Comments

2 responses to “The Traffic Man Cometh”

1. 

   John Huennekens

   June 27, 2006

   Besides the ‘toothless’ rezoning bill cited above, the legislators passed a couple of measures that will actually promote sprawl development of rural land. Below is a text of a letter to the Governor –>

   ” Dear Governor Kaine,
   I hope you can act to protect the existing Land Preservation Tax Credit program from the changes proposed by the General Assembly.

   Cutting back on credits for conservation easements, in combination with eliminating estate taxes, will create incentives for landowners (and administrators of estates) to sell property for development – thus promoting inefficient, costly, exurban sprawl.

   The overarching theme of this year’s budget debates has been how to address the problems of inadequate capacity in Virginia’s transportation network – whether by better land use planning, increased funding (via taxes and/or private lending) or more efficient project delivery.

   On the supply side, the General Assembly has been unable to resolve how to finance development of Virginia’s transportation infrastructure.

   It has enacted some small measures to address the the demand for transportation facilities through changes in the land development planning process.

   But by eliminating the tax on an estate that sells its property to the highest bidder, while at the same time increasing taxes on an estate that sells a conservation easement, the General Assembly has thrown gasoline onto the fire of sprawl development that is overwhelming the state’s secondary road system.

   I hope the General Assembly can restructure its proposals to better protect and encourage the preservation of agriculture and forestry in the state. “

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Ray Hyde

   June 27, 2006

   I’m glad to see that Mr. Huennekens distinguished between sprawl development of rural land and any development of rural land. Now all we have to do is agree on what the difference is.

   How did the legislature raise the taxes on granting a conservation easement? I know there have been efforts to crack down on phony easements and overinflated values, but I think the incentives for granting easements are still in place.

   For those that don’t go the easement route, or can’t afford to, most people will sell their property to the highest bidder. If they have to pay tax on the proceeds, well, at least it is better than having to pay taxes on the proceeds from selling to the third highest bidder. I’m not sure I see the sense in this argument, but it is one we see often. Surprisingly, it often comes from those who propound to be in favor of free markets!

   There is only one thing that will preserve agriculture and forestry, and that is profits. Agriculture and forest product vendors like to sell their products to the highest bidders, too. When the value of the land is such that they can make as much by selling the land outright as they can make by selling their products for 50 or 100 years, then guess what will happen? You simply cannot afford to grow products in that environment.

   We don’t complain when ethanol means that farmers can shift to growing corn because it is more profitable, why should we complain when our children become the reason that growing houses is more profitable? We can argue that once the land is gone, it is gone forever. By the same token you can argue that a conservation easement means that housing is gone forever.

   Raw land rents for $20 an acre. Housing rents for far more than that, so what does that say about what the market wants?

   A conservation easement reduces the value of the property such that ostensibly this sale due to price disparity won’t happen, but it does so by removing the primary incentive for staying in business. It is selling off the farmers hat in order to protect him from the rain. Even the American Farmland Trust admits that conservation easement do not guarantee that the land will stay in agriculture or forestry.

   In fact, you can argue that conservation easements lead to MORE sprawl. How many times have you seen a real estate ad that proclaims “Backs to conservation protected property” ? Conservation easements guarantee that buildable land will be more expensive, therefore, each one that is granted increases the likliehood that the next land owner won’t apply because his land is now more valuable.

   We are going to need homes for 2 million more people. If conservation easements drive up the cost of developable or re-developable land then home prices will rise and people will have still more reason to defect to the rural areas.

   Finally, 95% of farms depend on off farm income. Sprawl makes more off farm income available closer to the farms and actually enhances land preservation, even if it is only for hobby farms.

   At present, it can take four or more years to get a development approved, adding VDOT to the regulatory mix will make it that much longer, and again this will raise the price of housing. We think that VDOT is unaccountable and inefficient as it is, do we really want them to become the de facto zoning enforcement board?

   I would argue that simply delaying or denying development is not the same as addressing demand for transportation facilities. All you are doing is delaying or denying relocating the demand for transportation. But, since transportation is by definition time sensitive, this delaying or denying tactic is likely to show up in our economy. Doing without is a pea-pot poor way of saving money on transportation. We can either pay road taxes and have roads or we can pay the congestion tax and not have roads.

   I don’t think that linking unaccountable and inefficient land use regulations with inefficient and unaccountable road construction is exactly what people have in mind when they talk about linking land use and transportation.

   And here again we have an example of Jim Bacon (apparently) hurrahing a new law that will result in more regulations, despite his claims to be in favor of less regulation. I say (apparently) because the argument is made in the third person (Tim Kaine). I’m afraid that I have to think that if you don’t come out against it, then you must be for it, as a matter of default.

   Log in to Reply