growth” that we have experienced.

    The thought is that such growth provides “good jobs” and economic opportunity and success.

    Fair Enough and I agree – growth is healthy and good – and inevitable given our location.

    But we have explicitly approved massive land-use changes to acommodate that growth – with virtually no planning for dealing with the transportation impacts of that growth.

    The mantra all along was “No Worries”, VDOT has got this 6yr plan and we just put our needs on this list and “presto change O”, problem solved!

    It was a “blank check” concept.

    What a tremendous disservice by our business and government leaders to citizens.

    My friend Rodger prefers to blame traffic from outside the Fredericksburg Area and I will acknowledge that – there may be some truth to that but the essential reality is that Fredericksburg has qudrupled in population in less than 20 years from about 50,000 to more than 250,000 people

    …. and THIS is the traffic that DOMINATES our local regional roads AND … almost DOUBLES I-95 traffic every morning and every afternoon but Rodger prefers to point to those folks from New York and Florida as the villians…

    .. and, in turn, obstensibly, the reason why Fredericksburg should not have to pay for road improvements… and someone else should – like the State.

    What I advocate is to stop blaming others for the problems and take responsibility.

    I support TOLLING as fair and equitable – across the board – for everyone – to pay their individual fair share whether they work local, commute, are RoVa or out of state – truck or car.

    I oppose taxation because it encourages/incentivizes political and financial interests ability to influence what should be built and where and, worse – it focuses on new construction as first responses rather than optimizing the existing network for efficient congestion relief.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    ” for the most part Republicans I talk to are very pleased with the “compromise” because it does essentially save the Republicans in at least the Senate and possibly the house.”

    By all means, lets save the Republicans, even if we have to do something stupid to do it.

    Doesn’t sound like a very good long term strategey to me. That is on a par with “Let’s spend our R&D money to protect our base business, forget about anything new or potentially valuable in the future.”

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “These penalties would center on the miles that employees have to commute in order to get to and from work.”

    I like many of your other ideas, but this one won’t fly.

    1) We don’t have the data.

    2) You assume that business location and settlemnt patterns have something to do with how far we drive. In my case, where I live is an accident of history. It is an accident that I cannot financially afford to fix. I drive a long distance in order to make money. If I had not the skills to make that money, then I could settle for less, closer to home. I have other skills, so I could still settle for less and live closer to home. so far, the economic and lifestyle balance hasn’t tilted that way.

    3) This is a plan to penalize businesses based on where their workers choose to live. A better plan would be to charge them for the cost of infrastructure required to deliver their workers. That is a subtle but important difference.

    For example, roads are expensive, but you do not have to provide the vehicles or labor to drive them.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Larry and I have had our disagreements.

    But his last post hits it on the head.

    Right up until the last two paragraphs.

    ROVA does not have enough money to support any kind of substantial improvents to NOVA/HR problems. NOVA and HR should solve their prolems with their own money. But they should NOT have to do that on top of the old contributory allocation of funds.

    In turn, that means ROVA is going to have to pay more to fix their own problems. Inevitably, they will cast this politically as having to “contribute” to fix NOVA problems, but it just isn’t true.

    Besides which, ROVA drives more than NOVA, on a per capita basis. so any equitable tolling scheme that does not violate the state constitution, will still meaqn that ROVA pays more per person than NOVA, even though NOVA infraqstructure is far more expensive.

    Just because you are in favor of tolls, does not mean that they make sense, and just because you are opposed to taxes does not mean that THEY do not make sense.

    It could be some of both.

    Let’s not let patisanship stand in the way of clarity, truth, and equity.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Indeed!

    NoVA Region has traffic.

    Quite a bit of that traffic is Regional Communting.

    A substantial second component is outer-jurisdicitions long-distance commuting as a result of the quest for so-called “affordable” housing.

    A 3rd component is… ohmygosh folks trying to use the interstates that traverse the NoVa Region – for their GASP! original intended purpose.

    Woe is NoVa. All this traffic… some from outside of the area and then those dastdardly RoVa folks who steal NoVa money that could have been used to fulfill the dream of a congestion-free NoVa.

    So you have some “realistic” paths and so I automatically throw out the ones that are not likely – like raising the statewide tax on gasoline… and I also throw out the idea that somehow the allocation formulas will be changed so that RoVa no longer can “steal” from NoVa…

    So NoVa has essentially two paths:

    1. – raise taxes on NoVa residents to improve roads – for everyone – including those who do not pay taxes in NoVa.

    2. – deploy tolls so that whoever uses NoVa Region roads – no matter where they come from – help pay to improve the NoVa roads and transit so that everyone who uses NoVa transportation facilities receives a better level of service.

    … oh… and while you’re doing this – nothing would prevent concurrent efforts to raise the state gas tax and/or send the debt collection gendarmes after RoVa…. 🙂

    moral of story: life is not perfect – much less fair.

    moving to solutions is much more productive than blaming those who you think make life unfair.

    corollary – refusing to take action while blaming others can be summed up in one word – irresponsible.

    Find a path – that “works” and take it – let others figure out who shot John and what to do about it.

Leave a Reply

Read More